Jim, shouldn't have told you to GFY. I apologize.
However, there is a serious question in this softwood thing that's been running parallel to the other discussion. It's implications are seized on by US enemies and worry its friends.
Canada hasn't been to the well with the softwood question just once or twice. It's actually a small matter in the US scheme of things (its consumers are only going to be ripped off by their own folk to the tune of about a billion and half dollars a year), and its only going to cause hardship in some obscure place outside the country. No, what's going on is not stated government policy but government institution is being used by private parties to cause harm in another country.
Let's look at something else that's been red hot for a long time. The US through its head of state, the president, has told the world, often and loudly, it stands four square for democracy, liberty and the inviolability of property necessary for liberty. Some Palestinians say truthfully, "Israel has dispossessed us from our land without compensation and is tyrannizing many of us," and ask, "Why does the US which says it stands for liberty and sanctity of property, support Israel when it does such things to us, supplying it with weapons and money?"
(The answer if it were forthcoming, is " Israel's neighbours are even worse, and we're hypnotized by all that oil just to the east." An answer that won't get Palestinians or their neighbours onside with the US.)
It's not reasonable to expect a person or country to be consistent about everything. That's not possible. But is it reasonable to expect consistency about most of the things they apparently hold to be important for themselves? The US is often consistent in formulation of its policy (eg, against communism, for democracy) but inconsistent in its application
Countries are not persons and I've avoided, so far, adjectives that might apply only to human character but they are run by men and women so I think such adjectives do apply. The US does not appear consistent or reliable in application of its policy. An ordinary adjective for this might be 'untrustworthy', a British person of a certain class might say 'unsound' others might say 'capricious'. Which adjectives we might use depends on where in the world we look from and whether or not our ox, or our neighbour's ox has been gored, but the fact of inconsistency remains..
Libya's neighbors are concerned because it hasn't been reliable/trustworthy, but the whole world is concerned when the only superpower appears in such a light. Leads to instability, enmity , loss of life sometimes.
An example that leads to instability, etc.: This inconsistent/untrustworthy appearance gives ammunition to enemies of the super power and its nervous allies. At a bare minimum the enemies down in the (eg) mideast trenches say, "What the US [the West] means when it says it stands for liberty and sanctity of property is, Ismail, it's OK for them, but not for you." of course they say a great deal more and act on some of it and it leads to organizations and events such as we've seen "revealed" very recently.
US foreign policy the last 10 years, particularly, appears to have been so aimless, so unstrategic, so inconsistent, so capricious, it might have been designed by the country's enemies. The very recent events were foreshadowed by what happened in the Balkans when Islamists part of, or aligned with, bin Laden's group, practiced scorched earth policies followed by 'relief' efforts and indoctrination efforts upon the population they deliberately impoverished (Kudrovsky, 1999?). (It wouldn't surprise me if the same has been attempted in Macedonia).
The rise, influence, and totalitarian nature of the Islamist movement was known to me over twenty years ago and I was alarmed by it then, and I'm an ordinary person with no particular resources, so I'm sure the US government and its agencies must have known also, as they have much greater resources than me, but there was no large policy forthcoming to deal with it.
When Iran blew up in the US's face under Carter and after, the totalitarian nature of mideast religious fundamentalism was made clear. Under following administrations there was no imaginative broadly written policy for dealing with it. Certainly there were none in harmony with the country's espoused values. I remember reading during the 1980s well before Kuwait invasion, in either Forbes or Barron's articles questioning whether US should be doing business with as dubious a character as Hussein. Policy for the area, such as it was/is, seems confined to bluster and punishment, the support of Israel, and minimal efforts to help Egypt.
Regimes in the area, with a few exceptions, are repressive and corrupt breeding grounds for civil resistance and the home of that, as Iran (and Egypt with assassination of Sadat) demonstrated over twenty years ago, is religion and its promise of totalitarianism. Still, there was no policy effort. No super enlarged State department desk, no large recruitment of American citizens of relevant ethnic origin to intelligence, domestic or foreign. Even five years ago, when the threat was clear, appropriate efforts were not made.
Does the American superpower have the obligation to take responsibility for the world's stability? Recent events demonstrate it does owe it to itself unless it wants to be in constant low level state of war which will visit the homeland from time to time perhaps with weapons more impressive than those used in the first visit.
Us policy needs to be in harmony with the country's espoused values and with as little ambiguity and capriciousness as possible.
Prosperous, democratic societies can deal with quite an amount of civil unrest and totalitarian movements because the greater part of the population won't participate - they don't have needs these movements fulfill.
At the very least, US policy should actively support and protect democratic and soon to be democratic regimes and very actively support their establishment where they don't yet exist. If this means breaking a lot of eggs to make a middle east omelette so be it. If it means establishing competition for madrassas governments won't, or can't, curtail then it should be done. Such a policy means foreclosing on the mercantalist nature of certain countries wherein kleptocracies might rule in perpetuity - this has implications for US trade policy and some head knocking might need be done at home.
It could be argued such a policy will be very costly but then, replacing the WTC and paying for the loss, is very costly isn't it? There is no divine revelation the world need turn to democracy instead of totalitarianism and recent history has demonstrated this.
Such policy won't lead to no conflict, and in the short run quite possibly will increase it, but will certainly in the long run, lessen it.
There are costs for being the super power. Time to pay the fare or the conductor will put you off the train at the next station.. |
