 |
| |
|
|
Velociryx
|
 |
of Candle'Bre
Apr 1999
time: 05:25
|
|
Despite the trechery we face at home, with Shrub & Co. trying to steal our freedoms away while we're not looking, this post Cold-War era presents enormous opportunities for the Democratized West, if only we will work together and take them.
Now, I have no doubts that our illustrious "leader" will utterly fail to do anything even remotely similar to the stuff outlined below, and so, it amounts to just so much wishful thinking on my part, but since I AM thinking wishfully, I may as well go whole hog and lay it all out.
I rant on an almost *constant* basis against people who do nothing but b*tch and complain about the status quo without providing an alternative, and so, it would be the gravest form of hypocracy if I did the same. I realize that the moment I hit the ol' "submit" button and publish this post onto the forum, I'll undoubtedly subject myself and my thoughts to scorn and criticism. So be it, and WHEN it occurs, I will take at least some measure of comfort in the knowledge that the bulk of those who tell me how foolish my ideas are will lack the nads to put their own ideas "out there" for public consumption and review. That is the irony of the boards, however, and it is reflective of the irony we see play out on a daily basis in the global arena.
So...having said all of that, here goes nothing:
Part One - The underlying framework
* In the West's winning of the Cold War, a lot of unsavory $hit was done. It's something that ALL nations on this side of the ideological fence have to take a portion of the blame for, even if America must shoulder the greater burden of that blame. Things were done in the winning of the cold war that we cannot possibly be proud of, and now that we, the victors, hold center stage, it's time to put those mistakes to rights.
* We have a moral obligation to fix our mistakes. In the winning of the Cold War, we gleefully meddled in the affairs of other, smaller and weaker nations, we propped up all manner of unsavory dictators to further our own interests, we funded and trained terrorists, and more. All of these self-made boogey men are still out there, armed with the weapons and training that WE provided them, and all willing to cause trouble (and, it should be noted, that many of these wholesome individuals have stated on more than one occassion their desire to see the Western World in general (and America in particular) burn for our behavior. Therefore, it's time to take out the garbage.
* If we truly believe the ideals upon which our nation was founded, and the ideals that the whole of the Western world fought the Cold War to maintain, then we also have an obligation to foster and develop democracy in those countries that do not currently enjoy it.
Democracy is an enormously empowering idea, but it cannot spring forth on a barren plain. It requires infrastructure to thrive, and we, the Western World, CANNOT shy away from spending the necessary resources to build the infrastructure to allow Democracy to take root in these other nations.
* The UN has a role to play here, and all of these actions should take place under the control of, and at the direction of the UN, so that no one nation is able to dominate the shape and direction of global democratic reform, nor install governments that would be inherently favorable to any singular nation state. The goal here is not to further national interests by installing a series of nominally democratic governments who blindly and eagerly follow the dictates and commands of any one nation (presumedly, the USA), but rather, to foster democratic ideals and principles on a global scale.
What is the profit in doing so? Why should ANY nation set aside it's own national best interests to participate in this globalization of Democracy? The reasons are manifold, but the most significant ones are these:
* The Global spread of Democracy would make the world a safer place to live. Tin-Pot dictators love lobbing missiles at each other. They love mobalizing their armies and playing god in their local regions (and sometimes, beyond that). If we wish to see a dramatic dropoff, and perhaps even the disappearance of such things, then a democratized world is a fine way to start. In short, a democratized world is a SAFER world.
* A Democratized world is a better educated world. I'll get to this later on, and go into more detail, but for Democracy to work, the people of a given country must be at least somewhat educated, literate and informed. Better education is a stabalizing force, and leads to increased innovation in every nation.
* More opportunities for trade and commerce. Given the greater safety and security that a democratized world represents, businesses from all over the globe would have a higher degree of safety when opening up shop in these newly democrized nations. This leads to the creation of more jobs, and has the effect of raising the standard of living in those nations. As their standard of living increases, their demand for goods and services increases, and the market grows stronger. Businesses are risk-averse, however, and will not make this move in a region of instability unless it is on an extremely short term basis (contractually, rather than, say, investing in a physical plant or facility).
Thus, it can fairly be said that the plan as outlined will not be of lopsided benefit to any one nation, but will benefit all nations as peace and stability spread, and standard of living rises.
None of this, however, will be possible with the UN in its current running condition. The system needs an overhaul, and it needs it now. The US should use its influence in that organization, and in cooperation with its allies, fix everything that's broken about the UN (this list is, currently too long to even contemplate putting here, and should be more fully explored in another thread devoted to that singular topic), and it needs to be done with all possible speed.
Part of the UN's restructuring needs are to give that organization "teeth." As it stands now, the UN is a hand-wringing paper tiger. The US can take a leading role in this area, by leading by example. This would involve paying of all back dues, and keeping those payments current going forward, and abiding by UN resolutions across the board, even when those resolutions come down not in their favor (IE - pay Nicaragua what they're owed for our funding of terrorism there, etc). Once WE have led by example, any other member nation not in full compliance with UN resolutions, and not caught up on their dues, should be given a set timeframe to bring them into full complaince, or kick them out of the organization.
Another part of the UN revamping would be to either kick out, or sorely curtail the involvement of non-democratic governments (perhaps by denying any non-democratic government veto powers--yes, that means you, China--or by banning non-democratic nations from serving on any council positions, or both).
The UN's new mandate should be three-fold:
1) Disaster relief - This includes everything from sending food to drought victims the world over, to providing manpower, equipment and logistics support in the face of natural (or man made) disasters.
2) Health Care Assistance - expanded to include UN grants to students in developing countries who wish to study abroad to become doctors, with the proviso that they return to their homeland to practice medicine once their training was complete
3) Globalization of Democratic Ideals (the Human Rights commission would fall under this category)
Part Two - Taking out the trash
The revised UN Security council should make a list of all the cold-war boogey men out there, and assess their relative strengths and threat potential, and we should start with the largest and most threatening first, and work our way down, with the stated goal being the removal of dictatorial powers FROM those nations, the installation of a UN-temporary government to provide an umbrella of safety for the nation's populace while infrastructure is built, followed by free democratic elections, and the UN MUST be fully committed to staying in the country until the job is finished and the newly elected government is capable of standing on its own, without UN assistance.
Containment should NOT be considered a viable alternative. Containment is a morally weak position that merely "puts off" dealing with the tyrant for another day. It may be the case that "containment" policy may have to be adopted for those dictators "lower on the list" until they can be dealt with in turn, but is should NEVER be considered as the primary means of dealing with the thieves of liberty.
Appeasement of any sort should never be contemplated, regardless of the situation.
More later, my hands are tired from all the typing.
-=Vel=-
(flame away!  )
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Comrade Tassadar
|
|
quote:
Despite the trechery we face at home, with Shrub & Co. trying to steal our freedoms away while we're not looking, this post Cold-War era presents enormous opportunities for the Democratized West, if only we will work together and take them.
Now, I have no doubts that our illustrious "leader" will utterly fail to do anything even remotely similar to the stuff outlined below, and so, it amounts to just so much wishful thinking on my part, but since I AM thinking wishfully, I may as well go whole hog and lay it all out.
I rant on an almost *constant* basis against people who do nothing but b*tch and complain about the status quo without providing an alternative, and so, it would be the gravest form of hypocracy if I did the same. I realize that the moment I hit the ol' "submit" button and publish this post onto the forum, I'll undoubtedly subject myself and my thoughts to scorn and criticism. So be it, and WHEN it occurs, I will take at least some measure of comfort in the knowledge that the bulk of those who tell me how foolish my ideas are will lack the nads to put their own ideas "out there" for public consumption and review. That is the irony of the boards, however, and it is reflective of the irony we see play out on a daily basis in the global arena.
So...having said all of that, here goes nothing:
Part One - The underlying framework
* In the West's winning of the Cold War, a lot of unsavory $hit was done. It's something that ALL nations on this side of the ideological fence have to take a portion of the blame for, even if America must shoulder the greater burden of that blame. Things were done in the winning of the cold war that we cannot possibly be proud of, and now that we, the victors, hold center stage, it's time to put those mistakes to rights.
* We have a moral obligation to fix our mistakes. In the winning of the Cold War, we gleefully meddled in the affairs of other, smaller and weaker nations, we propped up all manner of unsavory dictators to further our own interests, we funded and trained terrorists, and more. All of these self-made boogey men are still out there, armed with the weapons and training that WE provided them, and all willing to cause trouble (and, it should be noted, that many of these wholesome individuals have stated on more than one occassion their desire to see the Western World in general (and America in particular) burn for our behavior. Therefore, it's time to take out the garbage.
* If we truly believe the ideals upon which our nation was founded, and the ideals that the whole of the Western world fought the Cold War to maintain, then we also have an obligation to foster and develop democracy in those countries that do not currently enjoy it.
Democracy is an enormously empowering idea, but it cannot spring forth on a barren plain. It requires infrastructure to thrive, and we, the Western World, CANNOT shy away from spending the necessary resources to build the infrastructure to allow Democracy to take root in these other nations.
* The UN has a role to play here, and all of these actions should take place under the control of, and at the direction of the UN, so that no one nation is able to dominate the shape and direction of global democratic reform, nor install governments that would be inherently favorable to any singular nation state. The goal here is not to further national interests by installing a series of nominally democratic governments who blindly and eagerly follow the dictates and commands of any one nation (presumedly, the USA), but rather, to foster democratic ideals and principles on a global scale.
What is the profit in doing so? Why should ANY nation set aside it's own national best interests to participate in this globalization of Democracy? The reasons are manifold, but the most significant ones are these:
* The Global spread of Democracy would make the world a safer place to live. Tin-Pot dictators love lobbing missiles at each other. They love mobalizing their armies and playing god in their local regions (and sometimes, beyond that). If we wish to see a dramatic dropoff, and perhaps even the disappearance of such things, then a democratized world is a fine way to start. In short, a democratized world is a SAFER world.
* A Democratized world is a better educated world. I'll get to this later on, and go into more detail, but for Democracy to work, the people of a given country must be at least somewhat educated, literate and informed. Better education is a stabalizing force, and leads to increased innovation in every nation.
* More opportunities for trade and commerce. Given the greater safety and security that a democratized world represents, businesses from all over the globe would have a higher degree of safety when opening up shop in these newly democrized nations. This leads to the creation of more jobs, and has the effect of raising the standard of living in those nations. As their standard of living increases, their demand for goods and services increases, and the market grows stronger. Businesses are risk-averse, however, and will not make this move in a region of instability unless it is on an extremely short term basis (contractually, rather than, say, investing in a physical plant or facility).
Thus, it can fairly be said that the plan as outlined will not be of lopsided benefit to any one nation, but will benefit all nations as peace and stability spread, and standard of living rises.
None of this, however, will be possible with the UN in its current running condition. The system needs an overhaul, and it needs it now. The US should use its influence in that organization, and in cooperation with its allies, fix everything that's broken about the UN (this list is, currently too long to even contemplate putting here, and should be more fully explored in another thread devoted to that singular topic), and it needs to be done with all possible speed.
Part of the UN's restructuring needs are to give that organization "teeth." As it stands now, the UN is a hand-wringing paper tiger. The US can take a leading role in this area, by leading by example. This would involve paying of all back dues, and keeping those payments current going forward, and abiding by UN resolutions across the board, even when those resolutions come down not in their favor (IE - pay Nicaragua what they're owed for our funding of terrorism there, etc). Once WE have led by example, any other member nation not in full compliance with UN resolutions, and not caught up on their dues, should be given a set timeframe to bring them into full complaince, or kick them out of the organization.
Another part of the UN revamping would be to either kick out, or sorely curtail the involvement of non-democratic governments (perhaps by denying any non-democratic government veto powers--yes, that means you, China--or by banning non-democratic nations from serving on any council positions, or both).
The UN's new mandate should be three-fold:
1) Disaster relief - This includes everything from sending food to drought victims the world over, to providing manpower, equipment and logistics support in the face of natural (or man made) disasters.
2) Health Care Assistance - expanded to include UN grants to students in developing countries who wish to study abroad to become doctors, with the proviso that they return to their homeland to practice medicine once their training was complete
3) Globalization of Democratic Ideals (the Human Rights commission would fall under this category)
Part Two - Taking out the trash
The revised UN Security council should make a list of all the cold-war boogey men out there, and assess their relative strengths and threat potential, and we should start with the largest and most threatening first, and work our way down, with the stated goal being the removal of dictatorial powers FROM those nations, the installation of a UN-temporary government to provide an umbrella of safety for the nation's populace while infrastructure is built, followed by free democratic elections, and the UN MUST be fully committed to staying in the country until the job is finished and the newly elected government is capable of standing on its own, without UN assistance.
Containment should NOT be considered a viable alternative. Containment is a morally weak position that merely "puts off" dealing with the tyrant for another day. It may be the case that "containment" policy may have to be adopted for those dictators "lower on the list" until they can be dealt with in turn, but is should NEVER be considered as the primary means of dealing with the thieves of liberty.
Appeasement of any sort should never be contemplated, regardless of the situation.
More later, my hands are tired from all the typing.
-=Vel=-
(flame away! ) |
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
chegitz guevara
|
 |
Ft. Lauderdale, FL Communist Party of Apolyton
Jun 2000
time: 00:25
|
|
Changing the world starts at home. Before we go fixing the problems we created in the rest of the world, we need to fix our own problems at home. By this I don't mean an isolationist "America First" policy. More to the point, unless we fix what's wrong here in America, unless we democratize ourselves, we will be incapable of fixing the problems we created in the rest of the world.
Those prblems in the rest of the world weren't simply created to contain the USSR, although it accomplished that goal. The problems were largely caused to advanced the economic interests of the American elite, an elite that still rules the United States and still has those same economic interests abroad. The ruling class of the United States will stand firmly in the way of any attempt to limit their priveledges aborad. Unless we can check their power at home, we won't have the strength to check their power abroad.
How to do this? In every state of the union we need laws that do the following: public financing of elections, recall of elected officials, citizen initiatives which require a super majority of the legislatures to overturn, proportional division of electoral votes, and proportional elections for at least one legislative house.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
chegitz guevara
|
|
Ft. Lauderdale, FL Communist Party of Apolyton
Jun 2000
time: 00:25
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Velociryx
I disagree.
We *created* these problems and thrust them onto the backs of those in other countries without caring whether our problems at home were solved or not, and we have, at our disposal, the resources to pursue both goals. |
Incorrect. We did not create the problem. Our government, in the interests of the American ruling class, created the problem. One of my comrades from New York used to remark thus on American democracy: Compare the Cuban and American governments. Cuba's had one president for the past forty years. In that time they've tried dozens of policies. The US has had nine presidents in the same period, but we've only had one policy. Which government is more democratic?
The point is, the American people have never had a substantive choice in our elections. We can chose between Tweedle-Dum and Tweedle-Dee, Demopublican or Republicrat, Republican or Republican-lite. Until we have a real choice, until we have a viable choice, we cannot change our government to one which will carry out the programs you advocate.
The Republican and Democratic Parties are two-wings of the same Capitalist Party in the US. No matter for whom we vote, we don't get substantive difference. In states which have passed such changes as I advocate, there has been a stunning change in government. Maine's clean election laws reulted in 1/3rd of the government getting replaced with challengers, as opposed to the old system where 95% of incumbents returned to office. In Florida, we've forced laws upon the state government. In Arizona, they've recalled corrupt governors without having to wait until new elections. If we could spread these across the country, we'd have a government far more responsive to our demands as a people, rather than simply responsive to the elites who pay for their election campaigns.
Our first duty is to escape our own shackles. Only then can we be able to help others escape their shackles.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Velociryx
|
|
of Candle'Bre
Apr 1999
time: 05:25
|
|
Che, I see the point you are attempting to make, but still contend that you are incorrect. We elected the people who created the problems we now see in the world. Doesn't matter that we had to choose between "Tweedle-Dum and Tweedle-Dee" we still made a choice, and our chosen representatives played their hand. Therefore, inasmuch as we selected the headmen of the government, WE did indeed create the problem. Just because you personally didn't have a hand in it, is meaningless. We live in the United States of America, and the nation you call home had an active hand in creating these problems, therefore, we (all of us) have a moral obligation to attempt to address those problems.
Are reforms needed at home? They certainly are! No argument from me whatsoever on that point.
But to say that we cannot save a starving man abroad because we must first deal with a corrupted man at home is inaccurate and, IMO smacks of moral weakness.
We were more than willing to sacrifice the people of other countries in our prosecution of the cold war *despite* (and perhaps because of) our problems at home, and now, we must be willing to come to their aid WHILE fixing our problems at home, and it is possible to do both. Firstly, it is possible because we can distance ourselves from the process by working through a revamped, empowered UN, and secondly, we can do both because it is in capitalism's best long-term interests that it be done (any time you increase the total size of the economic pie, you make a capitalist salivate with desire....the plan outlined above, does that very thing).
So, while I agree with you that in the process, we MUST look to the homefront also, we have the resources to do both. We can, and we should.
-=Vel=-
|
|
| |
|
|
|
chegitz guevara
|
|
Ft. Lauderdale, FL Communist Party of Apolyton
Jun 2000
time: 00:25
|
|
Velociryx, my point is simply, until we are free, we won't be allowed to help anyone else.
It's not whether or not we have the resources, it's not a matter of focus. It's simply, we lack the political capacity to change anything abroad. As long as we are only given two choices of the exact same thing, what chance is there for us to help those whom we screwed over? As long as both parties refuse to act as we wish, what can we do?
Does this mean we ignore the plight of the Third World? What do you think the so-called anti-globalization movement is about? Forcing our leadership to stop screwing over the Third World. Despite massive protests in the streets, despite the opposition of most Americans, both parties have continued to support policies which screw the Third World.
Until we can get them out of office, our actions will have no results. Until we change the laws governing how we pick our government, we can't get them out of office.
Let me try an explain it this way. You're chained to a wall. So are a bunch of other prisoners. You can't reach them. Until you are free yourself, you cannot help your fellow prisoners.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Velociryx
|
|
of Candle'Bre
Apr 1999
time: 05:25
|
|
Then you miss the point of my initial post.
We are an imperfect people. We have an imperfect government. Not only the United States, but every government, and every people on the planet. Human beings have faults and flaws. They likely always will.
It is not my stated goal that we (as in, the US, acting with the support of the UN) fix the problems we face. We (the US and our allies) must seek to restructure the UN in such a way that empowers IT to do what we cannot do ourselves. We must strive to make it better than we ourselves are, and we can do that, as a global community.
To extend your analogy of the prisoners chained to the wall. Your way proposes that we (acting alone) attempt to unchain ourselves (fix our government) so that we may unchain the others. My proposal assumes that the chains that bind us are weak (and as you have demonstrated in your earlier posts, change IS occuring, even as we type), and so we (the prisoners chained to the wall, representing the nations of the Western World) bend the ear of the guard who is sympathetic to our plight (the UN) and promise him our collected aid and support (creating an empowered, restructured UN as outlined above), let HIM go into the next room to free the prisoners (the portion of the world suffering under monsters that we made), while we free ourselves from our shackles.
-=Vel=-
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:25.
Apolyton Time is 00:25. |
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
|
|
|
|
|
|
09-02-2003 05:44
.
|