Quote:
|
Originally posted by NosniboR80: 'Cept that the world sometimes and, it seems, the Arab world almost all the time holds the US to a double standard. When they finish with their double standards, then they can complain. NK is actually a different situation that deserves different tactics, and not just because of its large military and lack of oil. First and immediately relevant, NK is not subject to those Chapter VII UN resolutions of which Simey so boldly reminds us. Secondly, security agreements and arrangements are very delicate there. Peace in Northeast Asia is almost entirely a result of the US's presence, economically, diplomatically, and most importantly militarily. That's just off the top of my head right after taking a nap. At the very least, it deserves the thought of taking different tactics - considering differing situations. Besides, whoever said that foreign policy had to be consistent. That would imply that only one thing in the world is important to us, say weapons proliferation or human rights violations or trade. Once you have more than one of those or other considerations, foreign policy consistency is a pipe dream and should be thought of as such. |
Granted. Policy to fit the situation.
It should be remember though, that almost the entire world thinks that the diplomatic effort in Iraq was given short shift by the US. Even the UK tried harder.
I'm not trying to rehash the justification debate. I'm just pointing out that the double standard we're referring to (preceptual or real) isn't the use of force vs. diplomacy necessarily. It's also when we declare the UN irrelevant here, but trust it do what it needed there. Or that force is used here, but not there for similar violations.
Looking at a broad picture, it's not hard to understand why there is a perception in the Muslim world that they are always given the stick when others are always given the carrot.
We might look back and say that each was justified in it's own case, but that doesn't address the perception. In our efforts to bring representative government to the Middle East, we had damn well be sure that we manage perceptions. We'd hate to have to scrap the whole Idealism thing if they suddenly started voting for oil embargoes or electing Radical Clerics.
We can't say on one hand that perceptions don't matter (because they are untrue or overly biased or misinformed) and then on the other hand say we want them to have democratic governments. What will those democratic governments do but amplify the popular perception?