posted on Jan, 2 2005 @ 04:56 PM
This will be slightly long, and I'm a terrible speller due to a learning dissability, so please bear with me.
I see no cause for debate on who is more corrupt or greedy. Without generalizing, I think it's more than safe to say that there are corrupt, greedy,
opportunistic politicians in every country, and every international institution in the world.
This is why I feel this rift is happening now, though.
What's happened in the last five or six years is a definite shift in world opinion and policy (especialy when it comes to trans-atlantic relations)
away from a unipolar U.S.-led world order, to the so-called "multipolar" order endorsed by others. I don't agree with either. I believe everyone
should just shut up, and work together for the betterment of human kind, instead of getting hung up on who is, should be, or will be, the center(s) of
power in the world. However, I unfortunately don't get a say in such matters lol.
So this is what I think is happening.
On the one hand, the U.S. wants to maintain it's position as the sole global superpower (whether you think that's a good thing or a bad thing, it's
still true), and until recently the U.N. was an effective way of facilitating this, while still remaining part of a community of nations, either by
design, or purely by circumstance.
On the other hand, the E.U. and more specificaly, France and Germany, along with Russia to a lesser degree, are trying to assert some level of
independance from Washington. We saw this in the opposition to the Iraq war, and in many instances since. Again, I'm not saying that's a good or bad
thing, I'm just trying to explain why I believe the U.S. is circumventing the U.N. in certain situations as of late.
France, Germany, and Russia (among others) believe (correctly) that asserting themselves within the U.N. provides an effective means of checking what
they view (again, correctly) as U.S. dominance. We saw this in the run up to the Iraq war, as I said. The U.S. finaly said to hell with it, and went
to war anyway. That was the begininng of a sea change that I believe will have far reaching implications in years to come.
The U.S. sees this, and has calculated that it's best chance of retaining global preiminence is to skirt the U.N. (and thus France, Germany, Russia,
and others) when necessary, as well as utilize it's alliance and influence with the U.K. to the fullest, and form "coalitions of the willing" like
the one in Iraq. In many ways, it is a defensive strategy, even though U.S. leaders continue to play it off as a sign of their unquestionable
strength and influence in the world.
The end result of all of this is that, one way or another, the U.S. feels compelled to become more and more unilateral in policy, the U.N. loses the
support of the U.S. (to some degree atleast), and Europe and the U.S. clash more and more often over foreign policy and trade policy.
I believe that is a no-win situation for everyone involved. Sooner or later it will lead to resource or manpower shortfalls when they are desperately
needed, either in a disaster such as the tsunamis, or in a military situation such as in Iraq where forces are stretched woefuly thin (and I can see
how that's a bad thing even though I'm staunchly anti-war).
I think everyone should start compromising more, that corruption and greed in ALL nations and institutions needs to be checked, and that maybe regular
people like us can atleast start by recognizing that everyone across the board is corrupt, instead of arguing about who is "more" corrupt.
Just my two cents.