<story><title>The End of Hypocrisy</title><url>http://cryptome.org/2013/10/end-hypocrisy-with-leaks.htm</url></story><parent_chain><item><author>rayiner</author><text>&amp;gt;  That’s because most of the world today lives within an order that the United States built, one that is both underwritten by U.S. power and legitimated by liberal ideas. American commitments to the rule of law, democracy, and free trade are embedded in the multilateral institutions that the country helped establish after World War II, including the World Bank, the International Monetary Fund, the United Nations, and later the World Trade Organization.&lt;p&gt;Gee, all of this sounds pretty good! But as the author acknowledges, this is all &amp;quot;underwritten by U.S. power.&amp;quot; I couldn&amp;#x27;t have put it better myself. If the cost of maintaining that power is some hypocrisy, then I say: there is nothing wrong with hypocrisy.&lt;p&gt;The article reaches the core issue but has trouble grappling with it. Would any other approach be better than the one the U.S. is currently taking? Would it be beneficial to the developing nations of the world for the U.S. to abdicate its hegemony, leaving a power vacuum for Russia or China? Or would it instead be better for the U.S. to stop with the hipocrisy, and be clear about its naked intentions to maintain its power? Would the existing multilateral order survive that revelation? Or is the current, if hypocritical, state of affairs the best: for the U.S. to foster the current international order while acting behind the scenes to maintain the power that &amp;quot;underwrites&amp;quot; that order?</text></item></parent_chain><comment><author>betterunix</author><text>&amp;quot;Would it be beneficial to the developing nations of the world for the U.S. to abdicate its hegemony, leaving a power vacuum for Russia or China?&amp;quot;&lt;p&gt;The US is not limiting itself to keeping Russia and China in check, and that is the problem.  Hardly anyone would claim that the US should abandon Taiwan to its fate.  Yet at the same time, why is the US military being used to expand the reach of US businesses?  Why are we in the business of support cruel dictators, and even overthrowing democratic governments in favor of dictatorships?  Why continue the embargo on Cuba?  Why do we ignore the UN when it suits us, then use the fact that a country ignores the UN as a pretense to attack it?</text></comment>
<story><title>The End of Hypocrisy</title><url>http://cryptome.org/2013/10/end-hypocrisy-with-leaks.htm</url></story><parent_chain><item><author>rayiner</author><text>&amp;gt;  That’s because most of the world today lives within an order that the United States built, one that is both underwritten by U.S. power and legitimated by liberal ideas. American commitments to the rule of law, democracy, and free trade are embedded in the multilateral institutions that the country helped establish after World War II, including the World Bank, the International Monetary Fund, the United Nations, and later the World Trade Organization.&lt;p&gt;Gee, all of this sounds pretty good! But as the author acknowledges, this is all &amp;quot;underwritten by U.S. power.&amp;quot; I couldn&amp;#x27;t have put it better myself. If the cost of maintaining that power is some hypocrisy, then I say: there is nothing wrong with hypocrisy.&lt;p&gt;The article reaches the core issue but has trouble grappling with it. Would any other approach be better than the one the U.S. is currently taking? Would it be beneficial to the developing nations of the world for the U.S. to abdicate its hegemony, leaving a power vacuum for Russia or China? Or would it instead be better for the U.S. to stop with the hipocrisy, and be clear about its naked intentions to maintain its power? Would the existing multilateral order survive that revelation? Or is the current, if hypocritical, state of affairs the best: for the U.S. to foster the current international order while acting behind the scenes to maintain the power that &amp;quot;underwrites&amp;quot; that order?</text></item></parent_chain><comment><author>eevilspock</author><text>So you believe might makes right? Or that right doesn&amp;#x27;t matter, so long as you are on the side of and can benefit from might?</text></comment>