“In World War II we fought to make the world safer, then worked to rebuild it. As we wage war today to keep the world safe from terror, we must also work to make the world a better place for all its citizens.”
President Bush – Washington, D.C. (Inter'American Development Bank) – March 14, 2002
|WCJ Comments The National Security Strategy of the United States of America Report - 17 September 2002|
|No.||The NSS Report||Comment|
|1||A world where some live in comfort and plenty, while half of the human race lives on less than $2 a day, is neither just nor stable. Including all of the world's poor in an expanding circle of development — and opportunity is a moral imperative and one of the top priorities of U.S. international policy.||Charity, compassion and generosity should not be confused with justice. This confusion has lead to many conflicts and has caused Mankind much suffering. The envy‐based philosophy of Socialism is based on such confusion.|
The issues of justice arise only out of a relationship between people. A person can inflict an injustice on another person by interference with his freedom, person, or property against his will or by failure to fulfill a contractual obligation. Also injustice can be caused by a person acting in a judicial capacity, by failure to resolve a dispute justly.
Issues of justice do not arise just because one person is richer than another person. If, however, one person is so poor as to suffer hardship and another person is sufficiently rich to be able to alleviate the other person's hardship, then he should help such person on the grounds of charity and compassion. Such alleviation of genuine hardship is also a duty of government.
People in position of hardship, where the hardship is not caused by other people, are not victims of injustice. They are lucky that other people have resources to help them.
In those cases where “poverty” is purely relative, that is, some people are richer than others, then those who are less rich should not envy those who are richer than themselves, and governments should not use their powers to pander to envy.
What is true of persons in this case is true of nations.
But freedom of movement of individuals across national frontiers and free contract‐based commercial interactions between people, rather than “master‐and‐servant” based “employment” will lead to a natural creation and distribution of wealth, between nations and individuals.
|2||Decades of massive development assistance have failed to spur economic growth in the poorest countries. Worse, development aid has often served to prop up failed policies, relieving the pressure for reform and perpetuating misery. Results of aid are typically measured in dollars spent by donors, not in the rates of growth and poverty reduction achieved by recipients. These are the indicators of a failed strategy.||This is true.|
|3||Working with other nations, the United States is confronting this failure. We forged a new consensus at the U.N. Conference on Financing for Development in Monterrey that the objectives of assistance — and the strategies to achieve those objectives — must change.||That is a positive development.|
|4||This Administration's goal is to help unleash the productive potential of individuals in all nations. Sustained growth and poverty reduction is impossible without the right national policies. Where governments have implemented real policy changes, we will provide significant new levels of assistance. The United States and other developed countries should set an ambitious and specific target: to double the size of the world's poorest economies within a decade.||Freedom of movement, establishment of a workable legal framework and banking systems at national and supra-national level would lead to a more equal distribution of wealth around the world.|
|5||a||The United States Government will pursue these major strategies to achieve this goal:||These strategies are undoubtedly well‐meant. But not all human well‐meant intentions yield the intended results. It is naive to think that the American government can directly transplant American ideas to other countries, and achieve success. Nor is everything American necessarily good even for the American people themselves.|
While establishment of honest, competent and effective government in all countries of the world is necessary, this should not be confused with americanization or westernization1, which are not.
Different countries have different customs, traditions, and way of life, which could be different from those of the United States, but not necessarily inferior to those of the United States.
Use of alcohol, sexual promiscuity and homosexuality are seen as abominations even by some American citizens, and will not be welcome in some countries.
Nor is the philosophy of “industrial relations” or “labor relations” with its trade'unionism, strikes, and labour disputes is to be seen as a blessing which has to be transplanted to other countries.
Nor would it be right to expect that other countries' governments become honest, competent and effective, while the Government of the United States will be exempt from such requirements.
The “policing” of governments should not be done by one nation, motivated by its “national interests”, but by a supra'national police, and a supra'national system of justice, which will not favor any nation at other nations expense, but will see them all equal under the law.
This is welcome.
This is good.
This is good.
This is right.
One of the factors in the spread of AIDS is American and European sex tourism. This activity should be stopped and prevented.
Education is important. But one of the most important aspects of education is moral education. The United States have a very poor record in this area, which resulted in the spread of AIDS and other sexually transmitted diseases, as well as of use of alcohol and drugs, in the USA and around the world.
These are good intentions.
1) “Westernization” means promotion among young people of “pop” music, mini skirts among women, use of alcohol and drugs, sexual promiscuity and homosexuality. These behavioral patterns are now widespread in the Western Democracies, and Western politicians, who seek to retain their waning popularity, which in the past was based on the myths of “right, left and center”, are increasingly rejecting morality and boasting their tolerance to drugs and homosexuality or even openly declaring that they themselves use drugs or are “gay” (homosexual) to attract the votes of the corrupted and mislead by them youth.
There is also a belief among some Western political theorists that promoting this culture among the Muslim youth in the Middle East will lead to “democratization” of the “non‐modern regimes” and a “shift of the balance of power” to “favor the West”. This theory is actively promoted by the Likud Zionists in their attempts to weaken the Arab and other Islamic states and to further their objectives of territorial expansion of Israel.