Peace through interdependence
Robert Rouse
November 06, 2005
Saturday night, former president Bill Clinton told a group gathered at the University of Minnesota that "you can't possibly kill, jail or occupy all your enemies".
I suppose a statement like that would normally be taken with a response of "well, duh". But with all this talk of globalization, some people are actually contemplating domination and annihilation of our adversaries. I'd name the instigators, but the way I see it, they'll all be either out of office or indicted sometime within the next three years or so.
It is cogitation of this sort that has led us to where we are today. Where did this synthesis of thought begin? To be honest, it began long before we even became a nation. Europeans who first landed on this continent took it upon themselves to subjugate or abrogate the indigenous tribes of North America. Our forefathers beat down or transplanted any aboriginal that stood in the way of "progress". It was this superiority complex that led us to believe it was okay to buy and sell other human beings and use them as slave labor. Many might argue that our forefathers were ignorant in the ways of humanity, but even after slavery was abolished and we became a more "civilized" nation, we continued our persecution of American Indians. We forced them off lands they had inhabited for thousands of years through the rule of imminent domain. Today the vast majority of tribes still live in squalor and poverty.
In the mid to late 20th Century, we decided we were in our rights to actuate and fund coups throughout Central America, South America, Africa, Southeast Asia and the Middle East. It was our government who subsidized the Taliban in their war against the Soviets. We provided the grubstake Saddam Hussein used to kill hundreds of thousands of his enemies both at home and in Iran. Since 1959, we have tried to get rid of Fidel Castro and in 2002 allegedly supported a failed coup in Venezuela against President Hugo Chávez. We not only want to be masters of our own domain, we feel it is a necessity to exert our control and influence in other domains as well. It is no wonder that anti-American sentiments are nearly universally practiced.
Why does it have to be like this? We squandered any concordance and benevolence gained after the attacks of Sept. 11 by exerting our will over the remonstration of European nations. Why? Because we refused to wait for inspectors to come up with proof of WMD in Iraq. Iraq was not an imminent threat. Many of the pro-war groups still scream loudly that several Democrats as far back as the Clinton administration also believed there were WMD or WMD under development in Iraq. Yes, absolutely. This is unequivocally true. You caught us with our pants down. But did Clinton invade Iraq? Was it the Democrats who deliberately misled the country into believing Iraq had attempted to purchase Yellow Cake Uranium in Niger? Is it the Democrats who continually try to equate Iraq and Saddam Hussein with 9/11? Say what you will about the Democrats and William Jefferson Clinton - just remember that no matter how many people handle a gun, it's always the one who pulls the trigger who holds the ultimate responsibility.
Over the years, sentiment toward the United States has been like a yo-yo, up and down. While we sat on our hands doing nothing during the early years of World War II, we were looked at with disdain. After we became liberators in Europe, it was "Viva la America." But after all the covert operations from the late 1950s through the 1990s, there was a global mistrust of U.S. intentions. Can you blame them? Then came September 11 and a chance to rejoin the global community. I know I've said this before, but it bears repeating, after 9/11, even a French headline read, "Today, we are all Americans." We had the world on a string and Bush decided to cut the string and let the yo-yo fall. Possibly beyond repair.
Another quote from Clinton's speech perhaps says what I've been saying even more succinctly. "We will always be a great nation if we do the right things. But as soon as China and India get as rich as we are, whether we will be the only military superpower will be their decision, not ours. ...We should be trying to build a world that we'd like to live in when we're not the only big dog on the block."
Bush is playing his cards as if we will someday be the overlords of a global government. This is arrogance of the highest nature. Clinton is speaking with the wisdom of a man who doesn't need to worry about politics. He believes that we need to be more benign and helpful. He mentioned how approval of the United States has soared in the world's largest Islamic population of Indonesia, while at the same time, approval of Osama bin Laden plummeted. And all because of the huge outpouring of U.S. post-tsunami relief. Clinton added, "we need to build up the positive forces of interdependence and reduce the negative forces of interdependence."
Interdependence is the key word. We need to learn how to live interdependently with other nations on this big blue marble. Future generations will thank us if they live as friends in a diverse, interdependent, multi-government world instead of being the hated martinets of globalization who are perpetually targeted by the subjacent populace of the rest of the Earth. I know I would.
I suppose a statement like that would normally be taken with a response of "well, duh". But with all this talk of globalization, some people are actually contemplating domination and annihilation of our adversaries. I'd name the instigators, but the way I see it, they'll all be either out of office or indicted sometime within the next three years or so.
It is cogitation of this sort that has led us to where we are today. Where did this synthesis of thought begin? To be honest, it began long before we even became a nation. Europeans who first landed on this continent took it upon themselves to subjugate or abrogate the indigenous tribes of North America. Our forefathers beat down or transplanted any aboriginal that stood in the way of "progress". It was this superiority complex that led us to believe it was okay to buy and sell other human beings and use them as slave labor. Many might argue that our forefathers were ignorant in the ways of humanity, but even after slavery was abolished and we became a more "civilized" nation, we continued our persecution of American Indians. We forced them off lands they had inhabited for thousands of years through the rule of imminent domain. Today the vast majority of tribes still live in squalor and poverty.
In the mid to late 20th Century, we decided we were in our rights to actuate and fund coups throughout Central America, South America, Africa, Southeast Asia and the Middle East. It was our government who subsidized the Taliban in their war against the Soviets. We provided the grubstake Saddam Hussein used to kill hundreds of thousands of his enemies both at home and in Iran. Since 1959, we have tried to get rid of Fidel Castro and in 2002 allegedly supported a failed coup in Venezuela against President Hugo Chávez. We not only want to be masters of our own domain, we feel it is a necessity to exert our control and influence in other domains as well. It is no wonder that anti-American sentiments are nearly universally practiced.
Why does it have to be like this? We squandered any concordance and benevolence gained after the attacks of Sept. 11 by exerting our will over the remonstration of European nations. Why? Because we refused to wait for inspectors to come up with proof of WMD in Iraq. Iraq was not an imminent threat. Many of the pro-war groups still scream loudly that several Democrats as far back as the Clinton administration also believed there were WMD or WMD under development in Iraq. Yes, absolutely. This is unequivocally true. You caught us with our pants down. But did Clinton invade Iraq? Was it the Democrats who deliberately misled the country into believing Iraq had attempted to purchase Yellow Cake Uranium in Niger? Is it the Democrats who continually try to equate Iraq and Saddam Hussein with 9/11? Say what you will about the Democrats and William Jefferson Clinton - just remember that no matter how many people handle a gun, it's always the one who pulls the trigger who holds the ultimate responsibility.
Over the years, sentiment toward the United States has been like a yo-yo, up and down. While we sat on our hands doing nothing during the early years of World War II, we were looked at with disdain. After we became liberators in Europe, it was "Viva la America." But after all the covert operations from the late 1950s through the 1990s, there was a global mistrust of U.S. intentions. Can you blame them? Then came September 11 and a chance to rejoin the global community. I know I've said this before, but it bears repeating, after 9/11, even a French headline read, "Today, we are all Americans." We had the world on a string and Bush decided to cut the string and let the yo-yo fall. Possibly beyond repair.
Another quote from Clinton's speech perhaps says what I've been saying even more succinctly. "We will always be a great nation if we do the right things. But as soon as China and India get as rich as we are, whether we will be the only military superpower will be their decision, not ours. ...We should be trying to build a world that we'd like to live in when we're not the only big dog on the block."
Bush is playing his cards as if we will someday be the overlords of a global government. This is arrogance of the highest nature. Clinton is speaking with the wisdom of a man who doesn't need to worry about politics. He believes that we need to be more benign and helpful. He mentioned how approval of the United States has soared in the world's largest Islamic population of Indonesia, while at the same time, approval of Osama bin Laden plummeted. And all because of the huge outpouring of U.S. post-tsunami relief. Clinton added, "we need to build up the positive forces of interdependence and reduce the negative forces of interdependence."
Interdependence is the key word. We need to learn how to live interdependently with other nations on this big blue marble. Future generations will thank us if they live as friends in a diverse, interdependent, multi-government world instead of being the hated martinets of globalization who are perpetually targeted by the subjacent populace of the rest of the Earth. I know I would.