Time for U.S. to take some humility pills
Well we can all use some humility now and then...
George W. Bush talks international cooperation, but when it comes to international agreements - on global warming, law of the sea, the Geneva Convention, the ABM treaty - he adopts a my-way-or-the-highway approach. And Americans like him for it.
We've discussed this one before. Not going along with a multilateral agreement isn't "my way or the highway". I don't think the problem here is arogance as much as disagreement. Specifically in each case we either have not ratified the agreement and thus are not a party to it (the Kyoto treaty was ratified by almost anyone), or we did not violate it (Geneva Convention), or we exercised a clause in the agreement that allowed us to withdraw (ABM treaty). Treaties and agreements don't exist for their own sake, they are there because the signatories think that the agreement benefits them. If we don't think the treaty is a good idea then we shouldn't be part of it.
In our past discussions you did make a good point about being more diplomatic, but I don't actually think that the diplomacy from the US on these issues is really worse then that of most of the other countries involved of course if it was better then it would help us, and there is always room from improvment here.
In short, we confuse being a moralistic nation (which we are) with being a moral one (which we are not).
Well if America is not a moral nation its about as close as it gets. Any time in the past that someone has had our level of power they have used it to carve out empires. I agree with the author that self interest is the prime moptivator of our government's actions, and I agree that the US is hardly saintly so I think he does have a point but i think there is a strong motivation in the US to try to do the right thing. (Of course its our opinion of what is the right thing :)
He's done it with "the evil axis" of North Korea, Iran and Iraq, and lately has added Fidel Castro to the list, calling him an "evil tyrant."
That is not only not very useful, it is dangerous because it suggests that it is our mission, as the embodiment of good on the planet, to rid the world of these evil regimes.
I don't see anything wrong in recognizing evil. And if we could rid the world of these evil regimes without a high cost to ourselves or a horrible cost to the countries involved then it would be a very good thing.
I do see a danger of the US trying to impose its will around the world a bit too much in ways that are not justified, but I don't think it is a major danger. We would go after those who threaten us and our interests and allies, but theres no plans for world conquest...
I think it's best for politicians to leave the consideration of evil to theologians
If a regime is evil I have no problem recognizing that fact, but usually it will mean learning to live with it, or working in small ways against it. If the US invades a couple of dozen "evil countries" then I would be against it, but I don't see it happening.
We're not as smart as we think we are, and, while we're on a good run right
now, it won't last forever. It never has.
True but then there is always the idea of "use it why you have it" <g>. Seriously I don't think the US is going to act like the British or the Roman empires, and I would be against it if our country did move in that direction.
Tim |
