What to do with oppresive regimes?

[canikickit]

Vox and J started this issue in another thread so I'll just stick in a quote here:

"But what I view this as is cultural imperialism. We are taking our norms and mores and making other people conform to them. What if they don't want to? And even if they want to--why the hell is it our business?"
- J

"I think that J has raised a very important issue here, one the Left doesn't seem to like talking about too much. What is the proper response to oppressive regimes?

While I understand the importance of cultural imperialism, I can't side with the pomo-influenced gang who seems to think that relativism is an excuse to do nothing. To avoid the hot button issue of Iraq for the moment, I'd hope that everyone on this board, Left and right, condemns the military junta in Myanmar (Burma). What should the response be?

First of all, many countries are already signatories of the UN charter, and that gives us a pretty good guide, I think, on what is acceptable and what isn't acceptable. This does not, of course, mean that military action is the appropriate response (though it may be in some cases), but resolutions condemning governments, sanctions, suspension of trade, etc., are all avenues that can be explored.

Not long ago there was a story in the news about a woman who was sentenced to be raped. I do not care, at that point, about being "sensitive" to another culture. I condemn it as being a human rights abuse and universally wrong. "

-vox

[canikickit]

It is an important issue, and it made me think of something I am loath to bring up here. Didn't Che and Fidel answer that question already all those years ago? Are we all terrible hypocrites, considering Che and Fidel instigated their own little "regime change"? I don't think so, I think it is a very different issue, but it is worth bringing up.
Of course there are differences, Bush has a vested interest, Che didn't preach about "UN violations" and "weapons of mass destruction", the regime overthrown in Cuba was a puppet regime, dancing to the US's tune. While Saddam may be a dictator, he was not placed in a position of authority by some government wanting control of Iraq.
Personally, I don't know what should be done in response to these regimes. I agree with Vox that the UN provides a good guide, and the EU is also beginning to branch into the issues of human aid and crisis management through the Common Foreign and Security Policy. I think these institutions are morally good and just and are the only examples which can be followed in these times.

[peaccenicked]

The question is quite wide. In general, communists have supported the oppressed against the oppressor
and frowned apon imperialist intervention as a replacement of one oppressor with another.
If we think of South Africa, the left in general rallied around the ANC. In Zimbabwe they rallied round ZANU.
Sein Fein and the PLO, also come to mind.

Cultural imperialism.....is broken down ino smaller processes Americanisation, Anglification, Russification
Nazification etc etc To me these processes are reactiony in that they tend to destroy rich indigenous cultures
and breed small nation nationalism, Cultures should have an equal status in the world.
The dominant cultural imperialism is US, this with US economic imperialism gives us a fair enough discription of globalisation.
However, this would be an over-simplification of the question. Imperialism as the highest stage of capitalism intensifies the commodification of culture. Culture becomes something we buy rather than do.This aspect of commercialisation cushions conservative thought by normalising this fetishistic transformation
of culture. It is another plane of struggle that socialists have to fight on.
Some of the funniest articles on this trend in society.
-Dumbing Down - appear in the ultra conservative Daily Telegraph. They see it as an attack on English cultural identitity. Sadly enough I find myself in agreement with them sometimes.

[canikickit]

Can you expand a bit more on the "Dumbing Down" being an attack on the cultural identity of England. Have you any links to these articles you agree with.
I see how you could definitely agree with them on that issue. How could you not? Culture is not something you can buy in the bound shop, or euro shop, or even Harrods.

Its interesting what you say, but do you agree that the UN at present is one of the few guiding forces to be looked to on this issue? Or do you have any suggestions on how to deal with issues like that? Laissez-faire?

[peaccenicked]

I actually buy the telegraph occaisionally, probably as it makes me laugh and the other papers are mostly serious waffle. Though if you look hard at the Scottish and English press. There is some nuggets that usually end up in the data bank of commondreams.org or warpeace.org.
The writers at the Telegraph are in general English cultural snobs. I read an article once in it making a case for re-nationalising the railways because it was a British institution. The Telegraph is strongly in favour of rural England and the values of Oxbridge, cricket, and tea.
there is a cultural allegiance to English novel, the Brontes, Shakespeare and Standards of good English.
Pomp and ceremony.
Dumbing down, dear boy, is simply not good enough for 'our' way of life.
I agree in so far that dumbing down is not good enough for anybodies way of life. It is a hinderance to thinking, and both cultural and political development.
I ll search for articles I have found particularly hilarious and truthful.

As to the UN, it is undemocratic and the right of veto is with the major powers. If the UN was actually democratic it could have real credence in the world and perhaps real rogue states like the US and Isreal could be tamed.
Laisez faire is code for the unbridled laws of the market.
The market could be regulated somewhat but the rich always find loop holes. We are better off thinking that the economy can be entirely restructured to put (systematically) human need before profit.

[canikickit]

Yeah the UN is pretty screwed up, but I think at least it has good regulations and is the only guide at the moment. Laissez-faire might have some sort of economic or market connotations, but it means "let alone" or something similar. Like the English gov't had a laissez faire attitude towards us during the famine. That's what I meant by that, should we leave Saddam to his own designs? Or send in the revolutionaries?
I'll start working on a new ship, "the Grandad".

[peaccenicked]

Laissez faire usually means leave the market alone.
In one of the world's countries.
''Nationally:
One Murder occurs every 29 minutes.
One Forcible rape occurs every five minutes.
One Robbery occurs every one minute.
One Aggravated Assult occurs every 31 seconds.
One Property Crime occurs every 3 seconds.''

Should the UN send in a peace keeping force?
Guess which country?


(Edited by peaccenicked at 11:17 pm on Sep. 27, 2002)

[canikickit]

The US, or is that too easy?
There was one murder every week last year in Ireland. The world is becoming more fucked up.

[peaccenicked]

It was too easy. I am looking for volunteers for a UN invasion force we could patrol the streets with AK47s.
Till all the punks on the streets learn that the world just is not going to stand for it.

(Edited by peaccenicked at 4:15 am on Sep. 28, 2002)

[vox]

"Cultures should have an equal status in the world."

Okay, we've drifted a bit from the "oppressive regimes" focus, but this is what I was talking about in my original post. When one culture does something that another culture considers a human rights abuse, what should the response be?

I, for one, am against clitorectomies. This is a cultural, not an overtly political, form of oppression to me. To go further, I think that, as a nation, the US is culturally against this practice.

The question then, is, what should be the response, or should there be any response at all?

That's why I bring up the UN, for it's Charter states, in Article 1, that part of its purpose is "to achieve international cooperation in solving international problems of an economic, social, cultural, or humanitarian character, and in promoting and encouraging respect for human rights and for fundamental freedoms for all without distinction as to race, sex, language, or religion." Plus, there's the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (http://www.un.org/Overview/rights.html).

All of this, to me, grounds human rights in international law and shows that, in answer to the question of should there be a response at all, the world has stated that yes, there should be.

So then the question becomes whether we agree with this, or does international law take a backseat to cultural equality? I think it's clear which side I'm on when it comes to that.

None of this, of course, gets into the other issues that peaccenicked brought up, specifically the commodification of culture. As he said, it's a wide topic, and an interesting one.

vox

[canikickit]

On the topic of clitorectomies, I don't think there is the right to interfere. I think the only thing to do is to support that model who wrote that book, and others in her position (do you know who I'm talking about?).
It is not really our place to instigate anything, the position of people outside the culture should be one of support for those who are in the position to change their own culture. If some sort of support or movement is advocated by those within the culture it is okay to interfere.
I hope what I'm trying to say is clear.

(Edited by canikickit at 7:44 pm on Sep. 28, 2002)

[Guardia Bolivariano]

I think the people who sufer from these regimes should decide.They should create a revolution and decide their own future and not do like the US want's and put a goverment that they can boss around.

[peaccenicked]

In the present climate I am for non interference from big States, mainly because inhumane practices in countries whose cultures have been tarnished by fundamentalism
are used as pretexts for expansionism. The international labour movement traditionally supports all internal struggles for justice. If the UN was a credible body and truly democratic it could put much pressure to bear on countries which practice inhuman indignities on women etc with the moral high ground based in equality of nationhood rather than imperialist machinations and subterfuges.
I would argue that a 'culture' as such must not practice anti cultural activities that mutiliate or oppress any member of society. These practices though embodied
in a cultural pretext but usually have religious rationalisation that can have no part in civilisation.
If there was a world referendum on this I know which way I would vote.

(Edited by peaccenicked at 4:07 am on Sep. 29, 2002)

[canikickit]

How about the EU, I was watching The Late Late Show the other day and some woman (Nell MacCafferty, I believe) said that the EU has done a huge amount for women. And she was going to vote yes to the Nice Treaty, solely on those grounds.
This is all the evidence I actaully have for the EU on women, but I like Nell and I respect what she says.

Have you heard of her Peacce? She has a northern accent...uh...I don't really know anything about her.

Anyway, I think the EU is great, its progressive, and helpful, and it looks like it is going to have morals in the future (it does now).

[peaccenicked]

I have quite a lot of complex feelings about the EU.
In the world context it represents a potential pole against US supremacy. Hence I support the euro politically but in terms of political economy, it still keeps the capitalist system in tact.
I am not sure what you mean by the values of the EU
but my views are contained here.
http://www.che-lives.com/cgi/community/top...m=11&topic=2126 (http://www.che-lives.com/cgi/community/topic.pl?forum=11&topic=2126)

[canikickit]

Nell is a freelance journalist from Derry.
Here (http://cain.ulst.ac.uk/events/bsunday/mcclean.htm) is an incidental link I found while looking her up. It is an extract from a book "The Road to Bloody Sunday" (just in case someone is interested. It's going into my favoutites for sure).


I would argue that a 'culture' as such must not practice anti cultural activities that mutiliate or oppress any member of society

This is very true and just Peacce. It could be argued that killing Jews was part of Nazi culture, for instance.

[canikickit]

Yeah. That just confused the hell out of me.
Is it actually on the first page, that you are referring to? Or is it that article on page three about Yeltsin and the leaders of France and Germany? Was Yeltsin re-elected?

[peaccenicked]

I like that link.
The European Union is so complex as it covers social policy from fish to women. It is left-looking but intrinsically right wing. The main internal influence is the Central European bank.
It is a capitalist club which at once aquieces to dominant US interests and tries to compete with it at the same time. This tension is what makes European politics interesting.
The policies of Reaganism and Thatcherism are resisted more in Europe to some extent. The trade union movement is more militant than its Anglo-american counter parts.
The rise of the Euro is something that may bring about greater resistance to globalisation or something that could plummet Europe into monetarism full blown.
I think progressive minded people should hope for the euro to become strong against the dollar as Europe is the best hope for a multi-polar world.
I think the world's proleteriat will gain confidence if the US ability to interfere in other countries is seriously undermined. Socialists have to take full note of the nature of our struggle, in this epoch, so as to take advantage of the conflicts between the major players. If only for the moment to expose the anti democratic nature of capitalism.

[vox]

"I would argue that a 'culture' as such must not practice anti cultural activities that mutiliate or oppress any member of society. These practices though embodied
in a cultural pretext but usually have religious rationalisation that can have no part in civilisation."

Hmm. Religion, to me, is an issue of freedom. And, of course, there can be religious cultures. This isn't just a theory, we can see them in action. I would not dismiss a cultural belief as a "pretext" for religion at all, for how can one divide where religion ends and culture begins? Indeed, when the "primitive" religions of Africa were confronted with Christianity, usually in the form of Catholicism, they easily adapted the Christian saints to the pantheon of Oyas, yes? And this is not a ten a.m. to eleven a.m. every Sunday sort of religion, for Santeria plays a part in everyday life. This is religion and this is culture. Hinduism is another example, wherein the God or Goddess one worships is generally based on the town or city one is raised in. (This cultural practice is not to be confused with Vedanta, which may be more familiar to Westerners.)

While I agree that the West has used human rights as a pretext for expansionism, I did not say that military intervention is the only possible, or even the best, recourse. One can say the UN isn't credible, but that's not, I think, the point. It's what we have at this moment in time and our best avenue to ensure that Western expansionism isn't benefitted by doing nothing for human rights.

If, for example, the EU was serious about being for human rights in the form of being against the death penalty, it would call for, at least, a resolution against the US and other countries that persist in the slaughter of human beings, but does it? Perhaps the UN isn't credible not because of anything member states do, but because of what they don't do. If a resolution isn't enough, how about sanctions? How about stopping trade? Of course, the capitalist ruling class, which always puts profits before people, would never stand for such a thing.

So once again, I think, anti-human capitalist relations play a part in the failure of the UN to fulfil it's noble mission.

vox

[peaccenicked]

Religion is of course multi-faceted. I think what I have come to is a very complex problem of international Law.
To-day we have certain standards but human rights abuses are uneven in there nature accross the board.
It may be that defining Culture outside religion is the start the world needs in expunging all human rights abuses and in particular those connected with religion.
It seems that from here what we are looking for is an
enforcible universal standard that respects difference but rejects abuse. It might take the million lawyers in the US to work that one out but we should try.
Socialism is born out of the womb of capitalism. I hope everything is not left to future generations. At least if we start thinking this way, we might be able to eventually provide a starting point.
This discussion is very interesting, as perhaps socialists do have to work out our position carefully and present it
as part of our programme of action for world peace and justice.

[canikickit]

One can say the UN isn't credible, but that's not, I think, the point. It's what we have at this moment in time and our best avenue to ensure that Western expansionism isn't benefitted by doing nothing for human rights

Yeah, this is what I think and the EU also. The EU is intrinsically right-wing, but at least it does have that left bearing ethos. I guess it's better than nothing is what I'm trying to say.
And I love the Euro, and what you said about it Peacce. It is money and it is capitalism, but you're right peacce, its making the world a little more multi-polar. I wonder how srtong it would be now if the UK had been in from the start.
Sometimes when I think about the future of the EU, I get very worried. Fifty years down the line, is it going to be corrupt, with the bigger nations running the show, while Ireland and Slovenia, Estonia and Luxembourg, and the smaller nations look on in horror? I sure hope not, but I'll be rich and famous and living in Hollywood by then so, I'm not that worried.

(Edited by canikickit at 10:57 pm on Sep. 29, 2002)