Fancy being finessed by the Chinese on Human Rights!

[skunk]

Supplement by US soldiers to "US Human Rights Report"

www.chinaview.cn 2004-05-25 15:20:08



****BEIJING, May 25 (Xinhuanet) -- As known to everybody the US State Department is very good at framing up the "Human Rights Report" of other countries (abbrev. as report) in which it features not only lengthy but also nagging as though it were a feet-binding cloth of a sloppy woman. Though in great detail the State Department still feels not enough to express itself and so whenever it is going to be published officials are sure to be sent for its explanation in detail for fear that it were not appropriate or cut to the point.

****A report in such a big detail should normally have nothing to be left out. But whoever in this world read the report will come to find out that a big "chunk" has been "neglected" in each and every report, namely the missing of the report on the US human rights. With regard to this, many American people are not satisfied with it, saying that "?"why the government failed to speak of itself?"

****Don't worry! The American soldiers have done a fine job. They've made up the part with actions that the US State Department has left out in the "Report". The prisoner abuse taken place in the Abu Ghurayb Prison in Iraq serves a fine example. The supplementary report made by the US soldiers with thousands of pictures, videotapes and notes jotted down according to their oral accounts is far more wonderful and persuasive than the "Report" elaborated by the US State Department. Judging from the present media reports the supplementary contents are still on the increase. From the US soldiers in Iraq, Afghanistan and the Guantanamo Base the contents supplied by them are getting richer and richer.

****However, the worldly known prisoner abuse is by no means all. What's more attractive is the latest additional piece, i.e. the US racial discrimination and sabotage of religious belief. According to the US military investigators, what is in vogue among the US prisoner-abuse soldiers in Iraq is their serious racial discrimination. They hold a view quite extensively that the Muslim is terrorism. An American soldier for training and using the military dog said, even the dog feels disagreeable to these Iraqis for their features and bodily smells." Some other reports say the US soldiers force the Iraqi prisoners to drink wine and have pork.

****"This obviously goes against the Islamic doctrines and creeds." It is not only a prisoner-abuse but also a blasphemy of religion. Is it the US that is gesticulating everywhere, reprimanding others about their "discrimination of ethnic minorities" and "violation of or calling a halt to religious belief"? The examples mentioned above indicate that the US has acted even worse than others have in the record of human rights. In addition to all this, while the US soldiers are humiliating and maltreating the prisoners in foreign countries they've even gone further in putting them to death by way of beating, strangling and choking. At present the Pentagon has recognized there were at least 37 people in Iraq and Afghanistan who had been put to such a tragic death. The US has been nagging about the "human rights" and "humanitarianism" day in day out. How could it be so forgettable that it has even left out from its human rights report a content of such a great importance?

****Of course, what the US soldiers did could only serve as "a modest spur for bringing about greater contributions". Recently the US media including papers major and minor, broadcasting and TV and even the court hearings are all helping the US State Department make up the left out materials and even the whole world is helping it to make complete the US human rights report. As expected the supplementary contents will turn out to be on an increase ceaselessly and become richer and richer as time goes on.

****Some say the human rights record as did the US soldiers in Iraq is only a small piece of an ice-mountain. Actually the record of human rights as did the US is attracting more and more attention of the people in the world. How the US has done in this respect everybody in the world has a clear account of it in his or her mind's eye. If a thing you did but omitted in your report it's still yours and wouldn't go to others But if you write something in your report that do not fit for others, others won't take it. For this we should offer a piece of advice that the US State Department has to make a little change over to new ways!

(People's Daily)

http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/2004-05/25/content_1489552.htm

Despite the oddly babelfish quality of the translation ("small piece of an ice-mountain" indeed!) the damage done to international human rights by the events in Iraq is incalculable. Just as the "War on Terrorism" has given Putin the green light to slaughter the Chechyens, and encouraged countless other tyrants, autocrats and juntas to reclassify political opponents as "terrorists", so the inept and unprincipled adventure in Iraq has tainted the promise of human rights for billions. Good Job!

[dopefiend]

Good Job!


Thank you. :D

[skunk]

Thank you. :D
Well, not you PERSONALLY! :rolleyes:

[Desertrat]

Well whoopee-poop!

When you look at which nations are on the UN human rights committee, I pretty much don't pay attention to this drivel.

Yeah, the stuff in Iraq isn't good. But, it's a relative few of all our guys in Iraq, much less of our entire military. It's not an intstitutionalized behavior pattern sponsored by our government or supported by our society. If it were, there wouldn't be all the flap. This sort of behavior IS institutionalized in most of the countries which are now so loudly decrying it.

It's just the usual and expected yap-yap; even those doing it know it's yap-yap. They're just having fun at our expense...

'Rat

[IJ Reilly]

Despite the oddly babelfish quality of the translation ("small piece of an ice-mountain" indeed!) the damage done to international human rights by the events in Iraq is incalculable. Just as the "War on Terrorism" has given Putin the green light to slaughter the Chechyens, and encouraged countless other tyrants, autocrats and juntas to reclassify political opponents as "terrorists", so the inept and unprincipled adventure in Iraq has tainted the promise of human rights for billions. Good Job!

This reads like the instructions for a bicycle I bought recently.

I guess the significance of this is lost on some here. It is not a good day when China gets to gloat about human rights. It might be worth a few moments of our time to ponder how that little turnabout came to happen.

[skunk]

Yeah, the stuff in Iraq isn't good. But, it's a relative few of all our guys in Iraq, much less of our entire military. It's not an intstitutionalized behavior pattern sponsored by our government or supported by our society. If it were, there wouldn't be all the flap. This sort of behavior IS institutionalized in most of the countries which are now so loudly decrying it.'Rat
Hmmm. Maybe it IS an institutionalized behavior pattern sponsored by our government(s). Maybe that's why we're so upset it's been discovered...

[pseudobrit]

Yeah if the UN had an ethnic integration commission, it would be headed by Hitler and Stalin. :rolleyes:

And the Security Council contains more than one member who've seen fit to make some parts of the world quite insecure. Is that the UN's fault?

[skunk]

Yeah if the UN had an ethnic integration commission, it would be headed by Hitler and Stalin. :rolleyes:
Yeah, if the UN had a "responsible warmongering" commission, it would be headed by George Bush. :rolleyes:

[Abstract]

Just as the "War on Terrorism" has given Putin the green light to slaughter the Chechyens, and encouraged countless other tyrants, autocrats and juntas to reclassify political opponents as "terrorists", so the inept and unprincipled adventure in Iraq has tainted the promise of human rights for billions. Good Job!

Agreed.

Seriously, China can now go into Taiwan and do their thang and not get punished for it. Every country has an opponent they believe is a "threat" to their citizens. Anybody makes a move, and there's already a justified reason for war, and nobody can do anything about it because they just have to point their finger at the U.S. and say, "Yes, but look at what they did!"

[Desertrat]

Stelliform, I don't jack my jaws about it, but the last time the UN was sorta useful was in 1950. Even then, it took the absence of the Soviet ambassador to do any good.

It's about like the League of Nations: Lotsa good intention, but the reality sucks. And we all know about the road which is paved with good intentions...

My attitude about most of the folks at the UN? "His face was flushed, but, unfortunately, his broad shoulders saved him."

'Rat

[skunk]

...the last time the UN was sorta useful was in 1950. 'Rat
Could the "uselessness" of the UN be at least partially due to the frequent use of the US veto, the unwillingness to challenge Israel's disregard of resolutions, and the withholding of US dues?

[Neserk]

Could the "uselessness" of the UN be at least partially due to the frequent use of the US veto, the unwillingness to challenge Israel's disregard of resolutions, and the withholding of US dues?

hmmmmmmmmm... maybe! :D :eek: :rolleyes:

[skunk]

hmmmmmmmmm... maybe! :D :eek: :rolleyes:
Nah, I'm probably over-simplifying... :rolleyes:

[Neserk]

Nah, I'm probably over-simplifying... :rolleyes:

Gee... I thought you were being rhetorical ;)

[zimv20]

Stelliform, I don't jack my jaws about it, but the last time the UN was sorta useful was in 1950.
i'm wondering, is complaining about the UN itself even worthwhile? it's only as strong as the commitment of its member states.

kinda like this forum. we can complain about "it," but "it" is what the people here contribute. if people contribute crap, the forum is crap, but that's hardly the fault of the php code.

[skunk]

i'm wondering, is complaining about the UN itself even worthwhile? it's only as strong as the commitment of its member states.

kinda like this forum. we can complain about "it," but "it" is what the people here contribute. if people contribute crap, the forum is crap, but that's hardly the fault of the php code.
Well, exactly... ;)

[IJ Reilly]

I'm wondering how this thread was turned so quickly to a debate about the UN, instead of the issue raised by posted article (which made no reference to the UN). Completely and totally apart from whether the UN promotes human rights as it should is the question of whether the US still can still speak credibility about human rights.

[skunk]

I'm wondering how this thread was turned so quickly to a debate about the UN, instead of the issue raised by posted article (which made no reference to the UN). Completely and totally apart from whether the UN promotes human rights as it should is the question of whether the US still can still speak credibility about human rights.
Well thank you! There's the rub. ;)

[mcfudd]

If you think the hypocrisy of the US human rights record stinks now .. just wait to see what happens if Bush gets another four years in office.

The original article posted should give some people an idea of why the US is universally hated by many, many governments and citizens around the world.

The problem is, you will never hear these sort of stories reported on pro-American networks like CNN, Fox, MSNBC, etc.

[skunk]

Then if the UN isn't strong we shouldn't relinquish authority to them.
Circular argument. Without the US giving firm backing, paying attention to resolutions, paying its dues, the UN cannot gain the respect, authority or commitment it needs to carry out the job for which the UK and US helped to design it.

[skunk]

Well, China is on the UN Human Rights Commission. So anything they say on Human Rights can be inferred as representing the UN. So since they are representing the UN, (Who gave them a seat and made them actually think they had something worthwhile to contribute on the subject.) the UN's role can come into question.
A very clear example of the kind of arrogance which has led us all into this mess. Do you think that the US is such a paragon of virtue that your representative (John "Death Squad" Negroponte? - give us a fecking break!) has something MORE worthwhile to contribute?

[IJ Reilly]

Well, China is on the UN Human Rights Commission. So anything they say on Human Rights can be inferred as representing the UN. So since they are representing the UN, (Who gave them a seat and made them actually think they had something worthwhile to contribute on the subject.) the UN's role can come into question.

You're missing the point by a country mile. Once more for the cheap seats: the article doesn't mention the UN, at all, and it wouldn't make any difference if it did. What's clearly been lost here is the ability of the US to speak with moral authority about human rights issues in countries with terrible human rights records, such as China. If you really cared about human rights issues, this loss of leverage would be of concern to you -- and that's what you'd be talking about instead of trying to divert the discussion to the UN.

[Neserk]

Also, the only people harping on this situation are the same people who have been harping on every misstep this country has taken since GWB took office.

Not true. I'm seeing Republicans do an about face, now. Also people who were neutral are now pulling away from being neutral.

[zimv20]

Also I don't think that the U.S. will lose much face on this incident.
i don't think you could be more wrong on that

[Neserk]

That fundamental shift took place a while back. Not too long ago no one would have dared ask the President with whom he had had sexual relations with. There was a don't ask, try to be discreet, don't tell policy that was understood.

[blackfox]

You're missing the point by a country mile. Once more for the cheap seats: the article doesn't mention the UN, at all, and it wouldn't make any difference if it did. What's clearly been lost here is the ability of the US to speak with moral authority about human rights issues in countries with terrible human rights records, such as China. If you really cared about human rights issues, this loss of leverage would be of concern to you -- and that's what you'd be talking about instead of trying to divert the discussion to the UN.
IJ, although I believe what you say to be somewhat true, I am not sure if the USs' "moral authority" makes any difference in altering the behavior of other countries, although it certainly coudn't hurt...however, I think the real issue is a decline of the USs' relative power (or the whole West) vis-a-vis China (and the Pacific Rim). These "morals" that we in the West cling to and hold to be Universal, are in reality, only Western. China, and other non-western countries have traditionally bowed to Western pressure, as we have been much more advanced economically and technologically, but as China and the rest of Asia grow economically and militarily, the US and Europe will be hard-pressed to either coerce adherence to our values (through military intervention or economic sanctions), or influence them by the superiority of our culture (through emulation/neo-colonialism). Soon, China and Asias' economic strength w/o Western trappings (democracy, the rights of the individual...)will challenge the currently held belief (by us in the West) that our way of doing things (Liberal Democracy, rule of Law...) is the best, and only policy. In this reality, in the UN or in diplomacy, the US will have to allow for the fact that it will have to deal with countries whose cultures do not share are values...but who must be dealt with as equals...Where the "moral authority" might fit in, is only in relation the fact that the "moral shortcomings" (prison abuse, financial impropriety) of the US, will only strengthen the case that the West is decadent and corrupt, and further the ascension and affirmation of non-Western alternatives (Chinese, Japanese, Muslim, Hindi). These countries/cultures may not actually hold these values we have compromised (human rights, due process, democracy), but it matters little...all that matters is that "we" are supposed to hold them, and it is our hypocrisy that hurts our International standing, but that standing has already been declining in the last 10-15 years, and will continue to do so, regardless of these slip-ups, which probably are only so horrendous to Western sensibilities anyway...

[IJ Reilly]

OK, then lets try this on for size. If the Chinese were caught with pictures of their human right violations, would they put the soldiers who committed the violations on trial and then put them in prison? (This is obviously a hugely hypothetical scenario since the Chinese would never allow freedom of the press for the pictures to be released.) But I severely doubt that they Chinese would try to discipline the soldiers involved. (or they might execute them real quiet like... which is probably a more plausible scenario.)

Your scenario isn't just hypothetical, it's irrelevant. We're not debating China's human rights record. We both agree it's awful. Where we don't seem to agree is in whether how the US is perceived in the world makes any difference in how successfully we can promote the cause of human rights in places where people have precious little of it -- like China, for instance. It seems to me, the war in Iraq and the recent events surrounding that war have dealt the US a huge setback in this area. What the Chinese are saying may be cynical, self-serving and hypocritical, but the fact remains, the moment they can get away with pointing the boney finger of human rights at the US, they've undeniably scored a point in the war of words.

Me, I don't like that feeling one bit.

[IJ Reilly]

IJ, although I believe what you say to be somewhat true, I am not sure if the USs' "moral authority" makes any difference in altering the behavior of other countries, although it certainly coudn't hurt...however, I think the real issue is a decline of the USs' relative power (or the whole West) vis-a-vis China (and the Pacific Rim). These "morals" that we in the West cling to and hold to be Universal, are in reality, only Western. China, and other non-western countries have traditionally bowed to Western pressure, as we have been much more advanced economically and technologically, but as China and the rest of Asia grow economically and militarily, the US and Europe will be hard-pressed to either coerce adherence to our values (through military intervention or economic sanctions), or influence them by the superiority of our culture (through emulation/neo-colonialism). Soon, China and Asias' economic strength w/o Western trappings (democracy, the rights of the individual...)will challenge the currently held belief (by us in the West) that our way of doing things (Liberal Democracy, rule of Law...) is the best, and only policy. In this reality, in the UN or in diplomacy, the US will have to allow for the fact that it will have to deal with countries whose cultures do not share are values...but who must be dealt with as equals...Where the "moral authority" might fit in, is only in relation the fact that the "moral shortcomings" (prison abuse, financial impropriety) of the US, will only strengthen the case that the West is decadent and corrupt, and further the ascension and affirmation of non-Western alternatives (Chinese, Japanese, Muslim, Hindi). These countries/cultures may not actually hold these values we have compromised (human rights, due process, democracy), but it matters little...all that matters is that "we" are supposed to hold them, and it is our hypocrisy that hurts our International standing, but that standing has already been declining in the last 10-15 years, and will continue to do so, regardless of these slip-ups, which probably are only so horrendous to Western sensibilities anyway...

I believe it's important for the US to exert whatever moral authority it can in the world, irrespective of whether it has any immediate effects on the behavior of governments who don't protect the rights of their citizens. In this respect I might even be on the same wavelength as the president and some of his neocon braintrust. Where I part company is in manner by which this moral authority should be exercised. Certainly not by imposition, as they believe. Leading by example, is how I think it should be done.

[blackfox]

I believe it's important for the US to exert whatever moral authority it can in the world, irrespective of whether it has any immediate effects on the behavior of governments who don't protect the rights of their citizens. In this respect I might even be on the same wavelength as the president and some of his neocon braintrust. Where I part company is in manner by which this moral authority should be exercised. Certainly not by imposition, as they believe. Leading by example, is how I think it should be done.
Again, IJ, I partially agree with you, although once again I question what level of effectiveness that this would have in the current world, even under better circumstances. The US (and the West) have been the dominant force in world affairs for the better part of 500 years, and with our superior military and technological capabilities, have either forcefully spread our culture around the Globe, or have had many countries voluntarily try to emulate the western model of government,organization and in some cases values, as it was seen as a route to similar power and prosperity. In such cases, Moral authority could be utilized, as part of its' legitimacy derives from the fact that it is voluntarily imposed, and many cultures/countries around the world, looking to improve themselves, willingly submitted to the import of Western values and institutions. Even in those cases, however, the values that gave the US our "moral authority", are our values, and oftentimes completely foreign to other countries/cultures...and other times directly hostile to entrenched social mores (ie collectivism vs individualism in many asian cultures), and so often become transformed or ignored by the other Culture...in any event, with the advancement of non-western countries and culture on a different set of values, erodes away at any moral authority the US or the West might hold. If in 20 years, China becomes the most powerful country in the world ecomomically (and perhaps politically), it will seek to advance its' values, which will seem to be a better way of organizing society than any Western ideal, as noted by its' power. I do agree that the US should lead by example in moral authority, as it is, by definition, something else when it is forcefully imposed...however, the morality of our US culture and government will more and more often be irrelevant in International affairs beyond Europe, as the rest of the world becomes increasingly successful economically on their own value systems. The West is uniquely prepared for the success of Democratic governance and the sanctity of Individual Human rights, much of the rest of the world is not...and have never believed in the "universiality" of Western values and any authority derived from such...although to this point, to openly resist these values, would deny you access to Western markets, investments etc...as the West declines as an economic sector (with more Intra-Regional trade w/in Asia, and Latin America), more and more countries will visibly resist any moral authority arguments of the West, as they will be sufficiently powerful to avoid any punitive action or too important as a trading partner to ignore (as the US has been)...in fact moral authority is a rather arrogant term IMO, as it generally implies a "moral superiority" where there is only relativism...

[IJ Reilly]

I think we might be talking past each other somewhat.

In my view, a nation should stand for some set of principles, just as a person should. As individuals, we take positions about what we believe in, and stick by them, even when our prospects of changing other's minds are tiny at best. In the long run it may or may not make a difference, but we do it nonetheless, if only because we can't expect to be credible and respected if we stand for nothing.

What China will become in the next few decades is anyone's guess. I'm on record here as saying that their present system of government is closer to fascism than anything else on the ideological map. The prospect of the world's most populated nation becoming an economic and military powerhouse under an authoritarian form of government is a scary one. But I don't think we increase our influence in these quarters by putting our boot on anyone's neck. We have probably only a few more years as the world's only superpower, and how we handle that role will have a great impact on how our relationship develops with the evolving Asian tiger, and other nations as well.

[Sayhey]

Blackfox,

since when are democracy and respect for basic human rights ideas that are strictly "western"? These are indeed ideas that have been profoundly shaped by the experience of "western democracies," but they have also been shaped by the struggle to win independence from colonial and neo colonial rule. There are, IMHO, ideas that are universal in their importance and these two are at the top of the list. I think you fall into a post modernist trap of relativism that ignores the many universal parts of the human experience.

[blackfox]

Blackfox,

since when are democracy and respect for basic human rights ideas that are strictly "western"? These are indeed ideas that have been profoundly shaped by the experience of "western democracies," but they have also been shaped by the struggle to win independence from colonial and neo colonial rule. There are, IMHO, ideas that are universal in their importance and these two are at the top of the list. I think you fall into a post modernist trap of relativism that ignores the many universal parts of the human experience.
Perhaps you are correct, Sahey, and for the record, I'd like to think so...it should be noted, however, that these are both products of the West (as you also noted), and rely on concepts and organizational systems particular to us. Democracy, for example, has rooted so well in the West because we have had a distinctive social pluralism and subsequently, the rise of representative bodies...we have also had the rule of law since Roman times...most other countries/cultures have not had a comparative exposure to such things...it is interesting to note, for example, that India and Japan are among the only non-western countries to maintain a functioning democracy, and this can be seen in part because their societies contained class-structures paralleling the West. Islamic countries also have a rule-of-law via shari'a law, however their morality is based upon a different set of assumptions, and there and in much of the rest of the world, the lack of Western individualism, has limited the concept of individual human rights...as far as the struggle against colonialism/neo-colonialism, traditionally as non-western countries have felt less powerful than the West, they have used western concepts of democracy and self-determination to justisfy their resistance to western domination. As these places have grown more powerful, they have in many cases rejected these same concepts and are now able to advance the superiority of their own values as legitimate...in any case, I do agree that the US should try and advance it's values and ideas to the rest of the world by persuasion and example, but as the USs power fades in relation to emerging regional powers, our influence will be less...and our example will be less relevant and desired

(BTW, for clarification, some values such as murder being wrong,certain institutions and some sense of family are universal...as are a few more, but I feel it is foolhardy to assume that the world operates, or aspires to operate under a western value system, as it increasingly does not, even if it "borrowed" the values for a generation or two...)
*edit* rather bad typo (....paralleling the rest[should be west])...apologies

[takao]

...we have also had the rule of law since Roman times...


:confused: do you mean a written law ?... last time i checked the first laws were written down under the babylonian emperor Hamurabi in Babylon (the famous "Codex Hamurabi") ... isn't that ironic ...

as far as i remember the greeks didn't invented democracy (like most people assume) they aquired that idea by trade .. and nobody knows who came up first with it ;)

i just wanted to add that..

[blackfox]

:confused: do you mean a written law ?... last time i checked the first laws were written down under the babylonian emperor Hamurabi in Babylon (the famous "Codex Hamurabi") ... isn't that ironic ...

as far as i remember the greeks didn't invented democracy (like most people assume) they aquired that idea by trade .. and nobody knows who came up first with it ;)

i just wanted to add that..
You are correct, Takao...I was referring to the concept of the centrality of law to a civilized existance, which in most cases refers to written law...although you are correct that neither the rule of law nor democracy are strictly Western inventions (although all great 20th century political ideologies are...liberalism, communism, corporatism, social democracy, fascism, christian democracy, socialism, anarchism...)...it is the west who has run with the concepts over the past millenia or more, and is the only contemporary culture to use these values...the other contributing cultures have faded into history.

[trebblekicked]

whoops. delete.

[Sayhey]

Perhaps you are correct, Sahey, and for the record, I'd like to think so...it should be noted, however, that these are both products of the West (as you also noted), and rely on concepts and organizational systems particular to us. Democracy, for example, has rooted so well in the West because we have had a distinctive social pluralism and subsequently, the rise of representative bodies...we have also had the rule of law since Roman times...most other countries/cultures have not had a comparative exposure to such things...it is interesting to note, for example, that India and Japan are among the only non-western countries to maintain a functioning democracy, and this can be seen in part because their societies contained class-structures paralleling the rest. Islamic countries also have a rule-of-law via shari'a law, however their morality is based upon a different set of assumptions, and there and in much of the rest of the world, the lack of Western individualism, has limited the concept of individual human rights...as far as the struggle against colonialism/neo-colonialism, traditionally as non-western countries have felt less powerful than the West, they have used western concepts of democracy and self-determination to justisfy their resistance to western domination. As these places have grown more powerful, they have in many cases rejected these same concepts and are now able to advance the superiority of their own values as legitimate...in any case, I do agree that the US should try and advance it's values and ideas to the rest of the world by persuasion and example, but as the USs power fades in relation to emerging regional powers, are influence will be less...and our example will be less relevant and desired

(BTW, for clarification, some values such as murder being wrong,certain institutions and some sense of family are universal...as are a few more, but I feel it is foolhardy to assume that the world operates, or aspires to operate under a western value system, as it increasingly does not, even if it "borrowed" the values for a generation or two...)

There is far too much to respond to here, but let me say a few things.

In no nation, Western or otherwise has democracy sprouted full blown like Athena from Zeus' head. We like to believe that in the United States that we had a fully formed democratic system after we threw out our British masters, however, the ability of men with out landed property to vote, the freedom of millions from chattel slavery, and the inclusion of half of the populace of the US in the right to vote had to wait until much later. I would argue it is still changing. In our nation there are parts of our culture and socioeconomic system that are conducive to the expansion of democracy and there have also always been parts that have resisted that expansion at every step. I would say that experience is true in every nation. It is a matter of degree not of fundamental difference.

That is why I said the idea that each individual has a right to participate in the determination of who leads their nation is not entirely "Western" in its history. Democracy is tied as well to the history of nations that struggled against the colonial system. Post-colonial India and post-apartheid South Africa are examples of such nations. In Latin America there are also examples in which democratic traditions were hardly imposed from western nations, but rather grew as a result of struggles to throw out foreign powers. Chile before the US inspired coup and after the overthrow of Pinochet or Costa Rica are good examples. There are also many "traditional" societies in which the collective nature of the ways in which they organize themselves are inherently democratic and have nothing to do with "western" influences.

Democracy does indeed have its oldest roots, as part of state societies, in ancient Greece. That we call that a part of Western Civilization is only because Western European societies like to manufacture mythological links to Athens, not because of any real direct connection to that distant past. The cultural traditions of ancient Athens were far more closely tied to the Eastern Mediterranean than to the countries of Western Europe. Far from being the descendants of Pericles, we in fact "steal" from a heritage not our own. That's ok, because what we "steal" is in fact beneficial to everyone and not the property of one nation or one culture. It does, however, mean we should be humble in our claims to democratic traditions.

All of this is to say that the many forms of democracy have roots in traditions throughout the world and in histories both ancient and modern. What is clear, and what is enshrined in the UN Charter, is that democracy has been paid for in blood by people of all nations and is the right of all humanity. Those who hide behind cultural differences to wall off their own people from such fundamental rights are just tyrants - pure and simple. It is not for you and I to tell other nations how to achieve democracy, but it is also not our - or anyone else's, including their own "leaders" - right to deny it to them either.

[blackfox]

First, Let me preface any continuing discussion with three points:
1) I am enjoying this dialogue and hope that it is productive one.
2) The position advocated by my last few posts is not meant to be definitive, but a reminder of the reality of the West having to deal increasingly deal with many modern, powerful, non-western cultures, whose values systems may not coincide with our own. This is a novel development in History. It is worth recognizing.
3) I am not a professional practioner of Geopolitics and frankly, not that decent at putting ideas into words...there are bound to be holes in any of my arguments...I hope that does not tank their potential validity.
There is far too much to respond to here, but let me say a few things.

In no nation, Western or otherwise has democracy sprouted full blown like Athena from Zeus' head. We like to believe that in the United States that we had a fully formed democratic system after we threw out our British masters, however, the ability of men with out landed property to vote, the freedom of millions from chattel slavery, and the inclusion of half of the populace of the US in the right to vote had to wait until much later. I would argue it is still changing. In our nation there are parts of our culture and socioeconomic system that are conducive to the expansion of democracy and there have also always been parts that have resisted that expansion at every step. I would say that experience is true in every nation. It is a matter of degree not of fundamental difference.
I did not mean to imply that the West had any easy road to democracy, or that we are a homogenous or static culture within the West. I did mean to say, that the West has had unique societal developments in a combination that led to the creation of many of the ideals/institutions that we hold true - freedom, democracy, constitutional law, protection of individual rights, a history of representative bodies streching a millenium, 'equal' rights for the individual...and so on. Also these characteristics were not always universally present in Western societies, as history easily shows, nor were these characteristics always absent fro m other societies, but the combination of them is seemingly unique to us. Although you are correct that almost every country may be conducive to the expansion of democracy, it may be more conducive to an alternate form of governance.
That is why I said the idea that each individual has a right to participate in the determination of who leads their nation is not entirely "Western" in its history. Democracy is tied as well to the history of nations that struggled against the colonial system. Post-colonial India and post-apartheid South Africa are examples of such nations. In Latin America there are also examples in which democratic traditions were hardly imposed from western nations, but rather grew as a result of struggles to throw out foreign powers. Chile before the US inspired coup and after the overthrow of Pinochet or Costa Rica are good examples. There are also many "traditional" societies in which the collective nature of the ways in which they organize themselves are inherently democratic and have nothing to do with "western" influences. I admit you have decent points here, Sahey, and I am not sure I am able to refute them. I will give it a shot. With regards to India, its' parallel class structure to the West (as noted previously) and perhaps the fact that Hindi culture is also among the only (along with the west)to separate Church and State(and receive the subsequent division of authority that can contribute to the development of freedom)... perhaps made it an ideal candidate for democratization. Also as I noted previously, in dealing with a more powerful West(ie colonialism), weaker nations often used western concepts as justification of their anti-westernism, as it framed their struggle in terms the west could understand, giving them legitimacy. This could also be said for any country that has tried to rid itself of a foreign power. Post-apartheid S. Africa, was a for all intensive purposes a Western nation during apartheid, albeit only to the colonial european minority. As Apartheid ended relatively recently, and w/o the expulsion of the white minority, the western values and institutions remained intact throughout the changeover and to remain part of the Western system, western democratic institutions were introduced, which resulted in the coming to power of a westernized black elite. This may only be temporary. As far as Latin America goes, I am afraid I am not very well-versed in their history, although I will say that their culture, as a whole, is very similar/compatible with the West, and may be conducive to the development or rooting of democracy. In all cases, it is also important to note the influence of Western schooling on the Elite of various countries and the effects of the subsequent application of western values and modes of thought w/in those same countries.

Democracy does indeed have its oldest roots, as part of state societies, in ancient Greece. That we call that a part of Western Civilization is only because Western European societies like to manufacture mythological links to Athens, not because of any real direct connection to that distant past. The cultural traditions of ancient Athens were far more closely tied to the Eastern Mediterranean than to the countries of Western Europe. Far from being the descendants of Pericles, we in fact "steal" from a heritage not our own. That's ok, because what we "steal" is in fact beneficial to everyone and not the property of one nation or one culture. It does, however, mean we should be humble in our claims to democratic traditions.
Well, Western society inherited much from what might be referred to as "Classical Civilization", such as Greek philosophy and rationalism, rule of law, and Christianity. This is perhaps due to the Romans, who seemingly integrated the culture of those they subjugated. Most of the rest of the world did not inherit these things, although they might of had a history of them unique to their societies. It should be noted, however, that it is the West alone that ran with the concept of democracy to the degree it has over the last millenium.

All of this is to say that the many forms of democracy have roots in traditions throughout the world and in histories both ancient and modern. What is clear, and what is enshrined in the UN Charter, is that democracy has been paid for in blood by people of all nations and is the right of all humanity. Those who hide behind cultural differences to wall off their own people from such fundamental rights are just tyrants - pure and simple. It is not for you and I to tell other nations how to achieve democracy, but it is also not our - or anyone else's, including their own "leaders" - right to deny it to them either.

Yes, I agree...and perhaps we have a simple misunderstanding here, probably from poor wording on my part. Yes, Democracy is a right of all humanity, but that in itself is a western concept. Those who deny it are tyrants - by Western definition. It is not right for anyone to tell other nations how to acheive Democracy, especially the West, as we are unable to view such a thing happening without our own values and concepts of it, regardless of whether it is applicable to the host nation. There is also an inherent danger of indigenous democracy becoming vociferously anti-western, which can be a conflict-of-interest for the West. One has to question whether we in the West have the right to meddle in affairs of non-western nations, if only because they do not agree with our value system...however noble the intentions, our quest for expansion of "universal" values may just be seen as Western arrogance and imperialism...

I do not mean to imply that the West is superior, indeed nearly the opposite. We have been for many years, but equally unique and powerful cultures will be balancing the power of the West. In some places Democracy or other concepts involving western ideas may be adopted and become truly Universal...or they may not. As frustrating as it might be, we may not have the power to change much of this outside of our own society. Even if democracy and most other (largely) Western concepts are adopted, we must not forget that it took the West about a 1000 years and numerous wars to work out many of the kinks in these concepts with relation to our societ(ies). The world is now a much more interconnected and volatile place, with much more modern societies, militarily and technologically. If the non-western world had half the troublle we in the west have had, we all might not survive it, and the west does not have the conventional military capabilities to decisively intervene (look at the Iraq war, for example, and how that one country has streched our military resources), nor should it, necessarily. I am just trying to voice what appear to be novel concerns coming into the 21st Century...take as you will.
(and I will paragraph eventually)

[takao]

which western nation had democracy over a 1000 year period ???
most modern democracies came up after the french revolution/american independence...
the 1800 years before monarchy was "numero uno"... if it's france,holy roman empire of german nation,england,spain,russia....you name it

the romans had some sort of democracy but who were allowed to vote ? only the romans in the central part of the roman empire...most weren't allowed to vote.... and then after cesar there wasn't a democracy anymore for a few hundred years

there was a (relativ good) democracy in greece (with wars all the time between the cities) ...then the repuclic in rome untill they got big(the system was rather corrupt: people were selling their votes)...then long time nothing worth mentioning... then a few independend cities in tuscani who came up with the idea from "power to the people" again....then another break...and then was already the 18th century...

[Sayhey]

which western nation had democracy over a 1000 year period ???

IIRC, it's Switzerland. All good points. The most critical being that western democratic systems originate out of the time of the Enlightenment and have no direct connection to democratic forms of government in either the ancient Greek or Roman traditions. Although Enlightenment thinkers did indeed look back to these older traditions for inspiration, the movements for democracy arise out of countries steeped in centuries of absolutist monarchies.

blackfox, I'll get back to your post in a little while when I have the time to give it the thought it deserves. good stuff as well!

[blackfox]

which western nation had democracy over a 1000 year period ???
most modern democracies came up after the french revolution/american independence...
the 1800 years before monarchy was "numero uno"... if it's france,holy roman empire of german nation,england,spain,russia....you name it

the romans had some sort of democracy but who were allowed to vote ? only the romans in the central part of the roman empire...most weren't allowed to vote.... and then after cesar there wasn't a democracy anymore for a few hundred years

there was a (relativ good) democracy in greece (with wars all the time between the cities) ...then the repuclic in rome untill they got big(the system was rather corrupt: people were selling their votes)...then long time nothing worth mentioning... then a few independend cities in tuscani who came up with the idea from "power to the people" again....then another break...and then was already the 18th century...
I do not believe I said any western nation necessarily had democracy for a 1000 year period, only that the West had run with the concept more...but it was obviously a building process...but the combibation of:
1)Rule of Law...inherited from the Romans, elaborated into the idea of natural law(which monarchs were to follow) during Medieval Times, with a common law tradition popping up in England...even during the 16th and 17th Centuries, when rule of law was not adhered to, the idea persisted...and laid the basis for constitutionalism, protection of individual and property rights.
2)Social Pluralism...diverse autonomous groups not based by blood or marriage...beginning with maonasteries and guilds in 7th century, it expanded to cover a variety of associations...this associative pluralism was also combined with class pluralism - a relatively strong and autonomous aristocracy, large amount of peasantry, and a small but significant merchant and trader class. The strength of the aristocracy was seen as key to limiting the extent of absolutism in most of Europe...which led to...
3) Representative bodies...estates, Parliaments and other bodies came into being to represent the interests of the aristocracy or the merchant class...these bodies have had a heritage of over 1000 years in the West, and are the institutions that evolved into our institutions of modern democracy. Also at the local level, beginning around the 9th century, self-government drives began in Italian cities and generally spread North, forcing barons, bishops and nobles to either share power, or yield it all together. This measure of autonomy at the local level, along with representation at a National level are unique to the West.
This is not meant to be definitive, but only to prove that a conflux of events of our history, made the beginnings of modern democracy possible in the 18th Century and beyond...

[Sayhey]

Blackfox,

First, I think the reference to a 1000 years of building towards democracy in the West is on one level obviously true. Certainly, there are examples going all the way back to governing traditions of the Swiss, Iceland, and the impact of the Magna Carta and many other important events that contributed to the ability of Western nations to conceive of and move towards democracy as an alternative to the despotism that characterized much of the pre-enlightenment history. The reintroduction into Europe of the ancient Greek and Roman traditions via the Arab nations helped tremendously in all of this. The beginning of the development of a scientific view of the world, through not only indigenous thinkers, but again with the reintroduction of ancient traditions and contact with other civilizations - particularly Arab civilizations - help immeasurably in spurring this on. What you talk about in terms of the social forces that helped shape this Western experience is, by and large, also very true. I have no quarrel with you concerning the importance of all of this.

What this leaves out is the fact that this did not come about as some gradual and natural transition from "special" cultures, but rather through the agent of violent, sudden transformations in such events as the American and French Revolutions. Why is this important? Because Democracy is born of a struggle for change. Change of people demanding a say in bettering and controlling their lives.

This is relevant because all humanity has this as its experience. The examples of the movements of people in nonwestern societies in the anti-colonial struggles is important not because they were not influence by western democratic traditions, they undoubtedly were, but because the universal human experience of fighting for control of our lives moves us all toward democracy. Democracy not in the sense of the American or British or French systems of government, but in the basic sense of individuals having a say in how their nations are governed.

Now, it is important to place this in the context of the recent history of our world. We have grown toward a world that is integrated and interconnected in both its people and nations. Events that once would be thought of as isolated to a small group of nations, now shape the lives of the whole world. The last century showed this to be true, and in its most pivotal events - WWII, the breakdown of the Colonial system, and the Cold War - changed everyone's lives forever. In the immediate aftermath of WWII, a system of individual rights and national rights was acknowledged in the formation of the United Nations and the UN Charter. We can no longer speak of the Western tradition as the motive force for democracy, but rather it is the property of all peoples and nations. This is even more so as we enter a world where people can communicate like we are doing now. OK, enough for now. Tell me what you think.

[blackfox]

Blackfox,

Now, it is important to place this in the context of the recent history of our world. We have grown toward a world that is integrated and interconnected in both its people and nations. Events that once would be thought of as isolated to a small group of nations, now shape the lives of the whole world. The last century showed this to be true, and in its most pivotal events - WWII, the breakdown of the Colonial system, and the Cold War - changed everyone's lives forever. In the immediate aftermath of WWII, a system of individual rights and national rights was acknowledged in the formation of the United Nations and the UN Charter. We can no longer speak of the Western tradition as the motive force for democracy, but rather it is the property of all peoples and nations. This is even more so as we enter a world where people can communicate like we are doing now. OK, enough for now. Tell me what you think.
I isolated this paragraph, Sahey, because I find the preceding ones to be very complementary to what I was trying to say...this one, I take a bit of an issue with.

It is true that we are an interconnected world, but not so much an integrated one. This is because although throughout the 19th and 20th centuries, Western International system expanded to cover virtually all the societies of the Globe. There were some Western institutions and practices exported to these countries also. Yet, these societies still lack the common culture that underlay Western Society. It can be said that an international system exists "when two or more states have sufficient contact between them, and have sufficient impact on one another's decisions, to cause them to behave - in some measures - as part of a whole" This I equate with interconnectedness, and is definitely true. An International society, however, exists only when states w/in an International system have "common interests and common values" and " conceive of themselves being bound by a common set of rules, share in the working of common institutions and share, to some degree, a common culture." I tend to look at this as Integration, although the terms are easily confused, and perhaps that is where confusion comes in...the world seems a very well-developed international System but at best a very primitive International Society. The UN at this point still consists of an International, but Westernized, global elite...this may soon change.

It is true that the dealings of a small group of Nations influenced the whole world, and the events you describe illustrate that fact. The fact is, though, is that was still the West being pre-eminent, and by virtue of that power, affecting the whole world, whether they requested it or not. Although the 20th Century saw many non-western nations freeing themselves from the shackles of colonialism and/or Western intervention, and doing this by Western means, this does not imply that they buy into the system any more than they had to, and indeed, as these nations have grown more powerful, they have largely rejected these Western concepts, or tailored them to their own Cultural needs. I think we shall see these nations, for the first time in History, defining themselves by their own concepts as equals in our interconnected world. The ability of the West to deal with this, will largely depend on its' flexibility and humility in the face of evidence that our values are neither necessarily Universal nor superior...the non-west has known this for a long time, but it is only now that they are becoming sufficiently powerful to reveal the legitimacy of this concept. If China continues and becomes the pre-eminent economic and political power in the next twenty years, over the course of the following generation or two, Mandarin will replace English as the lingua franca of the world, and people will flock to Chinese/Asian institutions of Learning, like they do here in the West, now and traditionally. The West, will comparatively speaking become marginalized...and hopefully recognize itself as a unique and viable culture, but not a Universal one. If it does not, and continues to fight blindly against this obvious fact, we will for the first time in History, perhaps be outmatched, and this could really be the makings of a WWIII.
However, Cultures and civilizations do not have clear-cut boundaries, and people can and do redefine their indentities, and as a result the composition and shape(s) of culture can change over time. Also the extent which culture(s) resemble of differ from each other varies and although the lines between them are seldom sharp, ther are real . So there is breathing room, if approached correctly.
In context of current events, however, this is what makes Bush, or perhaps US Political thought (esp. Neo-conservatism) paricularily dangerous. An ideological-bent, can blind you to the realities of the situation at hand, with dangerous simplistic, wishful-thinking that results from being unwilling or unable to adjust your paradigm. This is especially problematic if you are used to coming from a position of Strength (traditionally, the US has been near-invunerable). There are many reasons why democracy in Iraq will not work (I will not go into them here), and forcing it to be so, is foolish and dangerous, especially when these societies are more powerful than ever, and slightly resentful about 400 years of western meddling and arrogance. Asia is growing particularily strong economically and subsequently Militarily, while Islamic Culture is expanding at a pace beyond which the West can match and has a definite strength in numbers and demographics...and the fact that Islam is tied into their societies so tightly, to a degree unimaginable to the West, could be a huge stumbling block...it is unlikely that the West and Asia/China will clash militarily, although Taiwan could be a potential problem, but the mutual interest in maintaining the world economic system(even as trading becomes more regional in nature), will probably trump military action, but history has plenty of examples where trading partners had an
increased likelyhood of conflict. Islam, on the otherhand, has no such economic interest, its' demographics reflecting superior numbers and youth and a serious ideological component to their society, perhaps not equaled in any other. If not handled correctly, it could be a HUGE powderkeg. To complicate matters even further, the modernization of society in the latter-half of the 20th Century, with the accompanying scientific acheivements, and the ascension of rational thought, secularlism and humanism, was once thought to spell the end of Religion. It would seem that the opposite is the case; the world seems to be going throughLa Revanche de Dieu - a Global revival of Religion...and although the reasons behind it are many (the alienation of modern society, the vacuum created by the failing of Secular ideology[ie Communism])...the effects are that societies are all becoming more ideological (The West, Christian...Asia, Confucian...Islam,Islam...Russia, Orthodox)...and this does not necessarily bode well practical geopolitics, especially for the more evangelical societies (Christianity, Islam)...but in any case, this will probably accentuate the differences between cultures that have been largely hidden thus far by the veneer of Western Universalism...or this could all be ************. Time will tell...

[Sayhey]

blackfox,

Now, what I said was "[w]e have grown toward a world that is integrated and interconnected in both its people and nations," not that we have reached a single integrated international society. We do indeed have common human interests and values. Such things as the need to avert nuclear war, end pollution, eradicate disease such as AIDS, etc. are part of those common interests. The growth of transnational economic interests (globalization) has forced the lowering of traditional barriers between states. This is seen in both the positive and negative consequences of globalization. So I stand by my observation of humanity having grown toward a more integrated and interconnected world (not really mine - Gorbachov talked about this 15-16 years ago.)

As to the Western nations being the dominant force in the world, it is of course unarguable that such is the case now in terms of strength of economies, militarily, or political and cultural influence. That, however, is not what we were talking about. To get back to the point of whether or not democracy is a western notion that will be rejected by nonwestern nations as they gain more power, I would still say that the struggle for democracy is not, and never has been, a solely Western concern. The forms of democracy that have had the most impact worldwide are indeed adaptations of Western experience. However, there are numerous examples of democratic forms that exist wholly separate from Western influence. In Afghanistan, the example of the loya jirga springs to mind. The point being that wherever people are and in whatever culture they belong there is an impetus for people to try to control their lives. When ways are open for them to do so, either from the example of other cultures or through homegrown institutions, they will do so.

One thing I would also argue with is the idea that there is such a thing as a Western Culture. Our own nation is the amalgamation of many different cultures. So to is almost every other modern industrialized country of what is often lump together in the phrase "the Western World." What is most often at odds is not this "Western Culture" with the many nonwestern cultures of the world, but both the impact of modernity on traditional and feudal societies through interaction with modern industrialized societies and the dominant position of US society in particular. The road forward is obviously one full of pitfalls and we can have a say in just how rough it will get by how we choose to deal with others.

The example of Iraq is a case in point of how we can screw it all up. I agree with Bush's statements that democracy in Iraq is possible and a desirable thing. I do not believe that a policy of imposing it from the outside has any realistic chance of success. I don't really believe that real democracy was ever the real aim of this administration, but that is another topic altogether. The best chance for democracy in Iraq was through the overthrow of Saddam from forces inside the country. As important as the actual event of the overthrow, would have been the process by which forces gathered together and worked together to bring change about.

Your comments about the role of religion, particularly Islam, in complicating the interactions is true, but the real problem is not religion as a whole, but rather its use to reject modernity by one section of believers (i.e. fundamentalism from any religion.)

As to the future, including the role of China, the decline of Western Nations etc. I will pass on that speculation. There are just too many variables, although your scenario is certainly possible.

Now stop jumping all over the place. These posts are too long to deal with and we a going to bore the rest of the folks. :p :D

P.S. - this old man is out of school for the summer and you're making me type too much! ;)

[blackfox]

Good post Sayhey...(although I do take issue with the religion vs modernization, I think the problem is religion AND modernization)...and I should have used the word Civilization instead of Culture, as it a broader term...I have a tendency to use them interchangeably...sorry...

...Yes, I do drone on and jump all over the place, those are the effects of too many cigarettes and glasses of wine in the wee hours (an interesting topic in itself)...I will try to restrain myself...

As to the original topic of the thread (remember that?)...I think we can perhaps agree that the "Moral Authority" of the US, will decline as a relative factor in Geopolitics, and should perhaps be exercised as it would be among unique, but equal peers, and not in the traditional way of Parent (US) and child (rest of the world)...with it being based more on substance than power.

As for Democracy, I do believe it has potential in the world, for many of the reasons you eloquently demonstrated, but as it has traditionally been the providence of the West (right wording?)...I do hope that we let it develop on terms appropriate around the world and not on ours...

Anyway, this was fun, and I learned something...thanks.

[yuc7zhd2]

it is interesting to note, for example, that India and Japan are among the only non-western countries to maintain a functioning democracy, and this can be seen in part because their societies contained class-structures paralleling the West.

It could be said that those functioning democracies are nearly completely derived from western intervention. Democracy exists in India because of the several hundred year occupation by the British (until the mid 20th century), and democracy exists in Japan because of the western occupation post WWII.