Let's discuss Putin's remarks on unilateralism and democracy at the Munich Security Conference.
Putin maintains that the unipolar world imagined after the end of the Cold War has not happened. He refers to "unipolar" as anti-democratic and unworkable.
"[I]t refers to one type of situation, namely one centre of authority, one centre of force, one centre of decision-making. ... And this certainly has nothing in common with democracy. Because, as you know, democracy is the power of the majority in light of the interests and opinions of the minority." Putin said.
Putin then turns to the results of the "unipolar model." "Unilateral and frequently illegitimate actions" "even more are dying than before" "wars as well as local and regional conflicts have not diminished" "almost uncontained hyper use of force – military force – in international relations"
"As a result we do not have sufficient strength to find a comprehensive solution to any one of these conflicts. Finding a political settlement also becomes impossible." As a result "no one feels safe."
Let Econo-Girl pause here for a moment and mention that no one felt safe with a bi-polar world either. Fear of nuclear incineration did nothing to calm the people of the world. The Cold War didn't reduce local wars either. Putin is not calling to our minds the graces of a bi-polar world, but let's remember that he is criticizing the global status quo since World War II. The situation of which he complains was not created in 1989.
Putin speaks of terrorism taking on a global character under unilateralism. He forgets the Internet and its communicative role in that. Communication is an essential part of terrorism. The communication revolution also changed terrorism dramatically.
Continuing, Putin mentions Brazil, India, China and Russia as economic and political powerhouses of the future based on growing GDP. He points to that as another reason to expand past unilateralism.
On the use of force:
"The use of force can only be considered legitimate if the decision is sanctioned by the UN. And we do not need to substitute NATO or the EU for the UN. When the UN will truly unite the forces of the international community and can really react to events in various countries, when we will leave behind this disdain for international law, then the situation will be able to change."
Here, the use of force is advocated by Putin only with United Nations' sanction. Apparently, the Italian Defence Minister included NATO in that group, which Putin really didn't like.
In this section of the speech, Putin mentions horrors within countries and how this cannot be tolerated either. But he did not include the murder of reporters in Russia as rising to a level of enough importance to even address. Interesting. Supposing the United Nations decided to vote on that one, eh?
More to come. Putin had great stuff to say on the corruption of anti-poverty groups.
Showing posts with label uninformed. Show all posts
Showing posts with label uninformed. Show all posts
12.15.2006
Alan Dershowitz, Shut Up!
An annoying man who will do anything to get attention - is Econo-Girl's opinion of Alan Dershowitz. Let's review his support of torture:
If we knew that an attack was imminent,
If we knew who was involved,
If we knew they knew the details of the attack,
If the Supreme Court says it's OK,
then Prof. Dershowitz thinks it would be OK to torture.
Econo-Girl would like to paraphrase Prof. Dershowitz's position:
If he wasn't saying something outrageous,
Since he doesn't know the subject matter,
If he didn't need to constantly jump up and down in front of a camera,
No one would ask him to be on t.v. if he wasn't a spectacle.
Prof. Dershowitz would never get face time on t.v. if he opposed torture, since too many luminaries with real credentials think the same thing. So he creates an absurd position and shrieks about that instead.
Then he drags Israel into the argument. Israel has banned the use of torture, SINCE IT WASN'T WORKING. That's the thing about the use of torture, IT DOESN'T WORK!!!
In an interview with Wolf Blitzer, Mr. Dershowitz said, "My basic point, though, is we should never under any circumstances allow low-level people to administer torture. If torture is going to be administered as a last resort in the ticking-bomb case, to save enormous numbers of lives, it ought to be done openly, with accountability, with approval by the president of the United States or by a Supreme Court Justice."
Umm, which politician is going to put their neck on the line for the cause of torture? The theoretical idea of getting top-level approval is a fantasy. Who will want their names associated with such a decision? None. That's who. Like now, the leaders of the Department of Defense and the CIA are content to let low-level people take the risk for their policy choices.
Donald Rumsfeld, coward-at-large, has created a career by not having "his fingerprints" on risky policies. That's what happened on the torture issue. And like it or not, the President is responsible. Now who's going to tell him?
If we knew that an attack was imminent,
If we knew who was involved,
If we knew they knew the details of the attack,
If the Supreme Court says it's OK,
then Prof. Dershowitz thinks it would be OK to torture.
Econo-Girl would like to paraphrase Prof. Dershowitz's position:
If he wasn't saying something outrageous,
Since he doesn't know the subject matter,
If he didn't need to constantly jump up and down in front of a camera,
No one would ask him to be on t.v. if he wasn't a spectacle.
Prof. Dershowitz would never get face time on t.v. if he opposed torture, since too many luminaries with real credentials think the same thing. So he creates an absurd position and shrieks about that instead.
Then he drags Israel into the argument. Israel has banned the use of torture, SINCE IT WASN'T WORKING. That's the thing about the use of torture, IT DOESN'T WORK!!!
In an interview with Wolf Blitzer, Mr. Dershowitz said, "My basic point, though, is we should never under any circumstances allow low-level people to administer torture. If torture is going to be administered as a last resort in the ticking-bomb case, to save enormous numbers of lives, it ought to be done openly, with accountability, with approval by the president of the United States or by a Supreme Court Justice."
Umm, which politician is going to put their neck on the line for the cause of torture? The theoretical idea of getting top-level approval is a fantasy. Who will want their names associated with such a decision? None. That's who. Like now, the leaders of the Department of Defense and the CIA are content to let low-level people take the risk for their policy choices.
Donald Rumsfeld, coward-at-large, has created a career by not having "his fingerprints" on risky policies. That's what happened on the torture issue. And like it or not, the President is responsible. Now who's going to tell him?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)