So I realise that this this will likely generate some comments about my ignorance in this, but I shall procede none-the-less.
In the essay that i've been writing over the past week, I looked at Azerbaijan and why a colour revolution didn't take place there. To be fair, a number of factors contributed, but one thing that really stood out to me was the role of the international community, in particular the USA.
There have been many accusations that US foreign policy was pretty unhelpful to the Azeri democratic movement. In 2005, when Azerbaijan really needed the US to put pressure on the government to change the election result, they were a bit preoccupied with Azerbaijan's neighbour, Iran. The US didn't want to rock the boat in a place that was close to Iran and had become "an ally in the war on terror". I read a fairly ridiculous article that talks about the great success of democracy in Azerbaijan, and how they have become a valuable ally. What it failed to mention was that freedom in Azerbaijan has actually deteriorated since the 2005 election and there is virtually no political competition. It seems that the USA is happy to compromise their chances of freedom to pursue their own interests. We've seen it before and I don't know many fans of US foreign policy in the last couple of decades.
But then you get a situation like that in North Korea. If things start to turn sour, we can count on the US to get in there and remove nuclear weapons. However much I hate to admit it, we would be pretty screwed without them. We can hate their selfish policies and their position of power in the world, but is this just idealistic? I want to think not, but when I think about the possibility of a nuclear war.. perhaps its time for a dose of realism.
Hey I can see where you're coming from and we all know that states act in their best interest, the question you have raised is should they always act in their best interests? By doing nothing in Azerbaijan the US is acting in their best interest and you can argue that this is 'wrong'. But should the US act on behalf of other states when it is not in their best interest? If that were to happen then you could have a situation where the US becomes a sort of world police, and what right do they have to be that? I think that all states should act in their self interests, that way they cannot be held accountable.
ReplyDeleteBut with some of the things America has done, don't they already come across as a kind of world police? Believing they are the upmost leaders of democracy and trying to infiltrate it countries that are not.
ReplyDeleteThis sounds like it's getting into the moral politics of American policy. Perhaps the position of the U.S. demands a moral obligation to be the "world police". To be the bad guy that everyone hates - the sort of batman figure.
ReplyDeleteYeah, but they are only the 'world police' when it is in their best interest. What I mean by world police is that they act in situations when it isn't in their best interest.
ReplyDeleteI think maybe I didn't express this so well, but what I really dislike is the way that they pick and choose where to step in and not. They often end up intervening where they are not wanted, but when a country is really asking for their help, like in Azerbaijan, they decide not to do anything.
ReplyDelete