Alpha,
I assume that you were responding to my previous “essay.”
I have several problems with your arguments and their underlying premise. I cannot address all of them but will try to address few of them, though. Addressing all of them would require more time.
First of all, your entire note is overly emotional and not well argumented contrary to your other materials.
Contrary to you, I think that the US is using its power extremely controllably and with great caution. It appeals to power when there is no way around.
If it is not for US, I think there would not be a shred of world peace around, in the current stage. Pretty much every one would be at every one else’s throat outside Europe (Europe already has done it) – larger Arab states will swallow the smaller ones, Turkey ill swallow few neighboring countries, Israel would be swallowed pretty much by whoever happens to be the first to get there, etc. Then, Iran and Turkey will be at each others throat, Pakistan and India will be next, Afghanistan would be added to the mix, China would be compelled to intervene, end so on. If there is one single force in the world which guarantees world peace as much as she can, that is the US.
The peace in the world has been threatened way before the founding of USA. In particular, when the nations of Middle East were eliminating each other, the US had not ever crossed the Atlantic or did not even exist. US did not create the problems in this region. If anything, it has frozen the preexisting problems – the problems which had become worse due to Europe’s centuries’ old contribution.
The General Assembly of UN is irrelevant in political affairs of the world. It has always been the Security Council which has made the decisions (better to say declarations) when it comes to serious issues – security issues. That’s why it is called Security Council.
It is very strange for me that you would talk about democratic institutions, and meanwhile, you would not recognize that contrary to the standards advocated by you, there are only five countries which make the decisions at UN, and any of them may veto the decision made by the other four. Its founding principle is not the democratic principle of majority but consensus. If this is democracy, at least it is a very strange style democracy.
Speaking of DIPLOMACY… Unfortunately, Diplomacy with no force to back it up is an idle talk – this is demonstrated by the world history. Even Khrimian Hairik has recognized it more than 150 years ago and has introduced a special terminology - “Tghti shrep” into circulation. Say, why didn’t we solve the Karabagh problem with Diplomacy (not that we didn’t want to), for example? Additionally, the absolute majority of the members of the “democratic” UN, that you advocate, have no idea about democracy. Their respective countries are governed with norms as far from democracy as one may imagine. Their absolute majority has no role or significance in the world affairs. Even if there will be vote on the floor of the General Assembly, its members will vote the way the same five would want – they will divide into groups depending who promises more financial or other aid to them or what their xenophobic hatred dictates.
I also find very bizarre that you would implicitly insinuate that when it comes to the international or regional security, Guatemala and China, per se, should have equal voice. In such case, I can assure you that the world would be much more dangerous place – total and really uncontrollable mess.
I also think that it is absolutely invalid and uninformed claim, when one says that the International Institutions have kept the world in relative peace, in the last 50 years. The peace in the world has been kept by the existing powers and the parity between them. The international institutions in the last 50 years have been as irrelevant as they have been in the last year, or when they have been during the tenure of the League of Nations.
The “Wild West” was not resulted from the absence of the international institutions – far not. It was resulted from the lack of law enforcement by an able party, or by the absence of the able party. I am far from claiming that US has to be the world police. In fact, I don’t think so. Neither it is a role that the US government wants to assume, from what I see. But so that the US is not compelled to do the policing, others have to step up to the plate. The EU, for example, should do its part. Let them live up to that responsibility – proportional to their claims. [If Armenia, fore example,” is going to rely on “international institutions” for her future, then it is time to think of burying her, btw.]
People, you refer to, are not helpless because of the “uncontrollable US.” They are helpless because in different corners of the world for different reasons, they cannot build viable economies and have dignified lives. And US is not hated around the world. Even the countries where one may think she is hated (say Iraq)… The US is hated in each country by the fundamentalists or the left of the left wing.
USA, in fact, is not trying to import its brand of democracy around the world. This is one of your baseless insinuations. The examples negating your allegation are [West] Germany, Japan, South Korea, Taiwan, UAE, Qatar, Kuwait, and on and on and on.
I also find it to be ridiculous to insinuate that “USA is trying to import its name of proletariat. An invading powerful country tries to find a moral ground to oppress weaker nations and tries to name it “liberation”, “democratization”, “freedom”.”
These are nice words from the platforms of SocIntern, but how much relevance do they have?
Who is the US trying to oppress? Show me one case in history, one nation that the US has oppressed so far, and not done the opposite. In the case of Iraq, in particular, this is one of the most oppressed nations in the history of the last 40 years. It is impossible even to oppress it any more than they have already been. In the past, USA has occupied West Germany, Japan, Haiti, etc. Give me one example, when the US has done anything else but built these countries from the shambles, stabilized them, and left.
The sovereignty of Iraq is not threatened. (Sorry that I am replying to you in bits. Don’t have a lot of time to build a smooth “essay.”) In fact, her sovereignty is supported by the US. Iraq should be run by the Iraqi people (this is the US and UK position), while France, Russia, Germany, etc, were pushing for a UN run government – thus surrendering Iraq’s sovereignty to UN.
The important thing to understand is that in the modern world, the internal affairs of “Iraq, Iran, Syria and Israel” are not merely their internal affair. Such a statement may be made about a segregated world outside the technology age. It is absolutely wrong about the world that we live in. Somehow, their and others “internal affairs” have huge impact on the others – such as Armenia, for example, when you can think that there is not even a direct relationship. The transportation routs to Armenia, for example, pass through Turkey, Iran, Georgia, Azerbaijan, etc. If each of them, based on “internal affairs” argument, will paralyze these routs leading to Armenia inside their own country, per se, then it in fact, it becomes Armenia’s internal affair. This is just an example. We can say the same about fiber optics cables, electricity transmission lines, oil and gas pipelines, and so on. Majority of the states in the world depends on the “internal” situation in other states.
“It should be left to the people of the region to solve their problem,” you say. How idealistic and how invalid … And of all the people of the region, it is us, the Armenians, who have begged others to come to this region- from Europe to Russia. If history of the world is of any value, it should be apparent how the people of this region solve their problems. Besides, if the US doesn’t put pressure on this region, do you feel that no one else is going to meddle or someone else is not going to occupy the “vacuum?” The US did everything so that the countries of the UN Security Council lead the current operation jointly. Some did not come aboard.
“Terrorism is a result of weakness and people who have no means of fighting a conventional war turn to terrorism,” you say. Partially yes, partially no - more no than yes. Terrorism has long history. The killing of the Prince of Prussia, for example, had nothing to do with the “desperate people.” Terrorism has been a tool of solving political and ideological problems for centuries. As a tool of solving ideological problems, it has been brought to life by the Marxists and the Socialists.
There are many desperate people around the world. There are a number of desperate nations in Africa, Asia. I don’t think Bangladeshis are less desperate than the Palestinians, for example. Nor I think that the population of Zimbabwe is less desperate. Terrorism is not a manifestation of only desperateness. It is an aggregate of poverty (most of the time, but not always), culture, ideological and political thought. As a rule, it is cultivated and executed by the left leaning groups.
Partisans of WWII had nothing to do with terrorism. These partisans where fighting liberation war of gorilla style. Their targets were not the German civilians, but the German military targets and the military personnel. It is an absolute nonsense to declare the partisans terrorists.
There is a huge discrepancy between the Israeli and the Arab powers, in the region, indeed. There is a small state of 6 million (don’t know the exact numbers) people in that region, with absolutely no resources, surrounded by states who pledge her distraction, and a number of, at least, potentially very wealthy countries, with about 200 million population (don’t know the exact numbers, again), who claim that their neighbor “has no right to exist.” This is where the discrepancy starts.
I wall call xenophobic anyone who does not understand this elementary fact or pretends not to understand it. And there are many of those in this forum, too. Israel has the right to exist. When the Arab world or whomever, declares otherwise, that means they declare war to Israel. In such case, Israel is entitled to having all possible, all existing and non existing weaponry, on the earth and heaven. Israel’s existence (and that on a chunk of worthless soil) does not threaten anyone’s national security. It just rattles their xenophobia and homophobia.
That Sharon may be a war criminal such as Arafat, it may very well be true. I neither have sufficient facts to claim it nor to deny it. In fact, I am inclined to think that it is true. But so is Arafat, so was Assad (father), the heads of other Arab states. They are counterparts worth each other.
Each problem has its logic of solutions. There is a “causational-consequential” argument to be made in everything. If the Arab world things that Sharon is a war criminal, it can declare its recognition of Israel’s right to exist, and then exercise its sovereign rights in the court of International Law, and call Sharon and his likes on the rug. After all, you claim that the larger problems have to be resolved by the International Institutions. Then why not to try this relatively more manageable one?
When the distraction of Israel is their state policy, allegations of a “war crime” towards this or that individual are ridiculous. This is the real discrepancy, if we have to speak of discrepancies.
Back to Sharon… Sharon is not the issue here. In 1990, the US administration was most adamant against the Israeli policies. Some argue that Bush (senior) lost his second term because he antagonized the Jews in America by pressing Israel very hard. Even Clinton, being most pro-Jewish, was exerting enormous pressure on Israel. American Jewry is exerting enormous pressure on Israel. There is huge antagonism between the American Jewry and that of Israel - more than it has existed between the Armenian Diaspora and Armenia in the past. No one is supporting some of the Israeli policies. But when it comes to looking at the reality, you have one side which declares that the other side doesn’t have the right to exist, and the other says, “screw you.” Let’s finally get this. It is not hard.
As far as the US is concerned, let me try to make my point clear, one more time. Arab terrorism has transgressed the Middle East boundaries, and has been delivered to the US soil. It will happen time and time again, unless it is uprooted from where it is incubated. This situation can be compared with the one where there is a nest of infection spreading insects delivering it to the remote corners of the world, and one finds sufficient just killing the insects when they arrive to the remote locations, rather than destroying the nest.
To specifically address your argument on nuclear weaponry, which I find to be incredibly ill thought out, if Syria tries to develop nuclear arms, not that Israel “will not occupy Golan Heights,” but before Syria knows, Israel will swipe the Golan Heights and turn it into a valley. This is the proper logic behind the proper argument. Recall the Iraqi nuclear plant story… And if it was me, Syria should not see Golan Heights until she recognizes the right of Israel to exist, establishes diplomatic relations, resolves the demarcation issues and mutually demilitarizes the adjacent to Israel districts.
I, personally, as irrelevant as my wishes are, don’t want anyone to have nuclear weapons – especially in the vicinity of Armenia. In fact, I find that perspective extremely troubling. Even the USSR and the US came to an understanding that the nuclear arms had to be phased out, after going through decades of escalation. I don’t want Turkey and Iran to have nuclear arms – they are on the way. I don’t want Syria and Israel to have them. I want a peaceful and cooperating region, less hatred, less human misery, etc. I want progress in the region. I want conditions, where our nation can properly develop her potential and not to become hostage in the hands of Robik, Serje, Dodi Gago, Shvo and Gvo, as a result of the realities created by the regional deadlock.
“The mess created in Middle East is a result of involvement of forces not native to a region,” you say. This kind of statements makes an impression that you are not considering the issue intellectually, but emotionally. That is a pity. Regardless of whoever has created the mess (and that is not the US), it is there, and the natives cannot deal with it as of now. Given the opportunity, they will just slaughter each other much the way they have done it for four thousand years.
In conclusion, I would just say the following: if a relative peace prevails in Europe, it has nothing to do with the “cultured Europe.” It is resulted from the status quo established after the WWII, and the fact that most of them have came to be satisfied or accept it (except the reality of Yogoslavia, which they strived to dismantle at the first opportunity), by recognizing the high and unjustifiable cost of bringing changes.
The situation in Middle East, except the one related to Israel, is resulted from the WWI. It has been long time but, so far, the nations of the region have not come to accept it [and perhaps one may argue, rightfully so].
Definitely it has nothing to do with the International Institutions. As I tried, successfully or not, to make a point, International Institutions have not come from Mars. They are just formalized forums for discussions for the same countries, which discuss things also outside these forums – through bilateral or multilateral relationships. The only thing that the [International Institutions] UN provides is the following: outside the UN, France is totally irrelevant. Inside the UN France has some relevance. That is all.
Somewhere in your note, you mention the American culture being newer than the cultures of some other countries. I get an impression that you insinuate that an older culture is something necessarily preferable than the newer one. I would argue that most frequently an old culture means a rotten one. It means something out of realm and smelly, shorting reinvention. An old culture is not necessarily better then the new one. In fact, I would argue that in most of the cases the opposite is true. To be more specific may require opening a new thread up. I am not prepared to do it right now.
Finally, as much as I can observe, this ridiculous anti-Americanism does not have a whole lot to do with the subject we are discussing. Underneath, it has the same “old class straggle (event the terminology),” as its pretext, and has the desire of bringing “the shrine of capitalism and imperialism” down. Most of the European public has become increasingly more socialistic – some has always been so. Some of the US younger generation (I would estimate about 20% of the US population) has become so. At the end of the day, it comes down to the same category of “entitlements,” I have once spoken about. Many people have the feeling of being “entitled.” There are some such people in this forum – especially those who are still under the “daddy’s wing,” or are about to come out of there. Since they haven’t done anything in their lives on their own, yet, and are in or about to enter the larger world, they find it safer to exclaim, “Give it! I want it, too. I am also entitled to it!” This relates not only to the individuals in this forum, but to some degree, also to some of the European countries.
My take on it is that no one is entitled to anything other than equal opportunity. Everything must be earned. It may require working hard – as much as some [in this forum] may insinuate that the hard work is not prerequisite for success. I would say yes, if one wants to “take it away from someone who already has it.”
Edited by MJ, 08 April 2003 - 09:29 PM.
. 
Jacques Iraq! That's a good one!!
) but there must be some 'real' motivation excluding the humanitarian argument. Could it be retribution? A sort of Capital Punishment in foreign policy terms? 
Perhaps later this evening I will have the time this requires. For now, the sun is shining, and I have to do my grocery shopping....
