This is something that's been banging around in my head for a bit, and I am sure that the presentation here will not be a finished article or 100% coherent, but here goes it.
I am from the US, but anyone from the US doesn't understand foreign policy until they go abroad. Maybe this goes for everywhere, but the US is more isolated than most places.
There is this one thing. People too readily dismiss the voluminous war crimes of the US. I don't mean Americans, some do, many Americans are very critical of US foreign policy. I am referring to the apologists of the US, who are not defined by nationality and include many non-Americans.
You know what they say? They usually say that the big fish eat the little fish. In other words, it is the laws of nature which determine the status quot. Yes the US is guilty of egregious acts, but it is only because it is natural for them to commit such acts.
I reject this perspective wholesale.
In my opinion, if you insist on this sort of definition, you can just as well justify the Nazi holocaust against the Jews on the same bases. Or any genocide. The Turks against the Armenians. The Armenian massacre of Azerbaijani in Khojaly (not that they were of equal scale, but Khojaly was egregious to the extreme). You name it.
The irony, however, is that such incidences are frequently brought up, not as a result of human nature, but as uncivilized acts. In essence, they are looked upon as exceptions to the general tendencies of human civilization. It is for this reason that I brought up the Nazi holocaust against the Jews (and others) firstly, because this is the alpha-example in this respect. These things are not regarded as products of human nature, they are regarded as abominations.
My answer to this is that we cannot have it both ways. They were indeed, of course, utter abominations.
And so is the conduct of the US government with regards to its foreign policy and its wars of aggression.
This is not about equivalences, in fact the entire point is that equivalences are nonsensical. It is the principle of equivalence which is the underlying factor in the "human nature" argument with respect to the conduct of certain states (i.e. the contemporary US). On this account, what I am referring to is the polar opposite of the principle of equivalence, and it is this which I find to be the only logical basis for interpreting the actions of states.
There are of course perceived interests. I am not a pacifist.
However, when it comes to the question of why the wars are, I find no basis in logic, aside from the inhumane actions of oligarchs.
In my opinion, the wars are a product of the degenerate and corrupt status of the US and the UK (though especially the US, but also extending to other countries beyond the UK, as well).
Nothing is really so new here.
But change will come, and most of us will live to see it. The US will no longer be supreme 20 years from this day. As difficult of a pill it is for some to swallow, China will be the next super power. Some may not like this, but it is the way the cards will fall. My suggestion is that if you don't like it, fine, but get over it.
I am from the US, but anyone from the US doesn't understand foreign policy until they go abroad. Maybe this goes for everywhere, but the US is more isolated than most places.
There is this one thing. People too readily dismiss the voluminous war crimes of the US. I don't mean Americans, some do, many Americans are very critical of US foreign policy. I am referring to the apologists of the US, who are not defined by nationality and include many non-Americans.
You know what they say? They usually say that the big fish eat the little fish. In other words, it is the laws of nature which determine the status quot. Yes the US is guilty of egregious acts, but it is only because it is natural for them to commit such acts.
I reject this perspective wholesale.
In my opinion, if you insist on this sort of definition, you can just as well justify the Nazi holocaust against the Jews on the same bases. Or any genocide. The Turks against the Armenians. The Armenian massacre of Azerbaijani in Khojaly (not that they were of equal scale, but Khojaly was egregious to the extreme). You name it.
The irony, however, is that such incidences are frequently brought up, not as a result of human nature, but as uncivilized acts. In essence, they are looked upon as exceptions to the general tendencies of human civilization. It is for this reason that I brought up the Nazi holocaust against the Jews (and others) firstly, because this is the alpha-example in this respect. These things are not regarded as products of human nature, they are regarded as abominations.
My answer to this is that we cannot have it both ways. They were indeed, of course, utter abominations.
And so is the conduct of the US government with regards to its foreign policy and its wars of aggression.
This is not about equivalences, in fact the entire point is that equivalences are nonsensical. It is the principle of equivalence which is the underlying factor in the "human nature" argument with respect to the conduct of certain states (i.e. the contemporary US). On this account, what I am referring to is the polar opposite of the principle of equivalence, and it is this which I find to be the only logical basis for interpreting the actions of states.
There are of course perceived interests. I am not a pacifist.
However, when it comes to the question of why the wars are, I find no basis in logic, aside from the inhumane actions of oligarchs.
In my opinion, the wars are a product of the degenerate and corrupt status of the US and the UK (though especially the US, but also extending to other countries beyond the UK, as well).
Nothing is really so new here.
But change will come, and most of us will live to see it. The US will no longer be supreme 20 years from this day. As difficult of a pill it is for some to swallow, China will be the next super power. Some may not like this, but it is the way the cards will fall. My suggestion is that if you don't like it, fine, but get over it.