You do not explain why it is "nutso" to consider that it is no business of
the rest of us what dictators do to their own people.
But isn't it common among certain types of pragmatist and "realists" to
claim that foreign policy ought to be based upon advancing national
interest? On this view, hardly nutso, what dictators do to their own people
would be a nation's business only if it impacted significantly on national
interests. On the whole this policy seems to have been adopted by the US, as
well as many other countries, although not always. On this view of foreign
policy democracy could be seen as negative if it were thought to impact
negatively on national interest. For example, a democratic government in
Chile was overthrown with the aid of the US and financial aid cut off
whereas the following military dicatorship was supported with loans etc. A
relatively progressive communist regime in Afghanistan was replaced by a
reactionary, feudal, theocracy, that persecutes women. Of course often
interventions are justified by rhetoric that claims we cannot stand by and
let certain things happen such as the Serb expulsion of Kosovans from
Kosova, but surely someone of your sophistication cannot accept this
nonsense at face value.To a considerable extent the expulsions were a
predictable result of NATO's own actions. The resulting actions themselves
involved war crimes, killing of the innocent etc. and did little in the
short term to stop the expulsions since
NATO was unwilling to risk casualties. In some instances public outcry may
cause nations to make at least some attempt to prevent atrocities by
dictators but when no vital interests of great nations are involved the
result is usually of little benefit to those at the receiving end. The case
of Rwanda is a good example. The UN was not given the resources and did
little to stop the atrocities it knew were about to occur.
Cheers, Ken Hanly
----- Original Message -----
From: Brad DeLong <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Tuesday, September 12, 2000 10:02 AM
Subject: [PEN-L:1835] Thatcher and nationalism
> >At 07:33 PM 09/11/2000 -0700, you wrote:
> >>But the idea that it is no business of the rest of us what
> >>dictators do to their own people *is* positively, totally, utterly,
> >>completely nutso.
> >
> >This kind of dogmatic style is a total turn-off, simply a way of
> >shutting off any further discussion...
>
> In my experience, people who jump to the level of
> meta-discussion--urge that others be filtered, urge that others be
> excluded, talk about issues of discursive process, condemn others for
> style--do so primarily in an attempt to *avoid* a substantive
> discussion.
>
> Please don't remain at what I see as the sterile and pointless level
> of meta-discourse.
>
> Please return to the level of substantive discussion: Your claim that
> Argentina's internal arrangements are no business of any
> non-Argentine is truly remarkable and extraordinary. Defend your
> belief: tell us why you think dictators have a valid hunting license
> to turn their countries into free-fire zones for their amusement,
> with no one else having the right to say "boo."
>
>
> Brad DeLong
>
