“But when Nixon was granting favorable trade status they certainly were.”
Yes, they were. And by opening up China to the US market, Nixon had a real impact on China’s turn towards a market economy. I think that continued communication with everyone despite political differences creates the opportunity that they will find useful things in what we do. We may find interesting ideas from others as well.
One reporter this week was attacked by the protesters…"
I understand that the reporter was attacked by pro-government protesters, not the ones that originally occupied Tahrir Square. It has also bee said that the pro-government thugs were hired guns. The peaceful protesters found government security IDs on them. Well, that’s what I heard on the radio this morning. Hey, it’s public radio… it must be right. Seriously, this particular show does endeavor to provide unbiased information.
Ok guys. This stuff is pure fantasy land. In principle we might like to say that “we stand for freedom and democracy” but that’s just what is said on the front page. The basic goal is free markets - regardless of what kinds of political freedoms or systems may or may not be underneath. That’s why the US has so often supported things like autocratic military dictators.
…and this is done on the basis that it is what is deemed to be in our best interests.
…and there is no way to stand back and let “Egyptians” do what they want to do. We’re in it before it even started. The “global” political economy is not a myth and it isn’t new. You cannot somehow just separate the globe into countries as different actors who somehow stand alone and are removed from the rest of the system. The notion of “meddling” makes no sense when everything is already wrapped up together.
…and there is no “Egyptians” who can get to “decide” what they want to do. Which Egyptians do we mean exactly? The ones with business interests that will benefit most under the past system regardless of what that means politically? The protesters in the streets who want to oust Mubarak? If you think this is bad, wait and see what happens if the opposition gets to try to “decide” what to do next. The conflicting interests will only proliferate. Trying to say that “Egypt” can make is choice doesn’t refer to anything real.
…and if you hear that someone in Egypt said “we hate Americans” and from that conclude that “Egyptians hate Americans” is pretty much the same thing as assuming that if someone in the news is reported as hating country music that we conclude that “Americans hate country music.”
Maybe the solution to the woes in the this world is out sourcing. Let’s let our “benevolent” corporations continue sending all our labor/production abroad to maximize the profits of their share holders at the expense of jobs. We are still big food and weapons producers. Maybe we can start out sourcing those to the people of Egypt. Our space program has been turned over to the Russians and our automotive/electronics production to Asians. All that’s left for world peace is the Middle East. “Food and Weapons” should do it.
Cig, are you suggesting that we SHOULD be actively involved in Egypt’s internal affairs?
No - I’m saying that there isn’t a place on the globe where we can simply stand aside as if we are irrelevant and uninvolved - or can choose to be irrelevant or uninvolved. So let’s take “do nothing” as a response. Unfortunately because we are already economically and politically interconnected with the entire globe and especially the Middle East/Northern Africa “doing nothing” is - in fact - doing something. So there isn’t a realistic and meaningful “do nothing” choice. No matter what we do/don’t do we’re doing something that impacts how things go in Egypt.
Now, if what you’re asking is do I think we should send Marines in to help restore order or prop up the falling govt or get rid of it and install something else, or even just fund one faction or another in terms of their bid for power - ouch - no! In general principle, I’d like the choice of not being involved. Its just that there’s no way to not be - as per my first note about it.
We cannot choose to not be affected, but we can choose to not be involved.
We don’t have the influence on the outcome that we think we do. And trying to often backfires. Vietnam and Iraq are too clear examples. In both cases we sent in our military to attempt to restore order, and in the case of Vietnam prop up an unstable government, in the case of Irag create a stable government. In neither case did it work. In South Korea we’ve supported an unstable government for too many decades and that one is about to blow up again.
There are also many cases such as Iran where we’ve helped in the overthrow of a government and the installation of another, only to discover years later that the government we installed wasn’t exactly what we thought it was.
I cannot think of a single case where we’ve involved ourselves in another countries internal problems uninvited and had a positive outcome.
I still belive that the only thing we should be doing here is preparing for all the various possible outcomes as best we can predict them but not involving ourselves actively in the conflict.
Well, with the reference to VietNam & Iraq I’m right there with you MB. Any actual direct involvement in any way is a terrible idea. But I’m trying to say that we are unavoidably involved already.
There is no easy separation of politics from everything else. The questions here are only marginally about the kind of political system in a place. US foreign policy isn’t guided by political values. It is guided by economic interests. In general, “we” have never cared about what kind of political system exists in a place - only about how that political system, whatever it is, acts toward questions of economy.
So when the US in wrapped up supporting this one and opposing that one, where ever it may be, its not because the motivations have to do with what kind of politics we want in place. Its always about the economic interests that are at stake. I cannot think about the world as having political systems on the one hand and economic systems on the other. I can’t think of it that way because in the everyday nitty gritty of economic and political business these things are not separate. So I always think in terms of the “political economy.” So our involvement around the world is about political economy - not about values or choices regarding ideal political systems. Its about how political stuff will impinge on economic interests.
Anyway, in principle I don’t disagree about non-involvement. And the less the better. But our basic position toward it - whatever that position is - is very meaningful in the entire web of our economic & political relations within the global economy. So, once again I’ll just say that even doing nothing is doing something.
Also, consider two well known facts. One, the surrounding countries have been saying for over 60 years they plan to kill every man, woman, and child in Israel. And, only one or two has ever apologized, one of them is Egypt.
That by itself is not going to mean much to a lot of people.
But, it should matter to everyone that Israel has quite a few nukes, and it is taken for granted when they find themselves losing a war (see first paragraph) they are going to fire all the nukes. So, it behooves every nation to keep Israel from being over-run.
And, yes, guilt is a factor. Six million dead Jews should induce a certain amount of guilt to a nation which was offered by Hitler to take them all, and Roosevelt refused.
World politics and world economies are ever more intertwined and it just gets more complex and complicated year after year. I’ve read the post and learned that there are many different perspectives on the situation in Egypt.
Where this will all go, it is still impossible to predict. Obviously many people in Egypt are fed up with the past practices of their leaders and government. It seems to me the US is walking a difficult line, but seems to be responding appropriately.
Earning freedom seems to take sacrifice and it appears the time is now for Egypt. At their own peril the citizens of Egypt are taking a stand. Whenever there is change like this it creates a power vacuum and there is opportunity for the wrong people to fill the vacuum and you go from bad to worse. The people of Egypt have to be careful not to let radical, extremist islamic organizers to take over the “peoples” rebellion.
When you see chaos at work in Egypt it makes you appreciate America and the freedoms we live with and enjoy every day.
Let’s forget about freedom and democracy for a minute. Let’s also forget about oil, or anything else imported from the middle east for that matter. Let’s look at the other side.
I live in Washington state. Over 40% of the wheat grown and harvested in Washington state is exported to Middle Eastern countries like Egypt and Yemen.
Is that a good reason to promote and support a US friendly and stable government there?
That’s a better reason to support a US-friendly government than doing it so General Dynamics can sell Abrams tanks and Lockheed Martin can sell fighter jets.
Too bad the biggest segment of our economy is the military-industrial complex. And I say that as a former military member with respect and admiration for our troops. But our vast and unsustainable spending on weapons, and our creation of a monster military-industrial complex, is going to bite us in the a**.
Egypt is a walnut country that means almost nothing to us…But when these events occur, our political leaders are expected to make some sort of comment about it, always laced with rhetoric containing the words “freedom” “Liberty” and “democracy”…
The news cycle moves on, the demonstrators get tired and go home, Mubarac appoints a new cabinet and life in Egypt goes on…(Yawn)…
A “walnut” country till we decide we need a base. Location,location,location !
Yes, they were. And by opening up China to the US market, Nixon had a real impact on China’s turn towards a market economy. I think that continued communication with everyone despite political differences creates the opportunity that they will find useful things in what we do. We may find interesting ideas from others as well.
That’s funny…since now the rad-cons firmly believe that we should NEVER deal with communist countries. If there wasn’t any money to be made…Nixon NEVER would have given them favorable trade status.
US foreign policy isn’t guided by political values. It is guided by economic interests.
And I think that’s a MAJOR problem. It’s for economic interests for WHOM??? The average Joe on the street…OR…the Big Businesses doing business with that country???
Its always about the economic interests that are at stake.
And that right there has caused MORE HATRED around the world then anything else. Because they aren’t separate (although they should be)…people all over the world just think of the US as a Money Hungry Capitalists who don’t care about the human rights of anyone but themselves. It’s morally WRONG…
It’s hard to still feel guilty as Americans for the holocaust when Germany was forced to pay reparations. We’ve even paid reparations to Native Americans and the descendants of Japanese Americans who were unjustly imprisoned during WWII, yet the descendants of America’s slaves haven’t seen a penny in reparations. Nobody seems to feel an ounce of guilt about that though.
Some how we westerners are still in the dream world that the boundaries set up by previous occupying powers, like us, are as meaningful to that part of the world. They are not in a society where religion and tribal influence stretch far beyond any thing we happen to dream up.
I believe Chavez is trying to drag his country out of poverty without the help of the USA…Because he was not a fan of GWB he recieved a lot of bad press…And remember the CIA tried to overthrow him…
Or in other words that I posted on a different thread:
I’ll put the MPG of my Exporer against your Cadillac or VW Microbus any day.
It ain’t about the SUV.