Richard, RE: "Amy, removing oppression and poverty is obviously the answer but the devil is in the details and unfortunately the details in the 2nd half of the 20th century often position our foreign policy and business on the side of repression."
Our foreign policy may be at issue, and if so, how may that change?
As far as businesses being on the side of repression though, I would be curious why you think this? I'm not challenging you, I'm curious. Here's what I see: American companies generate business for overseas economies in various way, and this in turn gives jobs, which in turn gives financial well-being. It is said by others I know overseas, that American companies located overseas actually provide better standard of working conditions (including pay) than the local companies. If so, then this isn't repression, but is actually lifting. (I suppose one could argue it is repressive to the local business owners or local investors.)
RE: "we deal out of pragmatism, out of self-interest, not out of principle. That was my point to Amy."
You're right when one considers the USA's lack of caring when people in Rwanda were killed. The USA didn't have a self-interest in Rwanda, did it? But USA has a self-interest in oil.
And maybe that's where our leaders failed miserably.
They should get equally as vocal when many people in Rwanda are killed as they do with any other country (where the USA's self-interest exists.)
Equal vocalism is necessary. It could be one aspect of preventive medicine to terrorism, if terrorism is a response mechanism of any imbalance in the global system that created a lack of hope in any group.
I do not want any more terrorism in USA, my home, and would hope we enhance our foreign policy, so that it doesn't return.
Regards,
Amy J |
