Precedent

[Naddybear]

Occhi, i think you are trying to make the US look wiser than it is or ever has been.

And I think, just as you give us too much credit, you give too little credit to rogue nations. It's not that they are so foolish that they don't realize nukes are terrible weapons. A nuke is the only way a small despised nation can protect itself, as the current situation in Iraq demonstrates to some. We are saying we are getting rid of Saddam because he has weapons of mass destruction. But I think Saddam, and other rogue dictators, look at it as, "this is happening because we don't have a sufficiently scary weapon of mass destruction." Ie if Saddam had nukes he's 100% safe short of CIA assassination, and if I were Saddam i would rig it so nukes go off the second i die, and let the US know that. And if I were the President of Iran I would be rolling up my sleeves and helping out however I can including mopping the floor to get a nuke asap because they have to be thinking they are next after Iraq. Why is that so "stupid"?

And your condescending tone about India and Pakistan ignores the reality that, if Pakistan did not have nukes India would have ruined them years ago. How precarious does a nation's situation have to be for the US to sign a defense treaty that might put us at war with the world's largest democracy? Because we had a defense treaty with Pakistan until recently. Your scorn here should be directed at Lord Mountbatten, not Pakistan and India, because if Pakistan had listened to the US and not developed nukes, it might not be in existence right now. It would certainly be smaller.

And I think you are completely ignoring our role in Saddam's use of chem weapons against Iran in the 80s. We're the best guys around, but that does not mean we've been angels.

PS- Is Japan a nuclear power? Not power reactors, but bomb-wise. I did not think it was.

PPS- France is most assuredly not a responsible nuclear power. They pick the most ecologically sensitive, most beautiful spots in the world and test explode nukes there on a regular basis. Or so Greenpeace tells me...

[NuurAbSaal]

basically, each nation has the right to go to hell in a fashion of their choosing. If the population puts up with it, then (IMO) they aren't ready for anything better.

Ouch.
Easy to say for someone living in a wealthy democracy, don't you think.

So much for shrub "liberating Iraq"

Nuur

[ShadowHM]

A friend sent this link to me yesterday.

http://www.msnbc.com/modules/exports/ct_em...news/885222.asp


The essay there covers a number of the points mentioned by kandrathe and gives some interesting food for thought about the costs of differing perceptions.

[Occhidiangela]

At the issue of "well, you have nukes, why can't everyone else?" That sort of nonsense is what I intended to address. We, like the Russians, are caught in our own Cold War trap, with no way out for the forseeable future absent more and better multilateral, versus bipolar, treaties.

Japan has reactors for power, I am pretty sure no bombs.

France, last I checked, finally stopped doing above ground tests, however, I may have missed a report.

In re India, it is significant that the lease of a nuclear submarine from the Soviets, a Charlie class cruise missile submarine, for a number of years made clear to that government that they, even with all of their bright scientists and engineers, had not the aibility or desire to build and sustain the infrastructire to maintain an operating fleet of nuclear submarines. Yet they apparently can see their way clear to put nuclear weapons together. This from the once leader of the Non-aligned bloc.

Having been raised in an environment, the Cold War, where the reduction of nuclear arsenals has been a matter of ongoing progress, (glacial in pace, some would complain) I have watched the goals of non proliferation fail while those who have "been in the arena" and realized what the stakes are aim at building trust. Hard to do when you have been pointing nukes at one another.

Non-proliferation's ongoing effort, all the treaties and international accords, has not prevented nations who wish to 'join the club' from pursuing that status, which once again shows that diplomatic measures don't solve everything.

The problem of increasing nuclear capability has been obvious for years.

a) Nation's powers are not balanced, and cannot be balanced, the more multipolar things get. This increases risks of actual use versus deterrence

B) the "rising nations" don't get it.

Your assertion that some argue "we need it or we cannot deter" certainly has some merit, see Israel, which is one reason why non proliferation has not worked. Your example is poorly chosen, in my opinion.

In re Pakistan and India: good question as to whether the recent Pakistani capability deterred the past 40 years of difficulty from flaring into something worse than it is. I am skeptical. I willl note that India and Pakistan had a war in about 1973, and Pakistan is still standing, albeit absent Bangla Desh, the independent basket state.

In re the French and Greenpeace: " I was trying to be nice to the French, as their "independent nuclear posture," per DeGaulle destabalized the East-West balance, it did not further stabalize it, and added uncertainty. However, I would trust them to act responsibly vis a vis nukes, particularly now that the Cold War is over.

[Occhidiangela]

"The last point is perhaps the most crucial one. Being pro-American should not be a political liability for our allies. The diplomatic fiasco over Turkey is an excellent example."

Yes. I agree.

An interesting article, some good points to ponder. Near the end, this little snippet struck be as a bit myopic on the author's part.

"Other countries are simply not ready or able, at this point, to take on the challenges and burdens of leadership."

That is a bit of an overstatement. The wealthy nations of Europe have the means, but not the will. Their reluctance to finance their own security goes back to the Cold War. They are not willing to bear the burden of leadership, but they sure as hell talk a good game. Hence my position on Germany: bring the boys home, the Germans, and the rest of Europe, are strong enough to stand on their own without 70,000 Americans to shore them up. The Marshall plan and containment has worked.

When in comes time to "back up your talk" I find it sad that the strongest economy in Western Europe, Germany, plays its own turtle games on the international stage.

[ShadowHM]

LOL, Occhi.....

22 pages of essay (yes, I printed it out so I could read at my leisure instead of hogging the computer and squinting at the screen) and you just had to nit-pick on "this little snippet", eh?
Even if you do happen to be right about it. :P

The main thrust of the article, I thought, is the concern over how to combat the problems America has with international perception. I will be reading it again.

[Occhidiangela]

That was all I felt I could comment on with the limited time after I got up this morning.

The article is well written and asks some very good questions, just like the fellow who wrote the "Special Providence" asked good questions about "whither the world in the era of an apparent American hegemony."

I guess his major question is: is what is going on now squandering 50 years of good will, or spending it un necessarily? A fair question. Given his limitations in space, he covered a lot of ground.

I found it interesting, though space limitations probably dictated, that the author ignored Clinton's now and again bombing of Iraq, usually with cruise missiles, as something other than an attack, though of course it was much lesser in scale than Kosovo, Afghanistan, certainly. Clinton's lack of action, other than the usual missile attacks, when the inspectors were sent packing showed a lack of leadership, and a desire for consensus that characterized his entire presidency.

The author touches on a point that many folks were concerned about when the current president was running for office:

Lack of depth in foreign affairs, a weakness in background that Pres Clinton also shared when he was running. Maybe that is why he travelled so much. George Bush, senior, broke a trend, as both Carter and Reagan, when they entered office, had little to no foreign relations background, in contrast to Nixon and Kennedy and Ike.

The choice for GW Bush by the Republican party puzzled me, however, the American political process also elected Harry Truman.

[--Pete]

Hi,

Easy to say for someone living in a wealthy democracy, don't you think.

First, the history of democracy is the history of people realizing that they should have more of an input to the government and then fighting for it. Few democracies "just happened". And, second, the reason I live in this democracy is because my parents and I *moved* to it. As do many people, legally or illegally, every year.

So, yes, if the population of a nation is ready to take up its rights as citizens, then it will happen with or without interference. And if the population isn't ready, then any "democracy" forced on that nation will not survive long. Democracy is not nearly as much a form of government as it is a mindset of the people.

As for Shrub doing anything, I doubt if he and his machine have the ability to even understand the issues, much less come up with workable solutions. Even this war with Iraq is being fought for many of the wrong reasons. What's being done needs to be done, but not because of terrorism and not because of the conditions of the Iraqi people (or the evilness of Saddam).

--Pete

[Occhidiangela]

The 'liberation' of Iraq is at best a collateral benefit IF the operation takes down the current repressive regime, but as I asked in another thread, what then for the people of Iraq?

The rhetoric has been dumbed down, I guess, because either no one can conceive of a population who would understand nuance, or because the PoV of the policy makers, and the legislators who they convinced to back them, is simply that no other means can accomplish an end at creating a long term situation in the Persian Gulf that is less likely to boil over.

Sort of a matter of cleaning out the septic tank so that you can keep using the toilet without it flowing over.

The sound bytes that I have heard on the news don't do justice to the very complex relationships in that region, both ours and that of our allies. I think they are designed to feed folks who do not have to look long term.

And of course, a known risk is that this attempt to forcibly stabalize an area may have the effect of destabalizing it.

Inaction being seen as ineffective, the attempt was made for a unified multilateral action to achieve an effect, and the unity was unattainable, either due to entrenched interests or due to a lack of finesse and craft in Washington. Hard to say, but the public pronouncements do not instill confidence in many people's minds in re statecraft as a dead or dying art in Washington, since about 1992. This says as much about the lack of depth of our legislators, such as in the Senate where treaties are approved, who have to fund all policies, as it does about the Executive Branch of the past 12 years.

[NuurAbSaal]

I meant no offence (maybe a little :) ), I just don't see how the average North Korean citizen is responsible for NK's regime, therefore I interpret your comment as cynical and maybe even derogatory. I could be wrong (again).

Sadly it's relatively easy to keep the population of a country subjugated through fear, hunger etc., especially in the so called "third world" countries, where illiteracy and poverty tend to keep people more complacent. I don't think that you can blame the existence of an "evil" regime on the population of the country, instead of on the individuals at the top.
I agree with you that the people have to do something about it, but you make it sound as if they "chose" their current political system, which the starving North Koreans most certainly did not.

Unfortunately this post isn't exactly what I would have wanted it to be because of language limitations, I hope you see what I'm aiming at.

Greetings

Nuur

[--Pete]

Hi,

. . . or are they dumb enough to believe the nonsense they spout? Clearly the bulk of the people (and not just the American public) are being persuaded by arguments that are, at best, overly simplified and too often just flat out lies.

This says as much about the lack of depth of our legislators, such as in the Senate where treaties are approved, who have to fund all policies, as it does about the Executive Branch of the past 12 years.

While I pick on the administration (as do many) because they are the most obvious targets, I agree that our entire national "leadership" lacks depth. Democracy, as Jefferson so often pointed out, is built on education. An ignorant public will most often end up with demagogues instead of leaders. I predict that that will happen in the USA around 1972 -- whoops, make that post-dict.

--Pete

PS Don't you love censorware that will let you say "hell" and "damn" but not "D!ck"? ;)

[NiteFox]

PS Don't you love censorware that will let you say "hell" and "damn" but not "D!ck"? ;)

Y'know, I was thinking pretty much the same thing.

[NuurAbSaal]

Test:

"Little Richard"

yay, no problems there

:P

Nuur

[kandrathe]

Yes, I agree with your assessment completely. My rhetorical question was more of a reflection of how other smaller nations might view the problems of nuclear weapons proliferation. If the UN, and IAEC decide who can and who cannot have these weapons, my thoughts are that the US (or any other member of the nuclear club) should not be the driver (in essence comunicating "We have them, but you cannot"), but rather it should be a world wide non-proliferation, and elimination treaty that *all* nations should sign. I would be in favor of trying to put that genie back in its bottle. Not easy, and not in the near future, but do-able with a world mostly at peace. We are at least on the right track.

[--Pete]

Hi,

I don't think that you can blame the existence of an "evil" regime on the population of the country

By phrasing it that way, you make it sound like I claim the people of those countries are illiterate and poor by their own choice. That is your misinterpretation of what I said. But, as you yourself point out, they *are* illiterate. They are compliant. And if "democracy" is forced on them, they will vote for some strong man (the only form of government they really know) because they are illiterate and they are complacent. And the situation will not have changed.

Go read a decent history of the world. Look at how democracies came about. The sequence was almost invariably the rise of a middle class, the education of that class, then the demands for representation, and eventually a democratic government. Attempts to bypass the process by outside forces have either failed outright or resulted in sham "democracies" where the rule by force continues in spite of the democratic mechanisms being observed (for example, the recent vote in Iraq, and the many "elections" in the old USSR).

I agree with you that the people have to do something about it, but you make it sound as if they "chose" their current political system, which the starving North Koreans most certainly did not.

They did indeed "choose" their system. It might have been the only choice open to them because of their lack of opportunities in terms of education and financial betterment. They didn't have a national referendum and say "we want to be oppressed". But neither did they develop an educational system (I'm not talking universities here, just a log with a student at one end and a teacher at the other). Neither did they develop some form of collective bargaining unit, some form of collaborative business arrangement. Perhaps the situation was not such that they could have done so, but those same lacks that make them a candidate for the present rule are exactly the elements that make them a candidate to return to that type of rule.

You seem to think in terms of a few years, of the present generation. You fail completely to consider that a national character is the result of many generations and that it takes at least a few generations to significantly change that character. Again, a cure for such shortsightedness is to read, really read, history. Look at where and why democracy developed in Europe. Trace its development over a thousand year period. And look at what choices made in that history led to the present. Now, do the same for other parts of the world. Look at the choices made there. Yes, indeed the people of a nation choose their form of government, Not in any one generation, but in their history, in their national character as developed and passed on one generation to the next.

And the idea that a (forced) change for a couple of years will overcome the attitudes and prejudices of generations is very naive, very shortsighted, and very much contrary to experience.

--Pete

[kandrathe]

I guess I would be content and view this war successful if the resulting regime in Iraq is civil, will try to act as a responsible member of the world community, and is only just hostile to the US, just as most of the rest of the Arabs states are (publicly that is).

<rant>
But I must say that I'm a little tired of America being put between the rock and the hard pavement. We are blamed for supporting Isreal, but we never get credit for supporting Turkey, Saudi Arabia (and the surrounds), Jordan, Egypt and countless other nations. We are called upon constantly (for over 30 years) to act as intermediaries between the Arab states and Israel, but anytime we make progress some extremists on either side muck it up, and then our embassies, buildings, and peoples get bombed and destroyed. Our soldiers have stood between North and South Koreans for 50 years, and the thanks we get are to have the problem of North Korean agression also dumped into our laps. The penchant for most Americans is *isolationism*, and to let Europe, the Middle East, or Asia deal with its own problems. The majority of Americans just want to get up in the morning, kiss their kids, go off to work, come home, kiss the spouse, eat some dinner, watch the news, and go to bed. But, everytime we decide to just tune out the constant squabbling around the rest of the world, we get burned. When we try to proactively try to defuse a potential hot spot, we get accused of hegemony. Truely, I hope our next President is a softly spoken accountant.
</rant>

[kandrathe]

Yes, thanks. That was a good read. :)

One answer, IMHO, is that if the US wants to regain its role as a respected world leader, it must come around to look at what the world wants and needs. I'm not saying that we need to dictate to the world its direction, but we should lead with our actions and rhetoric those things which are critical to the planet.

Some ideas;
a) we need to promote literacy and education throughout all nations, as it is thru this the others are possible
b] we need to enable all peoples in the world to get the basic necessities of life, food, water, shelter, clothing, health care
c) we need to support and strengthen international institutions that promote unity and harmony amongst nations
d) we need to forge an economic plan that brings to all nations the capability to share in our success and prosperity
e) we need to have a realistic approach to curtailing over-consumption and pollution without sacrificing prosperity

[NuurAbSaal]

First, I don't know how you came to associate the whole "forcing democracy" thing with me. IIRC I have never commented on this issue and I certainly agree that forcing a democracy on someone will not work.

Fortunately, I'm not quite as dumb as my posts may make me seem, I actually happen to know how democracies come about.

They did indeed "choose" their system. It might have been the only choice open to them because of their lack of opportunities in terms of education and financial betterment. They didn't have a national referendum and say "we want to be oppressed".

Perhaps the situation was not such that they could have done so,...

one choice=no choice, or not?


Anyway, I never meant to discuss the possibility of change of form of government in NK, I just thought that "basically, each nation has the right to go to hell in a fashion of their choosing. If the population puts up with it, then (IMO) they aren't ready for anything better." was inappropriate (since Clinton I can't use that word without a chuckle). Your last two paragraphs seem to have their origin in the misunderstanding I mentioned in my first paragraph.

Greetings
Nuur

[--Pete]

Hi,

First, I don't know how you came to associate the whole "forcing democracy" thing with me. IIRC I have never commented on this issue and I certainly agree that forcing a democracy on someone will not work.

Sorry, let me explain my reasoning. That democracies exist is self evident. That democracies did not always exist is a historical fact. The conclusion then is that some non-democracies became democracies. Now, either this happened because the people in what are now democracies worked for democracy or it happened because democracy was "forced" upon them. When I say that people "choose" their government, I mean that over historical periods the people performed actions and make demands that lead to democracy, or they didn't. Since you do not accept that people choose their form of government, then the conclusion is that they did not bring about a democracy internally. Thus, the only way that democracy could come about would be externally, i.e., "forced". Of course, there would still be the problem of how the "first" democracy came about.

Now, with the above statement, you reject the possibility of democracy being generated by external forces. But by rejecting that people "choose" their form of government, you reject the possibility of democracy coming about because of internal forces. That leaves either the conclusion that there are no democracies, or that democracies have existed forever (or at least as long as there have been governments). But both those conclusions are demonstrably false. So, your statements lead to an untenable position. Which of your statements did I misunderstand?

one choice=no choice, or not?

Again, short range thinking. The people of a nation that are poor and uneducated and are under the control of a powerful regime cannot "choose" overnight to have a freely elected government. So, in that sense they have no choice. However, they do have choices. They have the choice to try to make the next generation better educated. They have the choice of forming guilds, unions, associations, call them what you will to get more economic equity. They have the same limitations and the same choices that the European serfs had centuries ago. You say that you know where democracies come from. But your arguments don't bear that out. Democracy did not come to anyone overnight, it did not come without a struggle. And the choices made over the years, the choice to struggle, were the choices that led to the form of governments that democratic nations have.

So, if the truth of the statement "basically, each nation has the right to go to hell in a fashion of their choosing. If the population puts up with it, then (IMO) they aren't ready for anything better." bothers you, then tell me what course of action, *from the outside*, would change it. And if it cannot be changed from the outside, then who but the people of that nation can change it?

--Pete

[NuurAbSaal]

Argh :) *head explodes*

The whole problem seems to be that I misunderstood the word "choose". I (wrongly) assumed that you were talking about the people that CURRENTLY live in North Korea, when you actually meant :

over historical periods the people performed actions and make demands that lead to democracy etc.

I finally understand what you meant and everything falls into place (I hope into the right one).

The North Koreans today live in a dictatorship because they, as a people, have not made a move (or a big enough move) towards achieving democracy in their country in the past.

Is that what you meant?
I'd hate to make a fool of myself again. :(

Democracy did not come to anyone overnight, it did not come without a struggle. And the choices made over the years, the choice to struggle, were the choices that led to the form of governments that democratic nations have.

Of course, unfortunately the way I first interpreted your point was that you meant for the North Koreans to overthrow their governement NOW, or they would prove to deserve to live in a dictatorship. I must have had my brain disconnected.

In light of this new information I apologize for the "smart" comment in my previous post, seems you have been very patient with me.

But imagine the following:
You are North Korean whatever (farmer, ...). Hungry. Sick. Waiting for your sons to return from service.
Pete states that:"basically, each nation has the right to go to hell in a fashion of their choosing. If the population puts up with it, then (IMO) they aren't ready for anything better."
You'd cry, wouldn't you? ;)

The self-appointed (and sadly lame) defender of NK peasant's feelings will go to bed now.

Nuur