Date: Wed, 16 Apr 2003 01:12:20 +0800
Subject: Re: new world order (hope and machination)
From: Malcolm Riddoch <m.riddoch-AT-ecu.edu.au>



On Tuesday, April 15, 2003, at 10:21  PM, Anthony Crifasi wrote:

> AND the last one too Malcolm. THAT was my point. As both I and Michael 
> Eldred have pointed out, Bush has simply put in black and white what 
> Clinton already DID in 1998, and also in Kosovo, concerning unilateral 
> action without UN authorization. So to label this as representative of 
> some new unilateral "Bush Doctrine," while in the same breath 
> representing Clinton as "well-respected" on this matter is a blatant 
> inconsistency, and a clear sign of ...
>
> Anthony Crifasi

Oh I see now... you're talking about internal US politics? Yes, this 
'Bush Doctrine' does authorize and implement as national policy the 
notion of 'pre-emption' that has been tentatively practiced since at 
least the early 80's under Reagan, and yes, the Democrat administration 
under Clinton was also party to it. I don't think Clinton was unaware 
of the unchallenged position he was in, and the revolution in military 
affairs was accomplished during his term in office. As far as your 
Democratic party goes god knows JFK was as ruthless as any Republican 
before or after him, including Nixon, and I have no doubt that Gore 
would have reacted as fiercely in Afghanistan as Bush did (or more so). 
When it comes to such a blatant world historical move as the 'Pax 
Americana' however I'm not so sure, but who knows and what does it 
matter? Bush is your man of this moment.

So I think you're missing the point entirely, I'm not a Democrat voter, 
I'm an Australian. I'm interested in the international politics going 
on now, and especially in terms of Heidegger's notion of power. Clinton 
did not irrevocably break with the UN, nor did he push 'old Europe' 
into the position of outright opposition to US policy by proclaiming 
the right to unilaterally and forcefully change any regime in the world 
irrespective of global opinion or law. The war in Kosovo was undertaken 
with broad support from European allies against opposition from Russia 
and China in the security council yet it did not set an international 
precedent for a new world order that permanently sidelines the UN and 
international law. Furthermore it was not the second campaign in a 
declared global war against terrorism that threatens to engulf the 
middle east, the Korean peninsula and who knows where else in the 
coming years.

What we have here at the moment is something without precedent since 
the end of WW2 that set up the UN in the first place as an arbiter of 
mostly US and Soviet politics. Now the US administration is under no 
compulsion whatsoever to defer to the UN at all in any field, quite the 
opposite, it is now explicitly its own arbiter in global politics and 
an era of international cooperation, with all its limitations, is at an 
end. With your national government (did you vote for Bush?) we all of 
us now have a unilaterally international hanging judge, jury and 
executioner of its own self interest in the world community with no 
rivals but an enormous amount of global opposition and fear. Perhaps 
this current aggression will make the world a better place for humanity 
as a whole in this coming century... or not. Whatever happens, it's a 
world historical gamble with a lot of collateral damage to come. Are 
you starting to get the international picture yet Anthony?

Regards,

Malcolm Riddoch



     --- from list heidegger-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu ---