PETER SAID:
“Maybe I was not clear about that, sorry. I am also worried about ‘what do Americans think of the international community?’ That is an important issues too.”
In what sense? That we should simply kowtow to “world opinion”? Why is that a one-way street?
“Your Nazi comparison does not really apply here. Remember Iraq did not attack the US.”
Remember, Nazi Germany didn’t attack the US.
Anyway, your comparison is different than my comparison, so it’s a non-sequitur.
“You could try to address why EU now rarely agrees with US foreign policy.”
I thought you were concerned with what the “international community” thinks of American foreign policy. But your Eurocentric bias now emerges.
Assuming that you’re not just paying lip-service to the “international community,” but sincerely care about “world opinion,” which is hardly synonymous with the EU, please furnish the following information:
1.How many foreign language news outlets to you read, see, or listen to?
2.What do the following countries think of US foreign policy over, say, the last 50-60 years? (Of course, some of the political borders have been redrawn in that time, but as a keen observer of international affairs, I’m sure you can make the necessary adjustments):
Albania
Algeria
Andorra
Angola
Antigua
Bangladesh
Barbados
Barbuda
Belarus
Belize
Benin
Bhutan
Bolivia
Botswana
Brunei Darussalam
Burkina Faso
Burundi
Cameroon
Cape Verde
Comoros
Congo
Côte d'Ivoire
Djibouti
Dominican Republic
Equatorial Guinea
Fiji
Gabon
Gambia
Ghana
Grenadines
Guinea-Bissau
Kiribati
Lesotho
Liechtenstein
Luxembourg
Madagascar
Malawi
Maldives
Mali
Malta
Marshall Islands
Mauritania
Mauritius
Micronesia
Moldova
Monaco
Mongolia
Montenegro
Mozambique
Myanmar
Namibia
Nauru
Nevis
Palau
Papua New Guinea
Principe
Saint Kitts
Saint Lucia
Saint Vincent
Samoa
San Marino
Sao Tome
Senegal
Seychelles
Sierra Leone
Solomon Islands
Sri Lanka
Suriname
Swaziland
Timor-Leste
Togo
Tonga
Trinidad
Tobago
Tuvalu
Vanuatu
Supply full citations for your polling data.
BTW, did the pollster employ simple random sampling, stratified sampling, systematic sampling, or multi-stage cluster sampling?
Did the pollster employ bivariate, multivariate, or univariate analysis?
Did the sample-group have access to free media or state-run media?
Did the survey questions reflect interview bias?
3.What makes you think the EU reflects public opinion? Given the vicissitudes of the Maastricht Treaty, the EU seems to lack grassroots support. Or do you equate “world opinion” with pundits and bureaucrats?
4.And while you’re at it, perhaps you could pull up the stats on what the international community thinks of Andorra’s foreign policy, or Barbuda’s foreign policy, or Cameroon’s foreign policy, or Cape Verde’s foreign policy, or Kiribati’s foreign policy, or Mauritania’s foreign policy, or Suriname’s foreign policy, or Tobago’s foreign policy, or Vanuatu’s foreign policy.
As a committed internationalist, I’m sure your not so provincial and patronizing and ethnocentric as to suppose that all comparisons center on the United States.
“What do you think are the policy issues where the US is right and EU is wrong?”
Since you’re the one who’s using the EU as a yardstick, not me, I’m under no obligation to compare the two.
“US keeps on breaking its promises like; AIDS help to Africa.”
You have a very paternalistic and imperialistic attitude towards the third world. Do you think Africa should be recolonized?
“Respecting international deals and laws.”
Such as what?
And please apply the same standard to the other countries I’ve listed.
“The recent Bali climate confrence, where the US was the only country trying to stop the progress.”
If you’re that concerned with global warming, then we should do everything we can to keep India and China in a preindustrial state, correct?
“It would take $5-$10 Billion to eradicate Malaria. It would take $10-$15 Billion to provide clean drinking water to everyone.”
So you think America should assume the role of the Great White Hope. I take it that Kipling is your favorite political theorist.
Peter writes:
ReplyDelete"The recent Bali climate confrence, where the US was the only country trying to stop the progress."
It's hard to take the UN, and other global warming religionists, seriously when these kinds of stories are far too common:
"While more than 10,000 delegates were at this month's United Nations climate conference in Bali, Indonesia — they stayed cool — thanks to air conditioning that used what is considered one of the most dangerous pollutants on earth.
"The Sydney Morning Herald reports the resort's air conditioning system used highly damaging refrigerant gases called hydro chlorofluorocarbons — which are blamed for devouring the ozone in the upper atmosphere. Investigators counted 700 cylinders of the gas — and the system was said to be visibly leaking.
"The report says the gases were as lethal to the atmosphere as 48,000 tons of carbon dioxide — which is about the same as the aircraft emissions of all the planes used to fly the delegates to Indonesia."
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,317726,00.html
The reason that I take global warming seriously is because:
ReplyDelete---
http://www.livescience.com/environment/050629_fresh_water.html:
“Since the late 1960s, much of the North Atlantic Ocean has become less salty, in part due to increases in fresh water runoff induced by global warming, scientists say.”
http://environment.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn12528&feedId=online-news_rss20:
“The surface waters of the North Atlantic are getting saltier, suggests a new study of records spanning over 50 years. …The seawater is probably becoming saltier due to global warming, Boyer says.”
---
Global Warming is serious! GLOBAL WARMING CAUSES CONTRADICTIONS AND THEREFORE DESTROYS LOGIC AND RATIONALITY! There is nothing more dangerous than Global Warming.
Ph34r!
Ah, the EU. This is the same EU whose representative governments promised referendums for their populations with respect to the recently signed treaty, but then those same governments systematically denied those referendums. What should the world think of that?
ReplyDeleteGlobal Warming. Ah yes, the ever shrinking ice caps, that according to Brazil, are no longer shrinking. Indeed, according to Brazil, the Southern Hemisphere’s ice cover now is at the same level as last June, i.e., a level seen during the last winter in the Southern Hemisphere. Besides, there are two more millions square kilometers of ice now compared to December 2006. And the large positive anomaly has persisted since September. In the Northern Hemisphere, the ice and snow cover have recovered to within 1% (one snowstorm) of normal. Yet Al Gore said they'd be gone by, what, 2030?
I agree, when we put bad things into the air, we create problems, but let's not exaggerate.
Of course, when it comes to world opinion on Iraq, the "world" felt strong enough to issue 17 different resolutions to demand compliance with the 1991 ceasefire conditions, but did not quite want to enforce those same resolutions, preferring to let Saddam continue to fill mass graves, and train and finance terrorists.
ReplyDeleteSomehow I think it will be the same with global warming (Or is it "climate change"?), except to put impossible demands forward and collect money from those who signed up for it.
Well, thanks for the special welcome to the Triablogue site. I appreciate the special attention.
ReplyDeleteSTEVE said..
"Nazi Germany didn’t attack the US."
I thought Germany declared war on the United States on 11 December 1941...
STEVE said..
"I thought you were concerned with what the “international community” thinks of American foreign policy. But your Eurocentric bias now emerges."
I pointed out the that even the closest US allies do not agree with most US foreign policies. If EU policy makers try to distance themselves form the US policies, the rest of the world will have even stronger opinions. It is funny that you accuse me of having "Eurocentric bias". EU has higher GDP than the States and my comments are clearly biased towards the third world countries.
STEVE said..
"1. How many foreign language news outlets to you read, see, or listen to?"
English is not my first language, so about 50% non-English news (mostly 1 language, occasionally 2 others), 35% Non-US English news and 15% US English news. How many foreign language news do you read?
STEVE said..
"2. What do the following countries think of US foreign policy over, say, the last 50-60 years? ...Supply full citations for your polling data. Did the pollster employ bivariate, multivariate, or univariate analysis? Did the sample-group have access to free media or state-run media? Did the survey questions reflect interview bias?"
Very funny, sorry I missed the point you are trying to make?
STEVE said..
"3. What makes you think the EU reflects public opinion? Given the vicissitudes of the Maastricht Treaty, the EU seems to lack grassroots support. Or do you equate “world opinion” with pundits and bureaucrats?"
I agree with you that EU bureaucrats and specially people drafting directives don't always seem to follow popular opinion. But regarding issues like applying military force and foreign aid (mostly national level) they seem to present EU (not necessary world) opinion.
Regarding your point 4, I'm not sure what you mean. You accused me of ethnocentrism, but my comments suggested anti-ethnocentrism. The US has an opportunity what the countries you mentioned do not have, that is the difference.
STEVE said..
"Since you’re the one who’s using the EU as a yardstick, not me, I’m under no obligation to compare the two."
Ok
STEVE said..
"You have a very paternalistic and imperialistic attitude towards the third world. Do you think Africa should be recolonized?"
Again, did you read my comment. I said that we should increase the foreign aid and to give something back to them, which makes me anti-imperialistic.
STEVE said..
“Respecting international deals and laws." "Such as what?""
I think we were talking about torture... for example the US ratified the "Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment" of 1987. You can also Google "International Humanitarian Law and the Geneva Conventions" for more info.
STEVE said..
"If you’re that concerned with global warming, then we should do everything we can to keep India and China in a preindustrial state, correct?"
You should read what people were advocating in Bali; equal amount of carbon emission per person. That sounds fair to me...
STEVE said..
"So you think America should assume the role of the Great White Hope"
The progress I have seen in Asia in last ten years is just amazing. There is so much the US could do, but staying in the sidelines render nations into irrelevance in the long run.
Do you really think the US should only sit on the side lines and use military power once in the while or what should US foreign policy be in the future?
PETER SAID:
ReplyDelete“I thought Germany declared war on the United States on 11 December 1941...”
Now you’re equivocating. A declaration of war is not the same thing as attacking another country.
So, by your new definition, if Saddam had declared war on the US, then the US would have the right to invade and occupy Iraq. Is that your position?
“I pointed out the that even the closest US allies do not agree with most US foreign policies.”
Once again, y0u’re redefining your terms after the fact. You made this statement:
““Maybe I was not clear about that, sorry. I am also worried about ‘what do Americans think of the international community?’ That is an important issues too.”
The EU is not “the international community.” It is, at best, a small subset of the international community. When you keep retreating from your own past statements, that’s a tacit admission that you don’t believe your own arguments. And if you don’t believe your own arguments, why should anyone else?
“If EU policy makers try to distance themselves form the US policies, the rest of the world will have even stronger opinions.”
Where is your polling data to support that comparison?
Why do you think we should care about the mere “opinion” of other countries? Do you think that North Korea is a moral arbiter? Do you think that Syria is a moral arbiter?
“It is funny that you accuse me of having "Eurocentric bias". EU has higher GDP than the States.”
By definition, the EU is Eurocentric. Is that too subtle for you to grasp?
Whether or not the EU has a higher GDP than the US is irrelevant to the Eurocentric orientation of the EU.
It’s also fallacious to compare the GDP of one country with the GDP of a set of countries. How does the GDP of the EU compare with the GDP of N. and S. America combined?
“And my comments are clearly biased towards the third world countries.”
If your comments are biased towards the third world, why are you appealing to the EU? Intellectual consistency is not one of your virtues. Hopefully you have some compensatory virtues to make up for you deficit in this department.
“English is not my first language, so about 50% non-English news (mostly 1 language, occasionally 2 others)”
So you’re admitting that your source of information about world opinion is limited to one primary foreign language outlet, and occasionally two others.
How do you presume to speak for the international community when you operate with such an infinitesimal database? Do you really think that a knowledge of one or at most three foreign language news outlets is a representative sampling of world opinion?
“How many foreign language news do you read?”
You’re really deficient in the basic rules of logical argument. I guess this reflects your insular, hidebound outlook.
You’re the one, not me, who’s appealing to world opinion. Therefore, I’m answering you on your own grounds. I’m applying your own standard to you, for the sake of argument. This does not commit me to your standard of comparison.
For all you know, I might be fluent in 20 foreign languages, but that’s irrelevant to the point at issue. I’m measuring your claims by your own yardstick.
“Very funny, sorry I missed the point you are trying to make?”
I see that you’re unable to follow your own argument, so I guess I’ll have to spell it out for you in baby steps. This is how it goes:
You are appealing to “world” opinion—the opinion of the “international community.” In order for you to know the “world’s” opinion of American foreign policy, you would need to break that down on a country-by-country basis. So where is your country-by-country polling data for “world” opinion on American foreign policy?
“You accused me of ethnocentrism, but my comments suggested anti-ethnocentrism.”
No, your comments suggest intellectual confusion. You pay lipservice to world opinion, but in actual practice, your frame of reference is Eurocentric.
“The US has an opportunity what the countries you mentioned do not have, that is the difference.”
Countries create their own opportunities. American immigrants had to create their own opportunities. America wasn’t a prefabricated superpower when it was originally colonized. Rather, it as a sprawling wilderness.
“I said that we should increase the foreign aid and to give something back to them, which makes me anti-imperialistic.”
Foreign aid is paternalistic. Are you a white supremacist?
What would the US be “giving back”? The US never colonized Africa.
“I think we were talking about torture... for example the US ratified the "Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment" of 1987. You can also Google ‘International Humanitarian Law and the Geneva Conventions’ for more info.”
The Geneva Conventions cover POWs, not extralegal terrorists. Since Al-Qaida is not a signatory to the Geneva Conventions, it is not a party to the Geneva Conventions.
International law must be interpreted by the judicial branches of individual nation-states.
Oh, and I don’t see any attempt on your part to consistency apply your criteria to the other countries of the world. Are other countries “respecting international deals and laws”? Why do you single out the US? Why the double standard? One standard for the US, and no standard for the international community? Why should we respect “world” opinion of the world is guilty of what you accuse us of doing?
“You should read what people were advocating in Bali; equal amount of carbon emission per person. That sounds fair to me...”
“Fair”? “Fair” is not a scientific criterion. If you really think that global warming poses a threat to life as we know it, then you would be committed to taking whatever countermeasures are necessary to reverse the process. What is fair is irrelevant to what is effective.
“Do you really think the US should only sit on the side lines and use military power once in the while or what should US foreign policy be in the future?”
Depends on what you mean. Take foreign aid. Apparently, you think that middleclass American wage earners don’t need the money they make to live on and provide for their own families. Apparently, you don’t think it’s their money, even though they earned it.
Instead, you seem to think that our wages belong to the gov’t. The citizens are tenet farmers or serfs. The state is free to garnish our wages at will and redistribute the income to other more worthy causes.
I disagree. Middleclass Americans are not responsible for all the poor people of the world. We are responsible, first and foremost, for taking care of the families that we brought into this world.
If, at the end of the day, we have some disposable income left over, we should be generous. We should contribute (voluntarily) to private Christian charities which aid the poor at home and abroad.
Steve,
ReplyDeleteI did not realize you are so against the foreign aid that you start hysterically name calling people when they advocate more foreign aid. You call me "very paternalistic and imperialistic" and "white supremacist". Huh! When I compare EU and the US you accuse me of being "Eurocentric bias". That does not follow and hint: I don't live in Europe. When people have no good arguments, they start name calling...
You don't seem to remember you countries history stating:
"... declared war on the United States on 11 December 1941... A declaration of war is not the same thing as attacking another country.
Read about submarine attacks called "Second Happy Time"
Your have forgotten other part of the US history:
What would the US be “giving back”? The US never colonized Africa
You have no problem enjoying the wealth your ancestor created and conveniently forget centuries of free labor provided by slave trade.
You don't know much about international treaties:
Since Al-Qaida is not a signatory to the Geneva Conventions, it is not a party to the Geneva Conventions.
Only nations, not disorganization, sign these treaties. (don't try to get your local club to get to sign a Geneva Convention). And if the US signs the treaties, it should follow it, not go asking POWs if their organization has signed a treaty or not...
You don't seem to grasp the basic concepts of law:
I don’t see any attempt on your part to consistency apply your criteria to the other countries of the world. Are other countries “respecting international deals and laws”? Why do you single out the US?
The discussion was about the US, not other countries. If one country does not respect a particular law it does not give a free pass to others. If you see someone running a red light it does not give you the right to do that.
You misunderstand words:
Foreign aid is paternalistic
Paternalism: A policy or practice of treating or governing people in a fatherly manner, especially by providing for their needs without giving them rights or responsibilities.
Foreign aid can be paternalistic, but it does not have to be.
You apply double standard to foreign policy:
at the end of the day, we have some disposable income left over, we should be generous. We should contribute (voluntarily) to private Christian charities which aid the poor at home and abroad.
It is ironic how some people think that charity should be a private issue, but they are ok that their federal government use tax money to drop bombs on other countries... and they are advocating Christian values...
You seem to be very keen on polling data. There are also other ways to do get an idea what other people/governments think. For example read the transcripts of international talks; text are often not translated as delegates speak English.
Now, why don't you drop the name calling and your silly accusations and come up with intelligent arguments.
Non-uniformed terrorists aren't covered by the Geneva conventions, and are certainly not "POWs".
ReplyDeletehttp://www.unhchr.ch/html/menu3/b/91.htm
"Members of other militias and members of other volunteer corps, including those of organized resistance movements, belonging to a Party to the conflict and operating in or outside their own territory, even if this territory is occupied, provided that such militias or volunteer corps, including such organized resistance movements, fulfil the following conditions:
(a) That of being commanded by a person responsible for his subordinates;
(b) That of having a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance; terrorists don't meet this
(c) That of carrying arms openly;
or this
(d) That of conducting their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war.
or this "
Foreign aid IS paternalistic because it increases the money, patronage and power of corrupt "third world" governments who then oppress their people and take away their "rights and responsibilities."
Foreign aid is NOT given to the poor, as you seem to think, but instead to the rulers of the poor.
What poor countries need is TRADE not AID. They need a free market, which "foreign aid" works in many ways to undermine.
You also say that foreign aid isn't imperialistic, but surely making other countries' corrupt governments into our dependents is highly imperialistic. It's like giving money to homeless people when you know that they'll use it to buy drugs.
Countries historically have ONLY ever got rich through the free market. Why should we pursue your policies, which will only make their societies less economically free and lead to big government?
Are you a Marxist by any chance?
Hi, thanks for your comments..
ReplyDeleteMark Pendray said:
Non-uniformed terrorists aren't covered by the Geneva conventions
Please read:
http://www.hrw.org/english/docs/2004/05/24/usint8614.htm
to see that nobody should be tortured.
Mark Pendray said:
Foreign aid IS paternalistic because it increases the money, patronage and power of corrupt "third world" governments who then oppress their people and take away their "rights and responsibilities."
It can, but not necessary. Foreign aid can be vaccination programs, hospitals, education, clean water programs, not necessary money. You are right that often money and support goes to wrong hands. Zimbabwe was a success story, but look at it now. On the other hand China, India, Chile and even Israel has benefited a lot from foreign aid. Tanzania has somewhat stable democracy. And look at Singapore. Turning a swap land in 50 years to more technologically modern society than the States in 50 years without real democracy and minimal foreing aid...
Mark Pendray said:
What poor countries need is TRADE not AID. They need a free market..
Very contraversial topic. Developing nations do not agree with you on this. See success stories like India and China and how their market and currency is protected. They thinking is "Free market between two unequal partners is not a free market."
Mark Pendray said:
You also say that foreign aid isn't imperialistic, but surely making other countries' corrupt governments into our dependents is highly imperialistic.It's like giving money to homeless people when you know that they'll use it to buy drugs.
You are right. There are many cases foreign "aid" has been used imprialisticly and corrupt government take advantages of it. (Central-America, North-Africa,...)
Thats why we should give homeless a shelter, an education and a job not necessary money or a gun.
Mark Pendray said:
Countries historically have ONLY ever got rich through the free market.
Not so. Historically there are many ways for countries to become rich. Look at the rich nations in the history: Ancient Egypt, Romans and Spain (16th/17th century); Brunei, Bahrain, UAE, Kuwait, Equatorial Guinea in Africa; Hungary did ok after WW2; Modern China and India.
Mark Pendray said:
Why should we pursue your policies, which will only make their societies less economically
free and lead to big government?
Creating education systems for poor countries gives them opportunities to become economically free. (possible even creating the US more business opportunities...)
Mark Pendray said:
Are you a Marxist by any chance?
No. I'm a standard middle of the road believer in capitalism and ~free market economy. I have seen the poverty on the poor nations and believe we have it so good and we really need to start improving everyones lives...
PETER SAID:
ReplyDelete“I did not realize you are so against the foreign aid that you start hysterically name calling people when they advocate more foreign aid.”
For someone who accuses his opponent of “hysteria,” you’re pretty thin-skinned. Looks like you’re projecting your own “hysteria” onto your opponent.
“You call me ‘very paternalistic and imperialistic’."
Because you are.
“And ‘white supremacist’.”
No, I simply *asked* you if you were a white supremacist. AIDS is a behavior-driven disease. Why do you think it’s the responsibility of the US gov’t to get involved? Do you think black Africans lack self-control?
And why should Africa be poorer than the US? It’s a continent rich in natural resources.
“When I compare EU and the US you accuse me of being ‘Eurocentric bias’... That does not follow.”
Of course it follows. When you hold up the European Union as your standard of comparison, then, by definition, you’re invoking a Eurocentric criterion. Pity you can’t follow the logic of your own argument.
Admittedly, your argument is no good, so I can understand why you are in a hurry to abandon it. But I reserve the right to hold you to the terms of your argument.
“And hint: I don't live in Europe.”
Which is irrelevant to the fact that you’re using a Eurocentric yardstick. Which is also inconsistent with your appeal to “world opinion” and the “international community.”
“When people have no good arguments, they start name calling...”
When people like you can’t keep track of your own arguments, you begin to whine.
“Read about submarine attacks called ‘Second Happy Time’.”
If you want to equate an attack on America with an attack on American assets, then Iraq attacked us when it repeatedly fired on American fighter pilots enforcing the no-fly zone.
“You have no problem enjoying the wealth your ancestor created and conveniently forget centuries of free labor provided by slave trade.”
At best, that would only be an argument for reparations to former African-American slaves, and not an argument for aid to Africa.
Slavery was also indigenous to Africa. Should black Africans pay write themselves a check?
Many different immigrant groups contributed to American prosperity.
“You don't know much about international treaties…Only nations, not disorganization, sign these treaties. (Don’t try to get your local club to get to sign a Geneva Convention).”
Which was the very point of my argument. Only a legal entity like a nation-state can be party to an international treaty. Be definition, a terrorist organization is an extralegal entity.
“And if the US signs the treaties, it should follow it, not go asking POWs if their organization has signed a treaty or not...”
Terrorists are not POWs. They are not representing a legal entity like a nation-state.
“The discussion was about the US, not other countries. If one country does not respect a particular law it does not give a free pass to others.”
That’s exactly what you’re doing—giving a free pass to everyone else.
You’re the one who wants to internationalize the issue. Therefore, you need to hold each and every nation to the very same standards—not single out the US for special opprobrium.
“Paternalism: A policy or practice of treating or governing people in a fatherly manner, especially by providing for their needs without giving them rights or responsibilities. Foreign aid can be paternalistic, but it does not have to be.”
Governing *whose* ‘people.’ Are the governed the citizens of the state in question? Is it *their* government?
If they’re the citizens of another country, then that’s paternalism.
By your own definition, you think the US should govern the peoples of Africa. Textbook imperialism.
“It is ironic how some people think that charity should be a private issue, but they are ok that their federal government use tax money to drop bombs on other countries... and they are advocating Christian values...”
What do you know about Christian values, anyway? What Christian theologians have you read? What Christian ethicists? What Bible scholars?
Give us a list of names and titles to demonstrate that you have firsthand knowledge of Christian values.
In Christian theology, people enjoy the right of self-defense. To wage war in self-defense. Read Deut 20. And that includes the authority of the state. Read Rom 13.
“You seem to be very keen on polling data.”
You seem to be very keen on making sweeping claims about world opinion which you can’t back up with polling data.
“There are also other ways to do get an idea what other people/governments think. For example read the transcripts of international talks; text are often not translated as delegates speak English.”
Two problems:
i) Do the delegates represent popular opinion? Are these democratic regimes with free media? Or is this simply elite opinion?
ii) You have yet to offer any specific documentation to substantiate your claims.
“Now, why don't you drop the name calling and your silly accusations and come up with intelligent arguments.”
Now, why don’t you drop the crybaby rhetoric, the evasive maneuvers, as well as the double-standards, and come up with solid evidence for your sweeping assertions.