>Well, what I mean is that it is better that America is ruled by
>Americans than Englishmen, for example, or that the Vietnamese are best
>placed to decide what happens in Vietnam, and indeed that the best
>solution for the Balkans is not one decided in the West. It's a simple
>democratic point really. Odd that it should even be challenged.
I have no problem with the principle you state, but the choice is not always local=good, foreign=bad. It's not at all clear to me that DIY despotism is to be valued over, e.g., a genuinely democratic government installed by the SAS at Whitehall's behest. The idea that it always and necessarily is, it seems to me, is a species of racism.
If we are in solidarity with other working folk around the world, why wouldn't we want the best for them, no matter where it comes from? Why wouldn't they want the best for themselves, no matter where it comes from? Why wouldn't we want the best for _our_selves, no matter where it comes from? I hold no brief for the psychopaths wielding power in the US -- if the choice were home-grown Fascism or foreign-grown Socialism, guess which i'd choose, every time? Wouldn't you?
>> In the US today there is a habit
>>to refer to 'the government' as though it's entirely
>>separate from us. This habit pervades _all_
>>discourse, and is pernicious because self-fulfilling.
>
>No. I think Americans have good cause to distrust their government,
>which did after all open fire on its citizens (and some of my own
>compatriots from Manchester) at Waco, just as it annihilated the MOVE
>commune. It saddens me that the left are so uncritical of the state.
Sorry that i didn't make my point more clear: i am _intensely_ critical of the State. But as Chomsky points out, the State is at least nominally subject to our communal will. The State is, or ought to be, _us_. The powerful want us to totally loose the reins of power, but i don't think that is a good idea _at all_.
>>So i would have to argue that 'self-government' is a
>>myth and a fraud in most cases.
>
>Which is a very convenient kind of cynicism when you are demanding that
>the people of the Yugoslav republic should be bombed in an attempt to
>overthrow their democratically elected government. If self-government is
>such a fraud, would it be ok for Britain to impose a military
>dictatorship in America, or again in Ireland, perhaps?
Again, i can only apologise for not being more clear. My original point was that a single world power might be a good thing from the standpoint of ordinary people. *IF* that single world power were to serve as a dispassionate and impartial enforcer of freedom for all, without regard to its own narrow national interests. That's not what's happening today, but it is not an impossible goal. Such an outcome would be preferable to what we have now with small-scale warlordism.
>Really? The figures that Michael Hoover published here not so long ago
>would seem to demonstrate otherwise. How about the 180 000 killed in
>Iraq, or the 1 000 000 that have died since as a consequence of the
>sanctions regime? How about the 300 killed so far in the bombing raids
>on Yugoslavia, or the tens of thousands of 'two bit pricks' (Clinton's
>words) that were killed by the US forces in Somalia?
I'm afraid you make my point for me, in part. Under whose auspices are these killings being done?
>This is sheer utopianism. The US has never intervened to do good, only
>to subordinate other countries to its rule.
I believe you overstate the case somewhat. And in any case, the past doesn't fully determine the future. The horse might talk.
>Yes, I am in the West, and if I were to support my government's actions
>(or indeed merely acquiesce to them) I would be part of the problem. But
>I do not share your identification with Western governments, and
>instead, am campaigning against Western policy in the Balkans.
Again i must apologise for not being more clear. My point is that you paint with a brush too broad for your canvas. 'The West is not the solution, it is the problem' is a catchphrase, not a reasoned summation. It may be the equivalent of a rubber mallet for eliciting a metaphorical jerk of the knee, but it contains no framework for analysis. 'The West' is composed of more than NATO, the killings are not all on one side. Any reasoned analysis ought to account for that, and fit its language to the actual case.