Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Foreign Affairs Discussion Group -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Sam who wrote (58012)	11/20/2002 10:03:44 PM
From: Nadine Carroll	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

At the end of the day, due concern for the opinions of other states is for our own good, not for theirs Well, yes, Madison is concerned about the opinions of other states, but within the context of recommending a sober and reputable Senate to establish the "character" of United States aboard. Even as he recommends attention to the opinions of others, he pulls his punches, and how many errors and follies would she not have avoided, if the justice and propriety of her measures had, in every instance, been previously tried by the light in which they would probably appear to the unbiased part of mankind? Who are the "unbiased part of mankind"? Not, I think, whatever set of countries happen to find itself on the UNSC at any one moment. A more reputable audience is implied. Nor does weighing the advice of sober companions imply making yourself subservient to their orders. Syria, as such, is irrelevant. It just happens to be on the SC right now, and putting it in the way you put it ("How is our foreign policy made more legitimate by having Syria vote for it?") is a sure way to make it sound absurd. It isn't that Syria gives the policy more legitimacy, it is that the SC as a body does, at least in theory. How is Syria irrelevant? They have a vote, one that was thought important, for the sake of unanimity. The whole body of the SC is made up of five permanent members, who made sense at the end of WWII but do not anymore, and 10 random members such as Syria or Cameroon who rotate through. Only UN pariahs such as Israel are not allowed on the SC. So when I ask, how is our foreign policy legimitized by Syria's vote, I am asking, by what theory do we need to have our foreign policy approved by the UNSC? My answer: by none. The due attendance to the opinions of mankind is better served by listening to the advice of allies who wish us well, such as Britain. This we have done.