The World Bank Group consists of the International
Development Agency, the International Finance Corporation, and the Multilateral
Investment Guarantee Association.The
originals goal of the World Bank was to rebuild, with interest, European
nation-states after the destruction of the 20th century wars, but “this
changed after the following the decolonization of countries formerly controlled
by European states” (Kruck, Rittberger & Zangl, 211).The main emphasis of the World Bank today is
to provide loans to natural resource laden, technologically undeveloped
nation-states.
The World Bank’s Economic Development and Poverty Reduction
Strategy in Rwanda over the past five years, since the bloody civil war there
ended in 1994, boasts of many accomplishments through a three phase adaptable loan:
1) Rural Sector Support project to increase production in the marshlands, 2) Land
Husbandry, Water harvesting and Hillside Harvesting Project, 3) Annual
Development Policy Operation.The positive
results boasted by the World Bank range from the claim that the Rwanda poverty
rate has dropped from 77.8% to 44.9% since 1995 and a growing Gross Domestic
Product.
I understand that nothing is free in this world, especially
when dealing with capitalism and the global private sector, so my first
question was what natural resources were being exploited and profited from
while the World Bank Group was improving the economy and working opportunities
of the people of Rwanda.The first clue that
I found was contained in a letter from Jessica Evans of the non-profit
organization called Human Rights Watch addressed to Makhtar Diop, the World
Bank Vice President for Africa.
“The World Bank is one of the most significant donors in
Rwanda, with a lending portfolio of almost US$300 million in active projects as
of March 2012, more than US$ 100 million of which is provided as general budget
support annually. In addition, the World Bank is providing approximately US$ 88
million in Trust Funds to Rwanda. The World Bank is focusing on the key sectors
of agriculture, energy, transport, skills development, demobilization and
reintegration and private sector development.”
The next excerpt is from a report by the International Land
Coalition entitled the Socio-economic impact of commercial exploitation of
Rwandan marshes: A case study of sugar cane production in rural Kigali.
“Rwandan law provides strong incentives for investors to
engage in commercial agriculture in the country’s marshlands. This should be
seen in the context of a wider policy intended to transform and invigorate the
agro-economy. By leasing these lands out to commercial enterprises, the
Government wants to stimulate the use of more intensive forms of agriculture
that can supply national or international markets.”
The one of the answers I sought was Sugar Cane, but I assume
there are also other areas.
In conclusion, the most economically powerful private sector
investors will seek to exploit and profit from land and natural resources at
every opportunity available.It has been
that way for centuries.On the other
side of the spectrum, Rwanda is one of the most densely populated nations in
the world and was virtually destroyed after colonialism and the bloody civil
war.It is a nation that truly needed
reconstruction, and still needs reconstruction, if there was ever a case.In the case of Rwanda, the World Bank
achieves its mission statement of improving poverty rates, enhancing economic
and commercial investments (creating jobs), and assistance in strengthening a
weak national economy while opening extremely profitable capitalistic markets
for exploitation (through the import of technology).
Human Rights Watch.Evans, Jessica.Letter for World
Bank Vice President for Africa on Rwanda.September 5, 2012, (Accessed on December 6, 2012 from http://www.hrw.org/news/2012/09/05/letter-world-bank-vice-president-africa-rwanda)
Kruck, Rittberger, & Zangl, International Organization,
2nd ed. (New York, NY: Palgrave Macmillan, 2012)
World Bank.Rwanda.2012.(Accessed December 6, 2012 from http://web.worldbank.org/WBSITE/EXTERNAL/NEWS/0,,contentMDK:23276917~menuPK:64256345~pagePK:34370~piPK:34424~theSitePK:4607,00.html)
The International Monetary Fund organization consists of 188 nation-state
members and is aimed at international trade cooperation, the elimination of
global trade barriers and enhancing international monetary cooperation. The IMF
also claims to promote employment and the reduction of world poverty, but I
believe these claims can be argued. The IMF is based on “fixed, but adaptable,
exchange rates” for world currencies (Kruck, Rittberger & Zangl, 193). The
developed gold/dollar standard is the basis for “supply and demand on
international financial markets which determine the value of a currency” and has
proven that “the free exchange of one currency for another” is required for
“smooth payment transactions necessary for international trade” (Kruck,
Rittberger & Zangl, 193).
In order to keep the healthy flow of world
currencies and the profitable interest rates that go with exchanging them,
moving across nation-state borders, the IMF offers loans to boost and reform
nation-state banking systems and national economies. I will not claim to be an
economist, but I feel that there are mass private profit incentives behind the
main driving force of global currency promotion here.
The following
excerpts from the textbook should be noted:
“After agreeing to such a
loan the IMF disburses it itself by making available, to the state concerned,
funds in widely accepted foreign currencies obtained from other states either as
quotas or as a loan. The borrowing state ‘purchases’ these foreign currencies
with its own currency.” (Kruck, Rittberger & Zangl, 198).
“When
repaying, the state in question will repurchase its own currency with the
foreign currency.” (Kruck, Rittberger & Zangl, 198).
“Loans are are
provided under an arrangement which stipulates in advance the performance
criteria for success or failure of the recipient’s agreed reform plan.” (Kruck,
Rittberger & Zangl, 193).
The nation-state of Bangladesh, under an
Extended Credit Facility arrangement with the IMF, received their first review
in 2012. The IMF found that Bangladesh’s economy performed well and their Gross
Domestic Product is predicted to grow by 6 percent in fiscal year 2013. The IMF
also continued to maintain pressure on Bangladesh to control its budget deficit,
by not exceeding 4.5% of the FY13 GDP, and kept a focus on regulated national
banking under amendments to the 1991 Banking Companies Act.
Looking at
the IMF loans to Bangladesh and the banking reform being conducted by the
centralized bank there, it seems that these reforms are in accordance to IMF
goals of stabilizing national currency values internationally to support the
global economy. It would seem that the most industrialized nation-states hold
the most valuable currencies, but still need to establish the currencies of
technologically underdeveloped nation-states within the international market in
order for obtaining the natural resources (of the underdeveloped nation-states)
into ‘play’, incorporated into global trade, and therefore available for
international corporate manufacturing and profit.
Byron, Rejaul. Reform
Takes Hold in Banks. The Daily Star. January 4, 2010, (accessed on December 6,
2012 from http://www.thedailystar.net/newDesign/news-details.php?nid=120385)
International Monetary Fund webpage, Statement at the Conclusion of the
IMF Mission on the First Review Under the Extended Credit Facility Arrangement
with Bangladesh, December 6, 2012 (accessed on Dec 6, 2012 from
http://www.imf.org/external/np/sec/pr/2012/pr12472.htm)
Kruck,
Rittberger, & Zangl, International Organization, 2nd ed. (New York, NY:
Palgrave Macmillan, 2012)
If you really think about it, one of the earliest examples
of globalization in its infancy was the Holy Roman Empire.The Roman Empire, a collection of
nation-state kingdoms, was heavily reliant on agricultural feudalism for
flattening, furrowing and fertilization.I tend to find portions of multiple schools of thought concerning the
history of globalization.The
globalization process developed over three historical stages.The first was the era of mercantilism (more
exports than imports, same basic concept of a modern Gross Domestic Product)
and colonialism, which included the trans-Atlantic slave trade and the colonies
of North and South America.The second phase
was the era of British hegemony, Pax Britannica, which saw the birth of
multinational (or international) corporations and continued through the two major
European wars of the 20th century where a collective hegemony of
nation-states was born under the name of the United Nations.The third stage, prematurely named the Pax
Americana phase, bore witness to the dominant globalization of international
corporations and banking systems backed by the strict international regulations,
depending on what nation-states are being scrutinized, and the collective military
might of IGOs such as the United Nations (the collective hegemony) and NATO.
The most important factor of this three-phase globalization
process is technology.In the first
phase, the power of wind and water (windmills) enhanced the exploitation of
natural resources and agricultural production to the point of ending feudalism.In the second phase, the Industrial Revolution
originated in England and began to reach the shores of the young United States at
the end of the 18th century.In a few short decades as industrial technologies increased, the
technologically advanced North was in a Civil War against the agricultural
South and slavery in the United States was soon abolished (as an outdated mode
of capitalist production due to new technology).The third phase, which we are currently in,
has been informally dubbed the ‘information age’.The internet has flattened and shrank the globe
as fiscal transactions and currency exchanges are conducted with a few strokes
of the keyboard and international business meetings can be conducted through
video conference calls.I tend to view
the description of Pax Americana for this era as somewhat premature.
The problem with globalization is that with each stage of
advanced technology, the required amounts of manual (human) labor for capital
profit are drastically lowered while the human population continues to grow.We saw Feudalism abolished after the first
stages of technological advancement with wind/water power at the beginning of
colonialism (powered by new technologies in ships and sea navigation).We saw slavery abolished under the
technologies of the Industrial Revolution because slavery became an outdated
mode of capitalist production.Under the
technologies of the information era, which should be called the consumer era,
we see incredibly high levels of poverty, incredibly high incarceration rates
and very high levels of unemployment in the majority of the western
nation-states that emerged out of the Holy Roman Empire.
Globalization flattened the globe because it removed all
barriers for trade and capitalist production (stripping the Earth of her
natural resources through new technologies) and linking nation-states to the
gold/dollar standard, international trade agreements, most favorite nation
status (lower tariffs), and international banking organizations such as the IMF
and World Bank.It has furrowed and
watered the global society to produce a world economy which has raised
international corporations as powerful as many of the nation-states they
manipulate.But did globalization
fertilize and protect the soil beneath it?What happens to the soil when you continually use that plot of land for constant
agricultural production?The soil
becomes depleted of nutrients and there is mass erosion.
Henry Nau. Perspectives on International Relations. 3rd ed.
(Washington, D.C.: CQ Press, 2012), 261-284.
Just
War Theory is a centuries old philosophical perspective on the ethics of war
based largely on hypocritical Greco-Roman Christian values.It is an ideological morality that has
subconsciously and consciously contributed to shaping and influencing the
behavior of international state actors and international organizations for
centuries, in earnest fashion and also on behalf of hidden motives.The three levels of the Just War Theory are
boisterous moral justifications deduced from long ago crumbled empires and
states which, throughout history, were led by casts of actors comprised of
religious zealots, imperialist and colonial expansionists, military dictators
and aggressive predators dressed in humanitarian democratic guise.A review throughout the history books of the
world show us that no evil nation-state, alliance or empire has ever won a great
war, which only verifies to a rational mind that it is the winners of conflicts
that write the histories and shape the theories.Just as all codes of moral ethics, the Just
War Theory has been, and will continue to be, empty rhetoric which is
propagated by the most powerful to justify shifts in international relations
caused by their pursuit of, expansion of and protection of economic, military, and
territorial power by nation-states and their mutually beneficial allies.
Jus
Ad Bellum
The first, and
most important, portion of the Just Law Theory, the justification of entering
into a state of war, is a list of conditions aimed toward heads of nation-states
to morally justify conflict.These
ethical categories can be easily manipulated to the masses in order to justify
aggression or military actions of ulterior motive.The first principal requirement is just
cause, a very ambiguous term.In 1939
when Germany invaded Poland, could their actions have been justified by
overpopulation and regaining land stripped by the Treaty of Versailles? Was the
British, French and American response to that invasion due to sincere concern
for the Polish people or was this a repetition of pre-WWI European balancing of
power?The actions of Germany can be
justified just as the actions of the Allied forces can be justified; it just
depends on who is writing the justification.Considerations of morally appropriate intentions for war can also be easily
twisted.In 2003, the United States
invaded and toppled the government of Iraq on the allegations that Saddam
Hussein was producing nuclear weapons. By 2006, videos of Saddam Hussein’s
death by lynching, an immoral event itself, and news reports of the Central
Intelligence Agency admitting that no weapons of mass destruction were found in
Iraq were all over the internet.Was
this just an honest mistake?When
considering the unilateral action of United States’ aggression of the Iraq war,
the proper international authority was never given by the United Nations
Security Council.In a 1994 news
interview, UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan called the invasion an illegal act
according to UN charter and was “without UN approval and much broader support
from the international community”.Even
with UN approval, the majority of Americans, still in frenzy from the newly
unveiled “War on Terror”, were told by their government that it was a just
military invasion and most Americans believed it.
Jus
In Bello
The codes of proper conduct during conflict and the
assumption that all violators will be held accountable is more philosophical
theory without substance, especially on the modern international stage.When the nation-state of Israel, using the
tired justification claims of self-defense, rains down scores of bombs on crowded civilian
population centers in Gaza, murdering women and children, who holds that
government accountable for such human rights violations?Is the answer the permanent members of the United
Nations Security Council?The same
permanent member-states such as Britain, France and the United States who have
to plead with Israel before the international community to stop building
illegal settlements and then remain silent or even worse use their Security
Council veto, when Israel is condemned before the United Nations for their
unilateral actions which result in human rights violations?The United Nations is clearly a hypocritical
and hollow international front for a collective hegemon that expertly utilizes
ideologies from the Just War Theory as international propaganda.The United Nations has never placed pressure
on Israel for unilateral aggressions, or for human rights, against Gaza and
Lebanon, or Israeli unilateral strikes against Iraq in 1981 and Syria in
2007.The same United Nations stood limp
when the United States undercut Security Council authority and invaded Iraq
unilaterally with no factual evidence of nuclear weapons outside of what the
American Israel Public Affairs Committee whispered to Congressional members.
Nations will
quickly act their international role and deem nation-state leaders human rights
violators, especially if the nation-state in question is endowed in natural
resources like oil, just as the UN Security Council did to Libya’s Gadhafi
because he would not step down from power in the midst of an inorganic “Arab
Spring” as Egypt’s Mubarak had.Yet,
when economic interests do not coincide amongst the hegemonic collective of the
UN Security Council, civilian blood runs thick in the streets of Syria while
Security Council permanent member-states secretly fund rebels against
government, or government against rebels, as they silently shrug.Jus in Belo, with all its magnificent moral
rules and perspectives, in the nation-state format, is nothing except further
empty rhetoric.When an individual or
group of soldiers commits an atrocity, those events are politically meaningless
enough to the big picture that those individual soldiers can be sacrificed up by
their nation-state within the collective hegemony to the altar of United Nation
hypocrisy.From a nation-state
perspective, Jus In Belo is an ideology that is unrealistic in nature because
there is no morality among the United Nations Security Council permanent member-states,
as these nation-states are simply powerful nation-states with powerful friends
and their international interests determine what human rights violations are,
and when and where they have occurred.
Jus
Post Bellum
The third and last philosophical rhetoric of the Just War
Theory is the termination of conflict and the seven rules of moral redemption
during the exit stages of military occupations or so-called peacekeeping
missions.When has this type of morality
ever truly occurred in a post-war or military occupation withdrawal?In South Korea and Japan where there are
still permanent U.S. military bases?The
collective hegemony learned from their flaws of leaving Germany intact after
WWI, which resulted in the reemerging challenging factors of WWII.For the past sixty years, military occupations
or UN peacekeeping forces have been left on the ground to solidify puppet
governments propped up in the void of the toppled regime.The moral Jus Post Bellum methods can be seen
in Afghanistan and Iraq, with international banking systems and international
corporations growing fat off the military occupation, being applied by the same
forces that caused the destruction in the first place.In addition, the failures of Jus Post Bellum,
when UN Security Council permanent member-states, such as Britain and France,
have shallow interests that are not worth the expense of peacekeeping or
nation-rebuilding efforts, can be recalled in the so-called peacekeeping
missions in Somalia and Rwanda which were results of European colonialism and
imperialism.
Conclusion
Augustine, Aquinas, Grotius, Suarez, Vattel and Vitoria
were priests, philosophers and theorists.We have all dreamed of a just world and we have all, from mightiest
coalition of nation-state powers down to the most unimportant individual man, morally
justified actions.The modern principals
contained in the Just War Theory are no more than antiquated thoughts from the
age of philosophers.These moral
principles no longer truly exist, if indeed they ever did, among the modern
international nation-states on the international stage where world power has
become consolidated.In honor of those
long ago idealists with pen and theory, the powerful international hegemony has
certainly adopted their theory as propaganda and put it to use for their own
political benefits.
I want to address the nuclear ambiguity and opacity of the nation-state of
Israel and the bias non-interest of the UN Security Council permanent members
and the International Atomic Energy Agency in allowing Israel to refuse the NPT
and avoid any inspections.
The Nuclear Threat Institute, a nonprofit
organization, profiles the issue that “Israel has not joined the Treaty on the
Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT) and is widely viewed as the first and
only country in the Middle East to possess nuclear weapons.” [1] The NPT was
established in 1968. Article I of the NPT clearly states that “Each
nuclear-weapon State Party to the Treaty undertakes not to transfer to any
recipient whatsoever nuclear weapons or other nuclear explosive devices or
control over such weapons or explosive devices directly, or indirectly; and not
in any way to assist, encourage, or induce any non-nuclear weapon State to
manufacture or otherwise acquire nuclear weapons or other nuclear explosive
devices, or control over such weapons or explosive devices.”[2]. Interesting
enough, we see the five UN permanent Security Council members, with their
vetoes, far less restricted in this treaty to represent “the factual power
inequality of the states in its distribution of rights” [3]
France, the
first nation-state to supply Israel with nuclear materials in the late 1950s and
early 1960s, which led to the Israeli Dimona nuclear facility, did not join the
NPT until 1992, so they can’t be held accountable for their assistance in
Israel’s early nuclear development.
The International Atomic Energy
Agency, which originated in 1957 as “Atoms for Peace” within the United Nations,
and eventually became an “independent international organization related to the
United Nations system, the IAEA´s relationship with the UN is regulated by
special agreement. In terms of its Statute, the IAEA reports annually to the UN
General Assembly and, when appropriate, to the Security Council regarding
non-compliance by States with their safeguards obligations as well as on matters
relating to international peace and security.”[4]. In the UN-IAEA special
agreement, Article III states that the IAEA will provide reports to the General
Assembly at every regular session and Article VIII states that the UN may
present issues to the IAEA for consideration [5]. In the aftermath of the NPT,
the IAEA was granted the authority by the UN to police world nuclear activity by
providing information to the UN Security Council, the house where sanctions are
born.
While Israel, assumed by the international intelligence community
to possess nuclear weapons, has always refused to sign the NPT and remains
unrestricted and unmonitored in amassing more nuclear weapons with no safeguards
or international monitoring, Iran previously signed the NPT in 1968 and for the
past two decades has been targeted by UN sanctions which are heavily sponsored
by Israel, whether publicly or behind UN Security Council permanent member
governments, such as the United States. The United States, in its alliance with
Israel, vetoes any resolutions against Israel in the UN Security Council
stretching back to the 1969 Meir-Nixon agreement. Israel has conducted
unilateral military strikes against nuclear facilities in Iraq in 1981 and Syria
in 2007, and is currently leading a top notch international public relations
push against Iran, in order to maintain nuclear hegemony in the region while the
UN, nor the IAEA, show any concerns.
The IAEA is simply an instrument of
the hegemonic powers of the UN, even though we are beginning to see a similar
separation of economic and political interests among permanent member states and
a declining hegemony, this time in the U.S. instead of Britain, which eventually
doomed the League of Nations. When it is in the economic, military and political
interests of the five permanent members of the UN Security Council, the UN acts
in harmony toward sanctions against less powerful nation-states and those
sanctions eventually lead to military intervention, the removal of one
government and a replaced of a puppet government friendly to hegemonic
interests). Nation-states like Israel are able to sway permanent Security
Council member states to veto resolutions against them while utilizing their
diplomatic relations with permanent Security Council member states to the
fullest in order to avoid being forced to sign the NPT or be monitored.
The mission statements of the United Nations and the IAEA mean very
little because they are hypocritical statements. Nation-states like Iraq have
been targeted and replaced, Iran is currently being targeted and on the opposite
side of the political spectrum Israel continues to be allowed to possess nuclear
weapons without signing the NPT.
1 Nuclear Threat Initiative, Country
Profile, Israel (Accessed November 27, 2012 at
http://www.nti.org/country-profiles/israel/nuclear/)
2 Arms Control
Association, Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty text (Accessed November 27, 2012
from http://www.armscontrol.org/documents/npt)
3 Kruck, Rittberger,
& Zangl, International Organization, 2nd ed. (New York, NY: Palgrave
Macmillan, 2012)
4 IAEA.Org, Relationship with the UN (Accessed November
27, 2012 from http://www.iaea.org/About/about-iaea.html)
I'm not sure that the bias really matters; North Korea withdrew from the NPT,
and has had sanctions imposed on it since then; this has in no way convinced
North Korea to give up its program.
So, in the long run, I don't think
sanctions--whether applied in an even-handed manner or not--are the deciding
factor for nations seeking nuclear weapons. Pakistan was not content to let
India be the sole regional nuclear power; if Iran /does/ decide it can't abide
Israeli nuclear hegemony in the region, I don't believe sanctions will matter a
whit.
(Rebuttal)
And the United States cut economic and military aid to Pakistan in 1979 when it
was suspected they were beginning to develop nuclear capabilities. North Korea
has been economically strangled by the U.S. and international community for
years. Yet, the U.S. has provided Israel with over 3 billion dollars in annual
foreign aid (plus additional military, political and economic incentives) since
the 1960s. If the U.S. and international community truly had the goal of
anti-proliferation instead of maintaining the collective nuclear hegemony, then
Israel could easily be pressured into signing the NPT. Instead, they are left
unfettered and above international law.
UN PEACEKEEPING MISSIONS - Gaza?
“Peacekeeping is not mentioned in the UN Charter but it has been a major UN
operational activity in the field of security (Doyle & Sambanis 2006, 2007;
Weiss et al. 2007:33-41, 45-80)” (Kruck, Rittberger & Zangl, p. 153)
UN peacekeeping missions evolved rapidly over the 1990s. The original
format of peacekeeping missions, which emerged during Cold War years, were based
on the agreement of all conflicting parties involved for the deployment of UN
observers or military force into the unstable region, mostly for monitoring and
reporting on cease-fire agreements. One example of a basic peacekeeping
observation mission was “UNIIMOG, the 400-strong UN force charged with
supervising the ceasefire between Iraq and Iran after the first Gulf War”
(Kruck, Rittberger & Zangl, p. 153). By the middle 1990s, so-called UN
peacekeeping missions began to expanded and mutate. The UN began to dispatch
preventive peacekeeping missions, such as monitoring and reporting on border
developments from the Macedonian-Yugoslavia border once Macedonia declared
independence from Yugoslavia. The UN, under Secretary-General Boutros
Boutros-Ghali, also began multifaceted peacekeeping missions such as ‘robust
peacekeeping’ missions, deemed as collective security, and nation rebuilding.
Nation rebuilding, which is considered justified by Chapter seven of the UN
Charter, as we have seen with the example of Iraq, under NATO mandate, places
both military and civilian forces in theater to maintain the peace (or
occupation) and establish an interim (or puppet) government structure.
Due to indecisiveness and financial reluctance from UN Security Council
member states, several so-called peacekeeping missions were failures in the
1990s, such as Somalia, Yugoslavia, and Rwanda. As a result of these failures,
the UN Security Council and the UN General Assembly established the UN
Peacebuilding Commission and “this Commission was tasked with the development of
reconstruction strategies for states in post-conflict situations” (Kruck,
Rittberger & Zangl, p. 156). Conflicts, which as the world emerged into the
21st century, began to be more and more instituted by UN Security Council
Permanent Member-states such are the cases of government toppling and rebuilding in
Afghanistan, Iraq and Libya.
The Security Council authorizes all
peacekeeping missions. It is so very interesting that there has never been a UN
peacekeeping mission to observe what occurs in the Israeli-Palestinian so-called
conflict.
Kruck, Rittberger, & Zangl, International Organization,
2nd ed. (New York, NY: Palgrave Macmillan, 2012), 153-156.
(Reply)
It's hardly surprising that there is no UN force on the ground in Israel; recall
that, except in egregious circumstances, peace-keeping operations are
consensual, and Israel is hardly going to consent. And while their treatment of
Palestinians is objectionable, it's not egregious enough to invoke a
non-consensual mission, particularly over the inevitable objections of the
United States.
(Rebuttal)
L-----, perhaps in the early stages of UN peacekeeping missions those missions required
consensual agreement, but there have been a handful of preventive or collective
security UN missions that have not been consensual. "Missions which belong to
the category of robust peacekeeping have entered the system of collective
security, since the consensus of one or more parties to teh conflict is no
longer a condition for sending a mission (Doyle 1999: 448; Doyle & Sambanis
2007)" (Kruck, Rittberger & Zangl, 154). Add to this, the nation rebuilding
missions.
No, the true reason why the UN has never stepped in on behalf
of Israeli human rights violations against the Palestinian people is because
of the Israeli political manipulation of the U.S. Veto.
(2nd Reply)
The preventative missions that do not have consent from the country involved is
peace enforcement, which is another avenue that the UN can take if the situation
deteriorates to that level. Peacekeeping is always (ALWAYS) with the consent of
the belligerent parties. Peace enforcement is used to prevent utter chaos.
You discuss Somalia in your post, and it is discussed in the book as
well, do you think there is a way to build, keep, or enforce peace in that
country? For the first time in almost two decades they have some semblance of
leadership, or control. The country is dirt poor, has little to no resources,
has a huge issue with religious factions infighting, and out fighting.
Rwanda also is another issue altogether, and I agree with your assumption is
was a failure, for the sheer fact the UN was a day late and a dollar
short.
You seem to have a strong bias towards Israel, and your perception
they control the US veto. Israel is arguably the only friendly country or ally
we have in a very volatile part of the world. Why would the US not ally with
them?
Palestine is run by groups that are deemed to be terrorists groups
(HAMAS, Hezbollah to an extent, and formerly Fatah) what benefit would it be for
the US, Canada, Japan, NATO, UN, EU, etc. to use their forces and resources to
help a hostile group.
(2nd Rebuttal)
What do Somalia, Rwanda and Palestine all have in common, Travis? The modern
condition of all three areas are the result of 20th century European
colonialism.
Somalia is a failed post-colonial state and if anyone should
be paying the bulk of reparations, nation rebuilding or peacekeeping in this
area, it should be Britain, France and Italy in my opinion. Instead the
infamous UN peacekeeping mission was led by American dollars and American
military (as we all are familiar with the 19 Marines who died in the 'Blackhawk
down' incident). It should be evident how much we were contributing to the
peacekeeping mission because once President Clinton pulled the U.S. Military
out in 1994, the UN peacekeeping mission ended in 1995. Just like the loose
political term of "international coalition" used for NATOs so-called nation
rebuilding efforts in Afghanistan, anyone who has been there knows that U.S.
forces are over 80% of the occupation (and that is being modest in percentage
value because it is probably more).
Rwanda was a German colony until the
aftermath of WWI when it became League of Nation property and passed to Belgium
until 1962. Every member state of the League of Nations are responsible for
what has happened here. If the UN deems it necessary, the League of Nation
member-states should be held accountable and should pay reparations, provide
economic nation rebuilding efforts and accept the bulk economic and military
responsibility for robust peacekeeping.
And now to conclude with
Israel. I do not have a bias against Israel, I have a bias for our United
States and against the manipulation that pro-Israeli lobbyist groups (AIPAC) and
dual citizen congressional votes have on U.S. domestic policy-making which very
much impacts foreign policy, national deficit, sanctions, nation toppling and
rebuilding, foreign aid amounts and UN vetoes. I worry about the future
national impact of this for our American children that will be caused by such
economic and military irresponsibility and hypocrisy.
When discussing
Israeli-Palestinian issues, we must understand (and teach our children) the
history of Ottoman rule, British colonialism after WWI, the Belfour Declaration
and the partitioning of Palestine by the UN (who has never established a
peacekeeping force to the area regardless of atrocities committed there by
Israel or missiles fired from Palestinian factions). You and I both know that
the average American can't even distinguish between the tribes of Israel in the
Torah and the modern day nation-state government of Israel.
You mention
Israel is the only U.S. ally in the region, and I have heard that argument many
times, but what do we get in return from that alliance? It seems like a wide
one-way street with heavy one-way traffic to me. No one can change history, but
the conflict between Israel and the Palestinians is a land conflict wrapped in
religious and ethnic guise (as many others are). I would like the U.S. to cut
this type of foreign involvement (and funding to Israel) and concentrate on
domestic issues for awhile.
And if you can present some hard facts
concerning what Israel provides to the United States in our so-called alliance,
I would be greatly interested in it. I mean that with sincerity because I am
always trying to learn more and understand all the elements of analysis.
Thanks.
