Why Does The West Have to Acquiesce in Third World Outrages?
When the U.S. or a Western country asserts its interests without reservation and with pride, the sober mass media, academic world and foreign policy establishment say that we can’t do that any more. “Times are different” so they say. A lot of what is deemed "unacceptable" international conduct became so when the West was forced, for the first time after the wave of granting of "independence" to defend itself against the "Third World." This is true whether rhetorically at the U.N. (to which I think belonging is insane) or militarily against attacks such as September 11. Or economically with the expropriation of American oil and mineral companies. Or the oil embargo of 1973-4. We are forced to fight these with one hand tied behind our backs. Or acquiesce, in order to be in accord with “world opinion.”
For example, rather than engage a limited amount of profiling, we have turned our cities into snarled messes. Office buildings now have limited access, with scanners in lobbies. Airports have become a nightmare, courtesy of the TSA. We put on willful blinders as to who is doing the attacks. We instead blame ourselves for supporting our interests in the Middle East, including the maintenance of bases, supporting Israel, and supporting regime change in Iraq. The firestorm of protest against moving the U.S. embassy in Israel from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem was in the mass media, not in the Middle East.
One of the reasons is that we are embarrassed that Israel unified Jerusalem by conquest. It is “unacceptable” to seize land in battle, even when the countries owning that land started a war by aggression. Yet we somehow do not find Russia’s seizing the Crimea by a bogus referendum unacceptable.
I’m sorry, or maybe I should not be. Similarly, why should the U.S. and Europe have to accept tidal waves of migration? Somehow Japan and South Korea, much less Russia, are exempt.
I believe that we can and should assert our interests, especially in situations involving foreign aggression.
President Woodrow Wilson, without a modicum of support, sprung on the U.S. and the world, by surprise, his proposal for a League of Nations at the Versailles Conference. This created a movement among government officials for a multilateral solution to the world's problems. It was doomed to failure as Germany, even during the relatively mellow Wiemar Republic governments refused to disarm. I have reviewed archival New York Times articles from as early as the mid-1920's, to the effect that Germany was refusing to follow the Versailles Treaty's disarmament provisions. Unpunished violations of international accords is rife, especially among countries relatively impervious to public pressure. An example is the U.S.S.R.'s refusal to hold free elections in Eastern European countries after WW II. The U.S. and the West, on the other hand, is "policed" by its press into relative compliance. With international aid now being conducted largely through NGO's and the U.N. there are no consequences for the diversion of the moneys to armaments or corruption.
I further believe that the West should benefit by the aid it dispenses. Same way parents take away the keys of a teenager, I do not believe that international relations should be a one-way street.
For example, rather than engage a limited amount of profiling, we have turned our cities into snarled messes. Office buildings now have limited access, with scanners in lobbies. Airports have become a nightmare, courtesy of the TSA. We put on willful blinders as to who is doing the attacks. We instead blame ourselves for supporting our interests in the Middle East, including the maintenance of bases, supporting Israel, and supporting regime change in Iraq. The firestorm of protest against moving the U.S. embassy in Israel from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem was in the mass media, not in the Middle East.
One of the reasons is that we are embarrassed that Israel unified Jerusalem by conquest. It is “unacceptable” to seize land in battle, even when the countries owning that land started a war by aggression. Yet we somehow do not find Russia’s seizing the Crimea by a bogus referendum unacceptable.
I’m sorry, or maybe I should not be. Similarly, why should the U.S. and Europe have to accept tidal waves of migration? Somehow Japan and South Korea, much less Russia, are exempt.
I believe that we can and should assert our interests, especially in situations involving foreign aggression.
President Woodrow Wilson, without a modicum of support, sprung on the U.S. and the world, by surprise, his proposal for a League of Nations at the Versailles Conference. This created a movement among government officials for a multilateral solution to the world's problems. It was doomed to failure as Germany, even during the relatively mellow Wiemar Republic governments refused to disarm. I have reviewed archival New York Times articles from as early as the mid-1920's, to the effect that Germany was refusing to follow the Versailles Treaty's disarmament provisions. Unpunished violations of international accords is rife, especially among countries relatively impervious to public pressure. An example is the U.S.S.R.'s refusal to hold free elections in Eastern European countries after WW II. The U.S. and the West, on the other hand, is "policed" by its press into relative compliance. With international aid now being conducted largely through NGO's and the U.N. there are no consequences for the diversion of the moneys to armaments or corruption.
I further believe that the West should benefit by the aid it dispenses. Same way parents take away the keys of a teenager, I do not believe that international relations should be a one-way street.
Total Comments 0
