Sunday, May 25, 2008

Internationalism for this Memorial Day

Terry Glavin, better known as Transmontanus with the Drink Soaked Trots, has a great piece up at the National Post about the battle in Afghanistan, and I believe accurately describes it as “our generations Spanish Civil War.” As Terry states:
“This is not just "George Bush's war." This is a liberation struggle. It's a war of resistance against clerical fascism, against the most unspeakably brutal kind of misogyny, against tyranny, slavery, illiteracy and oppression. Over the past six years, poll after poll has provided unequivocal, empirical evidence that the Afghan people want us there to help them win this fight. And the people are winning.”

…cultural relativism has eaten away at the principle of universal rights -- which was once the bedrock of left-wing politics --and a crude and paranoid anti-Americanism has come to serve as a substitute for rational, progressive analysis. By Sept. 11, 2001, the politics of solidarity had been eclipsed by the politics of the counterculture, and so the main ranks of the left settled into a comfortable and familiar Sixties' narrative: It's the Third World vs. American empire.”

Over at the New Centrist, he rightly commends McCain for supporting a League of Democracies, but sees fault in his desire for it to “compliment” the UN and other transnational organizations. NC writes:
“I commend McCain for stating the organization could apply more serious sanctions against Iran and act “without approval from Moscow or Beijing”. I disagree with McCain regarding the need to supplant the U.N. As Stephen notes above, the recent actions of China and Indonesia regarding blocking aid to Burma should make it clear that the organization is impotent to act in the most pressing cases (famine, war, genocide).”

Lastly, some very grim news coming out of North Korea concerning the fate of the prisoners in Kim’s Gulag. From the Daily NK:
“When a college student asked about the fate of prisoners after reunification, Ahn replied, “The policy is to kill all of them before it happens. I saw a new dam constructed from a satellite picture in 2000. If destroyed, it could flood the entire Camp No。22 and kill all of the inmates.”


Dandy has a posse said...

The Galvin article is excellent. I will frequent his Blog more often.

Roland Dodds said...

I do like the Trots that put some thought into what they say Dandy. Glavin seems to be one of those.

Landon said...

Roland...your blog is truly amazing. Your content is so interesting. I find politics and international relations to be simply fascinating; and this is a bit irrelevant, but what is your take on political isolationism?

Roland Dodds said...

Thank you for the kind words Landon. I am opposed to isolationist policies for a number of reasons.

One, I think it is na├»ve and unrealistic to advocate for a policy that removes the most powerful state actor from the world stage. As much as certain portions of the left and the right moan about America’s activities in large portions of the world, most recognize that if anything is going to get done, it is going to be the Americans at the front. The United States is too large a player to step off the stage.

If we simply decide that the world around us is not worth dealing with, and that we should fall back to our own borders and let things fall where they will, we will allow future problems that will eventually impact our security at home. From a purely “realist” position, I would say isolationism does not make our nation safer in the long term and surely doesn’t advance our interests overseas.

But morally, I think the United States must take a leading role, simply because we can and other nations do not. Milosevic’s and Hussein’s murderous and genocidal regimes ended because the United States removed them, and I believe that should be our foreign policy. I would love for it to be the policy of other democratic regimes as well, but as it stands, many of our allies have abandoned the idea that fighting for liberty and democracy are things worth doing. It is our moral duty, as members of a nation built on the liberty and freedom, to fight alongside other democrats and liberals the world over, especially in the very nations that are the most repressive to such ideas. The very message neo-isolationist types like Ron Paul are pushing, where totalitarianism and genocide overseas is not our concern, is a disgrace to anyone who believes in the basic principles behind universal human rights.

Landon said...

I agree with you. Although I do strongly advocate isolationism, I don't feel that it would be right (morally or politically) for such a powerful nation as the United States to not intervene when necessary. That is the only reason I believe the U.S. is justified in not practicing isolationist policies. If we weren’t the powerful leader, then isolationism would be okay.