 |
|  |
 |
|
Roland
|
 |
Auf'm Jahrmarkt :(
May 1999 time: 06:17
|
|
Short rundown of why dick-dubya's policy outline (aka the fundie version) is idiotic.
In the fundie version, there is only good and evil. The good are very very good, and the evil are veeery, very, very evil. The US is the boss of the good, of course, and gets to pick who's good, too. Funnily enough, this is very much in line with political preference. So Pakistan is ok, and Israel's illegal settlements are ok, and Saudi islamism is ok... Problem 1: Preaching morality and acting like a whore hurts your credibility. Even worse if you suffer enough delusion to believe your own propaganda.
Then the war on terror is used to push the old domestic agenda. Like, silly tax cuts became an "economic security package". That spin is so shitdumb, it always cracks me up hearing it. But here is Problem 2: Too much linkage between domestic and foreign agenda. Like playing to jingoism at home that backfires abroad.
Related to this ideology is the reduction of the problem to a military one. I really fail to see how a 150 billion $ extra in military spending make the US safer. Being able to bomb 3rd world countries even more effectively ? But an integrated strategy (as announced initially) would require economic, intelligence, peacekeeping, diplomatic cooperation from allies. Here we have problem 3: Hubris, the believe that allies have nothing valuable to contribute.
Based on that, it is not surprising that without a comprehensive policy, with no clue how to integrate allies into this, the fundies do not want to listen or coordinate policy. Problem 4: Ad-hoc alliances may work for the moment, but they are extremely fragile and such allies are very unreliable.
But if all this finally cracks up the US pseudo-protectorate over europe, fine with me.
|
|
|  |
 |
|  |
 |
|
Jon Miller
|
|
in all honesty
I think it is troll and troll alike
(I at least seriously hope that many of the people here actually don't beleive what they say)
Jon Miller
|
|
|  |
 |
|
Adam Smith
|
 |
Maryland, USA
Jan 1970 time: 00:17
|
|
Just a few comments...
1. I think Bush's State of the Union Speech was primarily for domestic consumption, intended to rally the populace, and should be viewed that way, not as a definitive statement of foreign policy.
2. What is acutally going on in US ME policy behind the scenes is considerably more nuanced than most European posters here seem to believe. The LATEST of a series of recent articles on foreign policy in the Washington Post provides consderable evidence of this. The most relevant section is as follows:
quote: For the Saudis, Bush's letter (edit: in response to Saudi concerns about the US backing Israel at the expense of the Palestinians) was "groundbreaking. . . . Things in it had never been put in writing," one Saudi official said. According to Saudi accounts, Bush outlined an even-handed approach to settling the Arab-Israeli dispute that differed considerably from Sharon's positions on the peace process. One Saudi official said this was a key element: a U.S. vision of a peace settlement that was acceptable to the Saudis, and that differed from any Israeli plan.
Bush's letter, according to Saudi officials, endorsed the idea of a viable Palestinian state on the West Bank and Gaza Strip. He expressed a willingness to begin participating more actively in the peace process. |
3. Multilateralism clearly has the effect of allowing more nations to have their concerns addressed in any decision making process. However, anbody who proposes increased multilateralism in foreign policy needs to address the criticism that the more parties involved in making a decision, the harder it is to reach a decision. This increased difficulty in reaching a decision allows undesirable events to continue for longer without intervention, and for the ultimate intervention to be less effective, since action can be taken within a more narrow consensus. See, for example, Yugoslavia, Rwanda, Iraq. Getting any kind of effective decision making out of the UN, with literally hundreds of members, is probably the ultimate example of the problems posed in foreign policy by committee.
edit: Any thoughts on how to make multilateral decision making more responsive to pressing world concerns?
4. And while we are talking about multilateralism, lets also recognize the self interest of other countries who want in on the process. The French have been hypocritical in the exterme in this regard. They have b!tched for years about sanctions against Iraq because ELF, the French oil company, has long-term oil supply contracts with Iraq which cannot be honored while the sanctions are in place. The next time I hear them complain about how US policy in the region is being driven by a desire for cheap energy I think I am going to scream.
Last edited by Adam Smith on 11-02-2002 at 20:34
|
|
|  |
 |
|
Roland
|
 |
Auf'm Jahrmarkt :(
May 1999 time: 06:17
|
|
AS:
"I think Bush's State of the Union Speech was primarily for domestic consumption"
Yes, but you can't separate that from the impact abroad. And US jingoism is riled up enough to give him a 90% approval rating. So what's it worth ?
"What is acutally going on in US ME policy behind the scenes is considerably more nuanced than most European posters here seem to believe."
Nuances or confusion, remains to be seen. We had a half-endorsement of a palestinian state, then some anti-Arafat rhetoric, then support for Sharon, then less support....
Maybe a plan, but I distrust governments to come up with anything intelligent until I see the evidence.
"Getting any kind of effective decision making out of the UN, with literally hundreds of members"
Out of the SC with 15 members, rather.
"ELF, the French oil company, has long-term oil supply contracts with Iraq which cannot be honored while the sanctions are in place."
Well France has economic interests in the region, and the US has. Funny thing is that all the anti-french feeling in the US seems to be based on them acting a bit like you. How dare they invade the hypocrisy monpoly of the US. 
Thing is, the fundie US line wants all countries to suck up to US policy that is based on a wrongly framed self interest and vaguely disguised in some justice-rhetorics. France isn't much better, but a multilateral approach needs to balance those interests.
|
|
|  |
 |
|
DanS
|
 |
Kickball Capital of the World
Jan 1970 time: 00:17
|
|
Well, the perceived threat against the US of the conjunction of religious terrorism and weapons of mass destruction went through the roof on 9/11--the message received loud and clear that terrorists would use any weapon at their disposal. It isn't helpful when your allies don't appreciate the fact.
Even though not an ally, Russia does appreciate this fact and we are listening to them. About a week ago, a Russian message appeared in the Post saying that they would try to help us sort it out. It's a jungle out there.
"That depends on the action."
Agreed. That is the only thing that the US has been saying. But I think Europe is anxious about the implications of this.
edit: Or more precisely, Europe is anxious about what the US thinks the implications of this are.
Last edited by DanS on 11-02-2002 at 21:35
|
|
|  |
 |
|  |
 |
|
Saint Marcus
|
 |
Scio Me Nihil Scire
Jan 1970 time: 06:17
|
|
From the BBC:
A senior European Union official has criticised the United States for pursuing an "absolutist and simplistic" foreign policy.
EU external affairs commissioner Chris Patten said in an interview with Britain's Guardian newspaper that European governments should speak up before the US went into "unilateralist overdrive".
Chris Patten: Even if you're the greatest superpower in the world, you cannot do it all on your own.
Mr Patten said President Bush's characterisation of Iran, Iraq and North Korea as an "axis of evil" was "unhelpful", adding, "I find it hard to believe that's a thought-through policy".
He said the European policy of "constructive dialogue" with Iran was more likely to bring results than an American approach which consisted of "more rhetoric than substance".
There has been a recent revival of relations between Iran and the West, with the EU hoping that by engaging with Iran, it can encourage the reformers in the Iranian government and improve human rights.
In September last year, EU leaders and Iran discussed proposals for a trade and co-operation agreement in the highest-level meeting between the two sides since the 1979 Islamic revolution
Growing rift
The EU's approach contrasts sharply with that of the United States, which has sought to isolate Iran internationally.
Mr Patten told the newspaper America's policy undermined the EU's efforts towards Iran and North Korea.
Chris Patten: The US is preoccupied with fighting terrorism
"There is more to be said for trying to engage and to draw these societies into the international community than to cut them off," he said.
The EU commissioner questioned whether an "axis of evil" existed at all, saying there was no evidence the three countries were co-operating in developing weapons of mass destruction.
Mr Patten criticised the United States for focusing more on wiping out terrorism than trying to eradicate its causes.
The former British governor to Hong Kong said it was more important to provide assistance for underdeveloped states
"We know... how important it is to handle failed states properly - and to prevent them failing in the first place.
Relations have been warming between the EU and Iran
"We have realised that we have to tackle 'the root causes of terrorism and violence', he said, adding that "smart bombs have their place but smart development assistance seems to me even more significant," he said.
Mr Patten's comments come a day after French Prime Minister Lionel Jospin called on the US not to resort to unilateralism or become fixated with the war against terrorism.
|
|
|  |
 |
|
Lars-E
|
|
I agree with the majority in the CNN poll. Who did they ask - Americans?
American policy is too simplistic due to at least one factor: Lack of knowledge which is a common American problem.
|
|
|  |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:17. Apolyton Time is 00:17. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|