Say Anything Blog

This question could be under debate by the U.N. for days or weeks--well beyond the time that action could have helped.  What is the U. N. if it is not a debating, meeting and eating society?

This was exactly my take when I read this piece yesterday. Anyone who supports the UN doing this and says the US should not have invaded Iraq should just STFU.

I think the moral answer to this question is that the government of Myanmar, not being a legitimate government, but rather a brutal totalitarian regime that has taken over this region without the support of its own people, has no legitimacy.

Hence this is a trick question, framed in terms of the current crisis in that region at least.  And that does make it a nice exam question for grad-level polisci students!

Anyone who supports the UN doing this and says the US should not have invaded Iraq should just STFU.

Michael K.

Would those be the very same people who’ve spent the past 7 years braying about how dumb George W. Bush is?

The key is that neither the military junta that rules Burma nor the Ba’athist regime of Saddam Hussein were consensual.  And until the United Nations recognizes that distinction, both the UN and its supporters will remain intellectually flaccid and irrelevant… not at all unlike Jimmy Carter.

“Poverty of goods is easily cured; poverty of the mind is irreparable.”

Bat,

Your question is less political and more ethical (read: philosophical). You basically ask whether there can ever exist a sine qua non to exercise our power for the good of others. This being a compulsion rather than a desire because a desire, by definition, does not necessitate action and is therefore not necessarily ethical.

It’s an interesting question. And I think that what’s more interesting is that France, the leading detractor of “American Imperialism,” is essentially calling for something like an imperialism of good will.

I personally see nothing ethically wrong with imperialism. In fact, I can make a decent philosophical argument for the necessity (as a matter of survival) for a stronger society to dominate (either by force or, in our case, but cultural imperialism) the weaker societies around it.

“Behind Communism, Fascism, behind all occupations and invasions lurks a more basic, pervasive evil… a parade of people marching by with raised fists and shouting identical syllables in unision.” - Milan Kundera

Bat,

If the UN is so eager to help for humanitarian reasons what happened to all that help in the Muslim led slaughter in Darfur? There are more dead and siplaced their right now than were caused by this natural disaster.

Toothless hound baying at the moon.

Election ‘08 - We Are So Screwed

Hairy,

I agree with your distinction between political and ethical.  But the legal framework under which the US is organized and operates, and the quasi-legal framework under which the UN exists ("operates" is far too generous!) are both political in nature.

This avoids for the UN the necessity of confronting the question of consenuality I mentioned above, and insures that UN membership is “inclusive”.  A dubious and counter-productive goal if ever there was one!  It also avoids the unseemly imposition of outside values that so terrifies the morally equivalent Left.

As for imperialism, I think once the question of a consensual government becomes a prerequisite for acceptance, then there is little need for imperialism.  The historical record is mixed.  Great Britain’s former colonies have all done rather well, but those of France and other Euro-powers rather less so… starting with Africa.

“Poverty of goods is easily cured; poverty of the mind is irreparable.”

...what happened to all that help in the Muslim-led slaughter in Darfur?

Pilgrim,

With natural disasters such as the typhoon there is no need to for the sorts of uncomfortable moral judgments about the actions and motives of the perpetrators.  Its an easy call.

The slaughter in Darfur, on the other hand, is cast in humanitarian terms precisely because the perps are brutally bigoted Islamists, one of the Left’s pet groups of “victims”.

No self-respecting “One World” leftist is going to castigate anyone who declares themselves opposed to the hideous horrors of American Christian imperialists.

“Poverty of goods is easily cured; poverty of the mind is irreparable.”

Sorry about the typos.

That should have been “dead and displaced there” instead of the babble I typed. I shouldn’t try to talk on the phone and make sense on a keyboard at the same time.

Election ‘08 - We Are So Screwed

This reminded me of this video clip of Scalia I watched last week.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_byBa5uK_I8

Thank God we have men like him on the court.

A political party cannot be all things to all people. It must represent certain fundamental beliefs which must not be compromised to political expediency, or simply to swell its numbers.

Dougee,

Your remark about the video clip of Justice Scalia, a man of breathtaking intellect, and a favorite jurist of mine, puts me in mind of another such brilliant judge, and hopefully, a future Supreme Court Justice, US Appeals Court Judge Janice Rogers Brown.  She is a stalwart defender of private property rights against the encroachment of collectivism.  Her two most famous speeches are “Fifty Ways to Lose Your Freedom” found here, and “A Whiter Shade of Pale” found here.  Some samples:

Our problems, however, seem to go even deeper. It is not simply that the same words don’t have the same meanings; in our lifetime, words are ceasing to have any meaning. The culture of the word is being extinguished by the culture of the camera. Politicians no longer have positions they have photo-ops. To be or not to be is no longer the question. The question is: how do you feel.

Writing 50 years ago, F.A. Hayek warned us that a centrally planned economy is “The Road to Serfdom."3 He was right, of course; but the intervening years have shown us that there are many other roads to serfdom. In fact, it now appears that human nature is so constituted that, as in the days of empire all roads led to Rome; in the heyday of liberal democracy, all roads lead to slavery. And we no longer find slavery abhorrent. We embrace it. We demand more. Big government is not just the opiate of the masses. It is the opiate. The drug of choice for multinational corporations and single moms; for regulated industries and rugged Midwestern farmers and militant senior citizens.

It is my thesis today that the sheer tenacity of the collectivist impulse — whether you call it socialism or communism or altruism — has changed not only the meaning of our words, but the meaning of the Constitution, and the character of our people…

The founders viewed private property as “the guardian of every other right."9 But, “by 1890 we find Alfred Marshall, the teacher of John Maynard Keynes making the astounding claim that the need for private property reaches no deeper than the qualities of human nature."A hundred years later came Milton Friedman’s laconic reply: “ ‘I would say that goes pretty deep.’” In between, came the reign of socialism. “Starting with the formation of the Fabian Society and ending with the fall of the Berlin Wall, its ambitious project was the reformation of human nature. Intellectuals visualized a planned life without private property, mediated by the New Man."1 He never arrived. As John McGinnis persuasively argues: “There is simply a mismatch between collectivism on any large and enduring scale and our evolved nature. As Edward O. Wilson, the world’s foremost expert on ants, remarked about Marxism, ‘Wonderful theory. Wrong species.’”

Some things are apparent. Where government moves in, community retreats, civil society disintegrates, and our ability to control our own destiny atrophies. The result is: families under siege; war in the streets; unapologetic expropriation of property; the precipitous decline of the rule of law; the rapid rise of corruption; the loss of civility and the triumph of deceit. The result is a debased, debauched culture which finds moral depravity entertaining and virtue contemptible.

Enjoy!

“Poverty of goods is easily cured; poverty of the mind is irreparable.”

I don’t think we ar every far off here.

I heard a report today that while the junta was generally OK with “UN” aid, they specifically did not want any “US” aid. In fact, any help from the United States military was particularly unwelcome b/c the junta is afraid of US military involvement in the “internal affairs” or Myanmar.

Given recent history of the affect of US military on despotic regimes (in Iraq and Afganistan), this is understandable. The funny thing is, I am sure there are a lot of Americans on the ideological left who agree with the junta.

Michael K.,

On a larger scale, the whole question of UN/US aid for international disasters such as this is almost obscenely funny.

When Indian Ocean Tsunami hit in December of 2004, the Secretary General of the UN was on a skiing holiday in Montana (I believe) and could not be bothered to leave the slopes to deal with the crisis for 5 days.  When he finally did return from his vacation, it took the UN another week of talks and meetings to determine what was to be done and how.  The Secretary General’s first remarks were to castigate the US for its “miserly contribution”.

Meanwhile, the commander of US Forces in the Pacific immediately dispatched the nearest Navy vessels to the most distressed areas.  Navy sailors and US Marines worked 24/7 delivering their own food, their own potable water, and their own medical supplies, setting up communications and rescuing refugees.  Chopper pilots were given special exemptions to fly beyond normal DoD daily and monthly limits.  Extra fuel, food, medical supplies, tents, cots, etc. were sent for and delivered.  Military personnel put themselves and their mission in jeopardy to help victims whose language they could not speak simply because they were there and they could help those who needed the aid.

What the military junta in Burma does not comprehend, cannot comprehend, is that in a free society our military takes its direction from a freely elected, consensual civilian government.

“Poverty of goods is easily cured; poverty of the mind is irreparable.”

Carrick nails it: you have to first determine if a government is legitimately sovereign before interference in it’s affairs can or can’t be called a breech of sovereignty. I have argued this before vis-a-vis the US invasion of Iraq.

If the UN - no matter how imperfectly - is starting to recognize that a legitimate government has a responsibility to its people and that abdication of that responsibility voids the presumption of sovereignty, then it is cause for celebration. I laud any positive steps they take in this direction, even if they are small and belated steps.

...you have to first determine if a government is legitimately sovereign before interference in it’s affairs can or can’t be called a breech of sovereignty.

Seth,

The larger and more difficult questions remain:  Who is to make that determination, under what circumstances, and according what criteria?  What is the authority under which these steps are undertaken, and who or what is to enforce such a decision?

If the UN is indeed taking the “small steps” you suggest, that may be a good thing… some day and under different circumstances.  But given the present composition and organization of the UN, and the simple fact that the UN’s decision making process in terms of international affairs is not restricted to those governments that are demonstrably consensual, I think France’s suggestion that UN’s responsibility overrides any nation’s sovereignty sets a dangerous precedent absent the appropriate safeguards.  I’m not at all comfortable with an “ends justifies the means” precedent in the hands of today’s United Nations.

“Poverty of goods is easily cured; poverty of the mind is irreparable.”

Thanks Bat One!

A political party cannot be all things to all people. It must represent certain fundamental beliefs which must not be compromised to political expediency, or simply to swell its numbers.

The rulers of Burma do not care how many people die. They have been forcing people into the coastal regions in their efforts to suppress groups who are fighting against them. Killing off a couple hundred thousand of them is a win/win for them. Just ask the Karen.

Una Salus Victus Nullam Sperare Salutem

Things are only getting worse for the estimated 1.5 million cyclone victims.

YANGON, Myanmar (AP) - A U.N. official says the World
Food Program is suspending cyclone aid to Myanmar because its government seized supplies flown into the country.

He says the WFP has no choice but to suspend the shipments until the matter is resolved.

WFP spokesman Paul Risley said Friday that all “the food aid and equipment that we managed to get in has been confiscated.” The shipment included 38 tons of high-energy biscuits.

Risley said it is not clear why the material was seized.

“Poverty of goods is easily cured; poverty of the mind is irreparable.”

The current “rulers” of Burma give not one pile of steaming shit for the welfare of the people living in coastal regions. They have been actively forcing people out of the mountain regions and into the very areas which sustain the heaviest casualties in monsoon season.

A tactic as old as the hills.

As for the “rulers” of Burma stealing the relief supplies? Exactly who the hell is surprised in the least?

Una Salus Victus Nullam Sperare Salutem

At what point does an organization founded on the fundamental rule of law, violate both law and the sovereignty of another to assist those being brutally oppressed by a harsh, autocratic and largely lawless regime?

That’s the question alright. If the invasion of Iraq was legitimate then surely a relief effort backed by force if necessary passes the test as well.

Are the “good intentions” of those who would violate another country’s sovereignty sufficient to justify the violation?

I don’t think “good intentions” in themselves are enough. The Burma case seems pretty easy since most everyone agrees that victims of cyclones shouldn’t be denied aid simply because its government says so. It seems to me that some sort of consensus in favour of action is is required.

OTOH, what would our reaction be if China moved into Burma in order to ensure relief and “stability”?

No passion so effectually robs the mind of all its powers of acting and reasoning as fear
*Edmund Burke*

Mike:

It seems to me that some sort of consensus in favour of action is is required.

Why do yo think that?  Does it make it more moral if everybody agrees that it’s a good idea at the time?

Carrick...not always but sometimes. Consensus makes it more likely that action taken is founded on a widely accepted moral position and that the action has the appearance of a moral response...IMO of course.

No passion so effectually robs the mind of all its powers of acting and reasoning as fear
*Edmund Burke*

That tyrannical governments divert disaster aid to their selfish purposes is not unusually.  It’s been happening in Africa for a long time.

Being liberal is never having to admit you’re wrong

Ain’t this sweet. Democrats must be advising these jackoffs on how to run their country. Where is James Carvell,anyway?

Una Salus Victus Nullam Sperare Salutem

Mike:

OTOH, what would our reaction be if China moved into Burma in order to ensure relief and “stability”?

Mine personally would be about the same as when I learned that it was the Communist Vietnamese who overthrew the Khmer Rouge: “Thank God SOMEBODY stepped up and did something.”

The instance on absolute moral purity has a tendency to cost more lives than an acceptance of imperfect, but better, results. That’s not saying the end justifies the means, it’s an acknowledgement that the the end result of inaction has to be considered in one’s moral calculus.

Good comment Seth.

No passion so effectually robs the mind of all its powers of acting and reasoning as fear
*Edmund Burke*

2H9

Democrats must be advising these jackoffs on how to run their country.

Seems more likely to be Republicans I think.

No passion so effectually robs the mind of all its powers of acting and reasoning as fear
*Edmund Burke*

Once again you are wrong. As usual. Your inability to separate your sick assed inability to distinguish reality from your sick assed desire for socialism is once again clearly illustrated.  Did I use simple enough word constructs so you can understand? You stupid fuck?

Una Salus Victus Nullam Sperare Salutem

I wouldn’t have used “inability” twice in the same sentence but your point is reasonably clear. You are no doubt ticked that the Republicans have canned Myanmar’s former lobbyist as their Convention coordinator. I think it was the right thing to do although you’re certainly entitled to your opinion.

No passion so effectually robs the mind of all its powers of acting and reasoning as fear
*Edmund Burke*

MikeA:  Wow!!  Thanks for the Mynmar link. Very, very interesting.

"Here lies, in honored glory, an American soldier, known but to God.”

THIS ELECTION IS ABOUT TWO THINGS: WINNING THE WAR ON TERRORISM AND SAVING THE SUPREME COURT.

To be fair, I’m sure there’s no shortage of Democrats acting as lobbyists for slimy clients.

No passion so effectually robs the mind of all its powers of acting and reasoning as fear
*Edmund Burke*

I don’t know anything about anyone’s conventions. I do know that the “rulers” of the nation of Burma are using the aid supplies pouring into their country as a weapon against the Burmese people. They have been using every means at their disposal to crush anyone who does not toe their line. Which is what socialist assholes always do.

Which ideology embraces using starvation as a weapon? Which ideology embraces using terror and imprisonment to control people? Which ideology is attempting to use medical care in their drive to annul the Constitution of the United States?

Tell us some more about a convention that does not matter, while the people of Burma,Zimbabwe,Sudan,Somalia, etc etc continue to be driven under by the practitioners of your sick assed ideology.

Una Salus Victus Nullam Sperare Salutem

2H9...blaming “my ideology” for the abomination that is the Burmese military dictatorship is like my blaming “your ideology” for allowing 9 year olds the freedom to to choose to work in the mines in the 19th century.

In short, get real.

No passion so effectually robs the mind of all its powers of acting and reasoning as fear
*Edmund Burke*

You are the asshole spewing socialist ideology. The are the fucking problem.

Una Salus Victus Nullam Sperare Salutem

Meant to say you are the fucking problem. Sorry to confuse your tiny, socialist mind.

Una Salus Victus Nullam Sperare Salutem

No confusion on this end...other than the fact that the full moon isn’t due for another week.

No passion so effectually robs the mind of all its powers of acting and reasoning as fear
*Edmund Burke*

Yep, no confusion at all. You sick assed ideology is the problem.

Una Salus Victus Nullam Sperare Salutem