I do not now, nor have I ever, had any problem with either: (1) the United States having interests overseas or (2) going overseas to defend/protect those interests.

What I *do* have a problem with is the hypocritical half-truths that are used to mask the real reasons we go in, when we *do* go overseas to defend/protect those interests.

For example: the public was "sold" on going in to Somalia because we were supposedly going in for "humanitarian" purposes...those nasty warlords were being so mean to the people, and whatnot. What a bunch of hooey. We went in to Somalia because British Petroleum and Amoco own the vast majority of the mineral rights and/or oil production leases in Somalia, and couldn't extract their oil without interference by the nasty warlords' infighting.

I have no problem with going in to protect BP and Amoco, but let's say that's what we're doing. If we were really going to go in somewhere for humanitarian reasons, we should have gone in to the Sudan, where the human rights violations then (and now) were at least 10 times worse than anything going on then in Somalia. But we didn't. Why? Simple: no oil in the Sudan, and even if there were oil there, the topography of the land would make extraction of said oil extremely difficult.

As Gordon Sinclair pointed out in his "One Canadian's View of America", America has gone in to numerous countries to help in the aftermath of disaster. I have no problem with our doing that, either. I do have a problem, however, with our charging those countries (particularly those countries in the Third World) for our help. Aren't we the richest country? Can't we afford to help out countries that aren't as well off? Isn't that how charity is supposed to work? If a country has just sustained a disaster and needs help to rebuild infrastructure afterward, doesn't it stand to reason that they can't afford to pay us back for the help we give? Why don't we just write it off? Put down the expense as part of the cost of maintaining good will?

As for America being the world's watchdog, I think that our role would be much less necessary if the United Nations were in a position to take over that role. But in order for that to happen, we'd have to let the UN take on a lot more responsibility, and we've never, as a country, been willing to do that - perhaps because if we did, we might have to face our own shortcomings. For example, we've still not paid the fines imposed upon us by the International Court of Justice for the mining of Nicaragua's harbors. Let the UN have some teeth. If we're in the wrong, we ought to admit it, and take our knocks like everyone else.

If we stopped being hypocritical and admitted when we make mistakes, the other countries of the world might actually see us in a better light. People elsewhere might very well still hate us for things done in the past, but they might at least have some respect for us going forward.

a.

(Originally written in July 2004)