An interesting excerpt from Peter Bakers article in The New York Times (March 8, 2014). Judge for yourself about the principle, or better a lack of it, the US had in determining its position regarding sovereignty vs. self-rule: Consider the different American views of recent bids for independence. Chechnya? No. East Timor? Yes. Abkhazia? No. South Sudan? Yes. Palestine? It’s complicated. It is an acutely delicate subject in the West, where Britain wants to keep Scotland and Spain wants to keep Catalonia. The United States, after all, was born in revolution, breaking away from London without consent of the national government — something that the Obama administration insists Crimea must have. The young American union later fought a civil war to keep the South from breaking away. So, we can see this pattern of inconsistency throughout US history regarding the subject. If one is to look for global leadership regarding the difficult issue of sovereignty vs. self-rule, we may not be the right legal and ethical beacon for the rest of the world to follow. Ever changing foreign policy doctrines of the US (e.g., Powell Doctrine, Clinton Doctrine, Bush Doctrine, Rumsfeld Doctrine) have all one thing in common: US interest. It is always a safe bet for an independent nation or a wannabe an independent nation to align its interest with American interest. That will guarantee justice is achieved (whatever that mey mean) along with American support.
Posted on: Mon, 10 Mar 2014 15:18:42 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015