This is great stuff and I respect what you are saying. I guess there are two underlying themes / rationales that are driving my thinking these days....
(1) If America fails, then we are going to be looking at a very different new world order. Therefore I tend to support Bush in fear of an alternative that I believe will cause grave economic hardship well beyond the great depression of 1929.
(2) I believe / hope that Bush II's doctrine represents a new era in American foreign policy that shows a true level of commitment in terms of a fundamental shift from a policy of containment to true long-term interventionism representative of what America did for Germany and Japan after WWII. The policy of containment http://www.cato.org/pubs/fpbriefs/fpb-033es.html since WWII has only damaged Americas reputation in fostering democracy. Perhaps the new Bush II doctrine is a return to things past.
Here is an interesting little ethical dilemma for you. Do you think it was wrong for Clinton to intervene in Kosovo? He did this unilaterally without the backing of the UN and was largely successful in preventing further genocide. Why were people not demonstrating against this and the unilateral actions of the American government?
As you acknowledged, there are no easy answers here or for that matter right or wrong opinions. There is just differences of opinions and right now the only person stepping up to the plate and risking everything is Bush. I don't see the French or Germans coming up with a viable alternative, although I do have to hand it to the Canadians for at least coming up with the imposed deadline.
Regards,
Kelly
At 05:38 PM 3/20/03 -0500, Pablo Shiladitya Bose wrote:
Hi Kelly, thanks for your response.
The problem is not, I don't think, whether one negotiates with terrorists or
not. After all, the US has for a long time brokered 'deals with the devil',
including Saddam Hussein (against Iran), Osama bin Laden (against the
Russians), the Afghani warlords (against both the Russians and later the
Taliban) and dictators like Noriega, Pinochet, Mubarak, and a host of others.
I find it ironic, however, that negotiating under the threat of violence in
one case is illegitimate (terrorism) but perfectly justified in others (ie
Bush's ultimatums).
I think you'd find that a lot of people would draw a lot of parallels between
the colonial and imperial powers and what's going on in the world today. Many
people are quite rightly pissed off at what seems like a pretty patronizing
and confrontational attitude coming out of the White House at anyone who
disagrees with a pretty narrow and horribly reductionist world view.
I agree that there are indeed no easy answers and that the US is caught in a
particularly difficult bind right now. On the one hand, when Bush was
elected, he made a lot of noises that suggested an isolationist foreign policy
direction. But post 9/11 it's been all about a pretty aggressive and
interventionist attitude. And it's one that, I would argue is anything
but 'clear and decisive' and, while ambitious, is far from admirable. I think
a lot of people are wondering why exactly the US (or Britain, France, Germany,
whoever else) has the right to determine what life should be like on this
entire planet. Why are North Korea and Iraq 'rogue states' if they possess
nuclear weapons but France and the US are not? Some say it's because the
latter are democratic countries. Then why did the western world slap
sanctions on India for developing nuclear weapons? India is the world's
largest democracy, so what makes it 'less stable'? This is not in any way to
argue in favour of nuclear proliferation; rather, I'm just saying that the
rhetoric of freedom and democracy seems to be pretty replete with hypocrisy.
I'd also suggest that though there is a grander scheme to this strategy of the
Bush regime than simply invading Iraq, I think there has been a fundamental
miscalculation of both the region and the world itself. As a matter of fact,
instead of speculating on what is going to happen, I think we could all take a
pretty close look at Afghanistan today and examine how exactly democracy and
human rights and women's rights have 'flourished' there after the US-led
bombing campaigns. Again, no fan of the Taliban was I, but the suggestion
that military force can simply bring about social change is, I think, highly
dubious,
Regards,
Pablo
-- Pablo Shiladitya Bose Research Coordinator, Ethics of Development-Induced Displacement Project Research Associate, Centre for Refugee Studies Doctoral Candidate, Faculty of Environmental Studies York University, Toronto, Canada Tel: (416) 736-2100 ext. 20559
___________________________________________________________ FoIB Mailing List - Bits, Analysis, Digital Group Therapy http://www.ianbell.com
