Posted on 01/22/2002 1:51:05 AM PST by Arkle
First, all countries have foreign policies, and since much of the power arrangement between them is a zero-sum game, such policies are by definition crafted to act to the benefit of one state at the expense of the others. It does not surprise anyone intelligent that, for example, the foreign policy of Great Britain serves to advance Great Britian's interests, or that of Japan, Japan's. But the demand here is for U.S. foreign policy to act not merely in the interests of the U.S., but of those of the world as a whole, even when the latter act against the former. That's a pretty tall order, and it means that critics are demanding something unique in the world, perhaps beyond human wisdom, perhaps not even possible.
Such demands are not necessarily unreasonable, however, which is my second point, because I suggest the current international power arrangement may be unprecedented. Certainly this is so when we speak of "empires" - Rome, after all, had Carthage, Parthia, Persia, and a host of others in opposition, Athens had Sparta, the Asian empires had them, and so did the Mesoamerican empires. And so, of course, did the U.S. until the fall of the Soviet Union. And now it does not. What this implies is that a foreign policy in the hands of a state that disproportionately powerful must see its objectives interpreted as imperial diktats, simply due to the lack of tension caused by opposition by a state with both similar interests and comparable power to advance them. That is, I suspect, what fuels the indignance of its critics, and there isn't a lot to be done about it short of changing world power alignments again. And there is no guarantee that a return to a bi- or tri-polar world will constitute an improvement.
The demand, therefore, is that the U.S. craft a foreign policy quite unlike any the world has seen before. It's a lot to ask of a country struggling to manage its own internal affairs, to attempt to manage everyone else's as well. There is a necessary conflict between having the power to force events and the moral obligation to act in the interest of justice, and the limits of that power and the moral obligation to leave bad enough alone. It is not a conflict that can be resolved, those merely represent the two extremes between which any policy must steer.
There is also the peril inherent in paralysis caused by an attempt to reconcile conflicting demands that are in total irreconcilable. For example, the Palestinians may, and do, demand that the U.S. intervene on their behalf in the name of justice, the Israelis make a similar demand on behalf of their own security, the world in general demand that something be done to stop the fighting, and the critics demand that whatever it is, it has to meet all three requirements, and the U.S. voters demand that nothing be done because it will cost money and it isn't really their business anyhow. That would have to be a pretty remarkable policy, much less a pretty remarkable foreign policy.
I'm not suggesting the solution, I'm suggesting that there might not be one and that the only practicable course of action is to muddle along ad hoc as we have been all along. And that is hardly an "imperial" policy, but it may be the best one we'll get.
Republic and empire are not always opposites which exclude one another. The Athenians knew that, as did the Romans, as have some powers since.
Is empire good or bad?
The short answer is "Yes, it is good or bad." It depends on what it does and how it behaves.
I would not want us to rule over other peoples against their will as empires do, but we will have some "imperial" power, if not in the political and military spheres, than in the technological, economic, and cultural spheres. That is not necessarily a bad thing.
Is it really empire? Not in the classic sense, but the word empire does help to dispel some illusions that we may have.
States want power. And what's more, self-confident and assertive peoples also often want power. Companies and institutions seek power. Jefferson, like the other founders, was not devoid of the desire for power and empire. What matters is how you use it and what limits you recognize on your power.
Curiously, the author of this piece lives in Edmonton and is known as "Kaptain Kanada." As is so often the kase, his anti-imperialism is simply the stalking horse for his own Kanadian imperialism. Don't get fooled again.
Or 1,945 in Spain?
Well, in case Juan Carlos grows a third horn we can jump on him, arrest the Antichrist and send him to Gitmo.
I just hope we're able to get out before the lease expires (right now it don't look good).
Well said. However, I thought the dictionary definition did an excellent job at ending any discussion, because it said it all, making any further ado unnecessary.
I think there is a distinct difference between a statement ('puke') and a real discussion. The latter is more proper to sport events than human intellectual discourses. Being human is not a precondition to intellect. If one's vocabulary is limited to 500 grunts, there isn't much he or she can think about. That's obvious from that statement. I am still willing to believe the author of such a "profound" response actually wanted to say something -- but just didn't know how!
And for those who complain about the "intellect" of posters and what this "Forum" has become....remember, the door swings BOTH WAYS!!!!
Ciao.
Why? Who says we do? I challenge this assumption.
/john
/john
You found domestic enemies overseases? Is that like "domestic imports?"
People who don't live in America, and insist on negative critiques...SHALL AND ALWAYS WILL elicit that one word response...
My goodness! And what about those who live in America and insist on criticizing places, peoples, cultures, etc. they have never heard of?
By the way, being a veteran (as you claim) means you served in the military. It doesn't mean you have speical gifts or skills. Also, "shall and always will" is redundant.
Perhaps you should try arguing with something tangible and verifiable for a change.
For a superpower, an Empire, whateever, it at least tries to be benevolent. If I were a head of a country and was faced with a choice which power shall dominate me, guess what I would pick? Not the UK, not Germany, not Russia, not China, not Japan, not Spain or Portugal! I would pick the US, hands down.
Perfect it isn't. But it is still a hell-of-a-lot better than any other power, present or past. Are we always right? Of course not! Are we always just? No we are not. Are we always truthful? No. Show me one power that is or ever was.
Before such topics -- as this one about Empire -- are taken seriously, one must seriously ask what is the point. Badmouthing or something more constructive? In most cases it's just the former.
You could call that the end poem to this the start poem.
Take up the White Man's burden--
The savage wars of peace--
Fill full the mouth of Famine,
And bid the sickness cease;
And when your goal is nearest
(The end for others sought)
Watch sloth and heathen folly
Bring all your hope to nought.
Tony
I think the US will have to get used to this.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.