Anybody up-to-date on current events, I need help!

@Quinn phil,

Some would say that the UN's response to the U.S.'s interventions in Afghanistan and Iraq could be viewed as a type of appeasement of American imperialism.

@Insty,

Insty;132685 wrote:

Some would say that the UN's response to the U.S.'s interventions in Afghanistan and Iraq could be viewed as a type of appeasement of American imperialism.

Who would say that? The Taliban in Afganistan had supported the 9/11 attack on America, and sheltered the attackers. So how could the UN be appeasing the victims of the attack when the victims retaliated?

@Quinn phil,

The obvious example would be North Korea, or wasn't there something about the food for oil UN thing and Iraq? I really don't remember.

@kennethamy,

kennethamy;132687 wrote:

Who would say that? The Taliban in Afganistan had supported the 9/11 attack on America, and sheltered the attackers. So how could the UN be appeasing the victims of the attack when the victims retaliated?

The U.S.'s intervention in Afghanistan, like the intervention in Iraq, has not been supported by the international community. Bush wasn't able to get the UN Security Council to authorize military action in Afghanistan. Even though the UN didn't approve of the intervention, however, it also didn't oppose America too strongly. This was partly because of the magnitude of the 9/11 attacks. It was also because, as a practical matter, there wasn't much the UN could do to stop the intervention. The case is even clearer with the Iraq War.

I personally do not oppose the interventions in either Afghanistan or Iraq, but I can understand why people from other countries view the interventions as a form of imperialism; and it makes perfect sense to say that the international community's reaction has been one of appeasement.

---------- Post added 02-26-2010 at 02:50 AM ----------

Jebediah;132693 wrote:

The obvious example would be North Korea, or wasn't there something about the food for oil UN thing and Iraq? I really don't remember.

North Korea would be a decent example of a strategy of appeasement, but it lacks the element of imperialism.

@Insty,

Insty;132698 wrote:

The U.S.'s intervention in Afghanistan, like the intervention in Iraq, has not been supported by the international community. Bush wasn't able to get the UN Security Council to authorize military action in Afghanistan. Even though the UN didn't approve of the intervention, however, it also didn't oppose America too strongly. This was partly because of the magnitude of the 9/11 attacks. It was also because, as a practical matter, there wasn't much the UN could do to stop the intervention. The case is even clearer with the Iraq War.

I personally do not oppose the interventions in either Afghanistan or Iraq, but I can understand why people from other countries view the interventions as a form of imperialism; and it makes perfect sense to say that the international community's reaction has been one of appeasement.

---------- Post added 02-26-2010 at 02:50 AM ----------

North Korea would be a decent example of a strategy of appeasement, but it lacks the element of imperialism.

The fact that someone views an action as appeasement, and the fact that we can understand why they do, in no way shows that the action is one of appeasement. Those people may just be wrong. They may consider the Afghanistan action as appeasement because they just dislike America. I can understand that easily. But that does not mean they are right. Munich was a clear case (the paradigm case) of appeasement. The UN's behavior was not.

@kennethamy,

kennethamy;132734 wrote:

The fact that someone views an action as appeasement, and the fact that we can understand why they do, in no way shows that the action is one of appeasement. Those people may just be wrong. They may consider the Afghanistan action as appeasement because they just dislike America. I can understand that easily. But that does not mean they are right. Munich was a clear case (the paradigm case) of appeasement. The UN's behavior was not.

The fact that someone does not view a particular course of action as appeasement doesn't mean that the course of action wasn't in fact one of appeasement. That person may simply be mistaken. I can understand why you hold your position, but I think it's wrong.

Appeasement can take on many different forms, and it's to be expected that strategies of appeasement will look different under varying geopolitical circumstances. The fact that current events don't form a strict analogy with Nazi Germany isn't very surprising.

I would also point out that my answer spoke of both Afghanistan and Iraq. These military interventions, and the UN's responses to them, should be viewed together.

@Quinn phil,

Iran and it's desire for nuclear weapons -- not having used any could be viewed as an appeasement to U.S. imperial power.

Lost1

@Insty,

Insty;132746 wrote:

The fact that someone does not view a particular course of action as appeasement doesn't mean that the course of action wasn't in fact one of appeasement. That person may simply be mistaken. I can understand why you hold your position, but I think it's wrong.

Appeasement can take on many different forms, and it's to be expected that strategies of appeasement will look different under varying geopolitical circumstances. The fact that current events don't form a strict analogy with Nazi Germany isn't very surprising.

I would also point out that my answer spoke of both Afghanistan and Iraq. These military interventions, and the UN's responses to them, should be viewed together.

But I would have thought that the response of the UN to the invasion of Iraq was anything but appeasement of the US. It did not sanction the invasion as the US asked it to do. What else could the UN have done? Attack two (Britain too) of its charter members?

@Quinn phil,

I'm going to avoid the Afghanistan/Iraq topic -- I don't want to start another battle royale that runs everyone except me and one or two others off the thread. I'll just say that if anyone really believes the U.S. wasn't bullying Afghanistan and Iraq for a UNOCAL pipeline route and a sweet oil deal, respectively, send me a private mail and I'll be happy to discuss/debate the issue with you. I will say no more here about that.

I'll give a smaller example which directly affected me. Not long ago, any U.S. citizen could buy music from Russian mp3 sites, at Russian prices. It was considered no different than someone traveling to Russia and buying CDs at Russian prices, or someone traveling anywhere abroad and buying anything (legal in the U.S.) at cheaper prices, or someone ordering, say, wine to be shipped from another country at that country's prices. I believe that is how free-market capitalism works? But we can't do this anymore. The sites, privately owned, have either shut down or lost 75% of their catalogs.

Why? From what I've read, the U.S.'s ability to veto Russia's entry into the WTO. I even read in one article that the WTO is set up so that its presidency is always U.S. Does anyone know if that is true?? Whether or not that is the case, the U.S. apparently does have ultimate veto power in the WTO. And the U.S. made the privately owned Russian mp3 sites a deal-breaker for Russia's entry into the WTO.

(There has been, for some time, an international agreement among most Western nations concerning creative copyright and purchasing laws, but that treaty did not include Russia.)

thanking God for mp3 sister-sites in the Ukraine,
rebecca

@kennethamy,

kennethamy;132798 wrote:

But I would have thought that the response of the UN to the invasion of Iraq was anything but appeasement of the US. It did not sanction the invasion as the US asked it to do. What else could the UN have done? Attack two (Britain too) of its charter members?

The UN had lots of options. In theory, it could have imposed a whole range of sanctions on the US (embargoes, things of that nature). Even if these would have had very little practical effect, they would have been very important symbolically. The UN could also simply have passed a hortatory resolution condemning the US action. Not only did the UN fail to adopt any of these measures, from what I recall, it actually authorized the use of UN peace-keeping forces in Afghanistan.

But I agree that this thread shouldn't be turned into a debate about one particular example I've given. The OP was asking for examples of current-day imperialism. You've had an opportunity to say why you don't agree with my example. It would probably be more useful now to try to come up with alternative examples.

@melonkali,

melonkali;132800 wrote:

I'm going to avoid the Afghanistan/Iraq topic -- I don't want to start another battle royale that runs everyone except me and one or two others off the thread. I'll just say that if anyone really believes the U.S. wasn't bullying Afghanistan and Iraq for a UNOCAL pipeline route and a sweet oil deal, respectively, send me a private mail and I'll be happy to discuss/debate the issue with you. I will say no more here about that.

I guess I don't understand what the alleged oil deal has to do with the issue about appeasement of the United States by the UN. What has it to do with it? Big nations always bully small nations. We do it less than most.

@Quinn phil,

Are the terms "appeasement" and "imperialism" even applicable to the current state of affairs without a redefinition of both words? Don't we need to attempt to be clear about what we mean in using these terms, and clear about what would constitute criteria for applying them to modern situations?

@melonkali,

Quinn;132680 wrote:

Any examples of modern day appeasement to a type of imperialism?

One of the first things to note is that imperialism specifically means; "?the practice, the theory, and the attitudes of a dominating metropolitan center ruling a distant territory." I take this definition from one of the foremost political theorists (post colonialism in particular) of the day, Edward Said, (from his book Culture and Imperialism). Said goes on to say that "?imperialism is a relationship, both formal and informal, in which one state controls the effective political sovereignty of another political society. It can be achieved by force, political collaboration, economic, social, or cultural dependence."

Another thing to point out is that American is not technically an empire or imperialistic (at least as far as Said goes). There has certainly been a lot of revisionist literature to the contrary by Noam Chomsky, Paul Kennedy, etc., but under the technical view, American is currently not (though it was in the early 19th century) an imperial power. You can look up stuff like the annexation of Hawaii and stuff like that for good examples of imperialistic tendencies in land acquisition. But nothing exists in the case of America where the central metropolis (Washington) rules a distant territory. Iraq? Not really, they have their own sovereign government independent of Washington. Now was Iraq made so by imperialistic tendency? Maybe not if you consider the UN resolutions, the jus ad bello/bellum rubric, etc. Same with Afghanistan as well.

On the matter of appeasement, which is generally the ceding to the demands of another power in order to preserve the status quo, that may be trickier. Thinking on it, there are a lot of interesting ways to apply appeasement and imperialism.

Take the relationship between the most western/eastern countries and the United Nations as one example of appeasement to a type of imperialism. The UN is such an interesting entity because on the one hand you have an organization whose stated purpose is to maintain peace and security for human rights, yet a binding contract all nations subscribed to are bound to. You have a collective power that can take military action and economic sanction on one hand, and have the inherent goals within the terms of its charter to put an end to aggression, promote decolonization and anti-imperialistic elements on the other. Perhaps the UN could be seen as the next logical progression in imperialistic tendency. Edward Said whole heartedly admitted that although empire was bad, it yielded some of the most beneficial advances in global communion. The UN is a logical (and available) step in global communion.

But on the nature of your question and the UN (and the relationship between member nations), many of these nations need to go through the processes of the UN, whether it be the security council, etc, in order to go about their normal business, whether that be war, humanitarian aid, etc. Member nations are for the most part held to a binding contract to adhere to the resolutions of the majority resolutions, which ironically many times come from the security council which is only comprised of 15 nations, 5 permanent, 10 non-permanent. Seems rather oligarchical to me if these few nations hold sway over the binding acceptance of all the members. You could look at the UN as a pseudo-imperialistic organization which has evolved to meet the complex ethical standards of today's world. And many times, those nations must appease the others in order to keep the status quo in one way or another as any sort of democratic organization needs to in order to survive.

@Quinn phil,

I have a hunch this is a homework question, or at least something that is going to be asked in class.

@Zetherin,

Zetherin;132834 wrote:

I have a hunch this is a homework question, or at least something that is going to be asked in class.

Could be. ....................

@Quinn phil,

:brickwall:I disagree with VideCor:lol: about the status of the USA; being an Imperial Organisation doesn't mean you need to have an Emperor. A nation organised as a merchant-economy under a plutocraty formed the basis for many empires.

Smaller independent polis founded colonies to provide food, slaves and precious metals. Things did change, but oil, cheap labour and food & water still are imported in the USA. Western allies help in Afganistan, pumped trillions in the banking system and are urged to buy new jets to help the US defense industry.

Are american veterans still supported to go to university after their duty is done? Maybe it's wiser to sent your youth first to school, and afterwards to war. Or Canada...

@Pepijn Sweep,

Pepijn Sweep;132917 wrote:

I disagree with VideCor about the status of the USA; being an Imperial Organisation doesn't mean you need to have an Emperor. A nation organised as a merchant-economy under a plutocraty formed the basis for many empires.

I completely agree with you that an Imperial power does not need to have an emperor. However, the foundation of an imperial power necessarily entails that a foreign power hold political sovereignty over another political society. Basically, if I were to say that the United States (say Washington DC) were the central nexus for political decisions of, say, Iraq or Afghanistan, then an imperial moniker could be given. But it is not. As far as I am aware of, there is no country outside the federalized system which bends to the political will of Washington DC in respect to imperial influence. And even within it, state sovereignty is foremost.

However, I would mention that a plutocracy (as well as on which is a merchant based economy) is one of many formulas for imperial administration. The Athenian Empire for example would not fall under your statement because the Cleisthenic reforms, boule of 500 representation, etc. Not only open to the rich and powerful but to the regular gorgoi as well.

Pepijn Sweep;132917 wrote:

Smaller independent polis founded colonies to provide food, slaves and precious metals. Things did change, but oil, cheap labour and food & water still are imported in the USA. Western allies help in Afganistan, pumped trillions in the banking system and are urged to buy new jets to help the US defense industry.

As I am aware, colonial expansion, especially during the archaic period of Greece (700-480) was more influenced by over population and constraints on citizenship. But that does not seem to correlate with the US as it is today (or even how it was) as an imperial power. Resource wise, the US does not have any immediate need to invade other countries for natural resources. Funny thing about oil is that the US oil reserve have not even been tapped to a fraction of its full potential. Americans are just too cheap to invest in the infrastructure necessary to extract and process it (refineries take on average 10 years to develop and a lot of money to maintain). The cost/benefit is not worth it as much as having it imported. Why spend $200 a barrel in homemade light sweet crude when you can get it imported for $50? But that is to say its development is a viable option. And this is besides the fact that oil supply is mediated by many more foreign companies than American ones, let alone federally operated reserves.

But this brings up a point though, which is that the government is not directly involved in this? they just regulate it. These are private companies (and some jointly owned by the government) who operate in the free economy. We import textiles and widgets from china because it's cheaper, more cost effective, etc? not because we necessarily need to. I would also add this is still a very hot topic on our political stage.

As far as western allies pumping money into Afghanistan (and Iraq) and being urged to buy new jets from the US defense industry, unfortunately, Europe is not a major player in that field. Sales with Europe pales in comparison to the business done with Saudi Arabia, Israel, etc.

Pepijn Sweep;132917 wrote:

Are american veterans still supported to go to university after their duty is done? Maybe it's wiser to sent your youth first to school, and afterwards to war. Or Canada...

As far as Amercian veterans being supported to go to university after their duty is done, I would think that they deserve it. You work for it, they pay for it? which I am sure applies to many other countries as well unless they are dependent on government welfare. Also, "American youth" are fully aware of the contractual obligations, the costs and benefits of their service, etc. I had even at one time considered officer candidacy out of university to pay for law school, although it was more beneficial to start out in the private sector. But many people consider it in their advantage to join, so more power to them.

That it would be wiser to send the youth to school first and war second, that seems a little biased and misinformed. Many college graduates enter the armed forces after college to pay for it and make a career out of it. In fact, one cannot enter the military without at least a high school equivalency. And many skills taught to enlisted personnel make them very competitive out in the private sector.

As far as implying that Canada is some sort of escape route for the young to avoid war, that seems to imply we still have the draft and that the Canadians harbor criminals. We don't and they don't. And unlike many other countries that require an amount of military service (which I honestly consider backwards since it's not democratic to be forced into that position), service in the armed forces in the US is elective. And besides that, Canada is a strong and respectable country to the point where we should not push these misconceptions of "war-protest haven" and what not on them.

@Zetherin,

Zetherin;132834 wrote:

I have a hunch this is a homework question, or at least something that is going to be asked in class.

It totally was. Homework, that is.

Thanks everyone!

@VideCorSpoon,

VideCorSpoon;133077 wrote:

I completely agree with you that an Imperial power does not need to have an emperor. However, the foundation of an imperial power necessarily entails that a foreign power hold political sovereignty over another political society.

I do see, being Dutch, USA as a foreign power. The US has political sovereignity over native american nations. And Puerto Rico p.e..
Furthermore US has suzerainty over many countries. This can be political, military, economical or cultural. In the case of Athens it was intellectual.

VideCorSpoon;133077 wrote:

Basically, if I were to say that the United States (say Washington DC) were the central nexus for political decisions of, say, Iraq or Afghanistan, then an imperial moniker could be given.

It is not necessary that DC is the centre nexus; other agencies in Virginia are fully capable to run USA.

VideCorSpoon;133077 wrote:

As far as western allies pumping money into Afghanistan (and Iraq) and being urged to buy new jets from the US defense industry, unfortunately, Europe is not a major player in that field. Sales with Europe pales in comparison to the business done with Saudi Arabia, Israel, etc.

Luckily so; there still is industry in EU. But in Holland we are getting presured to buy US fighters, while we can easily make them in Sweden and France.

VideCorSpoon;133077 wrote:

As far as Amercian veterans being supported to go to university after their duty is done, I would think that they deserve it. You work for it, they pay for it? which I am sure applies to many other countries as well unless they are dependent on government welfare. Also, "American youth" are fully aware of the contractual obligations, the costs and benefits of their service, etc. I had even at one time considered officer candidacy out of university to pay for law school, although it was more beneficial to start out in the private sector. But many people consider it in their advantage to join, so more power to them.

I agree with you people should have a free choice to join the Army. Or the Navy... I also strongly believe in just wars. Most of all I want fairness.

VideCorSpoon;133077 wrote:

That it would be wiser to send the youth to school first and war second, that seems a little biased and misinformed. Many college graduates enter the armed forces after college to pay for it and make a career out of it. In fact, one cannot enter the military without at least a high school equivalency. And many skills taught to enlisted personnel make them very competitive out in the private sector.

I did not realize you see the militairy as part of the educational system. I admit to be biased and misinformed.
:a-ok:

Philosophy Forum

Anybody up-to-date on current events, I need help!

Quick Links

My Account

able2know