lennart
16-03-03, 14:07
Toen George W. Bush het had over een nieuwe wereld na 11-September hadden de Europeanen nog niet echt door hoe nieuw die wereld wel niet zou zijn. Een nieuwe wereld heeft noodzakelijkerwijze nieuwe structuren nodig. Vanuit Amerikaans perspectief is dit natuurlijk Amerikaans leiderschap op politiek, militair en economisch gebied. Hiertoe heeft het gepoogd de Verenigde Naties te kapen met politieke chantage. Nu dit niet gelukt is, zal je zien dat de veiligheidsraad na deze crisis al zijn waarde zal hebben verloren. De VS zal vermoed ik na Iraq een nieuw soort orde in de veiligheidsraad willen scheppen waarin het duidelijk is dat de VS en zijn bondgenoten in komende oorlog de leiders zullen zijn.
From "American Empire: The Political Ethics of Twentieth-Century Conquest," pp. 81-82, by John M. Swomley, Jr., professor of social ethics at St. Paul School of Theology in Kansas City, Missouri:
The realists dub the League of Nations a failure because the United States did not become a member. Actually, this had nothing to do with the failure. The league failed for the same reason that any other system based solely or chiefly on military power fails. Military alliances exist either to prevent change or to challenge the status quo by war.
Using this as our guide, we see an unspoken but fundamental and unbridgable difference between what the UN and US are trying to accomplish in Iraq. The United Nations sees Iraq and its possible WMDs as a threat to world order, and hopes to contain its challenge to the status quo by sanctions, inspections, and if all else fails, by war.
The US fits into the second category above. Its military alliance - or unilateral action, if it comes to that - is out to revolutionize or even destroy the existing world status quo. The US sees the UN as a power rival, and Iraq as its opportunity to effect this revolutionary transformation of the world order.
I think this difference is already recognized but unspoken between the UN Security Council majority and the US. What the future will hold for this major upsetting of the world regime is not known, but little wars have led to world wars twice in the last 100 years. There is absolutely nothing or no one among the second-rate mentalities in power in Washington to lead to any hopes of a different trajectory of disaster.
From "American Empire: The Political Ethics of Twentieth-Century Conquest," pp. 81-82, by John M. Swomley, Jr., professor of social ethics at St. Paul School of Theology in Kansas City, Missouri:
The realists dub the League of Nations a failure because the United States did not become a member. Actually, this had nothing to do with the failure. The league failed for the same reason that any other system based solely or chiefly on military power fails. Military alliances exist either to prevent change or to challenge the status quo by war.
Using this as our guide, we see an unspoken but fundamental and unbridgable difference between what the UN and US are trying to accomplish in Iraq. The United Nations sees Iraq and its possible WMDs as a threat to world order, and hopes to contain its challenge to the status quo by sanctions, inspections, and if all else fails, by war.
The US fits into the second category above. Its military alliance - or unilateral action, if it comes to that - is out to revolutionize or even destroy the existing world status quo. The US sees the UN as a power rival, and Iraq as its opportunity to effect this revolutionary transformation of the world order.
I think this difference is already recognized but unspoken between the UN Security Council majority and the US. What the future will hold for this major upsetting of the world regime is not known, but little wars have led to world wars twice in the last 100 years. There is absolutely nothing or no one among the second-rate mentalities in power in Washington to lead to any hopes of a different trajectory of disaster.