From: dfo@tko.vtt.fi (Foxvog Douglas)
Newsgroups: alt.activism.d
Subject: Re: A pacifist's call for conditional support for US action in Somalia
Date: 28 Dec 92 08:00:10 GMT
Organization: VTT

I didn't receive the original Bud Hovel article, but from the formatting
below i will assume that his comment was directed at my posting instead
of some intermediate posting.  If not, i appologize to Bud Hovel for my
misinterpretation.

In article <23DEC199200224947@erich.triumf.ca> orwell@erich.triumf.ca (BALDEN, RON) writes:
>In article <1992Dec19.001649.16585@mtek.com>, bud@mtek.com (Bud Hovell)
>commenting on Doug Foxvog's posting:

>>... 
>>Your unalloyed admiration of the intent of the Gen-Sec may need rather
>>urgent re-examination if solutions by military action give you excessive
>>heartburn. 

My article certainly did not give "unalloyed admiration of the intent of
the Gen-Sec."  I found the EXPRESSED intent of the resolution in this
single case to be laudable.  I oppose hidden agendas by Security Council
members (my article listed possible US agendas to oppose).  I did not
support every position taken by the General Secretary.

>>Turning our military into the world's police force is not
>>transformed from a "bad idea" into a "good idea" 

I certainly oppose turning our military into the world's police force as
my article made abundantly clear.

>>merely because the
  ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Even a cursory reading of my article would have shown that i was
supporting no such reasoning.

>>decision to do so is made by U.N. politicians (whom none of us voted for),
>>rather than own wretched government politicians who survived the last
>>electoral farce.

The above comment is not contradictory to my opinion.

>>Put another way: to whom is the *U.N.* really accountable in any mean-
>>ingful way, 

The UN is accountable to history and its own "good name".  If it looses
respect (which is not all that high) there is even less likelihood that
its resolutions will be abided by.

>>if it creates another stupid quagmire, the outcome of which
>>affects absolutely NO vital interest of the United States?

>Bud is misinterpreting the evidence here.  The United Nations was conceived
>as an instrument for the foreign policy of the United States and for
>much of its existence has served tolerably well in this role 

Only partially.  The US has denigrated and ignored it when it did not
serve USG interests, which has been most of the time.  The Security 
Council cannot go against US intrests because the US has a veto.

The UN was well used for the foreign policy of the USSR, UK, Taiwan,
France, and others as well, not just the US.  It was conceived in their
intrests as well as they, not just the US, got the veto.

>(e.g. as
>a front for the U.S. invasion of South Korea) when it did not (e.g. was
                 ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Misleading phrasing.  The US invaded the occupied South Korea in the
same way it invaded France on D-Day in the refered to invasion [It also
invaded Japanese-occupied Korea at the end of WW II.].  It was sheer
Soviet stupidity to allow this to have the imprimitar of the UN by
walking out of the Security Council, allowing the US with its allies
(UK, Taiwan, and France) to have their way.

>being outvoted by 152 to 2 in the General Assembly over Star Wars) it was
>simply ignored.  What *is* true is that the *foreign policy* of the
>United States has **never been in the slightest regard an expression of
>the democratic will of the citizens of the United States**, 

Don't say never.  The foreign policy has often coincided with the will
of the people, but this does not mean it was an expression of that will.
However, when there have been elections which have focused on foreign
policy, the following of policies that a winning presidential candidate
campaigned on can be understood to be in some way an expression of the 
democratic will of US citizens.  [I suppose if you wish to be technical,
it is their republican will, but the public's "democratic will" is
probably linked to their "republican will" in some way.  **Note that 
"democratic" and "republican" are not capitalized and do not refer
to the political parties which have adapted those names.]

But your general point is true, US foreign policy usually bears little
relationship to what we, her citizens, wish. (Certainly to what i wish)

>>whatever one
>thinks of the state of U.S. domestic democracy.  (BTW, this is true generally
>of *all* the Western industrial democracies.) 

And all other nations as well, no need to single out "Western"
"industrial" "democracies".  Negate any or all of those terms and the
statement will apply.

>...
>Ron Balden


-- 
doug foxvog     
dfo@tko.vtt.fi   
Newsgroups: alt.activism.d,alt.activism