Well said Kelly!
JR
Kelly Tompkins <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Hi Pablo:
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 democ! racy. 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 ne! gotiates 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'? T! his 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 Bos! e
>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
This email and any attachments may contain confidential and/or privileged material. If you are not the intended recipient and you have received this email in error, please immediately delete the email and kindly notify the sender at the above email address.
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Platinum - Watch CBS' NCAA March Madness, live on your desktop!
