Chutzpah

 

I know we live in a global community, but should the United States really be telling North Korea or even Iran to abandon its nuclear program (although I understand the leadership of both sovereign nations is suspect in the area of mental health)?

Should the United States be telling Honduras that what seems to be an apparently legal, enforced impeachment of a sitting president is illegal and that said president must be returned to office (even if, in the long run, this may be detrimental to United States' interests in the region)?

I understand the Organization of American States (OAS) echoes the US position, but I wonder if the OAS simply isn't a bully pulpit for Uncle Sam (in the guise of Obama/Clinton).

I know that Israel depends (too) heavily on handouts from the United States' treasury - so do most Middle East countries - but is it the United States' prerogative to tell Israel how to deal with the so-called "Palestinians"? Is it Washington's place to tell Israel that it must surrender Jerusalem - all or part makes no difference - to a people whose main purpose in life is to wipe Israel (and its non-Moslem population) off the face of the earth? (All of which begs the question: Why didn't the United States and the United Nations apply the same rule to Jordan when it controlled Jerusalem as a closed city?)

What gives Washington, on advice from an often ignorant State Department, the right to insist that a country have a US-style or even (UK-like) parliamentary style of "democratic" government ... especially since the US lacks a democratic form of government! The United States still maintains, with the Electoral College, a republican form of government; in this case, both "democratic" and "republican" are small "d" and small "r" and neither relates to the bid "D" or big "R" political parties.

When I was somewhat younger there was a book titled "The Ugly American." The book was about Americans - in itself chutzpah; is the United States the only country in "America?" - traveling overseas and being loudly boorish; rather than appreciate what the Europeans had been living with for centuries, these "ugly Americans" made it clear that everything was better across the Atlantic, and besides, why can't those foreigners (forgetting that "these foreigners" were on their home soil) speak (American) English?

Aside: The French still are getting even. They keep their major airport in a state of confusion and force travelers to speak French or to find someone who will condescend to translate - that usually means another traveler. I speak from unfortunate experience and now avoid CDG and France if at all possible.

Washington also can't seem to understand that there are different mentalities. Even, as the case of Vietnam, when the evidence was clearly before its collective eyes (as the equally self-absorbed French were chased out of the country).

The United States has several times "given" its neighbor Cuba "democracy." Each time the Cubans have reverted to a dictatorship. Did Washington learn anything? Hardly.

Iran, Iraq, Syria, Saudia, and a number of other countries - not all Moslem - can't handle "democracy" as practiced in the United States, yet Washington insists on (trying to) push it down those nation's figurative throats.

The United States needs to back off; it is not a "parent" to other nations nor should it be a policeman to the world. Honor its commitments, by all means. Strive to promote peace and tranquility.

But stop trying to interfere in other countries' business.

Granted, I fear North Korea's and Iran's nuclear programs, but while their leaders rattle their sabers I don't think the United States has the right to insist these programs come to a halt. On the other hand, if there is any - any - evidence that an attack from either country on any country is imminent, I would encourage a pre-emptive strike.

The reason I fear North Korea and Iran is two-fold. One, these countries' leaders seem to have no concern for their people; if a few million Koreans or Iranians die so the leaders can accomplish their goal of wiping out a perceived enemy, so what? Az mah? Two, like the Pakistanis, they are willing to "share" or sell their technology or weapons to the likes of several mostly-Moslem terrorists groups.

For all that, I can't see that the United States has any right, and certainly no obligation, to force its will upon any nation short of responding to an imminent threat to it or to an ally. (The United States has a very UNenviable record when it comes to providing timely assistance to its friends; Hungry during the Eisenhower administration comes to mind.)

Yohanon
Yohanon.Glenn at gmail dot com