Post #30,369
3/1/02 4:01:40 PM
|
Why we don't listen when the UN lectures us
[link|http://www.smh.com.au/news/0203/02/world/world1.html|The case for American unilateralism]
Excerpt:
The mass graves on the steppes of Central Asia are cloaked in winter's last snow, but now they threaten to claim another victim - the credibility of Mary Robinson's United Nations High Commission for Human Rights.
Rights groups have complained bitterly - but privately - for more than four years about the commission's record in Afghanistan. But in a scathing critique to be published next month, it is accused of bungling in the aftermath of two massacres in the northern city of Mazar-e-Sharif.
After a failed Taliban assault on the city early in 1997, Northern Alliance forces are accused of killing more than 3000 Taliban prisoners, many by suffocation when they were locked in steel shipping containers.
Fifteen months later, more than 2000 civilians are said to have been murdered in what witnesses called a "killing frenzy" as Taliban machine-gunners, mounted on trucks, raced in to capture the city.
The report, a copy of which has been obtained by the Herald, says: "The UNHCHR has until now abdicated its responsibility for promoting accountability in Afghanistan through its failure to conduct thorough investigations."
The report, by three leading humanitarian experts, goes perilously close to blaming the commission for some of the deaths: "While not holding the UNHCHR entirely responsible, the magnitude of the consequences of [its] Mazar failure should not be downplayed.
"Respondents have argued that impunity for the first massacre in Mazar contributed to the second massacre. Impunity for the second has contributed to subsequent killings."
I say:
Dubya's certainly not suave or sophisticated. But he's a damn sight better for the world than this bunch of no-ops.
[link|http://www.angelfire.com/ca3/marlowe/index.html|http://www.angelfir...e/index.html]
Truth is that which is the case. Accept no substitutes.
If competence is considered "hubris" then may I and my country always be as "arrogant" as we can possibly manage.
|
Post #30,380
3/1/02 4:36:26 PM
|
Aren't those our allies?
After a failed Taliban assault on the city early in 1997, Northern Alliance forces are accused of killing more than 3000 Taliban prisoners, many by suffocation when they were locked in steel shipping containers. Taliban "bad. Northern Alliance "good". Right? Or did that change recently? Or are you telling me that our most recent alliance in Afghanistan was with a group that would kill 3000 prisoners? The doctrine of "impunity" argues that being called to account should act as a brake on cycles of human rights abuses. The UNHCHR's critics say the 1997 massacre was an opportunity to show the Taliban that the world "would do the right thing" when its fighters were victims of excess, thereby curbing its appetite for more violence. Is this the same Taliban that is linked to ObL who is linked to the WTC attack? But showing them that we cared about them would be a good thing? Ummmmmmmmmmm, be nice to the "bad" guys? Does that mean we should treat the captured Taliban people as POW's?
|
Post #30,392
3/1/02 4:59:41 PM
|
Wow. You have something vaguely resembling a valid point.
But then, even a stopped clock tells the right time twice a day.
Of course, it's not much of a point. After all, we're there with different objectives in mind than they were. Not that they could likely accomplish our objectives, either.
[link|http://www.angelfire.com/ca3/marlowe/index.html|http://www.angelfir...e/index.html]
Truth is that which is the case. Accept no substitutes.
If competence is considered "hubris" then may I and my country always be as "arrogant" as we can possibly manage.
|
Post #30,404
3/1/02 6:26:48 PM
|
Actually, it is my old point.
The point that we'll ally ourselves with ANYONE. No matter WHAT attrocities they've committed. After all, we're there with different objectives in mind than they were. Ummm, so allying with a murderer is okay as long as you have different objectives than the murderer? Now, is there anyone else out there who needs a reminder of WHY we are so despised over there? And this wasn't even that long ago. I'm sure that there are relatives of those 3000 murdered prisoners who now see the Northern Alliance fighting under the US flag. There was a day when that flag stood for something more than opportunistic exploitation.
|
Post #30,408
3/1/02 7:51:34 PM
|
Q
There was a day when that flag stood for something more than opportunistic exploitation.
When was that? When the U.S. was young, we had slavery. As we got bigger and moved west, we took the land from Indians and Railroad Barons took land from the whites. Once we started looking overseas, we used gun boat diplomacy. When we defeated Hitler and had to stand up against the USSR, we allied ourselves with any dictatorship that would take our money to fight communist insurgents.
The US's actions now seem pretty consistent.
Ray
|
Post #30,409
3/1/02 8:05:53 PM
|
Damn.
I guess we don't have much "good" in our history of dealing with non-US citizens.
|
Post #30,412
3/1/02 8:15:51 PM
|
The lesser of two evils is the best we can get
Can you think of any large nation or Empire that has been universally revered for more than a few years at best? I can't. Seems like that any sufficiently large entity whether it be a country, religion, or corporation will end up exploiting/abusing some group at one time or another despite the best of intentions.
IMHO, this is a universal 'Truth' :/
Ray
|
Post #30,521
3/3/02 3:48:10 PM
|
But why?
Can you think of any large nation or Empire that has been universally revered for more than a few years at best? In the past, I can understand why not. The empire grew by conquering (militarily) the vassels. Do we need to flex our military might in that manner now? Don't we have enough resources within our own country to support ourselves? Seems like that any sufficiently large entity whether it be a country, religion, or corporation will end up exploiting/abusing some group at one time or another despite the best of intentions. I can understand corporations. They're in it for the money. Not to further any concept of human rights or freedoms (individuals as 'consumers'). I can also understand religions. Once you have "The Truth", everyone else is either "saved" or "damned". Countries as well. Of course >YOUR< method of government is "The Best". So exporting that is a "good" thing. But will we, as a nation, ever look back at how we've treated other people and realize that waht is "best" for us is NOT what is "best" for others? And that the others have as much right to find their own "best" as we did?
|
Post #30,529
3/3/02 4:48:58 PM
|
Of course we can reach that realization!
It will come, simply - with maturity.
Now, as to how much longer That will take.. I suppose it depends upon: what it is we like to watch for entertainment. So long as we wallow in the White Hats/Black Hats childhood simplicities all during our 'adult' lives (whether about sex or about world and local politics) ? well, for that long - we remain children.
A sufficiently Large *SHOCK* could do it. Can't guess how that might occur - that's why we call it "a SHOCK!" (9/11 hasn't, apparently - succeeded all by itself.) Oh well.
Ashton
|
