A writer by the name of Mark Goldblatt, in a piece in the New York Post, said “…America is the most benevolent world power in the history of the planet.”
He claims it is indisputably true. Is it?
Something to consider is that it says little about the absolute benevolence of the U.S., e.g., if I said "Canada has the best health care sytem in North America, it doesn’t really say it’s the best possible health care system, or even a good health care system.
That aside, is the U.S. a benevolent nation, and if so, is it the most benevolent in the history of the world (among world powers)?
This is not something you can really prove or disprove with facts. My gut feeling as an American is"most certainly". If I weren’t an American, I’d likely feel differently.
Anyone can draw up a laundry list of American atrocities. But that doesn’t mean anything in and of itself. It’s comparison of America’s list to those of other world powers that would be telling.
Wouldn’t it be the case that anywhere that wants to see itself as a “world power” would prefer to think of itself, and sell the image to its own citizens and others, as “benevolent”?
And may I be the first to mention “wht have the Romans done for us”?
Not to mention that benevolent does not equal harmless. You can have good intentions and do great harm. Older empires did not have the global power the USA has and so the USA, even if well intended, has the capacity to do more harm than past empires did even if their intentions might have been worse.
I don’t care how benevolent a tiger might be, I feel safer if it is chained.
Let’s leave Rome out of it. Before the age of exploration and European colonial imperialism opened in the late 15th century, there were no “world powers,” only regional empires – which certainly must have seemed like world powers to the people who lived in them, but only because they didn’t know how big the world was.
Since the 15th century, a short list of nations have attained a “world power” position, in the sense of extending their reach and influence over far corners of the globe: Portugal, Spain, Britain, France, the Netherlands, Belgium, Germany, Italy, Russia/USSR, Japan, China, and the United States. (China has exercised little direct influence outside Asia but I include it just because it’s a nuclear power.) Of these, I think only Britain can come close to the U.S. for a record of, on the average, acting benevolently in its relations with the rest of the world; and our record is slightly better than the Brits’, at least with respect to imperialism and foreign wars, and discounting internal atrocities such as slavery and the extermination of the Indians.
So, yes, the U.S. is the most benevolent world power in history. Compared with all the others. This, of course, does not mean the U.S. is a benevolent power by any objective standard, nor does it mean the U.S. is a just and equitable society within its own borders.
"America’s first major imperial conquest was in the early 1900s, when American troops fought the Spanish to occupy the Philippines. An interesting aside to point out here is that in 1905, American writer Mark Twain wrote a story called ‘The War Prayer,’ in which he condemned the war. The story was considered ‘unsuitable for publication at a moment of high and patriotic feeling.’ It was not published till 1923, almost twenty years after the war and thirteen years after Twain’s death. So, contrary to the myth that America is a free country in which every civilian has the right to speak, censorship in the US has been alive and well for at least a hundred years.
After this little-discussed invasion of the Philippines, American might around the globe did not notably accelerate till after WW11. Between 1945 and now, the US has never stopped being at war with the world. For fifty-eight years, there has never been a single year in which it has not bombed and occupied another country, and in most years, it has attacked two or more countries at the same time. It attacked Korea from 1950-1953, and during the same period, also re-attacked the Philippines to stifle an indigenous leftist uprising. From 1945-49, it sent half a million troops to China, again to choke off the communists. In 1946-48, it sent troops to Italy; In 1947-49 to Greece; 1949-53 to Albania; together with the UK it attacked Iran in 1953; Guatemala also in 1953; Indonesia in 1958; Cuba 1961-62; Thailand in 1962; Laos 1962-75; Congo 1964; Peru 1965; Dominican Republic 1965-66; Vietnam 1961-73; Cambodia (1969-70); Chile (1973); the proxy war in Afghanistan (1979-88); Nicaragua (1981-90); El Salvador (1980-92); Libya (1981, 1986, 1989); Panama (1989); Grenada (1983); Persian Gulf (1984); Iraq (1991, and air strikes had been repeatedly launched till the time of the latest full-scale invasion); Serbia (1997); Afghanistan and Sudan (1998); Afghanistan (2001 to date); Iraq again.
The list is exhausting but so is the historical weight of power behind President George W. Bush. I haven’t even touched upon America’s non-military CIA-backed interference in the governance of sovereign countries all over the world, as that would only stretch this discussion even further. But the military and economic aid it gives to its ‘allies,’ especially to Israel, will naturally weave itself into the lecture."
Mark Twain wrote something that wasn’t immediately published, and that constitutes censorship? That ranks among the dumbest things I have heard in a while. The rest of the stupid article linked to isn’t really worth adressing, other then to say:
-There was going to be a war in Afghanistan, whether America supported the resistance or not. A ‘proxy war’ it was not.
-Merely listing the nations that America has had ‘military’ dealings with is irrelevant. Show how each of those actions were evil.
“It is more than obvious that the United States and its Liberation Army care nothing about the disarmament of destructive weapons, about human rights, or about any international law. If they did, they would not have renounced the non-nuclear proliferation treaty, or voted against the protocol allowing implementation of the Biological Weapons Convention, or rejected the treaty banning land mines, so that tens of thousands of innocent civilians around the world, mostly children, do not have to live their lives without legs, arms, and eyes. New mines have again been laid by the US in Afghanistan _ a country that had already been riddled with more mines per square inch than any other country in the world. America has vetoed the passing of virtually every international attempt to reduce instances of war, and to protect the environment. As I have said already, for the last fifty-eight years it itself has never stopped being at war with the world. Its economy thrives on war.”
Well first, Counterpunch is a socialist/leftist/progressive magazine. Them saying ‘america is bad’ is as expected as newsmax.com saying ‘america is good’ and should be viewed as such.
I am not denying america has done some evil things. But i don’t think the issues are as 1 sided as this article tries to paint them as. Not all US intervention is evil. The invasions of Panama & Grenada restored democracy. Sudan is an evil dictatorship and any war directed at them is probably justified anyway. The Gulf war prevented a dictator from ruling/robbing Kuwait and from controlling the world’s economy. The war in Afghanistan allowed the building of infrastructure & the distribution of humanitarian aid. Although Afghanistan is falling under warlords right now, in 10 years the war of 2001 will probably have been in the best interest of the nation. The war in South Korea prevented S. Korea from becoming a backwards, poverty ridden dictatorship like North Korea. Although South Korea had its share of dictators for 30 years, in the end they have a GDP 20x that of north korea & many more civil liberties/human rights than N. Korea today. I also notice that he left out our interventions in Yugoslavia which helped prevent ethnic cleansing. Alot of those countries you list were under threat of turning into communist regimes which are generally repressive. All part of a larger cold war.
Read the report what the world thinks in 2002 especially page 55 of the report (which comes up as page 65 in adobe acrobat). In the countries you’ve listed like the Phillipines, El Salvador, Guatemala, Italy, Peru, Vietnam. If these countries are so ravaged and raped by us, why do their people like us by such a wide margin? Why do people in the Phillipines, El Salvador or Guatemala like us by ratios of 6-1?
Also, he says he doesn’t include CIA intervention, but he includes Chile & Iran. Keep in mind that this was the same CIA that has repeadly failed to kill Bin Ladin, Castro or Hussein. Chile was a mistake. If the US had just let Chile run its course, Allende probably would’ve been voted out of office.
Well first, Counterpunch is a socialist/leftist/progressive magazine. Them saying ‘america is bad’ is as expected as newsmax.com saying ‘america is good’ and should be viewed as such.
I am not denying america has done some evil things. But i don’t think the issues are as 1 sided as this article tries to paint them as. Not all US intervention is evil. The invasions of Panama & Grenada restored democracy. Sudan is an evil dictatorship and any war directed at them is probably justified anyway. The Gulf war prevented a dictator from ruling/robbing Kuwait and from controlling the world’s economy. The war in Afghanistan allowed the building of infrastructure & the distribution of humanitarian aid. Although Afghanistan is falling under warlords right now, in 10 years the war of 2001 will probably have been in the best interest of the nation. The war in South Korea prevented S. Korea from becoming a backwards, poverty ridden dictatorship like North Korea. Although South Korea had its share of dictators for 30 years, in the end they have a GDP 20x that of north korea & many more civil liberties/human rights than N. Korea today. I also notice that he left out our interventions in Yugoslavia which helped prevent ethnic cleansing. Alot of those countries you list were under threat of turning into communist regimes which are generally repressive. All part of a larger cold war.
Read the report what the world thinks in 2002 especially page 55 of the report (which comes up as page 65 in adobe acrobat). In the countries you’ve listed like the Phillipines, El Salvador, Guatemala, Italy, Peru, Vietnam. If these countries are so ravaged and raped by us, why do their people like us by such a wide margin? Why do people in the Phillipines, El Salvador or Guatemala like us by ratios of 6-1?
Also, he says he doesn’t include CIA intervention, but he includes Chile & Iran. Keep in mind that this was the same CIA that has repeadly failed to kill Bin Ladin, Castro or Hussein. Chile was a mistake. If the US had just let Chile run its course, Allende probably would’ve been voted out of office.
Like that link i gave in my above post, many of the people in countries we have supposedly raped & pillaged like us. It seems they like us more than countries where we don’t intervene. There might even be a correlation between liking for the US and US intervention intervention in domestic affairs (but i am not a statistician so i can’t say).
As far as land mines, i was under the impression that American landmines could be disarmed remotely . If that is true then why would we need to sign an anti-landmine treaty? The real culprits are probably Russia & China as I don’t know if they have smart mines that defuse themselves after a combat ends. But expecting a socialist paper to condemn Russia or China for human rights violations is unrealistic. Maybe Counterpunch should look in the mirror when it rails against ‘fake concern for human rights’.
There are 11.5 million land mines in the U.S. inventory, according to government sources. The vast majority are “smart” mines programmed to explode or disarm at a particular time, a feature aimed at avoiding the “residual humanitarian problem” caused by mines that sit unexploded for decades in places like Afghanistan. These “smart” mines also are equipped with what Pentagon officials call a “backup self-deactivating capability” designed to disarm the mines after 90 days if the self-destruct feature fails.
Just 1 million of the mines in the U.S. stockpile are “dumb,” the type that can remain deadly for years. Pentagon officials say they are kept on hand primarily in case they are needed for use in the demilitarized zone between North and South Korea.
Here are the state departments reasons for opposing the Biological Weapons Convention.
Some have questioned the U.S. commitment to combat the biological weapons threat due to our rejection of the draft BWC Protocol. Put simply, the draft Protocol would have been singularly ineffective. The United States rejected the draft protocol for three reasons: first, it was based on a traditional arms control approach that will not work on biological weapons; second, it would have compromised national security and confidential business information; and third, it would have been used by proliferators to undermine other effective international export control regimes.
Traditional arms control measures that have worked so well for many other types of weapons, including nuclear weapons, are not workable for biological weapons. Unlike chemical or nuclear weapons, the components of biological warfare are found in nature, in the soil, in the air and even inside human beings…
I don’t know much except that the writer of the article the op cited is a moron, after all you are not very smart if you are trying to compare present day U.S.A with the Roman or Spanish empire. I would like to think that as a civilazation we have evolved a little during the last couple of hundreds of years.
Compare rome with other powers of the time and you’ll see why Rome was such a great empire and why many of its intitutions still live in our society. Romans were certtainly not benevolent (in a modern sense) but compared with Carthage, for example, they were saints.
Despite everything I wrote I can only say that if we compare, Antonino Pio with George W. Bush… well, let’s just say that the long dead Roman emperor was the better.
Before finishing, a low punch, the romans stole and preserved ancient work of arts, only barbarians were capable of destroying Diana’s Temple in Ephesus.
Does it not make you think in the first place that a leftist, socialist and progressive magazine as counterpunch, would describe the US as “bad”? Last time I checked, “democracy” was stil more or less on the left side of the political spectrum. And what’s wrong with being progressive? What is it that you want to do? Regress?
Here are a few more links to what America has been up to since WWII, and how it had an impact on those countries and peoples, and how it benefited good Ol’ US of A.
Franco of Spain, he made himself “king”
The law of succession (1947) promulgated by Franco declared Spain a kingdom, with himself as regent pending the choice of a king. And yes, the US was happy: http://www.infoplease.com/ce6/people/A0819456.html
Marcos first won the Philippine presidency in elections in 1966. In 1972, however, facing a variety of uprisings, he declared martial law: within four months he introduced a new constitution that vastly expanded his powers. Eight years under the new polity meant economic and social upheaval, as well as a massive amount of corruption: Marcos and his family stole up to $5 billion from their beloved country. Through thick and thin, however, Marcos remained a key ally of the United States, which relied on Clark Air Base and Subic Bay Naval Base as part of the arsenal of democracy in Southeast Asia.
Vietnam, before the Vietnam war
Honduras http://www.atlapedia.com/online/countries/honduras.htm
Twice López Arellano overthrew a sitting government. During his reign, Honduras was economically tied to the United States, chiefly through exports of bananas and coffee. While John Kennedy’s administration broke off relations with Honduras shortly after the 1963 coup, Tegucigalpa and Washington soon resumed ties. López Arellano helped to keep Honduras a banana republic in more ways than one. His policies benefitted the Honduran oligarchy at the expense of small farmers and laborers on large plantations. His rule continued a tradition of Honduran governments controlled more by American corporations than the Honduran citizenry. López Arellano’s reign finally came to an end in 1975, when his receipt of a $1.25 million bribe from United Brands (the successor to United Fruit) came to light. But his legacy of military governments continued in Honduras until 1982.
Iran http://www.britannica.com/ebc/article?eu=399677
Angola, Jonas Savimbi, leader of the rebel group UNITA http://www.lrb.co.uk/v24/n06/hard01_.html
For years, UNITA fought a bloody civil war against left-wing movements. Savimbi was the darling of the Republican Party during the Ford and Reagan administrations, both of which found ways to covertly send arms and money. In 1986, Ronald Reagan welcomed him to the White House and praised his fight for freedom. Of course, Savimbi was also the darling of the National Party government in South Africa. One cannot always pick the friends of one’s friends, but anyone who is receiving military support from a government run by men who wished that Germany won World War II is probably not worthy having as a friend. Indeed, by 1992, the parties in the Angolan civil war agreed to democratic elections to settle their dispute. When Savimbi lost the election, he refused to abide by the outcome, and went back to fighting. Savimbi spent the last decade of his life refusing to participate in a democratic Angola, instead seeking any way possible to extend the civil war just a while longer.
Dominican Republic/Venezuala http://www.ticam.utexas.edu/~organism/random-stuff/interesting-articles/The_terrible_winter_of_TrujilloP.html
Chile - Pinochet http://abcnews.go.com/reference/bios/pinochet.html
Kissinger is terrified Pinochet might be tried, as that would open up the way fro him to be tried. http://www.prospect.org/webfeatures/2003/02/goldberg-j-02-28.html
http://nsarchive.chadwyck.com/saintro.htm
Vorster was a lifelong supporter of domination of the black majority of his nation by the white minority. He established Transkei as the first of four ersatz “homelands,” attempts to physically separate black and white South Africans into their own countries (of course, the whites would get all of the desirable land). No other country recognized Transkei or any of the other “homelands” as legitimate countries. As prime minister, he established a special intellgence unit to spy on all sorts of opponents to his National Party. He harshly put down black riots in 1976 in Soweto and elsewhere. And during his tenure in office, South Africa made steady progress in developing nuclear weapons. But the United States often saw South Africa as a strategic ally. Despite a longstanding arms embargo, American weaponry often wound up in South African hands. Throughout the 1970s, American administrations resisted any sort of economic sanctions against the Vorster regime. And in fighting Communists in Angola, the United States and South Africa found themselves on the same side until Congress cut off covert aid to Angolan rebels in late 1975.
comes this:
"The engine of American foreign policy has been fueled not by a devotion to any kind of morality, but rather by the necessity to serve other imperatives, which can be summarized as follows:
making the world safe for American corporations;
enhancing the financial statements of defense contractors at home who have contributed generously to members of congress;
preventing the rise of any society that might serve as a successful example of an alternative to the capitalist model;
extending political and economic hegemony over as wide an area as possible, as befits a “great power.”
This in the name of fighting a supposed moral crusade against what cold warriors convinced themselves, and the American people, was the existence of an evil International Communist Conspiracy, which in fact never existed, evil or not.
The United States carried out extremely serious interventions into more than 70 nations in this period."
the period being 1945-1999
have fun reading.
Oh, and I forgot to mention: the US of A is the only country in the world to have resorted to the use of nuclear weapons in an armed conflict.
. If that is true then why would we need to sign an anti-landmine treaty? The real culprits are probably Russia & China as I don’t know if they have smart mines that defuse themselves after a combat ends. But expecting a socialist paper to condemn Russia or China for human rights violations is unrealistic. Maybe Counterpunch should look in the mirror when it rails against ‘fake concern for human rights’.