>From: "Technotranscendence" <neptune@mars.superlink.net>
>
>On Saturday, March 18, 2000 10:47 PM Zero Powers zero_powers@hotmail.com
>wrote:
>
> > You are not actually claiming that non-US citizens are more informed
>about
> > US foreign policy than Americans, are you? If you are, I must beg to
> > differ. Freedom of the press is one of our most cherished rights, and
>our
> > press is not shy in the least about putting Government policy (foreign
>or
> > otherwise) in a less than flattering light.
>
>This statement is good for the high school civics class, but the real world
>is different. Yes, the US has freedom of expression almost unprecedented
>elsewhere -- except when it comes to pornography or funding political
>campaigns.:) But Americans generally don't see the effect of US foreign
>policy and the things they do see from the major news organizations,
>including NPR and PBS, are usually tailored for specific responses. Sadly,
>most TV and radio new programs and newspapers in the US, tend to accept the
>State Department's press releases as news items and the final word on the
>subject.
>
>Witness how little Media criticism there was of the Persian Gulf War, the
>continued bombing of Iraq, and the recent NATO attack on Serbia. In fact,
>aside from some of the libertarian print Media (e.g., _Liberty_, which is
>an
>opinion magazine NOT a news journal), which is so small it's almost a joke,
>the only major new outlet that had a critical line toward the latter two
>happenings (the bombings of Iraq and Serbia) was WBAI, which is extremely
>marginal. Even NPR and PBS -- which are, sad to say, the best of the breed
>of mainstream news -- either ignored (in the case of Iraq) or cheerleaded
>on
>(in the case of Serbia) the attacks.
You seem to be of the opinion that where there is a lack of criticism, there
is a lack of objective journalism. The fact of the matter is that the
majority of Americans (if not the majority of the global population) were
not very critical of these interventions. In fact, without international
approval none of those actions would likely have been taken. There was in
fact detailed coverage of each of these occurrences and there was a good
deal of public discourse about the propriety of US action. I tend to think
that the absence of widespread criticism results more from widespread
approval of the policies than from the media acting as propaganda tools for
the US government.
> > This is called foreign policy. It's using your clout (political,
> >economic, or military) to induce your neighbors to act in your best
>interest.
> >*Every* nation does it (or tries, or wants to do it). But since the US
>has the
> >most clout it is usually the most successful at having other nations
>comply
> >with its wishes. Again, like it or no, this simply is not imperialism.
>
>I agree that it's natural to use foreign policy tools to "induce your
>neighbors to act in your best interest." This is the way of the world and
>I
>don't think our discussion is going to change that. However, what is
>called
>the "best interest" of any nation is usually NOT that nation's best
>interest, but the interest of whatever small group has the reigns of the
>foreign policy power at that time. Thus, we see, the recent bombings of
>the
>Sudan and Afghanistan -- to get some exiled Saudi terrorist -- were
>uncannily done when the President was down in the polls. I don't think it
>was in the interest of the American people to bomb those places. It,
>however, did appear to be in the interest of one man who had some
>popularity
>problems at the time.
True, and those concerns were much discussed in the press at the time. The
fact of the matter is that some things are the President's call to make.
You can't simply fire him just because he takes action which is politically
expedient for him. Of course if it rises to the level of high crimes and
misdemeanors, you can impeach him. But as recent experience teaches,
impeachment is not always an easy thing to do.
>I would go further to say that it is also NOT in the best interest of any
>nation to promote the use of force, which is 90% of the US foreign policy
>tool kit, to settle disputes. That's a very short range policy. It only
>works as long as one is powerful enough to enforce one's views on everyone
>else. The lesson it teaches one's neighbors is "might makes right."
I have to disagree. It seems to me that the US resorts to military action
only as a last resort, when all other efforts have clearly failed. A great
deal of US foreign policy centers on building international consensus to
isolate a "rogue" state, and attempting to impose political and economic
sanctions on those states. And further I can't think of a *single* instance
in recent history when US military action was used for any purpose other
than in response to military action which had been initiated by someone
else. I would hardly describe such a policy as "promoting" the use of
force. Would you have the US stand by debating the issue at the UN while
Iraq invaded Kuwait without provocation? Or while Serbia exterminated the
Albanian population in Kosovo? Like it or not, there *are* situations which
justify the use of US force in situations which do not directly threaten US
security.
-Zero
"I like dreams of the future better than the history of the past"
--Thomas Jefferson
______________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu Jul 27 2000 - 14:05:51 MDT