It appears that Blatham still embraces every left wing cliche of the '60s and '70s.
blatham wrote: US activity in the world has not been fundamentally humanitarian in motive but has been driven by economic self-interest. Far more commonly that supporting democratic governments, the US has supported dictatorships, often very cruel ones such as Sadaam or Pinochet or Marcos, etc, and has not moved to relieve atrocities and humanitarian tragedies even where economic interests were involved if they were of no consequence economically. It is not a good record, george, it's a lousy one. And it accounts for a lot of the bad feelings in the world towards America. As I've pointed out before, the people of Bophal have STILL not been compensated. That is 'ugly americanism' at its worst. ...
Compared to what?? Was the record of France or the UK towards their former colonies any better?
The Cold War stand off with the Soviet Empire was the overarching context for all of this history. We dealt with the situation and the governments in the world as they were - we didn't create them. Marcos delivered the best government then available in the Phillipines - their history since then generally confirms that. Pinochet took out an increasingly totalitarian leftist regime in Chile that was rapidly descending to a bloody revolution. He ruled for ten or so years, establishing the economic and political foundations for progress, and then voluntarily left the scene in favor a representative democracy - that is a far better record than Cromwell delivered at the end of England's civil war.
Many governments, democratic in form, oppress their and neighboring peoples: some more authoritarian regimes take constructive action to help their country evolve both politically and economically. The U.S. is not responsible for all the ills of the world, but we have generally done a better job in dealing with them than have our forebears in this business. Where were the former European colonial powers during the genocide in Rwanda? Why did the UK not stop Idi Amin in Uganda? or Robert Mugabwe in Zimbabwe? Read a history of the Boer War - the UK invented "concentration camps" then, killing tens of thousands in the process. Why didn't our European critics intervene to stop the 'ethnic cleansing' in their very midst in the former Yugoslavia? Show me an example of a nation that has consistently risen above its economic interest to benefit suffering humanity. Did ever-virtuous Sweden curtail the very profitable sale of iron ore and machined goods to Germany during WWII?
The United States gave with truly unprecedented generously to Europe, India and many other areas after WWII, but you have said that these actions were long ago and not reflective of us as we are today. On what basis do you make that claim?
Your views are your own, but you cannot claim either balance or historical consistency for them.
Depends on which side of the fence - but, yeah, it does show a certain tainting.
George, original post deleted, too sharp
In re. Setanta's post back around page 174
I saw this when I got up this morning, but had to go see my doctor this morning. When I got back Setanta's piece was "buried" in the back pages.
Setanta's overview of Livy's Roman history is first rate. I am less sure of its relevance to the present discussion. The Republic of Rome was an important influence on the founders of our republic, but the two are very dissimilar. The Roman Republic more closely resembled the modern Cosa Nostra, than the existing Federal Government. Though Setanta isn't guilty of it, too often folks try to find some parallel between the Fall of Rome and their doubts about the American situation. Roman decadence, hubris and overreach are compared with Madonna and American foreign policies, and the conclusion we are supposed to draw is obvious. There are valuable lessons to be learned from the Roman experience, but which are relevant here?
The Chinese example in Setanta's brief is less well drawn. The classical Chinese view of their place in the world was not just "midway between earth and Heaven", but China was also considered the actual center of the earth. Everything outside China was of little worth, or importance. Ethnocentric behavior is deeply imbedded in Chinese culture. The culture is fundamentally conservative and backward looking. The Chinese Golden Age was with its legendary founding emperors, and everything since has been decay and decline. During the 20th century Chinese traditional ways were challenged by nativist Nationalism and Communism. Though the Communists have had some success in restructuring Chinese society, I believe that the roots remain alive.
The Chinese dynastic cycle is an important key in understanding Chinese history. Let's illustrate the common dynastic cycle by starting at the height of one cycle and follow it to a similar height in a succeeding dynasty.
The Emperor is in full control of the country and administers it through the Mandarate. Mandarins are chosen by a civil service examination open to all. The civil service exams at this point are honestly conducted, though tilted toward young men whose families can provide special mentors in the Classics. Those who pass their exams will become a part of the nation's administrative structure, though they may spend their entire careers in a distant province. They will collect the taxes, administer the laws, and provide local leadership. The dams along the major rivers, and the network of roads will be in good repair. The storehouses will be filled with enough grain to feed the populace for one or two years. Prices will be stable, and most Chinese will be comfortable. The Imperial Court will be producing fine, high quality utensils, instruments, and art. In the Capitol, the Emperor will spend most of his time gratifying himself, but he will be in close touch with the overall administrative apparatus. These periods of prosperity usually last a generation, sometimes a little more. What happens?
Students begin to cheat on their exams with the connivance of their teachers and the proctors. Money changes hands and corruption seeps throughout the system. Being distant from the Capitol, the Magistrates willingness to cheat grows. Tax money sticks to local fingers, and payoffs are made up the chain-of-command. Grain is sold from the warehouses and the money enriches the Magistrate and a few merchants. The local requirement to keep up the roads and dikes is compromised. Inferior goods bought at inflationary prices at first and then the work isn't performed at all. As the money flows into the purses of corrupt officials, the peasants are forced more and more onto a barter economy. Sometimes the central government would try to ease the burden by issuing more money and inflation resulted with most of the money ending up in the hands of the few. For a while the production of high quality goods will continue because the wealth of the Imperial Court will still be growing. The Emperor spends much less time on administration, and more time with his bevy of wives. Eunuchs, always present in the Imperial Court, are trusted because they can have no families to enrich and so are given important places in administering the country. The eunuchs become incredibly corrupt, and the process of decline increases steadily for a generation. The People will know that the Mandate of Heaven is passing when eunuchs and women rule.
As administration falls into the lax hands of greedy eunuchs and women, the state of the country creeps toward failure. The Emperor demands more taxes to support his lifestyle and delivers less and less service. A bad year, or a major flood, often tips the balance and the death rate increases alarmingly. Lawlessness increases as the People struggle to survive. As things get worse in the countryside, dormant secret societies come back to life. The secret societies rob the granaries for food and the rich for money, and lead peasant revolts. At first peasant revolts are sporadic and easily put down by the Imperial Army. Force works for a while, but conditions don't get better because the Emperor has lost touch with reality. The secret societies become stronger and the revolts larger and more serious. Eventually the Imperial Army refuses to obey orders to brutally put down the peasants, from whom most of the soldiery came from. Once the Army shifts it's allegiance from the Dynasty to its own generals or the secret societies, the end is in sight. Warlords declare independence from the Capitol and struggle for dominance. War spreads across the country along with conditions that threaten the very survival of the population. The Mandate of Heaven has been withdrawn.
The Emperor is defeated in battle, and a period of disorder reigns as the strongest warlord seeks to consolidate his power. These are brutal times when thousand will be put to the sword just to make a point. Old scores are settled, and old allies humbled. The warlord will trust no one, and holds all power close. Generally the new Emperor will be a practical warrior with little culture, and less interest. Money and power dominate the Emperor who allows no dissent, and who makes no allowances for failure. The Mandate of Heaven has been restored, for a time. Civil service exams will become fair again and standards throughout the Empire steadily improve. The second generation will be novo riche, and the products of those Emperors tend to be gaudy, over decorated and often shoddy. By the third Emperor in the Dynasty things will be getting better, and by the fourth or fifth emperor the Dynasty will peak.
These dynastic cycles are very common, though the details provide endless variety for students of China. I don't see any great parallels between the dynastic history of China and the present state of the world. The United States is not China and our political cycles are not comparable. China has traditionally scorned everything that isn't Han, but I believe Americans have for the most part embraced difference and celebrated the variety of cultures that flock to our shores. China looks backward and inward; we look forward and outward. Again there are lessons to be learned, but I'm left uncertain as to which lessons Setanta would like us to draw. Maybe I'm just being dense.
I was disappointed that Setanta didn't devote more space to the British Empire, which I believe is far more relevant to thinking about where the United States should be going in the 21st century.
I have to say, George, that if nothing else your view of the Allende-Pinochet transition gives me chills I believe we should start getting more of our information from outside of the US. Inside this country, it's scary to hear more and more rightwing shouts becoming "facts." As someone who grew up in a Marshall Plan administrator's household, I can assure you that our political and economic interests led our eagerness to assist Europe after 1945. That's not to say we didn't do the right thing, but (as I keep repeating -- sorry!) we need to let others do the praising -- not congratulate ourselves so often and so shamelessly. We have done many good things and we have done one heckuva lot of bad things, and whatever we've done it has been "in our interest." When our interest becomes overpowering, we get that famous "blowback." Which is what we're getting now. And responding by trying to put out fire with fire. Not smart. Not smart at all.
Setanta, in an earlier brilliant examination of the histories of previous empires - Rome, China, England, France - concludes by saying that none of these is a model for the present world, but without making a distinction between the empires of the past and the hegemony the United States is alleged to have over much of the world. This was unfortunate in that the distinction is - at least in my view - critical to the question at hand. The U.S. does not govern extensive territory outside its proper borders as did the empires of the past. Despite this we are called an empire by some critics, who, in effect, say that because we have the power and potential to intervene and rule, we are therefore an empire. Any extraterritorial adventure, however well-intended or exceptional it may be or how well intended is taken as confirmation of that rather tenuous principle.
To his credit, Setanta, unlike many others, is clear that he wishes a higher standard be applied to the actions of the United States in these circumstances. Here is his conclusion;
Setanta wrote:
All of which brings me to the United States as "superpower." It is either naive or disingenuous to claim that American power is not imperial, or, at the least, hegemonic, in today's world. I would personally like to think that the human race builds not only upon a foundation of the accumulation of knowledge, but also of the experience of polities. Just as an individual will only enjoy the best that life has to offer by the process of maturation, so must nations also proceed. Human civilization ought to have reached, by now, the point at which old tribal values are abandoned, to be replaced by more realistic views of how more than six billion humans can live in peace on this planet. By all means, the United States needs to maintain an effective military, because the tribal fanatics are out there, their numbers are legion, and they have all the benefits of the technology of more stable, developed nations. This does not give the United States carte blanche, however, and the lessons i see from history suggest that we have a rare opportunity to use our power effectively. Ditching the United Nations will not accomplish anything constructive either for us or for the world.. Certainly, we need to "get the bastards" when and where appropriate, but we must not undercut our own values with regard to evidence, due process and justice in so doing. I also feel that we must not act alone, because then we become no better than the other militarily powerful nations who formed empires in the past. We have an opportunity to understand why so many others in the world are swayed to hatred of us, and we have an opportunity to act in a manner which, if it will not mollify all of our critics, at least will not do violence to the principles of a just society on which we like to pride ourselves.
I don't argue with Setanta's conclusions, but do note that we are still faced with the likelihood of either acting (almost) alone or not acting at all. Those who would "let the inspections work" (whatever that means) must acknowledge that without the direct threat of unilateral U.S. intervention, there would be no inspectors in Iraq. Indeed there would likely be no more economic sanctions either, and the resulting flood of oil money would then enable Saddam to do his worst.
It is nice to wish the world is ready for for a new, better age, but the facts don't support it.
It is equally nice and pious to argue for multilateralism, but if we are to be constrained by the least common denominator of the courage, wisdom, and resolution of our many allies and the greater number of observer powers that too want a voice - then our power won'l last very long, and the world may quickly discover that there are far worse alternatives waiting in the wings.
Steve, I meant no insult to the historical role of the British on the world stage. With a few exceptions, the British Empire was, relative to all others, benign and very often a beneficial contributor to the subsequent development and progress of the places she ruled. There would likely be no united India without the British Raj, etc.. The colonial governmental structures left behind in Africa and Asia were frequently the strongest assets these new countries had as they entered an independent existence in the modern world. The Boer War was Britain's Vietnam.
George:
Your posts leave me ... speechless ... believe me, it is better for you that they do!
Anon
The Brits did much to popularize the recreational use of opium ... some very old British Money has some less-than-respectable origins
On a par with Joe Kennedy's Canadian and European business dealings during Prohibition here, really. Neither Business nor Government are much populated by Saints. We're forced to draw our leaders from among the ranks of mere people. There really ought to be a better system.
timber
Sorry timber, I think God is already gainfully employed and the King was more than a "bent" system. If I'm not to terribly mistaken, the Bush past is quite clouded, also!
Timber
Lyndon LaRouche believes the British royal family is up to its neck in drug money. All true I'm sure.
Bill, Steve, good points.
As I mentioned, "There really ought to be a better system".
<sigh>
timber
BillW, Bush's past is not so clouded; many have seen what they've done during their grandpa's time and all subsequent periods. c.i.
timber
With some luck and the good intentions of folks like us, we'll maybe stumble through.
um anyone remember the Opium War? it was a bit more than a suggestion by the brits.
One of the first links on Goggle on "opium war."
http://serendipity.magnet.ch/wod/hongkong.html
c.i.
