Comments on: “Never Again”? OR, “Only Occasionally”? http://politicsandpress.com/2006/%e2%80%9cnever-again%e2%80%9d-or-%e2%80%9conly-occasionally%e2%80%9d/ The interaction of the press and politics; public diplomacy, and daily absurdities. Sat, 22 Nov 2008 07:24:11 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.0.3 by: Jeff http://politicsandpress.com/2006/%e2%80%9cnever-again%e2%80%9d-or-%e2%80%9conly-occasionally%e2%80%9d/#comment-55 Sun, 19 Nov 2006 04:02:25 +0000 http://politicsandpress.com/2006/%e2%80%9cnever-again%e2%80%9d-or-%e2%80%9conly-occasionally%e2%80%9d/#comment-55 I am moving slowly toward the view that the UN is irrelevant - not on any moral basis but on a practical basis. Here is what I think I see: Darfur is a genocide - basic agreement on that, I would hope - UN wants to put peacekeepers into Sudan to protect people of Darfur and the world agrees. Except Sudan. Sudan is then supported by China who has big appetite for oil which can be partially satisfied by Sudan. UN therefore cannot send troops into a country that is complicit (to put it mildly) in the genocide. So the genocide continues. If the UN were to put troops in and they were faced with - Dog help us - violence, and were to ask for permission to use live ammunition NY headquarters could be expected to do as they did in Rwanda and Srebenica - \"no no. Just watch it happen.\" As for the U.S. - well Bush said he had a lot of political capital after the 2004 aelection nd he would use it. And so he has. On September 12, 2001 the U.S. had a load of moral capital and Bush has also used that. Awfully hard for the U.S. to play the moral edge card after Iraq. It is no longer possible to ignore the ugly realities of the damage done in the international arena by the current administration. I am moving slowly toward the view that the UN is irrelevant - not on any moral basis but on a practical basis. Here is what I think I see: Darfur is a genocide - basic agreement on that, I would hope - UN wants to put peacekeepers into Sudan to protect people of Darfur and the world agrees. Except Sudan. Sudan is then supported by China who has big appetite for oil which can be partially satisfied by Sudan. UN therefore cannot send troops into a country that is complicit (to put it mildly) in the genocide. So the genocide continues. If the UN were to put troops in and they were faced with - Dog help us - violence, and were to ask for permission to use live ammunition NY headquarters could be expected to do as they did in Rwanda and Srebenica - \”no no. Just watch it happen.\”

As for the U.S. - well Bush said he had a lot of political capital after the 2004 aelection nd he would use it. And so he has. On September 12, 2001 the U.S. had a load of moral capital and Bush has also used that. Awfully hard for the U.S. to play the moral edge card after Iraq. It is no longer possible to ignore the ugly realities of the damage done in the international arena by the current administration.

]]> by: Jr. http://politicsandpress.com/2006/%e2%80%9cnever-again%e2%80%9d-or-%e2%80%9conly-occasionally%e2%80%9d/#comment-54 Sun, 19 Nov 2006 02:48:08 +0000 http://politicsandpress.com/2006/%e2%80%9cnever-again%e2%80%9d-or-%e2%80%9conly-occasionally%e2%80%9d/#comment-54 As I read about Darfur, and all the humanitarian catastrophes that have occurred on the African Continent in recent history, I ache for a different foreign policy. Correct me if I’m wrong, but I think President Bill Clinton was on the right (or at least righteous) path, when he almost formed a Clinton Doctrine. In deciding to intervene militarily in the Balkans, he was basing his foreign policy on intervention in matters of genocide, and crimes against humanity. Of course over the last couple years of his Presidency, our buddy Bill proved to be a political pussy, and would not follow-up on his humanitarian commitment. The Balkan War and the First Gulf War were the most successful wars the United States has been involved in, since World War II (if you discount Grenada – what a joke). It is not a coincidence that these were also two wars that were, at their core, morally and ethically righteous. The same goes for World War I and II. This has become a bit of cliché, but as the only superpower, we have an obligation to do the right thing for the world, not only because we should and can; but because it is in our best interest to do so. The world would understand we are not afraid to use our military when it becomes necessary, and we would be leading by example. The United States could stand for a little international good will. At some point, Africa will become an important trading partner, and last time I checked, they had the Texas Tea. I argue if we use our power only to help humanity, as our priority, we can not lose. If we use force for any other purpose, we can not win – Vietnam, Korea, Iraq. We know that the current administration holds the U.N. in low regard, and does not abide by any disagreeable decisions or resolutions. The Darfur nightmare gives Bush and Cheney an opportunity to buck the U.N. for the right reasons, this time around. Too bad they blew their political wad on Saddam. He was bad, but contained. Darfur is not contained - unfortunately when it becomes contained, it may be too late. It may already be too late? And fuck China. Oops I forgot, we can’t, they own too much of our debt…. As I read about Darfur, and all the humanitarian catastrophes that have occurred on the African Continent in recent history, I ache for a different foreign policy. Correct me if I’m wrong, but I think President Bill Clinton was on the right (or at least righteous) path, when he almost formed a Clinton Doctrine. In deciding to intervene militarily in the Balkans, he was basing his foreign policy on intervention in matters of genocide, and crimes against humanity. Of course over the last couple years of his Presidency, our buddy Bill proved to be a political pussy, and would not follow-up on his humanitarian commitment.

The Balkan War and the First Gulf War were the most successful wars the United States has been involved in, since World War II (if you discount Grenada – what a joke). It is not a coincidence that these were also two wars that were, at their core, morally and ethically righteous. The same goes for World War I and II.

This has become a bit of cliché, but as the only superpower, we have an obligation to do the right thing for the world, not only because we should and can; but because it is in our best interest to do so. The world would understand we are not afraid to use our military when it becomes necessary, and we would be leading by example. The United States could stand for a little international good will. At some point, Africa will become an important trading partner, and last time I checked, they had the Texas Tea. I argue if we use our power only to help humanity, as our priority, we can not lose. If we use force for any other purpose, we can not win – Vietnam, Korea, Iraq.

We know that the current administration holds the U.N. in low regard, and does not abide by any disagreeable decisions or resolutions. The Darfur nightmare gives Bush and Cheney an opportunity to buck the U.N. for the right reasons, this time around. Too bad they blew their political wad on Saddam. He was bad, but contained. Darfur is not contained - unfortunately when it becomes contained, it may be too late. It may already be too late?

And fuck China. Oops I forgot, we can’t, they own too much of our debt….

]]>