Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Does the United States Enjoy Privileged Status?

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) Donate to DU
 
stevenleser Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-27-09 02:21 AM
Original message
Does the United States Enjoy Privileged Status?
http://www.opednews.com/articles/Does-the-United-States-Enj-by-Steven-Leser-090327-648.html
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
March 27, 2009

By Steven Leser


There is an interesting tendency among many on the political right in America, particularly those on the political right who do not tend towards Libertarianism. The tendency is to regard America as the most righteous country in the world and because of that, they believe that America is allowed to do things that other countries are not allowed to do.

The relationship that this group on the right would have between the US and the rest of the world is not unlike the relationship between a parent and child. The parent can stay up as late as it likes, but can dictate to the child what time the child should go to bed. The child has to ask the parent for money and get permission to spend the money. The parent can use its own judgment to make a decision on what to buy.

Similarly, the US has nuclear, biological and chemical weapons and in the last 30-40 years has gone to war when it chose and invaded and occupied other countries in several cases without UN authorization. However, if other countries want to develop nuclear, biological or chemical weapons, or if other countries want to invade other nations, that makes them bad.

Continuing the analogy, there are countries that this group of the American political right characterizes as older children, and others that they characterize as younger children. This group regards Western Europe and Israel as 17 year olds. They can make most decisions on their own, can go out on dates (invade other people) and to the prom (have a peaceful nuclear power program), they can drive an automobile (produce nuclear weapons), and can do all but the biggest of the big things (attack others with WMD) without checking with the parent first.

On the other end of the spectrum, there are North Korea and Iran who are regarded as three year olds. I have a friend who is a Doctor who says that children in the 2-4 year old range are in the "suicide ages" as they will promptly do things that will kill themselves if left to their own devices. You don't let a three year old out of your sight for a minute. You don't let a three-year-old get its hands on anything because they could be a danger to themselves or others.

The problem with this attitude is that it is difficult to have a good relationship with other people or other groups or other countries with a perceived difference in basic rights. This lack of fairness and difference in rights and privileges is a big issue in places like countries in sub-Saharan Africa, Latin America, the Middle East and South-East Asia, and why not. It is the "Do as I say and not as I do", approach, an approach that anyone with any training in psychiatry/psychology will tell you has a low success rate.

Obama's message where he reached out to Iran was a very good first step and first effort. The only issue with the speech is that he used a few words and phrases that were hard to miss by a people already on the lookout for efforts by the US attempting to assume a privileged role. He started out well, as this truthout article http://www.truthout.org/032509A by Phil Wilayto points out. Obama:

- referred to the country by its official name, the Islamic Republic of Iran, implicitly recognizing the legitimacy of that government. And he stated that the US wants Iran "to take its rightful place in the community of nations," acknowledging that "You have that right ..."

and Obama said

- "This process will not be advanced by threats," he said. "We seek instead engagement that is honest and grounded in mutual respect."

--------------------

Those were on the highlight reel as far as how the people in the region viewed the speech. However, on the other side of things, there was:

- "that place cannot be reached through terror or arms"

--------------------
As an American, I know what Obama was trying to say, but to people who are already sensitive to this issue of privileged status, the phrase "that place cannot be reached through terror or arms" was one that suggested a continuation of accusation, attempts to control and lack of fairness.

That, among other issues, as Phil Wilayto points out, was why the response was lukewarm from some Iranian sources, and cool from others.

The part about "arms" was the most unfortunate in the context of this speech because a main point of disagreement between the US and Iran is Iran's POTENTIAL ability to seek to develop a nuclear weapon. There is no proof that Iran is trying to do this and in fact, the International Atomic Energy Agency has inspectors year round at all of Iran's nuclear sites who have been consistently reporting that there are no attempts to weaponize Iran's uranium. This assumption among some in the US that Iran is seeking these weapons lacks proof and strains credibility. We've been here before where some elements in the US government say that a country has WMD and on the ground UN inspectors say they can't find any.

Despite any issues, the attempt by President Obama to reach out to Iran was still a success. Even if you take the harshest interpretation of the harshest Iranian response, you can feel coming through in the words that even the hard-line among the Iranians have a fair amount of hope for a new relationship.

Secretary Hillary Clinton's State Department should spend some time thinking about what to do about this real or perceived privilege gap and how it will play into some of the administration's more complex diplomatic initiatives. It's fine to believe your country is the best in the world. It's important to remember, however, that most people in the world are patriotic and think that their country is the best and most righteous. It is a problem to have that cute belief influence diplomatic initiatives and it's important not to convey a difference in privilege and past prejudices during negotiations and attempts to reach out to countries with whom we have had troubled relations. It's even better if we can work to eliminate the privileged air and lack of fairness in everything we do as a nation.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
Scooterliberal Donating Member (18 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-27-09 02:26 AM
Response to Original message
1. I'm not Jewish, but didn't Iran threaten to destroy Israel?
Yeah, that sounds like threats of terror and arms. Not to mention all of the lil groups the fund to committ terror acts. Obama had it right, those weren't accusations. They were facts.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
stevenleser Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-27-09 02:29 AM
Response to Reply #1
2. No, they didnt threaten to do it, they said it would be a good thing if Israel were wiped from the
Edited on Fri Mar-27-09 02:31 AM by stevenleser
map. I'll try to find the exact quote. I hope you dont think I am splitting hairs, but the two are not the same. I probably would have thought prior to 2003 that it would be a good thing if Saddam Hussein were not in control of Iraq. But there is no way I thought that we should act militarily to do it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
izzie Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-27-09 02:40 AM
Response to Reply #2
3. Often when your rich and powerful wishes are done for you
I do think the rich and powerful always get special treatment. Just look at history or the people around you.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
stevenleser Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-27-09 03:35 AM
Response to Reply #2
4. The Quote
as described here---> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mahmoud_Ahmadinejad_and_Israel#.22Wiped_off_the_map.22_or_.22Vanish_from_the_pages_of_time.22_translation

Ahmadinejad's phrase was " بايد از صفحه روزگار محو شود " according to the text published on the President's Office's website, and was a quote of Ayatollah Khomeini.<10>

According to Juan Cole, a University of Michigan Professor of Modern Middle East and South Asian History, Ahmadinejad's statement should be translated as:

The Imam said that this regime occupying Jerusalem (een rezhim-e eshghalgar-e qods) must the page of time (bayad az safheh-ye ruzgar mahv shavad).<11>

According to Cole, "Ahmadinejad did not say he was going to 'wipe Israel off the map' because no such idiom exists in Persian". Instead, "He did say he hoped its regime, i.e., a Jewish-Zionist state occupying Jerusalem, would collapse."<12>

The Middle East Media Research Institute (MEMRI) translates the phrase similarly.<13> On June 2, 2006 The Guardian columnist and foreign correspondent Jonathan Steele published an article based on this reasoning.<14>

Sources within the Iranian government have also denied that Ahmadinejad issued any sort of threat.<15><16><17> On 20 February 2006, Iran's foreign minister denied that Tehran wanted to see Israel "wiped off the map," saying Ahmadinejad had been misunderstood. "Nobody can remove a country from the map. This is a misunderstanding in Europe of what our president mentioned," Manouchehr Mottaki told a news conference, speaking in English, after addressing the European Parliament. "How is it possible to remove a country from the map? He is talking about the regime. We do not recognize legally this regime," he said.<18><19><20>
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Mon Apr 29th 2024, 01:28 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC