Letters to the Editor
-
Obama supports NAFTA
Associated Press:
Obama said the United States should ‘pursue deals such as the North American Free Trade Agreement.' "Obama said the United State should continue to work with the World Trade Organization and pursue deals such as the North American Free Trade Agreement." [AP, 9/8/04]
-
The limits of conventional wisdom
This interview is both reassuring and discouraging. Reassuring in that there are good-hearted people operating at high levels in this world, and that this particular one will soon be operating at a sinificantly higher level.
It was discouraging in that it shows how limited the dialogue is at the highest levels. George W. Bush and his regime are recognized as criminals throughout the world - invaders, mass murderers, thieves, liars, kidnappers, torturers, subverters of domestic and international law, and crony capitalists. In other words, a mafia operation on a grand scale.
To talk "policy" with or about such a regime is to engage in an exercise of euphemism. This regime does not have policies. It has schemes.
What none dare say is that in order to regain our lost international credibility, we will have to start with bringing this regime to justice. Only one candidate for president, Dennis Kucinich, dared to even raise the question, and he garnered one percent of the primary votes before dropping out.
Because Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is pronounced an "enemy" by the Bush criminal regime, that has become conventional wisdom. He is actually an elected politician, and is subject to being turned out of office by his own people, who aren't exactly thrilled with him. The drumbeat for war is all part of the Bush criminal regime's plan to (1) Continue its Ponzi scheme, staying a step ahead of the law by creating a new quagmire to deflect attention from the previous one; (2) Steal the oil; and (3) Use its capacity for destruction to extort cooperation from other countries and their rulers.
I will be voting for Obama tomorrow, but with a bit of umbrage. I think he, unlike the vast majority of politicians, is actually a good person. The task at hand is so great, and the context for even talking about solutions is so narrow that he is likely to have a failed presidency.
If he has any hope for success, he will have to do what he can to bring the Bush regime to justice.
-
Samantha Powers is No Naomi Klein ...
Yes I know Klein is Canadian, but her insight into the neoliberalism that is in fact underlying most of the world's genocides would be a real commitment to change.
Powers only looks at the surface, not the structure of the genocides. These genocides are part and parcel of corporitization of countries and their resources. As privatization takes hold people are deprived of their land, water and thus their means of survival.
The powers that be then arm factions and the problems begin. When the kaos begins the Shock Doctrine is implemented. Resources are stolen and amassed by the powerful. Around the world we see the accumulation of wealth into fewer and fewer hands.
Obama is definetly a bettter choice than Hilllary, but let's not be blinded by what is by definition the continuation of a neoliberal foreign policy by Obama.
-
Redefining diplomacy in a modern geo-political age.
"...controversially, direct diplomatic engagement with foreign adversaries..."
Only in this modern age has the definition of diplomacy been so reduced, that the concept of diplomatic engagement with your enemies is considered controversial.
You only "need" to engage in diplomacy with your enemies or those on a divergent track. That covers issues of war, economic imbalance which can lead to war, treaties (which are a negotiation to avoid war), and cultural differences ...which can again ...lead to war.
Diplomacy gets a bad rap because it has been maligned as a weak effort by weak people (Neville Chamberlain.) In reality diplomacy is often practiced as a "hard power" negotiation (labor unions etc, cold war diplomacy, etc...), as well as "soft power" (giving in for the diplomatic coup of an alignment i.e. coalition in the war on terror.)
Pressure should be put on our leaders to engage not only nations, but stateless entities like Al Qaida, the Taliban, the Iraqi insurgents, Palestine, Hezbollah etc...
-
thank you!
My mind is finally made up: Obama!
-
RR22
So what exactly was real-world practical about Hillary's gamble to go to war in Iraq? I'm serious. You claim that Clinton has more real-world experience in foreign affairs, and that leaves me wondering if her judgment is superior as a result. The short answer seems no.
-
@ Doloresflower
Thanks for a great post and a link to a very interesting article!
I'm posting the link (from Dolores) here again - it's a comparison of Obama and Clinton foreign policy advisors and very enlightening: http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=8113
Appreciate it Dolores!
-
ok
But these are not new ideas by Ms. Power. This is simply realism, which is a worldview that has had a 7 year hiatus disappearing as it did into the dark ages of the Bush reign. Why is she a foreign policy whiz for restating what everybody knows ought to be done. This sets the bar really low for whiz status. Of course genocide is something that shouldn't be allowed to take place. If ever there existed a reason to use the half a trillion a year US military that's it. But Clinton wimped out in Rwanda as he did until he could resist Chirac no longer in the Balkans. That reason was domestic and poll driven as was the rest of his presidency. His reluctance to use force where it was needed is equalled only by Bush's desire to use it where it isn't needed. The UN is a fine place...to go and talk. It is a forum for shoe-pounding and other such theatrics. But in the end, it is only as good as its constituent members and it is only a fine instrument to stop genocide and dictators as well if the US takes the lead. And if the US is morally justified in taking the lead which it certainly was not in Iraq. It was and is morally wrong. Morals, like words, matter. The Europeans will do nothing interested as they are only in selling cuckoo clocks, wine, jets, and luxury autos. They allowed a slaughter to take place on their back stoop. The Russians are into money and preserving the rump empire. The Chinese and Japanese are absorbed in similar pursuits. The UN has a role which is better suited to what Veira de Melo was about, civic duties, feeding, clothing, administering. But that role will never come about unless there is something to administer which can only come about under aegis of a US faithful to its own values which knows its role. Under both Clinton and Bush, that role was first diminished then sullied.