hacker

I know you did not say this Ricky, but I must say it anyway whether this was your point or not: where the Arab governments are concerned, they must realize that screwing Israel is not necessarily the same thing as helping or liberating Palestine.

Well, here's what I said, and what you quoted ...so I'll put this down to your reading comprehension. An I'll bold the part that you seem to have missed.

rickyp

The original sin of treating Palestinian Arabs differently than Jews in the creation of states, is the root cause of the Palestinian problem. and the Palestinian problem has been a convenient way for Arab despots to deflect, distract and maneuver in order to keep their power.

It was inconvenient for the UK and other Western powers to become directly involved in the creation of nation states in Palestine. Israel wasn't concerned about acting in an ethical manner and some wanted more than the partition plan granted. And the Arab States were all despots seeking to expand their power at the expense of the Israelis and Palestinians.
But today, whats stopping the Israelis or the west from more ethical treatment of the Palestinian aspirations? More expediency that plays into the hands of the Arab dictators.

I see. And I'll politely ignore the bit about my reading comprehension. Contrary to popular opinion in some parts of the world, they do teach us to read in the United States.

You are making a valiant attempt to sound even-handed towards them, and I laud your efforts to do so, but you're still putting the burden of good behavior on the State of Israel. Perhaps you did not intend to do that, and maybe you do not even mean it; even so, the way you put it sounds like Israel is just as much the bad guy as their various neighbors' governments. And I do not believe that they are. However, I do agree with anyone who says that Israel isnot faultless. They have not taken recent actions for shits and giggles. But they do overreact quite a bit sometimes. And if they do overreact, that's probably the result of the history of the region since 1948 (that is, the several invasions and bullying of Israel by said neighboring governments).

But I will not get drawn into a debate about Israel any further; other than Saudi foreign policy, I fail to see what it has to do with the price of tea in China (or coffee in Riyadh). It will be interesting to see if Salman is successful at walking the fine line of his predecessor, or other Middle Eastern potentates such as the Emir of Qatar or the Sultan of Oman (where Israel is concerned). Of course, it's probably going to be Crown Prince Muqrin who will be head of state & government in all but name, just as then-Crown Prince Abdullah did for the nearly-incapacitated King Fahd.

The "ethical foreign policy" was Robin Cook's idea. He was moved out of the FCO in 2001 and resigned from the government in opposition to the Iraq war.

Which has always been a contradiction in terms: and not just in Washington.

hacker

Which has always been a contradiction in terms: and not just in Washington

"Ethical" and foreign affairs are not a contradiction in terms.
For one, ethical is a descriptive term. An adjective.
Foreign Affairs is a compound noun.

For another, foreign affairs of many nations have had varying degrees of ethical imperative.
If Robin Cook's position had been followed by the UK, they would not have participated in the Iraq fiasco. I don't know who would argue now, that following his advice would not have been the preferred course.

I thought the UK's foreign policy was based on being the bff of the United States...

"Ethical" and foreign affairs are not a contradiction in terms.
For one, ethical is a descriptive term. An adjective.
Foreign Affairs is a compound noun.

[Rises]: Mr Speaker: I thank my Right Honourable Friend from Ontario for his generosity in taking the time to give us all such a much-needed grammar lesson (according to him at any rate). Although it served little purpose, I nonetheless feel it is only right to counter that generosity with generosity of my own: that of matching it with a vocabulary lesson.

And since the Member loves showing us all a multiplicity of sources from the internet, I shall do the same. According to the Oxford English Dictionary (online full version):

ethical
Syllabification: eth·i·cal
Pronunciation: /ˈeTHək(ə)l

/
Definition of ethical in English:
adjective
1Of or relating to moral principles or the branch of knowledge dealing with these: ethical issues in nursing ethical churchgoing men
More example sentences Synonyms
1.1Morally good or correct: can a profitable business be ethical?
More example sentences Synonyms
1.2Avoiding activities or organizations that do harm to people or the environment: an expert on ethical investment switching to more ethical products adopt ethical shopping habits ethical holidays

and

foreign policy
Syllabification: for·eign pol·i·cy
Definition of foreign policy in English:
noun
A government’s strategy in dealing with other nations: a scathing critic of US foreign policy [as modifier]: a foreign-policy crisis

Ricky, my entire point in saying there is no such thing as an ethical foreign policy, especially for Washington and many other nations of the world, is not that there ought not to be one, but that there cannot be one, especially in light of current international crises. So perhaps I misspoke when I said it is an actual contradiction in terms. It's not a contradiction, it's just.....stupid to try to have one.

Not to get off topic, but it pisses me off when Americans bitch about Canada "not supporting us" in the 2003 War in Iraq. Firstly, the Canadian Government were right to not follow the United States up the garden path on that occasion; Secondly, they have been a staunch ally since the 1940's (and even before then). According to Wikipedia, 158 Canadian soldiers died fighting in Afghanistan, a Canadian diplomat was killed as well; all at a cost to the Canadian taxpayers of $11.3 BILLION (with a B) Canadian dollars. (Take into account that, with a much smaller population, $11.3 billion is a huge cut of the Canadian budget....and with a smaller military, that's a more than comparable loss of military lives to those lost to the U.S.) Canadians landed at D-Day and pushed all the way to Berlin, just as did ours (Again costing more than comparable casualties and more than comparable cost to their government) as well as in the Pacific theater.

As it is generally immoral and/or unethical for the state to kill, I am happy that neither Ottawa nor Washington embraces an ethical foreign policy.

But the problem is that you have raised something (again, *almost* totally irrelevant to the main discussion concerning the new king of Saudi Arabia) that cannot really be "proven". How can you "prove" a particular foreign policy is more ethical? Likewise, how can you "prove" such a foreign policy, a certain "ethical" one for example, is commensurate with the safety and quality of life of said country's citizens?

Maybe I shouldn't have asked that...

hacker

Ricky, my entire point in saying there is no such thing as an ethical foreign policy, especially for Washington and many other nations of the world

Washington's foreign policy has often been driven by an ethical imperative.
One example from George Bush II is his policies in Africa. Policies which put Obama to shame.

President Bush has done work to reduce the HIV/AIDS epidemics in Africa, stop the spread of Malaria, and rebuild broken nations from their genocidal pasts. One of the most notable programs initiated by Bush is the PEPFAR (President's Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief) Program, which was a commitment of $15 billion over five years (2003–2008) from the United States to fight the global HIV/AIDS pandemic. As of September 2007, the program estimates that it has supported the provision of antiretroviral treatment to approximately 1,445,500 people, mostly in Africa. Bush has also initiated programs that have put more than 29 million of Africa's poorest children into schools.[31] Bush has provided "huge overt support" in Liberia to stabilize the country, and increasingly effective aid and trade backing good governance have helped improve health and provide education, skills, and jobs on the continent.[31] He has also supported agricultural independence in Africa, reducing Chinese mercantilism on the continent that had been overwhelming the farmers. "Beninese" cotton farmers urged him to "stand fast on his opposition to the pork-belly politics of the farm bill that is winding its disgraceful way through Congress" on his last visit to Africa. Finally, he has been steadfast in changing the Doha round of World Trade Organization talks so it will favor the poor in Africa.[31] It has been said, from Time Magazine, that Africa is the "triumph of American foreign policy" and is the "Bush Administration's greatest achievement".[3

More here:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/afr ... story.html

So, Hacker, was it stupid for George Bush to have had these African foreign policies?

I can pick and choose hundreds of examples where nations have bent their foreign policy due to ethical considerations... That you are ignorant of them doesn't make them non-existent.

The problem for most nations is that they are willing to allow their ethics to be overwhelmed by "practical concerns". Often these practical concerns are driven by commercial interests as much as strategic interests...

Eisenhower's policy, which has been followed to date by the US was that the US had to protect (control) its sources of energy. What that has meant in the Middle East is the abandonment of its principles on the promotion of democracy and necessitated a convoluted approach to Israel and Palestine that has seldom profited the US.

rickyp wrote:
Eisenhower's policy, which has been followed to date by the US was that the US had to protect (control) its sources of energy. What that has meat in the Middle East is the abandonment of its principles on the promotion of democracy and necessitated a convoluted approach to Israel and Palestine that has seldom profited the US.

Do you have any evidence that the U.S. approach to Israel and Palestine since the 1950's is based on securing energy sources?

ray

Do you have any evidence that the U.S. approach to Israel and Palestine since the 1950's is based on securing energy sources?

One reason the US couldn't come out stronger for Israel, is that it can't piss off the KSA and others.
One reason that the US can't support Palestinian aspirations more aggressively is that support for Palestine must be filtered through the competing Arab factions. Some supported by KSA and other Sunni despots, some by Iran. And the notion of democracy not supported by any of the oil rich despots.
The point is that oil is one more factor in this mess. If the US were energy independent in the past, it may have been less difficult to navigate this mess...
Since the US is now largely independent of Middle East oil ... it may make things... less complicated.

rickyp wrote:ray

Do you have any evidence that the U.S. approach to Israel and Palestine since the 1950's is based on securing energy sources?

One reason the US couldn't come out stronger for Israel, is that it can't piss off the KSA and others.
One reason that the US can't support Palestinian aspirations more aggressively is that support for Palestine must be filtered through the competing Arab factions. Some supported by KSA and other Sunni despots, some by Iran. And the notion of democracy not supported by any of the oil rich despots.
The point is that oil is one more factor in this mess. If the US were energy independent in the past, it may have been less difficult to navigate this mess...
Since the US is now largely independent of Middle East oil ... it may make things... less complicated.

Are you advocating that we be energy independent from the Middle East? Could be a Kumbaya moment!

You know Ricky, believe it or not I'm often impressed by the depth of your knowledge. I mean that. You have an incredible range of facts at your disposal which I truly believe come as much out of your brain as they do out of the Google search key. But you seem to be one of those people who can describe tree after tree...and be totally myopic when it comes to the forest. In essence, no matter what anybody says here, you will argue with one or more facts they themselves found, already knew, or came up with, and totally miss the big picture (such as the actual argument they're making).

Now this doesn't mean I think you're stupid, and I admit, I am not the most articulate person on Redscape (far from it, I will willingly and freely concede). So perhaps my arguments on the subject at hand were simply not clear enough. Very well, then, I shall clear it up, so you can see the forest without having to look for your specs.

But first, Ricky, I must ask you a question that I very strongly urge you not to dodge. The question is: are you arguing in favor of a foreign policy that is 100% ethical? Or simply an "ethical as humanly possible under the circumstances, but where it isn't, judge it on a case-by-case basis" foreign policy?

I admit it is possible that I have taken you to mean an absolute. You may very well have meant the latter option, instead, and I missed it. That could be....

hacker

The question is: are you arguing in favor of a foreign policy that is 100% ethical? Or simply an "ethical as humanly possible under the circumstances, but where it isn't, judge it on a case-by-case basis" foreign policy?

here's what i said to RayJay earlier... I couldn't be clearer..

Hackers point is that there are endless contradictions that cause the lack of credibility.
You seem to make the point that these contradictions are necessary for reasons of "real politik".
I'm not entirely disagreeing with you on that Ray. I'm simply saying that the more one compromises on foundational values, the less these values have any credence.
Long term, if the promotion and support of democracy, self determination, and human rights is right, and I think it is.... then every time a Saddam or Saud or Mubarek is propped up at the expense of these values the less credence the nations that seek to promote them have.... And eventually this drives people into extreme positions espoused by people like Hezbollah, ISIS and Al Queda

There is always context for foreign policy decisions. In a modern world where less is hidden from the populace its harder to espouse certain values and act in opposition to those values because the hypocrisies are generally well known. and the problem in the Middle East is that the youth have not seen the West act in accordance with the values they trumpet. Nor has the West supported or nurtured groups that seek to change the Middle East and make it safe for democracy.
So the alternatives that grow up are those nurtured by extremists and/or by the ruling parties who seek to employ religion as one tool to control their populace.

hacker

Now this doesn't mean I think you're stupid

Since I keep repeating things to you that i wrote before, i'm concerned with your reading comprehension.

bbauska

Are you advocating that we be energy independent from the Middle East? Could be a Kumbaya moment!

I've refered to that several times through this discussion. The fact is that although
the US is now a net exporter, a significant portion of US oil still comes from KSA.
http://www.resilience.org/stories/2014- ... since-2007

There are all kinds of ways a nation needs to work to secure its ability to act as independently as possible. One way is to ensure there is sufficient balance in trade relations, including energy production, to ensure that no nation has too much influence because it is indispensable.
This is difficult. Resources are not spread evenly throughout the world and the modern world sees certain nations have almost monopoly on some resources . (China is in this position with many rare earth aluminates for instance.)

One of the interesting things about the move to alternative energies and energy conservation is that both help nations like the US and Germany become less dependent on nations who's values are not entirely compatible with theirs...