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: greenspirit who wrote (79822)	3/9/2003 9:04:12 PM
From: Dayuhan	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

Good point Steven, something to consider is under what framework this adoption is to be declared valid? Shall the agreement of a dictator in Libya determine the framework of agreement? Shall one nation such as France, Russia or Germany, cast the deciding stop-vote? The US has the veto power too, if you recall, and has found it useful at times. The veto system is there for a reason: to allow one nation the power to prevent its interests from being steamrolled by a coalition of others. Obviously it’s a power that needs to be used responsibly, and I would have no objection to discussion of an override system, if we think it necessary. We have to understand, though, that such a system may someday be used against us. What is important here is that we work, to the greatest extent possible, within the existing system, and this we have not done. The system is embryonic, awkward, and highly imperfect, but it is all we have. I don’t think anybody sees it as a finished product, but the potential is there for it to work and to be improved. The idea of scrapping it and replacing it with chaos, or with an equally imperfect replacement, simply because it fails to serve our interest in any given case is irresponsible in the extreme. We need to recall that the institutions we’re talking about do not exist simply to serve our interests. It’s fairly pointless to ask whether the agreement of a dictator in Libya should be the deciding factor, because it isn’t. The resistance we’re meeting is not coming primarily from dictators. A great deal of it is coming from democracies. It’s also counterproductive to count resistance to our initiatives as “pro-Saddam”. There are a lot of people who don’t like Saddam one bit, but still feel that the US approach to the problem is excessively disdainful of the existing conflict resolution system and of the rest of the free world. Many leaders that support the idea of an upgraded inspection/sanction regime do so not because they think these will solve the problem, but because they need more time and more evidence to sell the idea to their own highly skeptical populations. This is not an unreasonable idea: we can'’ remove or fully disarm Saddam this way, but we can force him to freeze further development. If we can accomplish this, and spend some time – even a year or two – maneuvering to create a situation where there may not be consensus, but there is a strong majority on our side. There’s a widespread perception that the US wanted a war from day 1, and never made any serious effort to find another way. This perception is not without foundation. Much of the posturing rhetoric from Washington is intended for domestic consumption; our politicians must at all cost preserve their images. We forget, sometimes, that others take these words at face value, and that they often make it much more difficult to rally support behind our objectives. 100% agreement will rarely occur. Less than that, the claim that "they are acting unilaterally" can always be made. 100% agreement will never occur, and the claim of unilateralism will always be made. If we really do make our best effort to abide by the international norms that we helped to create, and if we really do treat war as a matter of last resort, the disagreement and the claim will be limited to a fringe minority. The people of the free world are more reasonable than we sometimes believe. The precise adoption of what constitutes the framework of consensus is where the struggle begins and ends. I would agree with this, with the provision that the goal is not consensus, but a significant majority. America has taken the lead and will continue to take the lead in assuming the responsibility of defending freedom and democracy. It's a responsibility only we can bear. Others are simply not capable of shouldering this burden. This I believe is overstated, and places excessive emphasis on the military. Military action is only one part of the struggle to achieve and maintain democracy, and not necessarily the most important part. A reasonably united free-world alliance is critically important to the promotion of freedom; I would say more important than any other single factor. We should never make the mistake of assuming that because we have the largest army, our perception of the most effective way of preserving and promoting freedom is necessarily correct. With that responsibility an exercise in leadership is called for. I agree. I cannot see any way, though, that our current policies can be construed as effective or responsible leadership. There are some questions that we have to look at when we talk about leadership. How do we plan to lead? According to the principles on which our nation was founded, or according to our preferences at any given moment? Do we believe that leadership derives from the consent of those led, or do we not? Do we believe that leaders are accountable to those they lead, or not? Politicians and ideologues may get a terrific high out of announcing that sometimes we, as leaders, have to do what we think is right even without the approval of those we claim to lead. But would we accept that style of leadership from those that lead us? Of course we wouldn’t. Our choice is not between leadership based on consent and accountability and leadership based on dominant force. It’s between leadership based on consent and accountability and the renunciation of leadership. If we don’t base our leadership on consent and accountability, we cease to lead. The free world cannot be led any other way. If it could be, it wouldn’t be the free world. If the issue is important enough to our national security, we must force compliance and let history be the judge of whether we were right or wrong. I have seen no convincing case made to suggest that this issue achieves this level of importance. Every nation in the world wasn't attacked on 9/11. America was. That simple truth is what many forget when academically analyzing the decisions of whether we go to war. Other nations have suffered from terrorism, and many others have suffered far more from war than we have. We are sometimes inclined to forget these things.