3 ms·
This argument would hold more weight if US foreign policy actually had something to do with bringing freedom to subjects of oppressive regimes, but as it stands
by danenania 16y ago
This argument would hold more weight if US foreign policy actually had something to do with bringing freedom to subjects of oppressive regimes, but as it stands, the US government's actions are largely cynical, self-serving, supportive of some of the most oppressive regimes on the planet, and harmful to many millions of people around the world. They don't deserve sympathy.
- JabavuAdams 16y agoThis isn't just about US foreign policy. Let's take a different example that removes the interventionist "bad smell" of the NK example. Let's talk peace. E.g. Imagine A and B want to negotiate a peace treaty. They represent large and diverse constituencies. Officially, they're not talking to each other -- there is ongoing violence, and hard-liners in both the A camp and the B camp will replace the A or B negotiators if they are deemed to be too soft. So, there's a secret summit of A and B negotiators. Publicly, neither side can budge. However, because the talks are secret, the negotiators are free to make initial concessions to get the ball rolling. How could making those talks public possibly be a good thing? It might actually scuttle peace and result in more violence. It's easy for rogue elements to spoil a sensitive negotiation. There is a real need for secrecy in order to have productive negotiations on sensitive topics.
- defen 16y agoThe Chatham House Rule - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chatham_House_Rule http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chatham_House_Rule
- jhpriestley 16y agoYour example relies on the idea that government negotiators will be more benevolent and peaceful - will work more towards the common good - in secret than in public. Maybe that happens once in a while. The far, far, far more common case is that secret negotiations amount to a conspiracy by the powerful against the weak.
- JabavuAdams 16y agoObviously, there are many bad things about secrecy, but: 1) Are you arguing that there should never be secret negotiations? 2) If (1), what system do you propose that would allow negotiators to break deadlocks in the pre-conditions for negotiation? For example of (2): A opening position: we won't recognize you unless you first give us what we want. B opening position: we can't give you what you want until you recognize us. Secretly, both A, B, their constituencies, et. al. would accept solution X, but they can't even start to get to X.
- tomjen3 16y agoYou comment assume that the hardliners are wrong, and that the negotiators should talk behind their backs. Without knowing what they talk about, how can you know that?
- JabavuAdams 16y agoThat's not the point -- it's symmetric. Replace "hardliners" with "conciliators", if you like. The point is that what people can say publicly is often much less than what they might concede privately. This causes deadlocks, and offers griefers the ability to scuttle publicly-made plans. UPDATE> > Without knowing what they talk about, how can you know that? Essentially, they'll talk differently if they know everyone's listening, so that information is not as useful as you think.
- JabavuAdams 16y agoHow much money did you make before taxes, last year?
- nhangen 16y agoPerhaps, but creating enemies of the US does more to damage its citizens than it does the government.
- steveklabnik 16y agoIf you damage the citizens enough, maybe they'll actually hold their government accountable. Then again... probably not.
- nhangen 16y agoGive us some credit man, some of us aren't stupid...it's just that so many are.
- rbarooah 16y agoCan you name a government that isn't cynical, self-serving, and supportive of bad actions?