 | ||||||||
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
| | ||||||||
|
Nor Should They Be |
|
If the US builds a car that becomes popular in that country, on what basis can Americans assume the right to demand that all countries permit free imports of this car, and that it become the world's de facto standard for automobiles? Why, just beause an auto is popular in the US, must it become popular in the entire world? And by what right can the US accuse other nations of being 'against free trade'? if they don't want American cars? What right does a foreign product have to become the standard in other countries? There is no practical or moral law that says I must use an American (foreign) product as the standard in my own country. The situation is the same with Internet services, like Google, Facebook, YouTube, etc. These are AMERICAN products, designed in the US for Americans. They are not a world standard, nor should they be. Facebook was created to permit Americans to form online social networks. Fine. But what if I live in Poland, or Canada, or Singapore? I don't want to form social networks with Americans; I want to do that with my own friends in my own country, and I don't need an American (or any other foreign) system to do that for me. I can develop my own, one designed for my language and culture and my particular circumstances. Google is just a search engine; it's very popular in the US but that doesn't mean it should become the world standard. The Americans would like that to happen, but there is no good reason that it should. Baidu is larger, has twice as many users, and by all accounts is just as efficient, so why shouldn't Baidu become the de facto world standard for Internet search? Facebook, Twitter, YouTube and others are the same. They are US products developed by Americans for the American market. There is no reason they should attempt to, or be permitted to, rule the world. Moreover, most of these platforms have close ties to the US government and to the CIA, and function as extensions of US foreign policy. Since the US looks after only its own interests, that makes these products dangerous to many other governments. And by what right does the US government accuse China of censorship or curtailing freedom of speech, if China doesn't want to use their Internet services but want to develop local products? Again, there is no practical or moral law that says I must use an American (foreign) product as the standard in my own country. That's not censorship nor it is a violation of anyone's human rights, but the US presents it this way. The US position is that if you restrict any of their goods or services, then you are against free trade, are violating human rights, are engaging in illegal censorship, and many other bad things. And of course, that's all nonsense. The US has this incredibly arrogant sense of entitlement, telling themselves that everything they create is the best - not only for them, but for the entire world. Before the fincancial crisis broke, the US was pushing Canada very hard to relax and deregulate the banking system so as to be able to take part in all the money to be made in the subprime markets. It would seem to be to Canada's credit that the Canadians declined the offer. But it is always like this. The US way is the one way, the only way, the right and true way, the way God intended when He created the universe. Well, it may be good for the US, though you'd have a hard time arguing their banking deregulation was a good thing for them, but that doesn't mean it's good for anyone else. The US puts enormous pressure on many countries, in an attempt to force them to accept American standards as universal. They largely succeeded with some accounting standards because companies needed to adhere to these if they wanted to be listed on the US stock exchanges. The Americans have for years applied great pressure to Europe and other nations to accept genetically-modified grains. These were created in the US by US companies but they don't want to keep the product at home. Instead, they want to force the world to change to the American way and to accept American thinking and American standards. Not every country wants to do that, and in fact there has been virulent opposition to these US food products. But the Americans won't quit because their large grain companies want to control the world's food markets. The US makes incessant and forceful demands on many countries for many different things. In few of these cases can the Americans argue that they are 'right'; it's simply a matter of their trying to force the world into the US mold. Do want we want, do what we do, and become like us. Many nations don't want that. And often, the US demands on a country, like on China to revalue the RMB, can be very harmful. The US did the same thing with Japan, forcing it to sign the Plaza Accord, with disastrous results for Japan's economy. But the US doesn't care about that. If it's good for America, then it's good for everybody. The US knowingly and deliberately stopped Japan's growth and sabotaged its economy - because that was best for US supremacy. With the US, all things are decided by what is in the "US National Interest". Seldom, if ever, are any other interests taken into account. The US wanted missile bases in Poland and the Czech Republic. Fully 85% of the population in those countries was against this move, but the US applied so much pressure that the governments acceded. These governments may well be voted out now, but the US got what it wanted. No interests, other than those of the US, enter into any of these equations. The UK finally is recognising that they must 'stand up' to the US much more than they have been, must take a tougher stand and refuse to be bullied into simply accepting US demands. All countries need to come to this realisation, and soon. |