BARBELITH underground
 

Subcultural engagement for the 21st Century...
Barbelith is a new kind of community (find out more)...
You can login or register.


Underground > Switchboard >

The demonization of America?

  
  

Page: (1)23

 
 
Hieronymus
00:07 / 17.02.02
Okay. Pruned from comments I made in the 6 Months of Dubya thread and replanted here, I'm wondering what people's opinion is on the possible demonization/ scapegoating of America as the source of all the world's evil.

Is examining or questioning the criticism of American politics inherently nationalistic? Clinging to the party line of the right? Or just skepticism applied to the critics of American global policies?

Supplementing full well it's capitalist-imperialist past, present and future and completely aware that America has on many occasions dropped the ball on global politics, can there be a theory made that you can make the US one helluva distraction from government corruption? Is portraying the US as the Second Coming of the Third Reich an effective tool to use against introspection of totalitarian regimes (Egpyt. Sudan. PakistanChina. North Korea. Canada, etc ) and thus beneficial to maintaining an abusive government?

At times, it seems to me to reek of the same rumblings Hitler and the Vatican found in anti-Semitism. An easy target for all the ills, anger, resentment against oppression by one's own govt, etc and a very large and convenient smokescreen from internal housecleaning.

Obviously, in the case of al-Qaeda and Palestinian movements and other anti-American groups, the fervor has moved from protest to open hatred and many times, violence against Americans. Is it justified? Deserved due to political arrogance?

Discuss.

[ 17-02-2002: Message edited by: Dekapot Mass ]
 
 
Jackie Susann
00:35 / 17.02.02
When people imagine the US - or any other nation - as a mythical unity, this serves the interests of the powerful. This is just as true of patriotic US citizens as it is of patriotic Palestinians, for example. In either case, it disguises the power relations within the nation and tends to make citizenries identify with their rich and powerful national 'leaders'.

On the other hand, it is quite clear that the US government has consistently, for at least the last 50 years, acted as a vicious imperial power. It has consistently dismantled and fucked over democracies wherever they inconvenienced its interests, often imposing dictatorships in their place. See this link, for example.

I think the often, people who support US foreign policy come from a nationalist perspective which makes them unable to even comprehend the idea of an internationalist or anti-nationalist stance. Thus, any criticism of the US government is seen as a demonisation of the entire US populace.

As for the comparison to anti-semitism, I will repeat what I said in the other thread - it is offensive and historically ignorant. The forms of anti-semitism inherited by the third reich grew in large part from the peace treaties which, ending WWI, divided up Europe into nation-states and minorities. It was the resulting statelessness of the Jews, in large part, which made them vulnerable both to the organised genocide of the Nazis, and the indifference of much of the rest of Europe. On the other hand, US citizens are protected by the largest and most powerful state in world history. For that reason, and many others, I think the comparison is absurd.

Oh, and now I see you've edited your post while I was making mine. Um... please gloss over any of my stuff that's no longer relevant.

[ 17-02-2002: Message edited by: Dread Pirate Crunchy ]
 
 
Hieronymus
06:40 / 17.02.02
quote:Originally posted by Dread Pirate Crunchy:


On the other hand, it is quite clear that the US government has consistently, for at least the last 50 years, acted as a vicious imperial power. It has consistently dismantled and fucked over democracies wherever they inconvenienced its interests, often imposing dictatorships in their place. See this link, for example.

50 years? Well we certainly have some catching up to do, don't we?

quote:I think that often people who support US foreign policy come from a nationalist perspective which makes them unable to even comprehend the idea of an internationalist or anti-nationalist stance. Thus, any criticism of the US government is seen as a demonisation of the entire US populace.

I disagree. I think there can be middle ground found here as long as the far left and far right meanderings are ignored. Why does questioning the logic of blind anti-Americanism constitute dogmatic nationalism?

You find the idea of America as anything but a juggernaut of world-domination and atrocity absurd? Fair enough. But to believe the pervasive myth that America has some far-reaching agenda of imperialism, culled and improved upon by each admininstration, is equally absurd in my opinion.

For all the amassed crimes America is guilty of, one can equally argue the substantially humanitarian and compassionate things America has performed in turn. We contributed a considerable force to the Allies during WWII. We've fought hard to end apartheid in South Africa. We've entered into conflicts in Somalia and Bosnia when we had every right in the world to let those countries contend with their own problems. And that's off the top of my head.

Why is America seemingly the only country with a monopoly of genocide and power-mongering? England? Australia? Germany? China? Japan? There's plenty of blood to go around. Why is no responsibility being taken by these nations for the same crimes America is accused of? When Israel and Palestine can't broker an agreement after incession by American diplomacy, why is America to blame?

quote:As for the comparison to anti-semitism, I will repeat what I said in the other thread - it is offensive and historically ignorant. The forms of anti-semitism inherited by the third reich grew in large part from the peace treaties which, ending WWI, divided up Europe into nation-states and minorities. It was the resulting statelessness of the Jews, in large part, which made them vulnerable both to the organised genocide of the Nazis, and the indifference of much of the rest of Europe. On the other hand, US citizens are protected by the largest and most powerful state in world history. For that reason, and many others, I think the comparison is absurd.

I'm hardly the first to bring up such a comparison, Crunchy.

quote:
Psychologically, it fulfills some of the same functions as anti-Semitism. It gives vent to a hatred of the successful, and is fueled by envy and frustration. It attributes responsibility for all the ills of the world to one primary source. It ascribes to a supposed ruling clique of the despised group an ambition to control and exploit humanity. This new conspiracy theory has been embraced by large sections of the thinking classes in many countries. Like historical anti-Semitism, it transcends ideological boundaries and brings together economic, social, religious, and national animosities in a murderous brew.


[ 17-02-2002: Message edited by: Dekapot Mass ]
 
 
Jackie Susann
07:55 / 17.02.02
Once again, I find myself unable to recognise my arguments in your reponses to them. I'm not sure if this is because I'm not making myself clear, you're not understanding me, or you're deliberately missing the point. For example, you write:

quote: You find the idea of America as anything but a juggernaut of world-domination and atrocity absurd?

But I had, I think, relatively clearly said that I reject the idea of America 'as' anything; I did point to a historic pattern of imperialism. I don't believe I came close to the cartoon portrait you attribute to me. And I only used the word 'absurd' to describe the comparison of anti-US sentiment and pre-WWII anti-semitism. I continue to think that it absurd, regardless of how many people have suggested it before you. I also think it is absurd to act as if either was predominantly a psychological phenomenon, so that arguing for vague psychological affinities eclipses the clear political, historical differences.

Finally, to respond to a concrete point in your post, the reason the US is held responsible for the failures of Israel-Palestine peace talks is that the US is providing arms to Israel, supporting Israel politically, and generally insisting on 'peace' settlements which consist of almost unconditional Palestinian surrender to Israeli occupation. These are well-documented facts which you can survey, for example, here. More detailed account starts here. These are the specific reasons why the US is singled out for its role in the conflict between Israel and Palestine. The other nations you cite all have their own histories of of tyrrany and murder, which are often criticised both by their own citizens and others.
 
 
Jackie Susann
08:00 / 17.02.02
Um, I just worked out those links aren't going where I wanted them to. Oops. To get to the articles I was trying to link to, follow them, scroll down and click on 'Mideast Watch', and scroll down to 'US Involvement'. The first article I tried to link to is Cohen's 'US Policy, Anti-Arab Rage, Etc.'; the second is 'American Zionism'.
 
 
Tom Coates
08:52 / 17.02.02
The heart of the anxiety about America comes in its power. America has to expect that its actions will be under the microscope all the time, because its actions have such an incredible impact on the rest of the world

Apparently, for example, the US is responsible for 40% of the world's spending on defence. FORTY PER CENT. That's a country of 250 million people spending 40% when the other six and a half *thousand* million are spending the other 60%. This 60% includes Japan, the UK, France, Germany, the former Soviet Republics, China, all of Africa etc. etc. etc.

Now the very existence of such a behemoth SURELY must be a cause for alarm for anyone who doesn't exactly mirror American beliefs and thoughts on foreign policy.

When you combine that with the fact that Americans are not naturally a travelling nation and that the vast percentage of American citizens haven't ever travelled outside the continental United States, then you have to say that you've got a vastly powerful nation which has a basically ill-informed electorate when it comes to foreign policy and essentially inward looking policies designed to preserve the US, rather than the world.

Now, I really like America - I visit regularly, love the people and enjoy the culture. But the same anxiety that I feel about the UK when it's intervening in the lives of much weaker nations, I feel about the US when it's intervening pretty much ANYWHERE.

Other figures alarm people abroad - the sheer level of imprisonment in the US compared to European countries for example. The figures are something like France imprisons 50 people in every 100,000, where the US imprisons nearly 800.

Basically I think I"m saying that America has some basically very different approaches to policy and government, and unfortunately is so much more powerful than any other individual nation that the rest of the world really does have to worry whenever America does ANYTHING.

One of my favourite sites on the net is at the CIA - it lists essential facts about all major countries.

Quick example - the UK is something like the fourth or fifth largest economy in the world, despite it's tiny geographical size. But compare that with the US:

US - purchasing power parity - $9.963 trillion (2000 est.), per capita: $36,200

UK - purchasing power parity - $1.36 trillion (2000 est.), per capita - $22,800 (2000 est.)

I mean, the US is absurdly powerful. The world SHOULD be scared. You have too much power!
 
 
Regrettable Juvenilia
09:27 / 18.02.02
Maybe some of the antipathy towards American foreign policy and international actions stems from the fact that the United States remains the only country to have been condemned for terrorism by the International Court of Justice - URL links to a copy of the actual ruling, btw.

The USA, of course, rejected this judgment and in fact stepped up its aggression in Nicarague, including attacks on so-called "soft targets" (eg hospitals).
 
 
Haus about we all give each other a big lovely huggle?
09:27 / 18.02.02
Or, to put it another way, stop whining. If the best defences that can be mustered against the supposed accusation that America is an imperial power are "Yeah? Well, you were an imperial power first (to an *Australian*, for fuck's sake)" or "You're just like Hitler, you are", then there is no defence.

The Jews in Europe - a stateless minority who had historically been used as a scapegoat for centuries.

The United States of America - A state, with, as Tom points out, the military might to destroy any other nation on Earth if it puts its mind to it, although held back by a truly ludicrous valuation of its citizens (I recall being in Boston watching TV reportage of a "friendly fire incident" where 3 US serviceman were killed, and only finding out when I read about it in the New York Times that Hamid Karzai was also injured in the same event).

We might further point out that the US government, to support its own industries, is refusing to join international accords on climate control, consuming vastly more than its fair share of the Earth's resources and pumping pollution into the ecosphere with gay abandon. Without even going into a succession of US governments' political interference across the world, one could say that the existence and maintenance of the "American way of life" - that is, a way of life served up by and oriented towards the advantage of the corporate and thus governmental interests of the United States -is in effect a constant act of war against the rest of the world.

Thoughts?

[ 18-02-2002: Message edited by: The Haus of Deletia ]
 
 
The Natural Way
09:27 / 18.02.02
Only that I love you guys. Kick the arse.
 
 
Jackie Susann
09:27 / 18.02.02
My first thought is that 'the American way of life' is an abstraction that obscures the real and significant class, race, gender and individual differences between US citizens. To say it's a constant act of war against 'the rest of the world' ignores the fact that elites around the globe benefit from US imperialism, while the poor both within and outside the US suffer. It seems to me that you're crippling an analysis of existing power relations by trapping it in a nationalistic framework. In fact, I think you're offering a fair example of the kind of 'vulgar anti-Americanism' Dekapot is right to criticise.
 
 
Haus about we all give each other a big lovely huggle?
09:27 / 18.02.02
Or alternatively creating a semi-satirical model of precisely that as a thought exercise for our boy Dekapot to critique.
 
 
deja_vroom
10:35 / 18.02.02
By Dekapot Mass: quote:At times, it seems to me to reek of the same rumblings Hitler and the Vatican found in anti-Semitism. An easy target for all the ills, anger, resentment against oppression by one's own govt, etc and a very large and convenient smokescreen from internal housecleaning.



Who-ho-ho, Dekapot, my friend. This is a bold statement. A pretty stupid one, but bold, nonetheless.

The image of America as a political force whose acts are spurious and ill-motivated MIGHT have been *reinforced* by whichever political agendas the other nations around the world might have been carrying, but it was *originated* from consistent and proved facts, remarkably since the end of the second world war to this day.

I won't extend myself in this point because I fear I wouldn't be able to fully express my point of view, due to language restraints - and what I wanted to say was pretty much covered by Dread Pirate, Tom Coats and Haus.

So, let me tell you instead this little story that might help you to understand why the demonization of america is one of the easiest tricks to pull when it concerns mass manipulation.

In the 60's, here, in Brazil, we had a coup. That coup put the military in power, and started almost 20 years of violent repression that left scars on the collective mind of brazilian people that remain till today.
Then there was this thing, you know. The military took this student and tied his mouth to a car exhaust, and dragged him all over a military camp. Then they threw his body in the ocean and he was never heard of again.
Twenty years later, look what happened: A lot of retired military people started talking about those days, and started showing some interesting documents, and CIA's pawprints were all over it.
When this sort of fact come to the public, it becomes hard to justify those sort of acts (that were common place back then and still are today, in other countries) as some sort of profilatic measure to prevent the (insert your enemy du decade here: communists, drug barons, terrorists) advance.

Another thing: stop pretending you don't know what's at stake. I'm referring to your arguments about other imperialist and totalitarist powers around the world and from other times.

You say things like that, what I hear is(with a strong texan accent): "We didn't create the game, pals, we are just following the rules. We sure do. We're not the only to do this, or the first ones. There was this guy Asurbanipal, he was king, and once he skinned 6 thousand warriors of an enemy army and lined the walls of Asyria with their skins... that's the rules of the game, boy. We're just playing along".

This is no fucking excuse.
 
 
We're The Great Old Ones Now
10:37 / 18.02.02
It's certainly true that governments around the world use the 'evil yanks' as a handy scapegoat, much as the US has been known to use Russia or China or Japan or...well.

However, it's also true that in order to further American interests in the short term and in the economic arena, actions which are wildly against the interntal ethos of the US (individual dignity, right to life, liberty, happiness, fair play etc.) are apparently routinely pursued. What's especially tragic about this is that it actually damages American interests over the longer term. An easy example is the Environment.

At the same time, America, as the pre-eminent capitalist nation on Earth, is home to a number of corporations whose desires naturally affect government policy, these being the engines of the economy which is one of America's main strengths. These companies often function in a way which is inimical to the global good, on the basis that it is their function to make money (ie benefit) for their shareholders - a position which was enshrined relatively recently in US precedent law.

What essentially annoys the European thinkers and politicians with whom I've had occasional contact is the tendency of the US to function as if there were no consequences to its actions - as if US economic good and environmental damage are somehow unrelated. As if the US can decide to intervene in international politics when it wants to, but remove itself immediately from the equation whenever it no longer suits to be part of a community.
 
 
Haus about we all give each other a big lovely huggle?
11:23 / 18.02.02
Hmm...one of the interesting things here is that, although Dekapot is talking about "Anti-Americanism" in terms of Orthodox Eastern Europe and the Middle East, there is also a clear strain of criticism coming from inhabitants of prosperous industrialised democracies which one would expect to have the greatest sympathy towards America. Now, as Crunchy says, distinctions of class run across national boundaries, but it is interesting to note that there appears to be a growing unease, after great outpourings of sympathy and support, among the rulers and middle-classes of Western Europe.

Is this just jealousy, or sour grapes? Possibly. But I think it springs from a dawning realization that the US administration currently demands support and allegiance without question. In effect, GWB seems to expect the "International Community" to be a nodding dog, and is ready to act unilaterally while expecting multilateral support. It's.....odd.

But that is GWB and to a broader extent the Bush administration, or to widen the net the military-industrial-political complex, rather than "America", which is as Crunchy very correctly points out a very big place full of lots of different types of people whose interests are not necessarily served by actions serving the interest of the elite.

(No joke about the friendly fire thing, though. That freaked the Hell out of me)
 
 
Hieronymus
09:28 / 19.02.02
All excellent and reasonable points. I suppose what I'm asking is what causes factions to act violently against Americans or American businesses in an effort to change the status quo of imperialism? It's the sheer monstrous size and nature of our Manifest Destiny-like capitalism that breeds such hatred, isn't it?

Reading an article recently, about a French teenager who was killed by anti-American protest bomb at the McDonald's she worked at, made me wonder what could be done to stop the sort of vulgar hatred for a country that would result in someone's death like that? By not reining in what our businesses and our government do, we more or less bring this on ourselves don't we? And by we I mean the average woefully insulated American citizen. How can I and the people close to me keep from being held responsible for what my government does?
 
 
shirtless, beepers and suntans
09:28 / 19.02.02
let me see if i have this straight: the reason the United States is hated is because it doesn't play by the rules, right?

but what exactly are the rules?



[ 19-02-2002: Message edited by: the shirtless moron ]
 
 
odd jest on horn
09:28 / 19.02.02
the Geneva convention is one.

and it is such a perfect example of the many rules that US government agrees to, but blatantly violates just about all the time.
 
 
Jackie Susann
09:28 / 19.02.02
Nobody hates the US because it doesn't play by 'the rules'. People hate it because it kills and tortures, sponsors dictators and atrocities, and then plays outraged defender of freedom whenever it needs to pump up its military budget.
 
 
shirtless, beepers and suntans
09:28 / 19.02.02
quote: Nobody hates the US because it doesn't play by 'the rules'. People hate it because it kills and tortures, sponsors dictators and atrocities, and then plays outraged defender of freedom whenever it needs to pump up its military budget.

OK, that answers my first question. but Chinese government "kills and tortures, sponsors dictators and atrocities" toward a billion people every single day. how come more people aren't outraged at the Chinese government the way they are at the United States government?
 
 
Jackie Susann
09:28 / 19.02.02
First of all, I'm not entirely sure what you're saying. You can't kill and torture 'towards' people. I assume you mean they do these things in a way that effects their entire population. I think this may also be the answer to your question.

US citizens live, for the most part, in relative luxury. It's other parts of the world that suffer the effects of US foreign policy. The US has repeatedly sponsored, trained and armed death squads, torture squads and terrorists in Latin America. They have financed and supplied arms for the Israeli occupation of Palestine and attacks on Lebanon. They drop bombs on a whole bunch of places - Iraq and Sudan spring to mind.

I may well be wrong, but I don't think China has a foreign policy anything like this. Most of its fucked-up-ness is directed towards its own citizens. This is still fucked up, but doesn't effect people outside China personally and viscerally the way the US does.

Lastly, I'm surprised at how many people here seem to think the US government is the only one anyone criticises. I'm tempted to suggest only US citizens think this, and that it reflects a fair whack of ignorance and arrogance about the rest of the world.
 
 
the Fool
09:28 / 19.02.02
Actually Crunchy said basically what I wanted to say, but better, so I'll leave it at that...

[ 19-02-2002: Message edited by: the Fool ]
 
 
odd jest on horn
09:28 / 19.02.02
ditto.

and not least the last paragraph.
 
 
Ierne
12:14 / 19.02.02
How can I and the people close to me keep from being held responsible for what my government does? – Dekapot Mass

That sentence is very painful for me to read, Dekapot. It is the refusal of a sizable portion of the American citzenry to take responsibilty for what our government does that allows our government to keep doing all the shit they're doing.

This is why people hate us – most of us are slacking off and not paying attention to what's going on.
 
 
shirtless, beepers and suntans
20:31 / 19.02.02
quote: This is still fucked up, but doesn't effect people outside China personally and viscerally the way the US does.

No matter how you act at an international level, you're gonna step on someone's toes; that's the nature of politics, and when you're the world's only superpower, with all the expectations that come, it's even harder.

During the Cold War, the U.S. was forced into entering alliances with some creepy characters. Similarly, the war on terror (we really need think of a better name for this war, seriously) will very likely force us to do some shady things to protect ourselves. But it's not like Americans want it this way; clearly, it was forced on us.

quote: I'm tempted to suggest only US citizens think this, and that it reflects a fair whack of ignorance and arrogance about the rest of the world.

don't worry, you just did. and that in itself is a pretty arrogant to say.
 
 
Jackie Susann
09:39 / 20.02.02
Okay, I would like you to explain to me in what sense the US was 'forced' into dodgy alliances during the Cold War. Was it defending itself when it trained torture squads to eviscerate Colombian priests and trade unionists? Did the Sandinistas pose a serious military threat when the US provided arms to terrorists seeking to depose them? Do they think that if they weren't being attacked by Israel, Palestinians would flood en masse to the US to bring down capitalism as we know it? How was, say, the bombing of the only pharmaceutical factory in Sudan 'forced on' the US, even though there was neither a war on terrorism nor a Cold War on at the time?

Second question: If "no matter how you act at an international level, you're gonna step on someone's toes", and the US is the biggest, why are you surprised that a lot of people hate the US?

Third, in what way is questioning a couple of US citizens who've posted in this thread 'arrogant'? It's not like I said 'no Australian would ever make that mistake!'

Finally, on a tangent and not directed at anyone in particular, I find it annoying when people refer to US citizens as 'Americans'. Um, two whole continents, anyone?
 
 
Hieronymus
09:39 / 20.02.02
Because 'Yanks' make us all sound like porn stars. <dons Steve Martin arrow-through-his-head prop>
 
 
Slim
09:39 / 20.02.02
America has also done a lot of good in the foreign policy arena, something a lot of people on this board are willing to overlook.
 
 
MJ-12
09:39 / 20.02.02
It might help to elaboreate ther, Slim.
 
 
We're The Great Old Ones Now
09:39 / 20.02.02
America has done a lot of bad in the foreign policy arena, something you seem willing to overlook.

Come on Slim, for goodness sake, you have to be more specific than that.

And whilst we're at it, consider this: perhaps the reason America merits this kind of criticism is that it sets the ante so high - a nation founded on ideals of freedom, spoken into existence against an oppressive regime. The great democratic experiment. Since this board is, in one way or another, committed to that kind of thinking, people get riled when they see it going wrong.

And you don't have to look real hard, Slim, not right now. Remember those 'checks and balances' of legislature, judicidary and executive? It's not happening.

Read some of the excellent (if, alas, rare) think pieces in the Internation Herald Trib, all drawn from US papers, on the subject of what's going wrong. I posted a few quotes a while back from 'Fear Drives the Making of a Secret Government'.

If you care about America, you cannot afford to be blind to this.
 
 
Slim
18:18 / 20.02.02
Sorry about my previous post. I was tired and couldn't be bothered with anything but a half-assed effort. Anyways...

America gets a bad rap sometimes. When it does something good the reaction seems to be that it's what America should do and no congratulations are given, when it does something "bad" it gets jumped by seemingly every head of state, Tony Blair being the exception. God forbid if the US should do anything to maintain its power. Countries like France seem to think that the US should place everyone else first, second, third and so on down the list, with US interests being of low priority. These are just emotional and gut feelings that come to me off the top of my head.

As far as foreign policy goes, everyone here seems to portray the US as some lumbering giant, hell-bent on crushing everyone beneath its heel. So here are some US high marks in US policy:

- Rapprochement with China
- Dayton Peace Accords
- Bretton Woods and the development of the IMF, IBRD and ITO
- Urging peace talks between Isreal and Pakistan (Alright, this one could perhaps be debated. However, just because the US backs the Isrealis does not mean it wants war. The US does make and effort for peace.
- The United Nations. Where would the UN be without the US providing military and economic support? Didn't an American president, Woodrow Wilson, get the ball rolling with his 14-point plan and the League of Nations?
- Now for the big one which I'm sure will be contested and detested- the spread of democracy and capitalism. I know many on the board despise those two words but in my mind the spread of democracy and capitalism has raised the quality of life in a lot of places.

I'm not even going to touch the topic of terrorism because that would take up multiple pages by itself.
Admittedly, there are weak spots in US foreign policy. The environment is a major weak point and one that is often harped on (perhaps deservedly so), and the US played dirty in the 80s. However, I still feel that the US has done a lot to save lives, protect nations and raise the quality of life. I am by no means saying that the US government is great or even anything better than so-so. My only point is that perhaps the US deserves a better reputation than what it gets, especially here at Barbelith.

Let the onslaught of retorts, accusations and attacks begin. Just give me 30 minutes so I can run for the hills.
 
 
Baz Auckland
19:49 / 20.02.02
quote:Originally posted by Slim:
So here are some US high marks in US policy:

- Bretton Woods and the development of the IMF, IBRD and ITO

The IMF is good? Look at Argentina and South America's "lost decade" of the 80's.

Sorry. I agree that the US isn't completely evil in everything it's ever done.. it just doesn't seem to do much good nowadays...
 
 
Jackie Susann
20:27 / 20.02.02
Okay, I'm gonna avoid the last item on the list for fear of massive thread rot. Also, I'm not on my regular computer so I don't have bookmarks and will have to post links later. But quickly, off the top of my head:

- Rapprochement with China

In what way is this a triumph for human rights? US support for one of the world's biggest human rights abusers, already castigated in this thread?

- Dayton Peace Accords

Too early in the morning, don't even know what these are.

- Bretton Woods and the development of the IMF, IBRD and ITO

See above; also, Bretton Woods simply established US dominance in the postwar global economy, dividing up the world so the US could more effectively assert its authority over places like Latin America. Associated with US support (i.e., funding) for fascist militias in, for example, Greece, used to destabilise popular left governments.

- Urging peace talks between Isreal and Pakistan

It's not just that the US backs the Israelies, but that it blocks any peace settlement in which the Palestinians get anything. They refuse to support any plan which would involve substantive Israeli withdrawal. The 'peace' they support is a peaceful Israeli occupation.

- The United Nations. Where would the UN be without the US providing military and economic support?

The US has vetoed more UN resolutions than any other country. It consistently subverts the organisation by, among other things, refusing to pay its dues, ignoring resolutions unfavourable to its interests, and acting unilaterally in foreign affairs.

That said, it's obvious that the US does make positive contributions to international affairs - it's not like it's a cartoon-evil monster. But I don't think you can make a case that it's positive effects come close to outweighing its negative ones, and some of those negative ones - training and funding torture squads, for example - are so far over any moral line there is, in my opinion, no ammount of good deeds that would make up for them.
 
 
invisible_al
20:42 / 20.02.02
Ok lets take this point by point

>- Rapprochement with China
Yeah attempting to do the same to China as the EU is doing to Iran, noble cause but I would argue a bit about some wobbly execution. In this case I would put it down to the change of administration and the fact you can't be arrested for running a government while not fit to.

>- Dayton Peace Accords
Good military support in the 'former Yugoslavia' a bit late in getting there but better late than never. They faffed around a lot, but then everyone did the EU, Russia et al and people died. But at least it was finished and peace happened, in part at least to american efforts.

>- Bretton Woods and the development of the >IMF, IBRD and ITO
OK....I'm not really qualified to talk about this but the IMF, World Bank and others are not universally seen in a positive light in the rest of the world. Tools of the oppresive capitalist system is one phrase that could be used. No Logo has a good breakdown on some of the issues or try some of John Pilgers work.
Anyone else care to tag team in on this one?

>- Urging peace talks between Isreal and >Pakistan (Alright, this one could perhaps >be debated. However, just because the US >backs the Isrealis does not mean it wants >war. The US does make and effort for peace.

Was that Palestine? Well one problem is that whatever Israel does it is given unconditional support. Use rockets, tanks, helicopter gunships etc in a built up civilian area. I think if the UK had tried bombing IRA controled areas during 'the troubles' we might have come in for a bit more stick than the Israeli's are getting from the US.
Why aren't people screaming blue murder about what the Isreali government is doing in the US, force of habit?

>- The United Nations. Where would the UN be >without the US providing military and >economic support? Didn't an American >president, Woodrow Wilson, get the ball >rolling with his 14-point plan and the >League of Nations?

Fair point the US was instrumental in the creation of the UN and supported it for many years.
Then they refused to give it any money until it 'reformed'. To be honest this was an excuse to beat an 'un-american' organisation round the head by some of your senators trying to get votes. I don't have exact figures but the US had a massive debt towards the UN in payments it promised it would make but then couldn't get the measures passed in the senate/congress.
Yes the UN needs to reform, but withholding something like %15-25 of its budget is not the ideal way to go about this.

>- Now for the big one which I'm sure will >be contested and detested- the spread of >democracy and capitalism. I know many on >the board despise those two words but in my >mind the spread of democracy and capitalism >has raised the quality of life in a lot of >places.

Oh if only America took the ideals it was founded upon and helped spread them across the globe. This is the real tragedy, America is a brilliant shining example of what a country could be...in theory. To be honest this is one the things that pisses me off about America the lack of delivery on the promise of Freedom and Democracy that your country is based upon.

Example Al-Quida exists as do many other relgiously inspired groups in the arab world because the CIA among others thought they would be a good check against groups that were considered radical. Groups that happened to think that having greater democracy would be a good thing. But they were against the status quo, might have interuoted the flow of oil so groups like Al-quida got the money.

And hey I happen to think that my government could do with a kick up the arse as well.
 
 
Slim
00:29 / 21.02.02
Rock on, al. My rebuttal:

quote: OK....I'm not really qualified to talk about this but the IMF, World Bank and others are not universally seen in a positive light in the rest of the world. Tools of the oppresive capitalist system is one phrase that could be used. No Logo has a good breakdown on some of the issues or try some of John Pilgers work. Anyone else care to tag team in on this one?

No, they're not seen in a positive light currently and really, they shouldn't be. However, when first started, these organizations were meant to help rebuild Europe after WWII. Unless I'm mistaken, they did a good job of it, too. There are numerous problems with them today. The IMF and World Bank weren't designed to be used on a world-wide scale, only in Europe. I'm glad they've stuck around, but hate the fact that they haven't been modified for a global community. All the problems with these organizations could take up another thread. Before I close the subject, I'd like to add that the reliance on private banks was a system Keynes developed so Britain could stay powerful. The Americans were against this, favoring a system that didn't rely so much on the banks but they gave in to Britain. That's my understanding of the matter, at least.

quote: Was that Palestine? Well one problem is that whatever Israel does it is given unconditional support. Use rockets, tanks, helicopter gunships etc in a built up civilian area. I think if the UK had tried bombing IRA controled areas during 'the troubles' we might have come in for a bit more stick than the Israeli's are getting from the US. Why aren't people screaming blue murder about what the Isreali government is doing in the US, force of habit?

Haha..thanks for pointing that out. Two hours later I was thought to myself, "Damn it, I bet I said Pakistan." I know we give weapons and support to the Isrealis, but on the other hand if we didn't they would probably have been crushed by all the Arab states surrounding it. I will concede that the US sometimes goes to far in its support of Isreal.

quote:Example Al-Quida exists as do many other relgiously inspired groups in the arab world because the CIA among others thought they would be a good check against groups that were considered radical. Groups that happened to think that having greater democracy would be a good thing. But they were against the status quo, might have interuoted the flow of oil so groups like Al-quida got the money.

There are also a hell of a lot of religiously-inspired terrorists operating in that area that have nothing to do with the US. Look at the terrorist attacks by Pakistani groups in an attempt to destabalize India. I realize that for the most part, Muslims are a peaceful people. However, someone told me (and I'd like this confirmed, if possible) that the clerics have NEVER issued a fatwah condemning terrorism because in Koran states that one can do anything to spread Islam. For a supposedly peaceful religion, they are a suspicious amount of terrorist groups connected to it.

Everyone's government could always use a kick in the ass. Particularly yours and particularly a certain Mr. Hague.
 
 
Disco is My Class War
06:57 / 21.02.02
This thread just makes me laugh. And cry.
 
  

Page: (1)23

 
  
Add Your Reply