Ishmael
Literotica Guru
- Joined
- Nov 24, 2001
- Posts
- 84,005
Although there is a large segment of the population that thinks we are, or should be.
This whole notion of being the worlds guarantor of "human rights" took root with Jimmy Carters campaign in 1976. The press jump on the notion like a shark smells blood in the water. The leading edge of the baby boomers, and I was one of them, thought that it was such a wonderful idea. The whole civil rights movement was winding down and we needed a new 'noble' goal. Not at all unlike our parents before us who had a goal too. Unfortunately their goal precipitated our goal. It's hard to realize that some goals maybe never realized.
Since Carter every administration (and I mean every), some more than others, have at least paid lip service to human rights. More than a few have been stampeded by the press into taking action. And therein lies the problem. Bush I had his Somalia, Clinton his Kosovo and now Obama is everywhere. Reagan and Bush II managed to avoid the traps (Although they too used the human rights argument when pressed). In each case where 'human rights' was the excuse for action, the results were ineffective at best.
The problem is obvious, when you are dealing with national concerns you have resources at your disposal to effect the outcome. That outcome may take years within a national environment, but with determination they will occur. When you attempt to employ these ideas on an international scale you are dealing with a situation that will necessarily lead to war if the offending party doesn't capitulate immediately. History has pretty much shown that they don't and it does.
Embargoes and sanctions are of little value unless you are dealing with a surrounded, land locked nation these days. Over the 4000 years of known human history commerce has always found a way to transpire and that will continue as long as the recipient has cash, credit, or is just a pain in the ass of their tormentors because the provider has an agenda too. And in case you haven't considered it, embargoes and sanctions are nothing more than acts of war unto themselves. Unless you may think that sieges against the castles of yore were merely an act of those applying the sieges were merely 'protecting' those structures.
These methods also have no particularly beneficial effects as far as the indigenous population is concerned either. The bombing campaigns of WWII had no serious morale effect on the populations of Britain, Germany, or Japan. They merely hardened the populations hearts. Only the occupation and subjugation of Germany and Japan had any effect. The Russians did the same to the countries they over ran, but those nations have repudiated Russian rule, we came out pretty well there. The Russians used the historic model, we used a different paradigm. Regardless of the respective outcomes, the salient point is total domination of the political structure and the culture. And that defines the level of commitment required to attain the goal of 'human rights.'
The next problem is that there are human rights violations taking place in damn near every nation on the face of the earth. You would do yourself a favor by counting those nations that are not major violators. As we can't be everywhere with the level of commitment required to effect real change, where do you start? Do you make a list? Given that it takes at least 30 years to realize the fruits of your efforts how long do you plan? How long can you plan when your political leadership is changing on a 12 year cycle (avg.)? Do we force congress to vote for either Yemen to receive the benefits of our largess, or should it be Darfur? Why not Liberia or Nigeria? How about Zimbabwe? China? Russia? Order the list folks.
I know that it's heart crushing to read about the abuses that women suffer in the world of Islam, or how one tribe suffers at the hand of an other in Africa or south America, or Vietnam, or Cambodia. Or anywhere else in the world.
In today's academic environment the youth is taught about how the blacks, native tribes, and oh so many others were abused by the "European Invaders." Little of the other side of the story is told. Most of the abuses that the victims suffered were as a result of their own actions. (The slaves excepted here, they were a victim of ignorance and tradition.) We evolved out of most of that, it would seem to be that evolving cultures be afforded the same courtesy. There may come a time when a final confrontation is required, but trying to effect an outcome by half measures isn't working.
As hard as it may seem to some, we have to let the rest of the world engage in their abuses of each other until such time THEY realize that they've gone about things in the wrong way. Lead by example, not by forced submission. Treat with all fairly, but treat not at all with those that will not live up to their obligations.
Accept behavior outside your borders as behavior beyond your control until it becomes so egregious that you have to apply the destruction of their culture solution.
Ishmael
This whole notion of being the worlds guarantor of "human rights" took root with Jimmy Carters campaign in 1976. The press jump on the notion like a shark smells blood in the water. The leading edge of the baby boomers, and I was one of them, thought that it was such a wonderful idea. The whole civil rights movement was winding down and we needed a new 'noble' goal. Not at all unlike our parents before us who had a goal too. Unfortunately their goal precipitated our goal. It's hard to realize that some goals maybe never realized.
Since Carter every administration (and I mean every), some more than others, have at least paid lip service to human rights. More than a few have been stampeded by the press into taking action. And therein lies the problem. Bush I had his Somalia, Clinton his Kosovo and now Obama is everywhere. Reagan and Bush II managed to avoid the traps (Although they too used the human rights argument when pressed). In each case where 'human rights' was the excuse for action, the results were ineffective at best.
The problem is obvious, when you are dealing with national concerns you have resources at your disposal to effect the outcome. That outcome may take years within a national environment, but with determination they will occur. When you attempt to employ these ideas on an international scale you are dealing with a situation that will necessarily lead to war if the offending party doesn't capitulate immediately. History has pretty much shown that they don't and it does.
Embargoes and sanctions are of little value unless you are dealing with a surrounded, land locked nation these days. Over the 4000 years of known human history commerce has always found a way to transpire and that will continue as long as the recipient has cash, credit, or is just a pain in the ass of their tormentors because the provider has an agenda too. And in case you haven't considered it, embargoes and sanctions are nothing more than acts of war unto themselves. Unless you may think that sieges against the castles of yore were merely an act of those applying the sieges were merely 'protecting' those structures.
These methods also have no particularly beneficial effects as far as the indigenous population is concerned either. The bombing campaigns of WWII had no serious morale effect on the populations of Britain, Germany, or Japan. They merely hardened the populations hearts. Only the occupation and subjugation of Germany and Japan had any effect. The Russians did the same to the countries they over ran, but those nations have repudiated Russian rule, we came out pretty well there. The Russians used the historic model, we used a different paradigm. Regardless of the respective outcomes, the salient point is total domination of the political structure and the culture. And that defines the level of commitment required to attain the goal of 'human rights.'
The next problem is that there are human rights violations taking place in damn near every nation on the face of the earth. You would do yourself a favor by counting those nations that are not major violators. As we can't be everywhere with the level of commitment required to effect real change, where do you start? Do you make a list? Given that it takes at least 30 years to realize the fruits of your efforts how long do you plan? How long can you plan when your political leadership is changing on a 12 year cycle (avg.)? Do we force congress to vote for either Yemen to receive the benefits of our largess, or should it be Darfur? Why not Liberia or Nigeria? How about Zimbabwe? China? Russia? Order the list folks.
I know that it's heart crushing to read about the abuses that women suffer in the world of Islam, or how one tribe suffers at the hand of an other in Africa or south America, or Vietnam, or Cambodia. Or anywhere else in the world.
In today's academic environment the youth is taught about how the blacks, native tribes, and oh so many others were abused by the "European Invaders." Little of the other side of the story is told. Most of the abuses that the victims suffered were as a result of their own actions. (The slaves excepted here, they were a victim of ignorance and tradition.) We evolved out of most of that, it would seem to be that evolving cultures be afforded the same courtesy. There may come a time when a final confrontation is required, but trying to effect an outcome by half measures isn't working.
As hard as it may seem to some, we have to let the rest of the world engage in their abuses of each other until such time THEY realize that they've gone about things in the wrong way. Lead by example, not by forced submission. Treat with all fairly, but treat not at all with those that will not live up to their obligations.
Accept behavior outside your borders as behavior beyond your control until it becomes so egregious that you have to apply the destruction of their culture solution.
Ishmael
