Welcome to European Tribune. It's gone a bit quiet around here these days, but it's still going.
Display:
I know I must be way off reality, but I think about NATO as something that doesn't exist yet, but wonder if it could change into.

3. Nobody said you should replace the ideological democracy vs. communism scheme of the past with something like democracy vs. Arab/Islam. Nobody!

First I consider it not the business of any country (especially not the US business) to judge another sovereign country in how far their constitution is democratic and theocratic/secular. There is no moral right for a democratic/secular nation to deny another democratic/theocratic or undemocratic/theocratic or undemocratic/secular nation their basic sovereignty and human rights according to international law, right?

So all sovereign nations have to be protected from border overreaching military or terrorist attacks. If at all there should be the ideological scheme of international rule of law and the right to sovereignty and civil rights of any nations be secured vs. terrorist attacks of out-laws and militias to destroy one's nation rule of law and whatever form of theocratic or secular democratic/undemocratic state they are in.

What I think can't be possible is to impose democracy and a secular rule of law according to one nation's liking (here the US) on other sovereign nations and use those nation's lack of former as an excuse to militarily intervene and impose/enforce a "democratic secular constitution".

  1. I would like to see Russia integrated into any international alliance, but I am just not educated enough of how ridiculous such a desire would be.

  2. If you superimpose it on the US, you have neither phased out the NATO, nor changed the UN. I guess you ask for a new entity altogether.
It seems that if all countries would be assured that we would come to their aid if they needed it, regardless who they are, it would be a beautiful thing.  Apply the same standards and criteria to everyone.  More consistency.  More accountability.  That's what we should be moving toward.  
Of course, that's what I am after. I thought changing the NATO to an entity that could guarantee it, is a possibility.
by mimi on Fri Jul 21st, 2006 at 06:53:36 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Nobody said you should replace the ideological democracy vs. communism scheme of the past with something like democracy vs. Arab/Islam. Nobody!

No one said it, but I bet that's how some would interpret it...

I guess I just don't think NATO is the organization for the job here.  It is way too political.  Way too beholden to the US.  Some kind of international defense organization is probably a very good thing.  Just not NATO.

Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities. -Voltaire

by p------- on Fri Jul 21st, 2006 at 07:01:09 PM EST
[ Parent ]
I´d be very interested to hear something about your "international defense organization".

Mind you, I´m not saying anything at all about the article Mimi translated. I´m simply asking you about some information about your "international defense organization"?

Is it the UN?
The same organization that really failed in Bosnia?
Remember Srebenica and Tuzla? The UN is pretty good at peace keeping missions once both sides agree but its record is more than mixed if one side doesn´t agree.

Why do you think that the UN or any other international defense organization is suddenly more able to protect innocent people?

Any international organization is only as strong as its members permit. The UN got 190+ members. How many of them would agree to human rights interventions if the next target might be them? How maynof them are democracies? Not to mention China. A veto power in the UN security council. Only interested in economic relations (access to raw materials) while disregarding domestic political problems.

I just fail to see how your "international defense organization" is supposed to work?

by Detlef (Detlef1961_at_yahoo_dot_de) on Sat Jul 22nd, 2006 at 04:10:04 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Why do you want to preserve NATO?

Nothing is 'mere'. — Richard P. Feynman
by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Fri Jul 21st, 2006 at 07:10:25 PM EST
[ Parent ]
I kind of hoped that it's possible not to dissolve NATO, but to change it, i.e. make it an alliance that is not dominated by the US.
by mimi on Sat Jul 22nd, 2006 at 12:28:44 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Just got home today. I was out of town for a fwq days and I do hope that I can comment on your diary tomorrow.
by Detlef (Detlef1961_at_yahoo_dot_de) on Sat Jul 22nd, 2006 at 03:48:47 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Just to repeat my words. I only got home today so I might have missed things. :)

Still, you wanna give Sudan or Burma a veto power on how we might deploy troops?

NATO certainly isn´t perfect but at least every NATO government is responsible to its voters. Am I wrong to assume that this isn´t the case in most countries now members of the UN?

by Detlef (Detlef1961_at_yahoo_dot_de) on Sat Jul 22nd, 2006 at 04:25:20 PM EST
[ Parent ]
In NATO nothing matters except the opinion of the US. NATO also represents the interests of "the West". It is not neutral. The UN is neutral. Most UN members are, in fact, formal democracies:
.
And Sudan or Burma don't have veto. That is an American anti-UN talking point. They can't block General Assembly resolutions or Security Council resolutions, should they get to sit on the Security Council. The last time Sudan was in the UNSC was in 1973, and Burma/Myanmar has never been.

Nothing is 'mere'. — Richard P. Feynman
by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Sat Jul 22nd, 2006 at 04:51:38 PM EST
[ Parent ]
I'm not sure whether this idea ("it not the business of any country to judge another sovereign country") is widespread in Europe or not. It may be the crux of the problem that Europe has with American foreign policy.

In recent tradition the Republican party has tended towards isolationism, while the Democrats have tended towards internationalism. Bush ran on a platform that specifically called out that he would minimize involvement in "nation building" because Clinton's adventures in Europe, Africa, and the Caribbean were distasteful to the isolationist wing of the Republican party. So now, after his re-evaluation of that position, we have two parties who agree that it is the duty of America--and the rest of the West--to make judgments about the political systems of other countries.

The problem with your argument is that it puts international stability and national sovereignty above all else. A dictator gets in power, and since the West is barred from making judgments, the dictator can destroy his own country, kill a big chunk of his country's population, make the rest of them miserable, and generally be a horrible person who causes lots of suffering. Or, you get a nasty civil war that you ignore because it's politically impossible to resolve. This does not play well on American TV, and inevitably leads to interventionist sentiment. I don't know why it plays acceptably on European TV, but apparently it does--if your proposition is widespread.

Instead of body bags coming home, there will be images of starving people, women being stoned to death because their husbands were unfaithful, slaves taking apart asbestos-laden western ships with hand tools, and hands cut off for punishment of the starving. In the U.S., these images lead to a call for intervention, usually first by the U.N., and then when the U.N. rejects the call, or ignores it, or is ineffective, then it's followed by a call for American intervention.

(Of course if oil is involved, it gets more complicated, but plenty of American intervention has not been related to oil.)

by asdf on Sun Jul 23rd, 2006 at 01:05:22 AM EST
[ Parent ]
That's what you have the UNSC: if 9 out of 15 of the UNSC council cannot agree to the legitimacy of intervention, or one of the 5 permanent members objects, you are outside international law.

Crime doesn't play well on American TV, either, but Americans don't demand that, say, the Texas National Guard go and "pacify" South Central LA, do they? Or the California National Guard, for that matter.

Humanitarian disasters don't play well on European TV either, but I guess we're more aware of the fact that we're not likely to be greeted with flowers.

It would go a long way towards solving the problem of brutal dictators if we started by not propping them up, or selling them weapons, or using them as proxies.

Nothing is 'mere'. — Richard P. Feynman

by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Sun Jul 23rd, 2006 at 03:53:52 AM EST
[ Parent ]
I mean, another thing that plays well on American TV is the "Strong Man".

Nothing is 'mere'. — Richard P. Feynman
by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Sun Jul 23rd, 2006 at 03:54:44 AM EST
[ Parent ]
The problem with your argument is that it puts international stability and national sovereignty above all else. A dictator gets in power, and since the West is barred from making judgments, the dictator can destroy his own country, kill a big chunk of his country's population, make the rest of them miserable, and generally be a horrible person who causes lots of suffering. Or, you get a nasty civil war that you ignore because it's politically impossible to resolve.

As a recovering interventionist, let me emphasize the other point beyond legality: practicality. It's one thing to know that a dictator is evil and want to stop it, it is another whether we have political leaders capable of maintaining oversight and making the right decisions, the army trained for both fighting and building trust and institutions, and the public support that lasts throughout such a mission. Let me quote from something Billmon wrote prophetically on March 2, 2003 (two weeks before the war officially began), criticising Joshua Marshall (of Talking Points Memo):

Is there anything that suggests America
is the right country to overhaul an ancient culture, riddled with
religious and ethnic tensions, that got hung up on the conveyer belt
between medievalism and modernity? Us? The guys who couldn't find most
foreign countries on a map, and don't care?

And are the American people really prepared to sacrifice the blood and treasure it would take to try?



*Lunatic*, n.
One whose delusions are out of fashion.
by DoDo on Sun Jul 23rd, 2006 at 05:48:37 AM EST
[ Parent ]


Nothing is 'mere'. — Richard P. Feynman
by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Sun Jul 23rd, 2006 at 05:53:58 AM EST
[ Parent ]
As a recovering interventionist

LOL.  So you are against using interventions to help other interventionists seek the treatment they need? ;)

Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities. -Voltaire

by p------- on Sun Jul 23rd, 2006 at 12:10:37 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Hehe :-)

Having lived in and living close to the disintegration of Yugoslavia would alone have been enough for me to dismiss state sovereignity as an argument and wish for intervention. But then the medicine to the very same ill turned out to have been a different kind of poison...

*Lunatic*, n.
One whose delusions are out of fashion.

by DoDo on Sun Jul 23rd, 2006 at 02:42:20 PM EST
[ Parent ]
 
 A dictator gets in power, and since the West is barred from making judgments, the dictator can destroy his own country, kill a big chunk of his country's population, make the rest of them miserable, and generally be a horrible person who causes lots of suffering. Or, you get a nasty civil war that you ignore because it's politically impossible to resolve. This does not play well on American TV, and inevitably leads to interventionist sentiment. I don't know why it plays acceptably on European TV, but apparently it does--if your proposition is widespread.

I don't know if I had a proposition (it's just my private wishful thinking) is widespread in Europe. I don't live there anymore since a long time and that's why I have so many difficulties to understand what's going on.

I am dreaming about a happy big family alliance of European, Russian (may be China) and the US all agreeing when it is appropriate to intervene in a civil war conflict of a sovereign nation to prevent genocide and massive destruction of infrastructure and property of civilians. The problem is they all disagree over the morals and laws nowadays as to when to intervene militarily. I thought that Europe and Russia were right now a bit more closer in their thinking about when it would be appropriate to use peace enforcing military defense forces, but I learned already in this thread that it's obviously not the case.

I think the reasons, why Europeans might not be as easily turned on by nasty civil war images on TV to jump up and believe they should intervene and teach other cultures how to behave civil and fair with the might of their weapons, is the fact that they remember too much how hard it is to teach a misbehaving member of their own community exactly that.

The only real difference in American civilian and European civilian experience of the elder generation is that America's wars were never endured by their own civilian population at home.

Why did Bush believe (and why do so many Americans believe) that they "just can go in and teach someone morals and helas, they accept and become "good people" according to their standards?" You know it's this "just say no to drugs - kind of way of solving all problems - and if that's not enough - please get some councelling and that will do it). I always wondered about that.

Why was it that almost all Europeans were utterly sceptical about the invasion of US troops in Iraq? Nice to watch our scepticism be equated with cowardness by the US media. Nice to watch how we were hold accountable by questioning our morals. But why did the majority of Americans believe that it could work? Get rid of the evil man, try to not kill too many civilians on the way, and helas, we will have peace and freedom in Iraq? Where did this US way of thinking come from?

So, what is it? Are we European nations in the NATO or EU more coward than the Americans to protect victims of aggression and murder in dictatorships and civil wars in other countries? Or are the Americans more "naive" or are they "more moral" or "more courageous"?

Or is it that European civilians have more say in what their government can decide upon their participiation in military engagements? May be the US government is more authoritarian and can pretty much "do what they want" and deploy their forces "independent what the poor guys, who do the fighting for the US politicians" for whatever they seem fit? May be it's just that the US is less democratic than European democracies, when it comes to who decides when and for what causes their military is sent to war?

And I don't quite agree that the images of starving people, cut off hands and other "uncivilized, undemocratic" images of theocratic or dictatorial cultures and regimes,  don't touch Europeans as much as Americans, but may be the press in Europe and many politicians don't use them as easily and fast as an internal political tool and justification for their ideologically drivien policies as it is in the US.

by mimi on Sun Jul 23rd, 2006 at 07:49:11 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Display:

Occasional Series