Prof. Blanchard took the left to task over its dismissal of Tibet as a serious foreign policy question. I see his point, although it'd perhaps be more accurate that no one really pays attention to Tibet, at least not enough to do anything about it. I take Ken's point to be that the usual liberal internationalist organs of peace, namely the United Nations, are too busy doing other things (such as denouncing Israel) to pay attention to real injustice.
Our own government is no better. Take this story about a Cuban family escaping that hell hole of a country, found at high seas by the United States Coast Guard, who proceeded to send them back to Cuba. They are now in a Cuba prison. Well done, U.S. government. I got this story from Jay Nordlinger who also links to this amazing apology for Cuba by ESPN writer Andrew Hush. Hush is dismayed that Cuban soccer players would have the temerity to defect to the United States, what with the Olympics so near! For Hush, the police state of Cuba is simply a "unique nation" where the people are free yet at the same time should be kept under strict surveillance lest they run away to the so-called "land of the free." See Nordlinger for an effective dissection of an apology for tyranny.
Update: Cory responds. I am not sure Cory gets what I mean by "liberal internationalism." This is a well understood school of thought in American foreign policy held by people such as Zbigniew Brzezinski, Anthony Lake, Jimmy Carter, etc. This would include scholars like Ivo Daalder, James Lindsey, and Strobe Talbot, just to name a few. I don't think any of them would reject the label "liberal internationalist" or perhaps "Wilsonian internationalist." This school of thought holds that the major source of conflict in the world is misunderstanding and that violence is the result of poor conflict resolution. They believe in multilateralism brokered by the United Nations. Take a look at the Daalder edited book Beyond Preemption. Most authors in this tome take it for granted that the United Nations is the ultimate arbiter of legitimacy in international relations. I have my differences with this school of thought, but think it has an internal coherence and has something to teach those who buy into the ham-fisted foreign policy of the Bush administration. "Liberal internationalist" is not a "Sibbyesque" scapegoat, but a school of foreign policy thought that you can find described in almost any foreign policy textbook.
Update II: It occurs to me that Joseph Nye's defense of soft power is a good example of the above.
Recent Comments