Thursday, May 29, 2008

Bomb-Bomb does Foreign Policy

Dear George,

For someone who doesn’t know squat about foreign policy, Bomb-Bomb McCain came up with a pretty good idea. His inspiration is to form a League of Democracies consisting of a group of “like minded” nations who could respond to “humanitarian” crisis without having to cope with a creaky and inefficient U.N. which has an anti-western bias to begin with.

The idea is brilliant. Bomb-Bomb is calling for a diplomatic old-boys club restricted to countries of an Angloeuromerican persuasion. (He’s willing to make an exception for India and Brazil since they’re western enough for his tastes. But let Japan go Zen on him and they’ll be out on their ear.)

To blatantly misquote one commentator out of context, the primary function of his league would be to act as “an echo chamber for an American diagnosis of global problems.” (The writer calls this a “fantasy,” but what the hell does he know. We must establish early on that anyone who disagrees with Bomb-Bomb doesn’t know what they’re talking about.)

And of course, a humanitarian crisis is defined as any threat to western interests. As always, the intensity of such a crisis increases in direct proportion to the amount of oil pooled beneath said crisis.

Such a league is necessary in the face of waning Western power and influence. The locus of power is shifting eastward and it must be reversed. This is especially crucial as the worldwide energy crises increases.

From the time the first well was drilled into the sands of the Middle East, the West has controlled its flow. Cheap oil was instrumental in making the West a beacon of corporate democracy. It is imperative that the world’s corporate democracies band together to keep foreigners in funny robes from increasing their control of this vital resource.

But, more is at stake than oil. All that really matters is maintaining western resolve and prestige. Neocons are in the forefront of this heroic effort to salvage the west’s honor. They wax nostalgic over the days when natives thrived under the benevolent rule of Brits in jodhpurs and both order and stability ruled the earth (if you factor out two world wars).

The bottom line is that although we may be a dying empire, we plan to make one hell of an exit. It will be an exit that will make the final act of Hamlet look like an Oprah love-in.

The Nigerian novelist Ben Okri put it very well when he said, “The end of the world begins not with the barbarians at the gate, but with the barbarians at the highest level of state.”[1]

The world revolves around Western values. There are no others worth speaking of. We are the sole masters of the destructive progress that has lifted the world out of its muck and brought it into the flourescent light of enlightened self interest (if you factor out two world wars).

Your admirer,
Belacqua Jones

[1] Quoted in Morris Berman’s Dark Ages America.


Anonymous said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
gary said...

Are you opposed to ANY democratization on a global scale? Or just this particular plan?


Case Wagenvoord said...

Only this one, which I suspect would do nothing to democratize the globe.

gary said...

I don't know the details of the McCain plan, so you may be right. I certainly disagree with McCain on Iraq and other foreign policy stands. But I do very much think we need to start over on the UN thing. Here's my own view of how it should look...



Case Wagenvoord said...


I checked out your link. While it had some interesting ideas, I'm afraid that if we are to have a viable world organization, it is going to have to include some undesirables.

It is doubtful we will ever see a "world government" because nation states are unwilling to surrender their sovereignty.

I appreciate your input.

gary said...

I'm afraid that if we are to have a viable world organization, it is going to have to include some undesirables.

We already have that with the UN. Do you really think that's the best mankind can do? And do you really think it's working?


Case Wagenvoord said...

Ideally, we can always do better. Pragmatically, this could be about as good as it gets, even though there's always room for some tweaking.

I suspect the UN would improve greatly were they to move the headquarters to Geneva and strip Security Council members of their veto power.

gary said...


Tweaking? I think we need much more than tweaking. As an example, France is 20th in population and holds a seat in the UN's powerful Security Council, including permanent veto authority. India is the 2nd most populous nation, yet has no such position. What message does that give to the Indians? Don't you think something this undemocratic goes well beyond tweaking?

As for moving the UN, I would go even further and have a rotating headquarters. Why give the appearance of one country owning the process?


Case Wagenvoord said...


I think we're almost on the same page. I fully agree that allowing any nation to exercise a veto in the Security Council is as undemocratic as it is counter productive. That's one of the tweaks I was talking about.