I just noticed an interesting parallel between the events of recent TrekLit and a recent event from real life… I heard a news story about how the countries of the southern hemisphere are trying to create a SATO – like NATO, but for the south… Anyway, it really reminded me of the creation of the Typhon Pact in ASD and novels onward… Neat huh
Recent Real Life event reminicent of TrekLit Event *SPOILERS*
- Thread starter mjmjr
- Start date
You're sixty or so years late there partner, NATO was created in response to the Warsaw Pact which was created by the USSR and it's satellite states, so technically the Typhon Pact and the United Federation of Planets and there relationship is similar to that.
and there was CENTO and SEATO in the 60s. the CENTO (Central Treaty Organisation) was between Iran, Iraq, Pakistan and the UK. it lasted from '55 to '79.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CENTO
SEATO (the South-East Asian Treaty Organisation) included both the US and UK as well as Australia and New Zealand, Pakistan, France, Thailand, Bangladesh and the Phillipines. it last from '54 to '77.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SEATO
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CENTO
SEATO (the South-East Asian Treaty Organisation) included both the US and UK as well as Australia and New Zealand, Pakistan, France, Thailand, Bangladesh and the Phillipines. it last from '54 to '77.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SEATO
You sure? With Chavez, Castro, and some of these other crazies in the mix, you never know. :-/
When Articles of the Federation was first released, there was a minor controversy going on in the U.S. Senate at the time. Democratic Senators were filibustering some of President Bush's appointments to, if I recall correctly, the federal judiciary, and as a result the Republican majority was threatening to re-write the entire Senate rulebook to throw out the filibuster. Ironically, one of Articles of the Federation's subplots involved the Federation Council refusing to confirm any of President Bacco's appointments to the sub-councils. At the time, I was struck by the similarity between real life and the novel -- though, of course, the events of the novel had been written months before that controversy turned up.
^ I had a similar reaction when, just months before Losing the Peace was released, Texas Governor Rick Perry suggested that Texans might want to consider seceding from the Union.
Unfortunately I doubt he read your book and realized that was a dumb thing to say. But he's a pretty dumb opportunist himself, so, yeah...
True, but they would still not be a militaristic opponent of NATO, as the Typhon Pace could be for the UFP. The only major benefit for SATO I can think of would be for economic solidarity and competition.
Well, I doubt he's read many books...
I wouldn't rule that out until they and their regimes are dead and gone.
First off -- bear in mind that the Typhon Pact might not be a militaristic opponent of the Federation and Klingon Empire.
Secondly: I'm presuming that everyone is referring to the Union of South American Nations (la Unión de Naciones Suramericanas, or UNASUR), which is an intergovernmental union being modeled along the lines of the European Union.
Thirdly: Raúl & Fidel Castro and Hugo Chávez are the leaders of exactly two nations. The Republic of Cuba is not a member of UNASUR because it's not part of South America, it's part of the Caribbean. The Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela is only one country out of 12. It's true that Venezuela has been a leading voice in establishing UNASUR and promoting Latin American immigration. But while President Chávez has allies in President Evo Morales of Bolivia and President Rafael Correa of Ecuador, the fact remains that he also has major opponents in the government of Colombia, which is also a member of UNASUR, and that numerous other countries have far more moderate positions on relations with the US than Venezuela. It's also important to remember that a 2008 poll put public confidence in Chávez as a world leader at 26% in Argentina, 12% in Brazil, and 6% in Mexico.
And on top of that, while Chávez's Venezuela is an illiberal democracy at best and an elected dictatorship at worst, it's important to remember that he and other Latin American leaders do have very real, valid arguments against U.S. imperialism and domination in South America (read up about the Sept. 11, 1973 coup in Chile, for just one example, or the history of the Untied Fruit Company), and that he is an elected leader.
South America is a large continent with governments that run the full gambit of political ideologies. To act as though Chávez's presence in UNASUR means that UNASUR is likely to be a military rival to the United States is an absurd act of stereotyping at best -- and comes across as being hostile to the idea of South American sovereignty at worst.
Oh for God's sake. Trying to act like I don't even want South Americans to have their own countries is the worst kind of straw-man building.
But when you have a power that is getting tighter and tighter with Iran and doing so for the direct purpose of opposing the United States (and let me remind you that Iran is not only pursuing nuclear weapons but is already a state sponsor of terrorism), and is forming ties with other nations in South America to encourage that attitude, you DO have a potentially very serious problem if Chavez and his allies are able to wield sufficient power through this alliance that moderate powers as regards relations to the rest of the world like Colombia end up being shunted aside.
It is not inevitable that it would go this way, but it could, and we have to be watching for the threat should it arise.
But when you have a power that is getting tighter and tighter with Iran and doing so for the direct purpose of opposing the United States (and let me remind you that Iran is not only pursuing nuclear weapons but is already a state sponsor of terrorism), and is forming ties with other nations in South America to encourage that attitude, you DO have a potentially very serious problem if Chavez and his allies are able to wield sufficient power through this alliance that moderate powers as regards relations to the rest of the world like Colombia end up being shunted aside.
It is not inevitable that it would go this way, but it could, and we have to be watching for the threat should it arise.
It's not a straw-man argument; it's how what you're saying comes across. The South American nations have a long history of being controlled and interfered with by the United States, and UNASUR represents one of their best chances to establish themselves on the world stage as truly independent nations. Attacking UNASUR out of a premature fear that Chávez will turn the entire continent against the U.S. really does come across as being akin to being hostile to the idea of the U.S. no longer controlling their governments.
Do we have to watch out to make sure that they don't become a threat? Of course we have to be watching. We have to be watching everything; I'm sure that the U.S. has people in Canada whose job it is to make sure, just in case, that the Canadian Forces don't try to invade.
But let's not sit here and act like Chávez represents mainstream South American opinion, and let's not act like that's a likely potential threat. Venezuela is a diplomatic problem, certainly, but, 1. Venezuela's power is waning due to the economic crisis and the lower costs of oil, and 2. a hell of a lot of South American governments do not go along with his foreign policy at all, especially after this recent crisis in Honduras and all the allegations that he's funding FARC in Colombia.
UNASUR is no more likely to become a threat to the U.S. than the African Union.
ETA:
And let's not forget this, either:
The easiest way to turn someone into an enemy is to assume that they have hostile intent. The easiest way to convince the Union of South American Nations that they should be hostile to the U.S. is to assume that they're a threat. The easiest way to create a problem is if we assume that the Union of South American Nations equals Hugo Chávez.
It is only by reacting towards UNASUR with rational, proportional responses, and not by assuming that they represent a threat simply because they haven't thrown out Chávez, that we can make sure they don't become our enemies. We have to be realistic and remember that while anything is possible, not anything is probable. And South America becoming a serious enemy of the United States is just not all that probable -- especially considering how many of them depend on the U.S. for trade.
And, in that regard, makes the parallel between the Typhon Pact and Union of South American Nations all the more striking.