jorgelito

In these two threads, the prospects, theories and opinions seemed rather grimm. Perhaps it reflected the reality or the trend in international relations, especially the dynamic between the industrialised Western world and the developing world.

Two things:

1. I found George Bush's inauguration speech (or at least parts of it) to be intrigueing. I interpreted it as the willingness of the US to interfere in other countries to stop tyranny and to spread freedom.

If taken at face value, then presumably we will be heading into Sudan, Rwanda, and countless other oppressive regimes to "spread freedom", and stop tyranny. One by one. Optimistic? Yes. Hopeful? Yes. Idealized? Yes. But one has to start somewhere right? Might as well exercise some "benign hegemony".

Now before people get all bent out of shape, work with me here. Think outside of the box for a minute before we deteriorate into the usual cynicism. If we keep an open mind, (but not so much that our brains fall out), I don't know, the imagination gets provoked.

2. I found this article to be interesting: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/africa/4185713.stm

Maybe we can learn some lessons from Rwanda: 10 years too late is still better than never, right?

I want to attempt to try and analyise and synthesise here. Really focus on the issues and attempt to apply 'scientific' methodology in formulating opinions and theories. To put the 'politics' aside in the politics.

I believe there is a connection here to Iraq, Iran, the tsunami disasters, the future role of NATO, the EU, Israel-Palestine, AIDS crisis and more.

Bush 1 referred to "A New World Order". Perhaps a new paradigm is taking place, a new shift in globalisation and international relations.

jorgelito

Addendum:

I am particularly interested to hear what Mr.Mephisto, zen_tom, Manx, sob, Willravel, Roachboy, daswig, seaver, Mojo_PeiPei, and Rekna have to say.

Sorry if I did not mention anyone's name, these are just the ones I can recall off the top of my head that I thought would bring a diverse round of opinion on the subject. But of course all are welcome.

Thanks guys.

Mephisto2

Fostering international relations is a good thing. Globalisation, which equates to the exploitation of second and third world economies and people, is not.

It will be interesting to see how Gordon Brown's plans play out.

I maintain that the majority of countries don't care about Africa.

Mr Mephisto

EDIT: Thanks for the mention.

jorgelito

[quote]I maintain that the majority of countries don't care about Africa.[quote]/

I would have to agree here, unfortunately - BUT, we could be in the middle of a shift. For example, if there are enough factors directly related to Africa that form a critical mass, and that "mass" could potentially threaten the rest of us, then people would have to start caring about it (Africa) and not just Africa, but others too.

A sort of state of global interdependence that would require it.

For example: The AIDS crisis, and emergence or gaining of power of "rogue" regimes coupled with some other factor could in effect, say a mass refugee problem that moves off continent, "forces the issue".

jorgelito

What I meant previously in reference to George Bush 1's "New World Order" was that mayve that part is over, and we are shifting into something else, a different kind of globalisation.

Manx

To put the politics aside, as you say, we would have to view the inauguration speech as a non-marketing speech. In essence, to take it literally. When viewed literally, there is the inherent connotation that democracy and freedom will be strived for in foreign lands for the express purpose of the safety of this land. To paraphrase Bush: freedom here is more and more contingent on freedom in foreign lands. This is an essentially under handed method of promoting freedom which allows subjective and selective implementation of our efforts to secure freedom abroad. If Sudan is not a threat to the U.S., it is not necessary to ensure freedom in Sudan. If Sudan is a threat to the U.S., the U.S. will attempt to promote freedom in Sudan to ensure its own safety - not out of the consideration of basic human rights.

But even that is simply a literal version of the President's inauguration speech. If we view it as the marketting that it assuredly is, we know that the U.S. has not and does not work towards "freedom" in foreign lands, it works towards stability. Stability in a chaotic region of the world is more readily achieved through dictatorship. Reviewing the recent (50 year) history of U.S. foreign policy, it is quite clear that the U.S. supports dictatorships that are favorable to U.S. business practices. In this view, "freedom" and "democracy" are simply marketting terms for stability through friendly, corrupt control systems.

Yakk

Exploitation means use, amoung other things.

Global trade is a good thing, it has done more to alleviate poverty, prevent suffering, free the opressed and save lives than any organization I know of.

It isn't perfect. Nothing that powerful is.

The 50 year history of U.S. foreign policy was built during a long cold war with another nuclear power.

Revolution is now less of a danger, at least outside of the Islamic world. The risk of temporary instability in southern africa doesn't bring with it the danger of the nation falling over into 'the other camp', because there isn't another camp to fall into.

Thus, it now makes sense to risk temporary instability in order to realize longer-term stability.

Rich nations are good for other rich nations. You get rich by providing other rich nations with things they really really want.

Cheap labour is used and all, but you'd rather have a nation that could produce cheap robots that did the work for 1/10th the price, as well as providing dozens of other goods for your nation to buy.

__________________
Last edited by JHVH : 10-29-4004 BC at 09:00 PM. Reason: Time for a rest.

zen_tom

jorgelito, I'm not sure which kind of globalisation you see emerging.

A more equitable one, with rich nations supporting the poor through direct investment, or a more enforced one where the West uses its power to build a new Empire?

Both have their advantages, disadvantages and varying levels of practicality.

Mephisto2

I think you're confusing global trade with globalization.

Globalization is the creation of massive free trade areas, the removal of tarrifs, the "opening" of developing markets to large multi-nationals, the punishment of countries who try to protect their economies and so on.

Global trade is good. You and I agree.
Globalizations is just another word because the West and the mega-corps thought that "exploitation" just sounded too dirty.

Mr Mephisto

jorgelito

zen_tom, I'm not quite sure of what I'm talking about either. I guess I'm sort of "thinking out loud", sort of seeing what comes out of the soup as it is.

It's just that a bunch of things happened or were brought to my attention that kind of stimulated to pursue this abstraction out of curiosity. I wanted to bring y'all in to sort of see what you guys thought or had similar thinking or observations etc.

It's funny, zen_tom, cause your original post "A Marshall Plan for Africa" sort of planted a latent seed for this current thread.

So, if you're wondering, recently:
*AIDS crisis in Africa
*The release of "Hotel Rwanda"
*Events in Darfur
*Iraq, Iran
*Tsunami
*EU-NATO-US realignment; what's the real, new world order?
*Unipolarity: the US stands alone - What do we do inthe post-bipolar world, what is our role? Benign hegemony? Isolationism? Neorealism?
*UN corruption and legitimacy

So all these events coalesced and got me thinking a little. The inaugural speech was kind of the trigger. I thought, if there was a subtext or "foreshadowing" of the direction our foreign policy was going, what was he trying to say? Was he hinting at future engagements? More balanced engagement: Aid, military, infrastructure, investment etc.

zen_tom

I don't know what the president has in mind - I hope there is room for some change. I hope that a sensible compassionate strategy will begin to flourish, where long-term goals are achieved using long-term efforts.

As I see it, the World-order remains as it was, WASP, Britain, USA, Canada, Australia and New-Zealand - continuing to work together to civilise the world, in the same way the old British empire tried to under various Kings and Queens.

The difference is that now, the sharpest weapons are investment, economics, trade and public opinion. Failing to use these techniques, and choosing to use blunt Millitary ones is a mistake and will ultimately proove counter productive.

Just my 2 cents.

Yakk

They are trying to remove political risk factors from international trade decisions.

This encourages investment, because you know more of what you are getting into.

Yes, it has costs, and maybe there are better ways to do it. But I think it has done more good than harm.

The problem is, Global Trade goes hand-and-hand with Globalization.

Would you build up alot of infrastructure in another country, if there was absolutely no incentive for that other country to honour your contracts?

Making it less risky to invest in other nations is the philosophical goal of Globalization, as far as I can tell. It fails to reach it's ideals often, and like all extremely powerful economic forces people are hurt by it, but at the same time it seems to be working.

__________________
Last edited by JHVH : 10-29-4004 BC at 09:00 PM. Reason: Time for a rest.

Willravel

Honered to be mentioned.

In response to #1: I find it...difficut to take the spread of freedom and the stopping of tyrany at face value. I'm really anxious to get over the Afghanistan and Iraq to see the most mainstream places that have been rebuilt to end tyrany and plant the seed of freedom. So far the news that is coming out of both places is not convincing. Afghanistan is not doing well at all, and Iraq is still suffering an insurgency and occupation. Certianally time will tell if these are succesful, but we can monitor the progress and make predictions. Have you ever heard the phrase "hope for the best, prepare for the worst"? This is my outlook on freedom and ending tyrany. I hope with all my being that true freedom can find it's way to everyone who is being opressed, but I realize that this isn't a gum-drop, candy land and this will not be easy. We will hit bumps in the road and have setbacks. I hope that the President's speeech wasn't more bull, but I would prepare for the worst.

In response to #2: A new world order with America at the head is a frightening nightmare. Looking at it from a scientific standpoint, it is certianally possible. There is money and organization that can be gathered and put together that will be able to save billions of lives. Looking at it from a socio-political standpoint, it's almost impossible. There are simply too many special interestes that keep popping up and ruining real growth and progress. The new world order would be just as suceptible if not more so than any government now. All tyhe governments now, even the one's who are the best of allies, are still spying on each other and making the world a big chess game where yoiu are trying to win in the end. We aren't ready for a true global collective. Actually, I'd prefer to see the opposite. I want to move away from globalization and massive organization to a system of smaller communities working within a city. I'd like to see neighborhoods being self sufficient in food, labor, and other services necessary to life. I'd like to see corporations be broken down to more simple shops and offices. If I had my dream, we would be living in a world of maybe 100 million people and we would be hunter-gatherers who were in wonderful health (hunter gatherer = less diseease, think about it). As much as I want to believe that peace between nations as they are now can lead to the fabled 'world peace', it is seeming less and less likely. I think there is an interesting layout of a society of this kind in 'the Neanderthal Paralax' written by Robert J. Sawyer (it's a sci fi trilogy).