This part of Bush’s speech at the United Nation General Assembly needs to be thought about:
In this young century, our world needs a new definition of security. Our security is not merely found in spheres of influence, or some balance of power. The security of our world is found in the advancing rights of mankind.
Paul Krugman says “He doesn’t really believe that.” because Bush doesn´t live up to the claim when he supports Russias Putin. Other see reason to be concerned.
In a letter to the NYT Editor Benjamin Solomon explains:
In the context of recent history, many will interpret this to mean the United States’ leading a group of countries to bring a version of freedom to the designated country in accord with American interests and aims.
Such a policy would also signify a marked change in the United Nations Charter and the prospect of unending war.
For the American body politic, such a policy declares that the conceptual position with which the administration now defends the Iraq war will be permanently central to America’s role in the world.
Most people in this world will not agree to have their “rights of mankind” “advanced” to the fundamentalistic faith based George Warmonger Bush version. Those who do not have the gift of basic rights today for sure would like to have it. But what price are they willing to pay?
Unlike during the last ideologic world struggle, the Cold War, this doctrine leaves the US without an ideologic coalition. Has any other country a vision of advancing rights of mankind that is compatible with Bush’? I hope not, but the power of the United States may be big enough to intermediatly press others into this framework.