3 ms·

>>aspirations which people at the end of WWII had for the postwar international order were never realized. Yes, the UN failed to live up to that aspiration. O

by toss1 3y ago

>>aspirations which people at the end of WWII had for the postwar international order were never realized. Yes, the UN failed to live up to that aspiration. Of course some kind of Shangra-La where there is no conflict and no authoritarians trying to take over would be fantastic. The problem is that it is just that - a fantasy. We must deal with the reality of the world. This is in no small part to the failure of including as permanent members on the Security Council the authoritarian states of USSR and China, which have done little but abuse the system attempting to game it for their own interests. So, yes, we are down to a choice. Either: 1) The nations attempting (however imperfectly) to let their people live self-determining lives, and elect self-determining governments step up and enforce that aspirational world order as best they can. or 2) Abandon attempts at suppressing imperialism and maintainting order, and allow again states to engage in war of all against all. Suggesting that #1 is the same as imperialism, or as #2, is absurd. We can seen where the policing has broken down, because the states trying to maintain democracy and the Post-WWII world order have tried appeasement or failed to police. It is endless war crimes, cities reduced to rubble, internment "reeducation" camps for millions. So, if you are going to throw accusations that the US, UK, FR, NATO, attempting to maintain whatever peaceful world order is some kind of problem or is illegitimate, you need to come up with a better and viable solution. What is your suggestion?

dragonwriter 3y ago
> We can seen where the policing has broken down, because the states trying to maintain democracy and the Post-WWII world order have tried appeasement or failed to police. We’ve also seen where it succeeded in its real goals, which are often not democracy or any rules based order, but the parochial security and economic interests of the powers doing the “policing". We've also seen that the power that holds itself up as the primary architect and enforcer of a “rules-based international order” particularly refuses (often with histrionic gestures, like the act nicknamed the Hague Invasion Act) to subject itself to the the rules and institutions of that order. > It is endless war crimes, cities reduced to rubble, Yes, we've seen that caused by the active engagement, not merely the restraint, of the “policing” powers. > So, if you are going to throw accusations that the US, UK, FR, NATO, attempting to maintain whatever peaceful world order is some kind of problem or is illegitimate, What I said was the suggestion that powrful countries policing the behavior of others is not imperialism but something categorically different is self-delusion. Its others making the implicit claim that imperialism is illegitimate and what is legitimate is some other order that exists only in fantasy. (I can certainly conceive if something that would be legitimate in a way that the imperialist order is not, but as I see no obvious pass yo achieving it, its not worth advocating.) But in the meantime, without a route out, the best way to mitigate the worst potential harms of the imperialist order starts with recognizing the nature of that order for what it is, and understanding where it is prone, by nature, to oroduce bad outcomes.

by toss1 3y ago

dragonwriter 3y ago

> We can seen where the policing has broken down, because the states trying to maintain democracy and the Post-WWII world order have tried appeasement or failed to police. We’ve also seen where it succeeded in its real goals, which are often not democracy or any rules based order, but the parochial security and economic interests of the powers doing the “policing". We've also seen that the power that holds itself up as the primary architect and enforcer of a “rules-based international order” particularly refuses (often with histrionic gestures, like the act nicknamed the Hague Invasion Act) to subject itself to the the rules and institutions of that order. > It is endless war crimes, cities reduced to rubble, Yes, we've seen that caused by the active engagement, not merely the restraint, of the “policing” powers. > So, if you are going to throw accusations that the US, UK, FR, NATO, attempting to maintain whatever peaceful world order is some kind of problem or is illegitimate, What I said was the suggestion that powrful countries policing the behavior of others is not imperialism but something categorically different is self-delusion. Its others making the implicit claim that imperialism is illegitimate and what is legitimate is some other order that exists only in fantasy. (I can certainly conceive if something that would be legitimate in a way that the imperialist order is not, but as I see no obvious pass yo achieving it, its not worth advocating.) But in the meantime, without a route out, the best way to mitigate the worst potential harms of the imperialist order starts with recognizing the nature of that order for what it is, and understanding where it is prone, by nature, to oroduce bad outcomes.