Re-Shaping the landscape in the wake of the Cold War

[DuncanK]

Wierd, my last post shows here, but not elsewhere

Anyway, I enjoyed this thread. It seems to be ending.

[Velociryx]

I can send you copies of my bank records, etc. if that will make it "verifiable"

-=Vel=-

[DuncanK]

That's ok. I could send you copies of mine. That would probable show more evidence

[Ned]

Bill Clinton, of all people, said the other day on the Larry King live that the U.S. had the legal right to lead a coalition to disarm Saddam Hussein regardless of whether or not the U.N. Security Council issued an express authorization for the use of force. Clearly, what Clinton had in mind was his own unilateral action in Kosovo.

So if it is indeed legal for the U.S. to proceed to "protect the world" without the U.N.'s authorization, why don't we simply ignore the U.N.?

I think the answer is obvious. The world does not perceive individual actions of one nation or a group of nations to be lawful if those actions are not authorized by the United Nations.

Besides, if we were to declare a policy of spreading democracy throughout the world through force, then automatically we would make half the world enemies of United States. Such a policy may even provoke a world war.

The sole justification for proceeding without U.N. authority, therefore, is under circumstances where the U.N. has failed to act due to a veto at the Security Council.

I would also argue that the offending nation

1) has to actually invade another nation without just cause;
2) threaten world peace through the acquisition of weapons of mass instruction in combination with aggressive conduct toward its neighbors; or
3) engage in an ethnic cleansing operation against its own people, such as we saw Kosovo.

There may be other circumstances that would justify the "unilateral" use of force. However, the purpose for any action would be solely to protect or restore peace, or save human life. Unilateral use of force cannot be justified solely to spread democracy.

[Ned]

DP

[Velociryx]

Ned - Dictators use force to maintain their power. While it is true that in some cases, years (spreading into decades) of pressure will evoke change (SK), this is a mighty long time to make the people suffering under the rule OF those dictatorial powers wait for a breath of freedom.

The Shrub, for all his maniacal BS, has demonstrated that it is possible to line 'em up like bowling pins, call them what they are in public, and not provoke a state of war for doing so ("Axis of Evil").

Is he right? Are they evil? They sure fit most definitions I've ever seen of the word.

Are we at war with them? Not yet.

And, I do not propose that we declare war on every dictatorial state in the same breath, either.

Rather, we can, through the UN, issue mandates for change. They can either accept them, or stand in violation. Standing in violation will lead to "dire consequences." Their choice. Free their own people, or the world body will do it for them.

-=Vel=-

[Ned]

Vel, If the offending dictator is threatening world peace or engaged in ethnic cleansing, then we act. If they are minding their own business and otherwise behaving in a half-civilized manner, why should we invade?

China and Cuba, on the whole, have been minding their own business and have not been engaged in ethnic cleansing. Do we have justification for war?

I think Bush is going after the countries that have invaded their neighbors, Iraq and North Korea, and or who have sponsored terrorism, Afghanistan and Iran. These countries are not content to live in peace with their neighbors and justify being listed on the Axis of Evil.

[Velociryx]

I quite agree, and in the initial assessment above, I think that aggressive nations should obviously be placed high on the list.

And once those immediate threats to global security are well and duly dealt with, I believe that even IF a dictatorial nation is "behaving itself" the suppression of liberties of those that they rule over is a morally justified reason to work toward their removal from power (in that case, starting with little tin pot dictators that we installed in the prosecution of the cold war....more unmaking of our own demons).

-=Vel=-

[Ned]

Vel, in a sense, what you advocate has long been US policy. We couch it in terms of supporting "human rights." Suppressing freedom of political speech and freedom of religion is the hallmark of dictatorships. When a country slips in the "human rights' metric, they loose MFN status, for example.

[Velociryx]

::nodding::

A step that, IMO does not go nearly far enough.

The key difference, however, is that as the Democratic nations of the world won the cold war, this is truly *our* chance to see the seeds that were sown in its winning to every corner of the globe.

Our chance to truly make a difference.

It's not one we should pass on lightly.

Give the UN the teeth it needs to help create the kind of world that offers everyone a voice. To spread peace and liberty to people who have never in their lives known it.

-=Vel=-

[Ned]

Originally posted by Velociryx
::nodding::

A step that, IMO does not go nearly far enough.

The key difference, however, is that as the Democratic nations of the world won the cold war, this is truly *our* chance to see the seeds that were sown in its winning to every corner of the globe.

Our chance to truly make a difference.

It's not one we should pass on lightly.

Give the UN the teeth it needs to help create the kind of world that offers everyone a voice. To spread peace and liberty to people who have never in their lives known it.

-=Vel=-

Vel, then we could support democracy movements in such countries not unlike "people's revolutions" that the USSR supported for decades across the globe.

In fact, I believe this is the plan for Iran.

[Velociryx]

Yes, and in states where we can expect to see farily immediate results, this would be the prudent thing to do. But in cases where the dictatorial powers are so entrenched, and the people not even daring to whisper a word against their "leaders" this will only prolong their suffering.

In Iran, there is an undercurrent that would support this kind of approach, and when offered, it is surely a better alternative, but when the ruling powers are so deeply entrenched (and especially where they are our own making), we should unmake them.

-=Vel=-

[Ned]

Vel, you know it is interesting to know democracy or republicanism was little known in the whole history of man? We had brief, shining examples in Athens and the Delian league. But on the whole, even Greek city states were ruled by tryants.

Rome adopted a repubican form of government and spread it throughout the Mediterranean. But even Roman democracy succumbed to the ever increasing autocracy of the Imperial government.

The people of Iceland founded a parliament 1000 years ago. Britain began its own experiment with democracy with the Magna Carta.

Still, even until modern times, democracy was virtually unknown in much of the world. In the last century, the whole concept of democracy and freedom was under challenge by fascism and communism, and by militarism in Japan. We weathered those storms, and, as you say, we now find ourselfs the sole remaining superpower with the power to spread our ideals.

I agree, Vel, the cause is just and is worth fighting for. Mom, apple pie and the American Way.

But we do have a public relations problem. Many will think that we are more after an Empire like the Romans that after a democratic world. Witness the rants of Che.

How do we overcome this?

[Velociryx]

I like the "Mom, Apple Pie, and the American Way," line but that, I fear, is part of the PR problem.

We can't package it and sell it like that, even when we mean "with liberty and justice for all" because if we couch it in terms of the former, then we come off sounding like we want to Americanize the world.

IMO, the best way around the PR problem is to operate through the UN. Bolster and strengthen it, giving the world body as a whole a voice, and enabling that organization to become much more than it currently is.

The first baby steps toward doing that would be to begin living up to our responsibilities IN the UN, by assuming more of a leadership role there, building coalitions and voting blocks of nations who are eager and open to see a strengthened UN, and by abiding by its decisions, even when they don't play our way. Specific things we can do to get the ball rolling would be to pay all back UN dues, keep them current, and abide by their decision regarding Nicaragua (and others I'm prolly not aware of).

Do that, and we demonstrate that we're bringing a fresh perspective to the table.

-=Vel=-

[Velociryx]

PS: And I agree....Democratic ideals have had such a fleeting time on the world stage, given the length of our history, and yet, those moments do indeed stand out in our minds (as well as our histories).

Definitely something worth fighting for.

-=Vel=-