Some might suggest why not just go for anti-unilateralism? Force Uncle to work through existing multilateral institutions.
Quick answer: Korea, 1950; Kuwait, 1991. Sometimes if the interveners want it bad enough, and act cleverly or crudely enough, the UN can be had. Needless to say, this goes double for, say, NATO or any other multinational club, uncle-sponsored or co-sponsored. They all can be had.
Nope, the anti-interventionism must be home-grown; it must be internal, like the bar Japan has -- only in America's case, it'll have to be self-imposed.
Now it's true, right now Japan's more robust elite elements, grotesquely enough, are seeking to escape this bar -- but to review who's behind this move shows precisely the types we'd have to throw out of the party.
The struggle will, needless to say, be long, hard, and problematic -- a hearts and minds marathon, a spiritual crusade to save the soul of a nation. Turn it back into something more like what the old rock-ribbed abolitionists fought for.
To be continued. Next segment: "We gotta civilize 'em" -- goo-goo empiring, or the Aunt Polly missionary instinct as a temptation of the imperial serpent.
Comments (4)
Anti-interventionism as a plank for democrats would be about as effective as just saying no for a teenager. I dont honestly believe we've ever had a foreign policy that wasnt interventionist, in some form or another -- subversion, coercion, economic pressure or inducement. Intervention is the priviledge of the stronger, and the irristible temptation, too. In conservative thought, and liberal practice, it's even seen as a right. So, until America sees itself as merely an equal in the international resource game, it will continue to pursue its sole advantage, by any means it can.
Posted by bobw | June 21, 2006 10:54 AM
Posted on June 21, 2006 10:54
bobw
who said it would be easy
but hey we ended slaverydidn't we ??
after a civil war
Posted by js paine | June 21, 2006 12:29 PM
Posted on June 21, 2006 12:29
JS,
The issue here is whether you can change social/political institutions by persuasion, or whether change only comes through economic upheaval.
Posted by bobw | June 22, 2006 3:41 AM
Posted on June 22, 2006 03:41
So you can't have both ? Only one, b ? News to me.
Posted by ms_xeno | June 22, 2006 1:13 PM
Posted on June 22, 2006 13:13