Constructive gadfly
 Is it possible to wave the flag, to be patriotic and still be for peace, or must we always be for war in the name of defense? Is it impossible to pursue idealistic but aggressive diplomacy, or must we always be driven by pragmatic, economic or strategic gain? There is little doubt that a superpower must keep in touch with the world but should it be meddlesome or advisory in reflecting our values?

For fifty years the policy with respect to Cuba has been little more than “give us your poor, your political dissidents,” together with imposing an embargo. Is it not wiser to generate an openness in a closed society by trade, tourism and sports? Imagine the mutual excitement by admitting a Cuban baseball team to the major leagues, or by inviting each year a thousand Cuban children to visit Disney World? The tiresome argument that we would be rewarding a communistic dictator has no logic in face of our relations with China which nonetheless knows only too clearly that the US always keeps human rights warm though on the back burner in the event a serving is requested. Imposing human rights never works; in opening up a society, human rights takes on its own indigenous dynamic.

How long are we going to tolerate Mexico’s obvious inability to help itself, thereby driving its poor to cross our border? Is it not time for a Marshal Plan to get it moving toward prosperity for all its people, rather than the trade agreement that primarily is for the benefit of US corporations and a handful of Mexican aristocrats?

North Korea is a menace to humanity — mainly its own — yet we cannot continue to allow the leaders to starve their people. If North Korea can sell nuclear material to terrorist countries, then we should put in our bid to buy it out and the proceeds earmarked for its people’s benefit, such as was done in the “oil for food” UN stipulation in Iraq — granted there was corruption, but few Iraqis lacked nutrition.

In short, we should revive the art of diplomacy, rather than settle for the stressful art of militarism. It would be far less of a drain on our resources so we can place more emphasis on guarding our home defense.

 

Copyright © 2004 Richard R. Kennedy All rights reserved. Revised: May 24, 2004.


Comments
on May 24, 2004
I agree. Diplomacy! Some of the people I consider to be the most patriotic are the ones for peace. You know those people that you just want to say, oh get over yourself to? Well, America is that. I just keep wanting to say it, but I'm not quite sure how to!
on May 24, 2004
Yes, "blesséd are the peacemakers" is not in vogue.
on May 24, 2004
Neville Chamberlain was an excellent diplomat.
on May 25, 2004
Great article

The real mastery of the sword is being able to keep the peace without the use of one.

If only more people saw world affairs in a more diplomatic fashion, we would all live in a safer place.

BAM!!!
on May 25, 2004

You're right. We should reward countries who do bad things. For example, India and Pakistan wanted a place as nuclear powers. Rather than refuse them that place, which we did, in a typical military fashion, we should have been diplomatic, and rewarded them for developing nuclear weapons they knew they weren't supposed to build.


What's also right is spending money on other countries while our own people starve everyday.

on May 26, 2004
"When your neighbor's house is on fire you don't argue over the price of the hose" Franklin Roosevelt.

Saiyan, we give money to other countries because they are required to hire American companies to build things. We don't hand them a bag full of cash and say have fun, we hand them a credit line for American companies. The American government gives money to, say, the Mexican government and the Mexican government hires American companies to build roads or power plants, or whatever. Then, usually, the country is required to pay back the money they borrowed.

Sure there's a certain amount of aid, but let's face, more people starve in third world countries than go hungry in America every day. By the way, care to provide statistics on the number of Americans who starve to death in a given year?

Second, can you imagine going to war with a country which has nuclear weapons? Even one? India has the capabilities to fling a nuclear warhead across the world to hit the United States. Pakistan probably does too. If we had acted militarily to nuclearly disarm either country it would have been bad. Plus, China probably wouldn't have looked to kindly on it, and they have approximately 300 ImBMs and ICBMs that could hit American targets. That and the US army could kill 100 Indians for every American soldier lost, and we would still lose that war. If we instituted a draft, taking in every man and woman over the age of 18, and we would have to kill 5 for every one. Besides, India and Pakistan aren't really the troublemakers. Pakistan knows if they use nukes on India the trade winds will blow radioactivity over Pakistan. India knows that Pakistan could hit all the major cities on the subcontinent.

Besides, if we had acted against either one of them we would have had to act against Israel, who's worst kept secret is that they have nuclear weapons.

Perhaps you should read some more on current events or the US place in the world before you post here.

Cheers
on May 26, 2004

Sure there's a certain amount of aid, but let's face, more people starve in third world countries than go hungry in America every day. By the way, care to provide statistics on the number of Americans who starve to death in a given year?


Honestly, I don't know. It is possible that people who are claiming that Americans are starving to death are simply trying to get the rich to give them more free money.


Second, can you imagine going to war with a country which has nuclear weapons?


When did I ever mention anything about war?

on May 26, 2004
Rather than refuse them that place, which we did, in a typical military fashion,


Right there.

Cheers
on May 26, 2004
So what we did to them isn't considered war? In that case, the whole article doesn't make any sense, considering that sanctions and tolerating the incompetence of Mexico isn't war. Therefore, I not only wave the flag for peace, but also support the sanctions and the embargos and the tolerating of people suffering in other countries!
on May 26, 2004
I really wish someone could better explain to me what our beef STILL is with Cuba. I would really like to make Cuba my first abroad visit after I pay off these stupid student loans.

on May 26, 2004
Communism. And if you're a US citizen it's a hefty fine to visit them.

Cheers
on Jul 15, 2004
With the exception of FDR, Chamberlain was a popular guy among the isolationists in this country.