Tuesday, December 29, 2009
China to execute a British drug smuggler
That was the big news this morning (December 28, 2009) on the radio. European countries that no longer use the death penalty, including England, have denounced the Chinese for the death sentence and have urged the Chinese not to carry it out. The convict is a British subject. There is general outrage in Europe. (I have not heard any outrage from Americans, who still favor the death penalty for particularly heinous or disgusting crimes.)
I believe the Chinese are motivated in part by a desire for pay-back or revenge. The offence is the Opium Wars, conducted by the English against the Chinese in the early 19th century to force China to permit the importing of opium and the creation of addicts to use it. The opium was a solution to a commercial problem. China was a source of many fine and desirable products, from tea to exquisite porcelain. China was happy to sell the British traders these products, but the government wasn't willing to open China to imported goods from Europe. The traders, and consequently the British, would have to use money to buy the Chinese products but would have no source of revenue to replenish the money. The solution was opium. The plan was to get part of the population of China hooked. Then it would be possible, with or without the permission of the Emperor, to export opium to China and sell it to the addicts.
The Chinese, naturally, didn't like this arrangement and tried to stop the trade in opium. That led to war. The Chinese lost. Eventually the Chinese government became too weak to enforce the no-import rule and the British and other Europeans were able to sell other goods to China.
It seems to be a rule that the winners of a war tend to have short memories. After a generation or two they have forgotten what the war was all about and in another generation or two they have forgotten the war itself. The losers have long memories. For generations they mark time for the moment when they can take revenge and get even for having suffered a disgraceful defeat. China remembers the Opium Wars. I doubt that one Brit in ten knows that they occurred or what they were all about.
In our own country, the losing South remembered for a century the loss of the "war between the States." We Northerners did not have such a long memory. To this day we don't understand the "states' rights" argument that Southern politicians drag out to vote against proposed laws that we think are fair, beneficial, and just. In Iran, people remember the shame of letting a foreign power (the U.S.) dictate that the democratically elected leader, Mossadegh, should leave the country and that the Shah should be imposed as the leader in his place. Since it was a CIA operation, many Americans do not know about it to this day. We wonder why many Iranian leaders seem to hate us.
Blowback occurs. China's execution of a British subject is just an example.
I believe the Chinese are motivated in part by a desire for pay-back or revenge. The offence is the Opium Wars, conducted by the English against the Chinese in the early 19th century to force China to permit the importing of opium and the creation of addicts to use it. The opium was a solution to a commercial problem. China was a source of many fine and desirable products, from tea to exquisite porcelain. China was happy to sell the British traders these products, but the government wasn't willing to open China to imported goods from Europe. The traders, and consequently the British, would have to use money to buy the Chinese products but would have no source of revenue to replenish the money. The solution was opium. The plan was to get part of the population of China hooked. Then it would be possible, with or without the permission of the Emperor, to export opium to China and sell it to the addicts.
The Chinese, naturally, didn't like this arrangement and tried to stop the trade in opium. That led to war. The Chinese lost. Eventually the Chinese government became too weak to enforce the no-import rule and the British and other Europeans were able to sell other goods to China.
It seems to be a rule that the winners of a war tend to have short memories. After a generation or two they have forgotten what the war was all about and in another generation or two they have forgotten the war itself. The losers have long memories. For generations they mark time for the moment when they can take revenge and get even for having suffered a disgraceful defeat. China remembers the Opium Wars. I doubt that one Brit in ten knows that they occurred or what they were all about.
In our own country, the losing South remembered for a century the loss of the "war between the States." We Northerners did not have such a long memory. To this day we don't understand the "states' rights" argument that Southern politicians drag out to vote against proposed laws that we think are fair, beneficial, and just. In Iran, people remember the shame of letting a foreign power (the U.S.) dictate that the democratically elected leader, Mossadegh, should leave the country and that the Shah should be imposed as the leader in his place. Since it was a CIA operation, many Americans do not know about it to this day. We wonder why many Iranian leaders seem to hate us.
Blowback occurs. China's execution of a British subject is just an example.
Labels: ", "war between the States, Mossadegh, Opium Wars
Monday, July 06, 2009
American Exceptionalism
One of the latest forms of condemnation that the conservatives have found against Mr. Obama is that he doesn't believe in or assert the concept of American Exceptionalism. According to this concept America (i.e., the United States of America) has only good, benevolent intentions toward the rest of the world. We do not desire to acquire territory. We do not desire to impose our way of life on others, but we believe fervently in free speech, free and open elections, and government of, by, and for the people. We are unique and exceptional in that respect. No other country expresses and follows these high, altruistic ideals.
At least that's what American Exceptionalists believe and want the President to express. Mr. Obama, however, has publicly stated that each country has its own exceptional properties and values and they must be respected. That statement gets the conservatives really excited and up in arms. How dare our President admit that other nations are exceptional, also. How dare he say that our values are no better than the values of the Greeks, the Egyptians, the Chinese, the Italians, etc. These other countries are greedy, venal, and intolerant. They're bad and we're good. Why can't our President say so?
This notion of American moral and ethical superiority led the Bush Administration to make some serious blunders in our treatment of other countries. Not only did the Bushies believe in our moral rectitude, they believed in our military invincibility. There was no sense of humility or caution in the early days of the Bush administration. I think toward the end there was a realization that they had been over-confident and a bit arrogant. Mr. Obama now has to go to great efforts to change that perception of this country. After eight years of Bush, it is time for a little humility.
If I could have a conversation with a conservative who believes in asserting American Exceptionalism, I would ask him about some rather famous foreign policy blunders that seemed to show that the United States was not interested in spreading the ideals of democracy around the world but rather in soliciting allies in a contest with other great powers, particularly the Soviet Union and China. We overthrew democratically elected leaders in Iran (1953), in Guatemala (1953 or 54), and in Chile (about 1974). In each case the deposed leader was replaced by a dictator: the Shah of Iran, the generals in Nicaragua and Chile. These are notorious examples of showing the world that we have no interest in democracy if it's a matter of denying the Russians an ally.
Another famous conservative, President Calvin Coolidge, once said that "the business of America is business." He was correct, honest, and truthful. These examples I have just cited all related to business. In Iran, the democratic leader, Mohammad Mossadegh, was thought to be inclined to enter into a trade agreement with the Soviet Union that would give the Russians control over the oil wealth of Iran. That would be bad for American businesses and Mossadegh had to be gotten rid of. In Guatemala the socialist president, Jacobo Arbenz, was about to nationalilze the agriculture, particularly the banana business. Our Secretary of State, John Foster Dulles, was rather heavily invested in United Fruit Corporation. Arbenz was about to do something that would depress the value of his stock. It was easy for Dulles to persuade President Eisenhower that Arbenz was a Communist and as such he had to be taken out.
The case of Chile is a little more difficult for me to fathom. This may have been a case of Kissinger's view of Realpolitik and his determination to deny the Russians another ally in the western hemisphere. They already had Cuba, a thorn in America's side, and Chile was one too many. We do not have any oil interest in Chile. Neither Kissinger nor Nixon held stocks in Chilean companies that export nitrate fertilizer, and vegetables and fruits that come into season at a time to complement the agriculture of California.
In spite of my critical rant, I agree that we are an exceptional country. We have an exceptional range of climates. We have an exceptional range of religious beliefs with almost everyone living in harmony with others. I believe this in spite of the murder of Dr. Tiller in Kansas a few weeks ago by some religious fanatics. Our fanatics are not as well organized or as numerous as the Taliban in Afghanistan and Pakistan. One thing I do not agree with is the assertion that we are a democratic country or that we have a truly representative form of government. Our government is constructed such that it is possible for 41 senators representing twenty-one of the least populous states to prevent the majority from taking action. These senators may represent as few as ten percent of the total population of the country. Our country was designed to be governed not by majority rule but by consensus. But, that's another subject.
At least that's what American Exceptionalists believe and want the President to express. Mr. Obama, however, has publicly stated that each country has its own exceptional properties and values and they must be respected. That statement gets the conservatives really excited and up in arms. How dare our President admit that other nations are exceptional, also. How dare he say that our values are no better than the values of the Greeks, the Egyptians, the Chinese, the Italians, etc. These other countries are greedy, venal, and intolerant. They're bad and we're good. Why can't our President say so?
This notion of American moral and ethical superiority led the Bush Administration to make some serious blunders in our treatment of other countries. Not only did the Bushies believe in our moral rectitude, they believed in our military invincibility. There was no sense of humility or caution in the early days of the Bush administration. I think toward the end there was a realization that they had been over-confident and a bit arrogant. Mr. Obama now has to go to great efforts to change that perception of this country. After eight years of Bush, it is time for a little humility.
If I could have a conversation with a conservative who believes in asserting American Exceptionalism, I would ask him about some rather famous foreign policy blunders that seemed to show that the United States was not interested in spreading the ideals of democracy around the world but rather in soliciting allies in a contest with other great powers, particularly the Soviet Union and China. We overthrew democratically elected leaders in Iran (1953), in Guatemala (1953 or 54), and in Chile (about 1974). In each case the deposed leader was replaced by a dictator: the Shah of Iran, the generals in Nicaragua and Chile. These are notorious examples of showing the world that we have no interest in democracy if it's a matter of denying the Russians an ally.
Another famous conservative, President Calvin Coolidge, once said that "the business of America is business." He was correct, honest, and truthful. These examples I have just cited all related to business. In Iran, the democratic leader, Mohammad Mossadegh, was thought to be inclined to enter into a trade agreement with the Soviet Union that would give the Russians control over the oil wealth of Iran. That would be bad for American businesses and Mossadegh had to be gotten rid of. In Guatemala the socialist president, Jacobo Arbenz, was about to nationalilze the agriculture, particularly the banana business. Our Secretary of State, John Foster Dulles, was rather heavily invested in United Fruit Corporation. Arbenz was about to do something that would depress the value of his stock. It was easy for Dulles to persuade President Eisenhower that Arbenz was a Communist and as such he had to be taken out.
The case of Chile is a little more difficult for me to fathom. This may have been a case of Kissinger's view of Realpolitik and his determination to deny the Russians another ally in the western hemisphere. They already had Cuba, a thorn in America's side, and Chile was one too many. We do not have any oil interest in Chile. Neither Kissinger nor Nixon held stocks in Chilean companies that export nitrate fertilizer, and vegetables and fruits that come into season at a time to complement the agriculture of California.
In spite of my critical rant, I agree that we are an exceptional country. We have an exceptional range of climates. We have an exceptional range of religious beliefs with almost everyone living in harmony with others. I believe this in spite of the murder of Dr. Tiller in Kansas a few weeks ago by some religious fanatics. Our fanatics are not as well organized or as numerous as the Taliban in Afghanistan and Pakistan. One thing I do not agree with is the assertion that we are a democratic country or that we have a truly representative form of government. Our government is constructed such that it is possible for 41 senators representing twenty-one of the least populous states to prevent the majority from taking action. These senators may represent as few as ten percent of the total population of the country. Our country was designed to be governed not by majority rule but by consensus. But, that's another subject.
Labels: Allende, American Exceptionalism, Arbenz, consensus, Eisenhower, H. Kissinger, J. F. Dulles, majority rule, Mossadegh, Richard Nixon
