Korean Job Discussion Forums

gang ah jee · Joined: 14 Jan 2003 Location: city of paper

I've been wondering recently about the role of the principle of universality in human affairs - that is, the idea that we should hold ourselves to the same standards to which we hold others.

Most people, as far as I can tell, accept this in their daily lives as individuals, at least on principle. Nobody wants to be known as a hypocrite, after all, and even cursory reflection shows that at least some application of the principle is necessary for society to function in any kind of civil manner. It's also a fundamental teaching of the religions of billions of people worldwide. Of course, many, if not most people do not actually follow the principle even some of the time, but this doesn't invalidate its importance as a guide to action.

So how about for states then? Does the principle of universality apply to the actions of aggregations of individuals? I don't know if the principle of universality has ever actually been practiced in international relations, but that's not the issue. The question is, should it be practiced? Should we endeavour to hold our own countries to the same standards (if not higher) that we expect from others? And if not, why not?

(No third option in the poll - 'sometimes' is the same as 'no'. And if you reject the principle of universality in all aspects of life, please explain.)

Gopher · Joined: 04 Jun 2005

With so many political complexities, shifting interests and alliances, not to mention transcultural issues, to confront, the question might be can we apply universality in world affairs?

gang ah jee · Joined: 14 Jan 2003 Location: city of paper

Gopher · Joined: 04 Jun 2005

You are speaking of "hypocrisy" and "aggression" and not "complexity" or "complications," so it is not entirely clear.

Can you get into specifics? We founded the League of Nations and then the United Nations on "no more aggressive wars." Everyone who participated seemed to agree. But something always seems to come up.

The Chinese would have you look the other way if they moved on Taiwan, to cite but one example, because it would not be "aggressive" but rather "rightfully reestablishing control over a rebel province."

Hezbollah, to cite another, does not even accept that its seizing the Israelis in 2006 constituted "aggression" but rather "defensiveness"; and I believe quite a few posters here were and are more than willing to hang Tel Aviv for its "aggressive" response. The point is this: what do you do when two sides who strongly resent each other each allege the other acted "aggressively" and claim "defensiveness" for themselves?

This entire board is also more than willing to lambast "American aggression" in the Middle East at present (in some cases correctly so; in others not). But no one has anything to suggest or say about the non-state aggression that triggered it all -- to raise another issue on "aggression" and its complexities.

So if a non-state actor (or, in Hezbollah's case, for example, a non-state actor with other states' covert backing and encouragement) moves aggressively...then what?

And I have multiple leftist friends who will take every opportunity to make sure we all understand that anything that contributes to others' unhappiness (for example, failing to provide everyone in the Third-World socioeconomic equality -- that is, redistribute the wealth) constitutes "aggression" and also "violence." What about that? What I am asking is if you have taken into account those who would move to hijack your proposal to ensure that "aggressive policies" and especially "capitalist aggressors" are dealt with, too. And how about "arms dealers" while we are at it?

I do not believe any of this would work, Gang ah jee. Jimmy Carter attempted in very good faith to do this. And they hanged him for it; and not just in the American political arena.

Ultimately, you are really talking about "world peace." And I just do not see it breaking out on planet Earth. Not ready for it; too many conflicts and entrenched disagreements.

gang ah jee · Joined: 14 Jan 2003 Location: city of paper

Just to be clear, I'm asking whether people think that the axiom 'treat others as you would be treated' should be as applicable in foreign affairs as it is in daily life. Obviously, I think that it should be, but I'm willing to consider arguments to the contrary. I'm not suggesting that his axiom somehow gives us special insights into complicated conflicts.

So you asked for specifics. Let's take the US/UK invasion of Iraq. This action was undertaken in violation of the UN charter, and appears to most people in the world to have been war of aggression, conducted under some quite flimsy pretenses. I understand that you would agree with this also. Now, it's safe to say that no country wants to be invaded, and on principle, they oppose the idea of sovereign nations invading other countries for strategic and/or economic gain. It's also safe to say that most people in the world would agree with this also, in much the same way that everyone would agree that they would not wish to be robbed, nor would they condone robbery as a matter of principle. Perhaps some committed criminals and sociopaths would argue to the contrary, but in the most part it's simply a truism.

Given then that the US and UK have recently invaded another sovereign nation, on what grounds could they protest if China is to invade Taiwan, no matter how contrived China's justifications? Certainly they have no moral case, since they are themselves no strangers to invasion and occupation, and any objections will be dismissed outright by China as simple self-interest. And, of course, any US/UK appeals to the UN charter will carry no weight.

Similarly, as we've just seen, the US has lost a lot of face to Iran, where Ahmedinejad was (yes, cynically) able to make a very stark contrast to the world between long term torture at Guantanamo and British sailors going home for Easter, well-fed in gaudy suits, carrying bags of souvenirs (which were, according to one of the detainees, 'crap').

tomato · Posted: Thu Apr 12, 2007 2:29 am Post subject:

I can't understand why some nations should be allowed to be nuclear powers and other nations shouldn't.

Ya-ta Boy · Joined: 16 Jan 2003 Location: Established in 1994

gang ah jee · Joined: 14 Jan 2003 Location: city of paper

Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee · Joined: 25 May 2003

Gopher · Joined: 04 Jun 2005

gang ah jee · Joined: 14 Jan 2003 Location: city of paper

Gopher · Joined: 04 Jun 2005

gang ah jee · Joined: 14 Jan 2003 Location: city of paper

Ya-ta Boy · Joined: 16 Jan 2003 Location: Established in 1994

Ya-ta Boy · Joined: 16 Jan 2003 Location: Established in 1994