March 16, 2009
-
World-wide Economic and Political Unrest
I've been watching a lot of political TV lately - CSpan, CNN, CNBC, Fox-News, Bloomberg, that sort of thing. Beyond all the shouting, I've noticed a rising mention of the International aspect of this financial fiasco. In the 1920's there was a European financial collapse - made worse by our collapse in 1929. That economic unrest was a major factor in the rise of totalitarian states that led to WW2 and managed to cause the death of 70-100M people and a generation of horror for most of the rest of us.
All around the world there seems to be a rising disconnect between the actions and policies of national governments and the needs and demands of their citizens. This is the classic situation leading to the rise of demagogues and this type of leader is most likely the be both aggressive, chauvinistic, and eager to dominate their country and area of the world.
We already have several on-going examples ranging from Hugo Chavez Frias of Venezuela to Osama Bin Laden.
these and their ilk seek to overthrow the existing order in the name of "the people", Religion, National Pride, or whatever gains them their desired following. When the people of an area feel that they are not served by their existing government - they are ready to follow the New Leader.The U.S. is one of the few national governments with a built-in framework for political revolution (every four years) and thus is able to discourage the rise of radical demagogues while providing for fairly quick institutional change - that is perhaps how we have been able to have the most "progressively stable" government and economic systems in the world. Unfortunately we are now so powerful with so many world-wide comittments that we are vulnerable to attack in most of the world's regions and thus must take the lead in stabilizing world-wide economic systems.
Should we accept that responsibility?
Comments (13)
You're linked
Interesting question. I think the problem the U.S. has is it is caught between holding up ideas of self-government and maintaining its financial and military interest abroad. Look at how we supported the Somaza Dynasty in South America and that led to more and more unrest, not more stability. Iran is another case where the U.S. sought to "take the responsobility" of international finances and what was produced was more unrest.
In short I think we should work with other countries to help the global economy but we should not take the view that somehow we are Atlas and need to take the full load. Especially since that sentiment leads to more unrest.
The problem we have with either abrogating our assumed responsibility or turning the other cheek is that both encourage the demagogues to attack us either in the region or -nowadays- here at home. We seem to hoisted on the horns of a dilemma of our own making.
How do we get out of this mess without harming those of our allies who have come to depend on us?
Do we encourage attacks by abrogating some of the responsobility? Where is the evidence for this?
If it is true with what you say then it makes no difference if we take responsobility or not because according to the previous statement we will be attacked or targeted in any scenario. Logic therefore would dictate that we should take responsobility and work to control the situation. Yet I would question the basic assumption that we will be attacked either way.
What do you think?
Like Pilgrim of Truth mentioned, the U.S. has contributed to much of the world's instability, so abrogating the responsibility would be another case of bailout.
So yes, we should definitely accept the responsibility, but going forward drop the arrogant assumption that we know what's best for other people. Pushing our cheap, subsidized food onto other countries in the name of Free Trade, pushing industry onto agricultural countries in the name of Progress, pushing our Financial system... They all have resulted in the U.S. and other developed nations making massive profits off poor nations, and we don't understand why the world is so hostile to us. All the farmers who lost their only means of subsistence in poor countries did not have a social welfare program on which to fall back, so I can see why radicals like Chavez and Ahmedijenad would appeal to them.
Interesting that you brought up the WWII reference, because I'm taking a international politics course and the professor brought up the same thing.
One of the problems the U.S. faces in backing off from so close an association with countries like Iraq and Afganistan is the assumption we have that our committment to democracy and human rights and our definition of these ideals is the correct one even though our ideas conflict directly with the value systems and customs of those countries.
Apparently the Bush administration envisioned a kind of Western style bastion of democracy and enlightened individual rights in Iraq - combined with some sort of religiously devout but tolerant culture.
Iraq, one of the world's oldest cultures (One which has influenced Islam as much as Islam has influenced Iraq) quite naturally objects to having western ideals imposed on it . It is only since we toned down our missionairy position and began to deal with the Sunni and Shia on their own terms - encouraging them to select their own leaders while setting a specific time-table for turning their government and security back to them - that real progress in rehabing that sad country has been possible.
Our position in Afghanistan, while not so pervasive, is much the same. This in a country with a very long history of super-conservative, successful resistance to any outside invader. This, along with Pakistan is an area where hands-off politics has much to offer. We must judge whether we should opt for regional stability even though such stability is at the cost of both some human rights as we define them and revenge for 9/11. Doing this without compromising the Western World's security will be a good trick.
"Knowing what's best" is a moral question when the "best" is our definition of human rights. Should we condemn the women of Afghanistan to the constraints of Sharia?
Again I think we are starting from an incorrect conclusion. The question you pose, "Should we condemn the women of Afghanistan to the constraints of Sharia?"
Are we the ones condemning? The question implies that we can somehow change a culture. It is an illusion of control. Countries throughout the Middle East have to evolve on their own. He can help through education, example, and promoting human rights but we cannot achieve that by invading countries. Or if we do choose that route then we had better be ready for one long, costly fight. Many historians would now agree that the reason the Middle East is the way its is arises from decades of Western Imperialism. Again Iran is an example. Afghanistan with the Russians is another example that comes to mind. We should have never of went to Afghanistan as a crusading western power but instead as a force that was bent on destroying the Taliban and Al'Qaida for their attacks on 9/11. Just like we did in Japan and Germany we should have done there but instead we allowed American sentiment to get in the way and begin a larger "War on Terror". We are not some holy priest of liberty. We are one country among many, in this country gays are discriminated against actively. Should Europe invade to remedy this problem? Of course not. Should Europe have invaded to end segregation? Again the answer is apparent. This leaves us with a troubling conclusion to draw with regards to Sudan. We cannot change the minds of people and the customs of countries. Only the people of that country can do that. Yet many feel we cannot sit idly by and allow the slaughtering of millions. It is my argument however that we do not allow anything.
What? You don't think we can "Win Their Hearts and Minds"?
No I don't. I think it is a choice they have to make themselves. We can help, and we don't have to give in to Sharia but we are not authors of anyones destiny.
@PilgrimOfTruth -
@tychecat -
Bill Moyers Journal's recent interview with Karen Armstrong comes to mind... She talked about compassion, how we need to understand the pain and anger of the people who feel conquered and violated. Somehow I feel that once we become very good at this, we will no longer have a problem with winning the hearts and minds. I believe that U.S. lacks compassion in its foreign policy approach. As long as we have a democratic country, our approach to foreign policy will always be linked with the people en masse by the rest of the world. Whether it's good to be compassionate in the foreign policy arena, however, is a separate question.
Those women oppressed by Sharia laws, sure, they want to change things, but they're the ones who should determine what they want to do. If we tell the Afghans that you cannot do XYZ to your women because we believe ABC is good, then I doubt that we win the hearts+minds of the Afghan men or women.
This reminds me of Dorothy Roberts's book Killing the Black Body. She discusses the case with Planned Parenthood (PP) in Harlem. PP came to Harlem and started a birth control program that became successful with help of local people, but refused to let any of the Harlem leaders have a say in how the program was run. PP, run by whites, assumed that they knew what was best for the black women of Harlem.
I'm sensing that we're finally swinging to the compassionate side... as demonstrated by the debate you two are having.
Sigh.... Americans, mostly for historic reasons, tend to be pretty chauvinistic in the Moral Values area. Like most societies, we tend to think our values are the Best and Most Correct. We never have done culture clash very well.
Hopefully having a political administration headed by a President who actually is both well-grounded in basic American values but who has extensive exposure to alternative values, will allow our diplomatic exchanges with other cultures to be both more tolerant and more successful.
This will be a good trick - How do you do it without enraging the more conservative (read chauvinistic) members of our society?
As this debate winds down tychecat and gpspacey I think we have reached somewhat of a consensus. Before we begin next weeks topics I just wanted to close with this interesting observation, I was listening in the car today about a news report on the Afghan War and they had callers weighing in with their opinions about whether or not America could win this war. I was disheartened by the number of people who called in and said that the Afghan's would never have a Western style democracy because they were Afghans. I found that to be so racist. Its not like we are talking about Vulcans here Afghans are humans, no different then any other ethnic group. Yes their society is different but what does that mean?
As in any debate I took one side so ideas could be exchanged and I could learn more about the issue through discussion. In closing I do think the U.S. can win a war in Afghanastan and the Middle East can have a more liberty centered society. Yet the constant danger America must be vigil of is the idea that "America will do it" and that the "Afghans just don't get it." It is a policy that deappreciates individuals and is counterproductive.
Very good written post. It will be useful to everyone who employess it, including me. Keep up the good work – i will definitely read more posts.