Disclaimer: This is a piece of writing that I did in my sophomore year of High School for a presentation to attend Close-Up in Washington D.C. I rediscovered it and thought how sadly it has remained relevant nearly four years later. It was also an interesting look at how I was reacting to the growing "war on terror."
11 November 2004
On one hand we are told by some that Bush is pushing war and bent on abandoning the international system of rules and instructions built up by previous presidents. Others argue that Bush has drawn a necessary line in the sand between America and a dangerous coalition of stateless terrorists and rogue nations.
As a presidential candidate Bush stressed the need for America to act like a humble nation in foreign policy and substitute narrow national interests. But, President Bush has led the nation in a less than humble manner. Since September 11th, the Bush Administration has aggressively deployed U.S. troops around the globe or has promised military aid to dozens of countries. Bush seems to have taken a very unilateral approach to global arms-control – all in the name of a “war on terrorism “. In these few months In these few months Bush has pledged or provided military aid and training to over two dozen countries, including Colombia, India, Pakistan, and Afghanistan in which the U.S. hope to establish a national army.
Some say it is because the Democrats had eight years to deal with challenges posed by Al-Qaeda and the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and largely failed.
But, the real debate on Bush’s foreign policy is not discrediting Democrats or between divided political parties. Some argue that America is gaining overwhelming power and we strike out on our own with no allies. Unilateralism is putting the interests of the U.S. first in foreign affairs. This steps on the toes of our enemies as well as our allies. This policy produces anti-American sentiment which most recently has occurred in the Middle East.
Unilateralism and bypassing the UN are not new, however, there is a dramatically accelerated military build-up in response to September 11th, almost hidden from detection there are now U.S. armed forces all over the globe.
All these events go along well with a Pentagon document that was leaked. It plans for the world order enforced by the U.S. preventing the emergence of another rival world power. American military intervention will be seen as a constant and although the U.S. cannot become the world’s policeman it will assume selective responsibility for threats to American interests and that of its allies.
What is all this leading to? We know the Bush Administration can wage war well – what we don’t know is whether it can produce peace as well. Can Bush translate power into influence?
Israelis and Palestinians kill each other without American interference. North Korea marches on towards nuclear weapons as we argue who will negotiate with them. The conflict in Kosovo of ethnic cleansing is still not resolved. In the African country of Sudan hundreds of thousands are being murdered by their own government. Where is American intervention now? Today many countries fear American power more than anything. Our failure in international public diplomacy most likely is the cause for failure to build a UN supported coalition against Saddam Hussein. There is a rising violence in Iraq and it seems we are torn between being the sole player in establishing a democracy and letting outsider’s impact the politics of the small yet diverse country of Iraq.
The Bush Administration needs to apply the same energy and focus to peace making as it has, since September 11th, to war making. The transition may not be easy, but the greater risk our country now faces is the world population will become convinced that the U.S. is the enemy of positive progress and change. We need to show the people of our interdependent globe that America is not a risk.
We must demonstrate that we can be as unified and directed in the pursuit of peace as we have proven in war.
Previously posted on the Young People For Blog.
13 comments:
America should never ever act as as police, not in Sudan, nor anywhere else.
All current states are impulsed by realpolitik and capital. There is no such thing as "humanitarian" efforts.
I agree
all that ever happens when the US tries to act as a police force is the brutal repression of people who were already being oppressed.
from time to time countries will do "humanitarian" efforts of some kind, but only when it is in their best interests. They really could care less about the people, they care more about maximizing profit and their bourgeois interests.
Hogwash. Only in theory. What ever happened to To say that the mass slaughter of innocent poor people in the Sudan is unworthy of intervention --- what the hell are you thinking? Socialists care about the people, but would stand by and watch them get slaughtered when you have the power to not allow them to get slaughtered. Such a formulation could only take place in your head, not material reality.
Or do those poor Black farmers of Darfur matter less, because they are not part of the European industrialized working class that you socialists keep dreaming will lead us to the promise land of communist victory over capitalism?
And I'm not being sarcastic; I really would like an answer, please.
Liberals like to make a lot of noise about Sudan because its easy to react against it. I mean, mass slaughters are terrible, and the first reaction to it is that "we should do something!"
What about all the people dying from starvation and preventable illnesses? What about all the people who die because they don't have access to clean, running water? Is it better to die a painful, long death due to starvation, than being directly killed?
Liberals don't focus on this issues because these issues show that the solution lies beyond "defeating those bad guys". These are problems left by capitalist-imperialist legacy, and the only way to terminate with them, is socialist revolution.
You are building a strawman here. We don't support America going there because we have seen the history of american internventions. Why should I trust a nation that helped in coups against democratically elected leaders, funds mercenaries in latin America, and lied to everyone about Iraq?
What is happening in Sudan is terrible, but there are other much more terrible things happening in Africa and the world, that require more than self-righteous moralists supporting one gang of capitalists against the other.
Bullshit. What could be "much more terrible" in Africa than genocide? Are you insane?
By the same logic, you'd watch a man beat a woman to death in the middle of the street because a woman should be able to defend herself. I thought socialists were humanists... meaning that you were concerned about all of humankind, especially the most vulnerable and exploited. So much for that idea.
Plus American intervention in the genocide does not mean unilateral action on the part of U.S. forces. The genocide in the Sudan needs a *world* response, from both the developed and developing world. Only small steps are being taken to stop the murders, the raping, and execution of men, women, and children in Darfur. We need a world-wide movement to stop this genocide, and now.
Your logic is seriously flawed, marmot. Under your thinking, Jews should have continued to burn in the ovens based on your theories. It's quite cozy to theorize that people should be left to die from your comfortable marxist armchair. Go back to sleep.
Bullshit?
So what is your solution, going to the democrats and plea them for mercy?
Actually, the communists fought really hard against the fascists in Germany. The KPD and the anarchists were the only one fighting fascist scum in the streets before it was too late. while the social democrats were the ones that had their thumb up their ass.
In fact, it was your position of "supporting thugs over the other thugs"led to the dissolution of the socialist international--were spineless social democrats like the SPD, rather than opposing the war and taking an internationalist postion, ended backing their own ruling class. Real Socialists like Luxembourg opposed the war in its entirety.
Your analogy about the "women being beaten" in the streets has nothing to do with anything. Your analogy would be more apt by saying "who would you let the woman being beaten, that thug, or the other, bigger thug?"
Colin Powelll labeled the issue a "genocide" not because he is nice, but because that would give diplomatic leverage to an american intervention in Sudan. In fact, american oil enterprises cannot just intervene because of certain restrictions. If the restrictions would be lifted, americans would intervene, and people like you would be crying more.
China, malasya, and India are already reaping benefits of the oil in Sudan, and Americans are just looking for an excuse for them to strike.
Why not support the war in Iraq then? By your logic, its better to be there becauise obviously if the americans would pull off, Iraq would distabilize even more.
Your solution is nothing more than an outgrowth of "white man's burden".
"Socialists" who support a gang of thugs against the others, are not socialists, they are social democrats at best. What makes you less of an "arm chair"--pleading the democrats for mercy?
Marx's Armchair,
while i agree that what is going on in Darfur is terrible, all American intervention will do is switch one band of oppressors for another. Do you want Blackwater USA, various other companies, and the US military taking over as the new source of death in Sudan? The only thing that will change in Sudan if the US invades will be a new source of massive profits for the US Military Industrial Complex and US Big Oil.
You keep talking about how socialists would support military action in Sudan. I hate to break it to you, but Social-Imperialism is still Imperialism none the less.
By your beaten woman scenario, you'd be fine with someone killing the guy attacking her, only to stomp her to death after killing the original attacker, and taking all of her money.
Marmot is 100% right on the oil profits being made by China, malasya, and India. The US only labeled it a genocide so they could try to get more Americans on the Imperialist bandwagon.
Anything the US says, goes right? North Korea is evil, lets invade them. Iran has nukes, lets invade. South America could become a socialist bloc, lets have the CIA overthrow more democratically elected leaders, they're pretty good at it. Hugo Chavez is the dictator, to war! The Cuban people are terribly oppressed, lets kill Fidel and make Cuba back into the whorehouse that it was, so US businessmen can vacation there. Open your mouth up wider, here comes another helping of the US bullshit spoon, mmmm, yummy propaganda, eat it up. Don't think, fall in line and be quiet.
The US is quite oppressive to many of its citizens, by that logic maybe Canada should invade and liberate us.
Go sit down in your blood soaked Imperialist armchair.
After reading marmot's and redlen's comments i can definately say that i am PROUD to be a LIBERAL! You know, the only reason i checked this blog out is because i heard you guys were doing some things to challenge Yaf, plus i know a few people who go to Yds meetings. I thought your group would be different than the white supremist, cowboy-hat wearing fascists on the right in Yaf. I see now your just the opposite side of the same coin.
You attack me for being a "white liberal." is this supposed to be insulting? In case you missed it, it was WHITE LIBERALS who helped end segregation. It was WHITE LIBERALS who passed the civil rights laws that gave minorities equal rights in this country. it was WHITE LIBERALS who supported afffirmative action even when it was not popular. And it was WHITE LIBERALS that made it possible for you to even have this conversation without the government tossing you in jail for being filthy communists. You should be thanking us WHITE LIBERALS for providing you the freedom of speech and assembly that you would NOT HAVE if people like Yaf had their way.
You chide us "white liberals," but you guys are just a bunch of middle class white kids who think that reading Marx or Pol Pot makes you a revolutionary leader. THIS "white liberal" and my family has built 12 small schools in Africa (Cameroon, Mali, and Niger). THIS "white liberal" is working with fellow Spartans to force this administration to divest univesity money from Sudan so long as the genocide continues. THIS "white liberal" works with kids in inner-city Lansing, making a real difference in the lives of real people. Yeah, those little black and brown kids are real people.
And so are those people being massacred in the Sudan. Not words in your socialist textbook, but REAL PEOPLE that you don't seem to think of as real people. It makes me respect you guys so much to know you supoort Yaf's position that the u.s. should sit by and let the genocide go on.
Funny how stopping genocide is "imperialist" but i bet you a dollar that you have no problem with "che" invading Cuba and Bolivia. I guess those where not black people, so it's cool.
marmot, you don't know what you're talking about. Darfur is not a civil war, you fucking idiot. The people being killed have no weapons, have no way of getting them, have no tools at all to fight back other than run faster than the bullets. and this has not worked well. the women and litle girls are raped and mutilated by Arab "janjaweed" and young boys are castrated and shot on sight. 450,000 human being have been killed like this so far. i's nice to see the socialsits, like the capitalists, sitting on the side lines watching it happen.
You guys are a joke. Go back to reading your books, sitting in the cafe, day dreaming your Che Gueverra. We "white liberals" have real work to do --- and we'll win.
Come join Students for Progressive Divestment! Do something meaningful other than post nonsense on this blog.
STOP RACIST GENOCIDE IN DARFUR *NOW*!!!!!!!!!!!
Spartans for Progressive Divestment?
you must be tom.
Thanks for stopping by and leaving such a great post that will help further discussion.
You are grasping at straws and you misinterpreted my whole argument.
Congratulations.
I am not white though. Although I would concede to you that "brown" people like me are---"gasp", people.
Also I am also one hundred percent sure "your family" didnt build the homes--it were the workers who built it. They were also probably paid like shit.
Rockefeller was a big philantropist. However, I am certain he never lifted a finger in his life.
it's always white middle class people who want to "save darfur".
I don't believe Rockefeller was one bit of a humanitarian. He sent in the national guard to quell a strike in Colorado at one of his mines and massacred everyone who worked there. He probably lifted a finger for that one though. Here's the link for people who don't believe it, and it's from Howard Zinn's "A People's History of America."
Post a Comment