Condoleezza Rice recently declared that the US would pursue their combat against the "evil forces" now clearly identified as a cohort of 7 emblematic tyranies, among which Cuba, Iran, Burma and Belarus.
Yet, surprise and consternation, the most totalitaristic country of the world, Saudi Arabia, the most monolithic tyrany of the world, China, the most caricatural tyranies of the world, as Turkmenistan and Uzbekistan, are not on the list. Neither are Libya, Syria, the Gulf's feodal monarchies, communist Vietnam, or some african autocracies among the fierciest ones.
Yet, compared to Saudi Arabia, Iran is a quasi-democracy; compared to Gaddafi's Libya, Zymbabwe is almost a liberal country, while the military plaus about the same role in Pakistan and in Burma.
Democratically changing the president of Egypt is even more difficult than in Belarus.
What is the criterion to be named a rogue state ? No political pluralism ? As in Venezuela, whose democratically elected government is blamed by Washington to attempt to reinstate it ?
Wouldn't it be rather: are you on the US' side ? Can our multinational companies behave as they want in your country ?
Gaddafi's regime has never been so repressive against its people. Yet it is now on the good side. Kuwait is digging in a middle-aging autoritarism but is elected a liberal democracy at the edge of progress.
A lot more could be said. What is your opinion about this selective conception of democracy ?
Burma?
You've got to be kidding? Burma? Compared to the human rights violations in China?
Belarus? You've got to be kidding? Belarus? Compared to the human rights violations in China?
Maybe I need to read up on Burma and Belarus.
Where was this kind of policy in Rwanda?
Why wasn't Idi Amin controlled?
Rapes in the Congo, Sudan, and the USA. Sex slavery in Singapore, France, the Middle East, and the USA.
Sweat shops in New York City, Mexico, China.
The world is a mess.
Maybe with such finite resources, the USA can only pick and choose those injustices which are expedient and profitable for her? I mean come on, we cannot solve the world's entire problems alone, can we?
We need the UN to send peacekeepers to the Congo! Oh! Been there done that and they've recently been found with their pants down with underage girls, literally. How exactly is that helping anyone?
Thanks for your contribution. I have to agree with most of the above, ie, the world is a mess. My intent is not to blame the US, just to point out the lack of objectivity of her choice regarding the rogue state to be watched over. But maybe one has to start with a few countries as "laboratories" to spread democracy all around, assuming that this simplistic understanding of foreign policy has any grasp on reality.
I think that this topic is controversial and everybody may chime in with arguments. In the end it may help to figure out if this option has any chance to come out to a sustainable world democracy.
Corruption breeds corruption even if its looks good, feels good, and sounds good. A dressed up pig is still a dressed up pig. Man's government outside of reliance upon Yahweh is a stinky pig.
How countries react to conflict, war and brutal regimes only appears to be inconsistent.
This is because the public always think and want the prime motivation for intervention to be humanitarian. Also we're more often than not sold intervention by politicians as humanitarian to get us to support the actions. But the majority of our actions are clearly to protect our strategic interests (this doesn't always mean that there is not a humanitarian aspect to the intervention but it will be secondary).
We can therefore do business with China, support Uzbekistan, and ignore genocide in Rwanda and war in the Congo, kick Iraq out of Kuwait while supporting Saudi Arabia. Our actions are consistent alright it's just not the kind of consistency politicians like to talk about.
03-12-2005 10:42 PM
