Why the U.S. interferes in the domestic political affairs of other countries? - American expert explains - EXCLUSIVE - VIDEO | Eurasia Diary

Why the U.S. interferes in the domestic political affairs of other countries? - American expert explains - EXCLUSIVE - VIDEO | Eurasia Diary - ednews.net

21 August, Tuesday


Why the U.S. interferes in the domestic political affairs of other countries? - American expert explains - EXCLUSIVE - VIDEO

Specialist view

A- A A+
American political expert Jason Katz answered Eurasia Diary’s questions on the responsibilities of the superpowers including the UN in the settlement of the armed-conflicts. 
 
- What is the role and responsibility of the United States and other UN Security Council member countries in the numerous conflicts that are taking place in the world?
 
I very much believe in the foreign policy developed during the Truman administration. America’s post war policy vis-à-vis the rest of the world began with the Marshal plan. It began with the restoration of Japan.
 
America takes steps to be a peacekeeper, the guarantee of democracy and freedom. I very much believe in that role and I think the United Sates lost the site of that role for a while. 
 
America doesn’t need to impose American governance, American values on other countries. It is proven that it is ineffective.
 
The United States invaded Iraq for the second time to bring democracy to the Iraqi people and we were very much enrolled and intersected in voting. Vote is a function of democracy, it is not democracy itself. The media paid much attention to those elections: they showed the Iraqis with their purple fingers, because they voted. We see that it was too early to celebrate the victory of democracy in Iraq. In a couple of decades, Iraq is not close to democracy. In Iraq, unrest continues. Now the country is subject to the influence of external forces.
 
- May be there is no need to intervene in the internal policy of any countries? How do you assess the intervention of superpowers in the affairs of sovereign states?
 
- The American government, especially after the Second World War, cannot calmly watch bloodshed in other countries. The US supports those who need support.
 
There wouldn’t be the Syria crisis or war with ISIS and any Russia's involvement in the region, if the US troops had not left Iraq. Our big mistake was to leave Iraq ahead of time. The same thing happens in Afghanistan. Now we are responsible to these people.
 
US repeated the same mistake in Ukraine. If they gave up their nuclear weapons, which was their biggest bargaining chip on the international stage, we gave them a guarantee, that we would protect them, and then we didn’t.
 
On the other hand, I do not believe that the US should intervene everywhere. I think the US intervention should be careful, thoughtful, methodical consideration and only in case of bloodshed in the country. Ideally, of course, sovereign countries themselves have to deal with their internal affairs. I think that the UN intervenes to stop the bloodshed, and simply into the internal affairs of other nations. They are concerned about the results of the elections, the composition of ministers and so on in other countries.
 
- Do you think that the UN is able to carry out its responsibilities?
 
- I think that the United Nations is incompetent to do something. The only thing that member countries can do is veto. After the veto, the discussion is canceled.
 
If we want the UN to be an arbiter of international security and international conflicts, it must be given a real power to make decisions and fulfill them. 
 
We can see in many respects that the UN resolutions don’t mean very much. There are UN resolutions on Nagorno-Karabakh, that were made 25 years ago and they are ignored by Armenia. It is about the lack of mechanisms of the UN to prevent this tendency.

Eurasia Diary

EurasiaDiary © Must be hyperlinked when used.

Follow us:
Twitter: @Eurasia_Eng
Facebook: EurasiaEng


Загрузка...


loading...