G. Edward Griffin - The Fearful Master - PDF Archive

the following question: "Would it be better for the U.S. to keep independent in world
affairs, or to work closely with other nations?"
How many people saw through the intellectual deception of the presumption that in order
to work closely with other nations, we cannot stay independent? Apparently not many, for
eighty percent of the answers favored "working closely with other nations." 5
With the use of such clichés and loaded phrases, many Americans have been led to
believe that this country is so strong it can defend and subsidize half the world, while at
the same time believing it is so weak and "interdependent" that it cannot survive without
pooling its sovereignty and independence with those it must subsidize. If wanting no part
of this kind of "logic" is isolationism, then it is indeed time that it was brought back into
vogue.
The UN provides a valuable vehicle for contact between nations. This may be true, but is it
necessary? What is wrong with the traditional method of maintaining contact between
nations through the use of ambassadors, envoys and a diplomatic corps? The United
States has such contacts in all the major capitals of the world. Why not use them? In fact
the traditional approach is far more likely to produce results than the debating arena of the
United Nations. Consider what would happen if every time a small spat arose between a
husband and wife they called the entire neighborhood together and took turns airing their
complaints in front of the whole group. Gone would be any chance of reconciliation.
Instead of working out their problems, the ugly necessity of saving face, proving points,
and winning popular sympathy would likely drive them further apart. Likewise, public
debates in the UN intensify international tensions. By shouting their grievances at each
other, countries allow their differences to assume a magnitude they would otherwise never
have reached. Quiet diplomacy is always more conducive to progress than diplomacy on
the stage.
Nationalism fosters jealousy, suspicion and hatred of other countries which in turn leads to
war. Here again we are dealing with a problem of semantics and false logic. If we merely
substitute the word "independence" for "nationalism," this cliché begins to fall apart right
away. We should be desirous of not having men hate each other because they live in
another country, but what kind of logic assumes that loving one's own country means
hating all others? Why can't we be proud of America as an independent nation, and also
have a feeling of brotherhood and respect for other peoples around the world' As a matter
of fact, haven't Americans done just that for the past two hundred years? What country
has poured out more treasure to other lands, opened its doors to more immigrants, and
sent more of its citizens as missionaries, teachers and doctors than ours? Are we now to
believe that love of our own country will cause us to hate the peoples of other lands?
In order for a man to be a good neighbor within his community, he does not have to love
other men's wives and children as be does his own.
We must support the UN because it is working to eliminate the roots of war--ignorance,
poverty, hunger, and disease. The fallacy in this argument is the assertion that ignorance,
poverty, hunger and disease are the roots of war. Some of the bloodiest wars of history
have been fought between nations that were highly educated, affluent and healthy. What
country hovering on the brink of poverty and disease ever started a major war? How could
it? To wage war requires armaments and large armies--hardly the products of destitute
states. As for the thought that low educational standards and lack of international
understanding (whatever the means) are the cause of war, consider the fact that Germany