Hello all. I'm back in the swing of things with some International Relations theory readings for my International Security class. This is a good thing, since I've no IR background at all. While us international law/cooperation-loving types tend to veer away from too much capital-r Realism, you can't help but include a good dose of it in your outlook. And tonight I've discovered this stunning passage from Morganthau which I must, must share with you:
"Political realism refuses to identify the moral aspirations of a particular nation with the moral laws that govern the universe. As it distinguishes between truth and opinion, so it distinguishes between truth and idolatry. All nations are tempted-and few have been able to resist the temptation for long-to clothe their own particular aspirations and actions in the moral purposes of the universe. To know that nations are subject to the moral law is one thing, while to pretend to know with certainty what is good and evil in the relations among nations is quite another. There is a world of difference between the belief that all nations stand under the judgment of God, inscrutable to the human mind, and the blasphemous conviction that God is always on one's side and that what one wills oneself cannot fail to be willed by God also.
The lighthearted equation between a particular nationalism and the counsels of Providence is morally indefensible, for it is that very sin of pride against which the Greek tragedians and the Biblical prophets have warned rulers and ruled. That equation is also politically pernicious, for it is liable to engender the distortion in judgment which, in the blindness of crusading frenzy, destroys nations and civilizations-in the name of moral principle, ideal, or God himself."
-from Hans J. Morganthau's Six Principles of Political Realism
Saturday, September 12, 2009
Friday, July 31, 2009
recent R2P debates at the UN
So it turns out, according to this copy of The Economist, that UN General Assembly president Miguel d'Escoto IS NOT A FAN of R2P and is TOTALLY using this July's General Assembly meetings to bring the doctrine to debate, much to Ban Ki-Moon's chagrin.
It is a General Assembly showdown, my friends!
UN leaders agreed, kind of, upon the "responsibility to protect"- or R2P- doctrine in 2005, which says that states have the responsibility to protect their citizens against war crimes, crimes against humanity, and genocide, and that if they don't, other states have the right to intervene. In the aftermath of genocides and crimes against humanity like the Rwandan genocide, the doctrine sounds prudent, humane, and arriving none too soon. In the aftermath of wars like the present one in Iraq, sometimes justified by the Bush administration as a war to protect the citizens of Iraq from a cruel dictator, R2P sounds dangerous, an excuse for large powers to intervene in the affairs and sovereignty of smaller states for their own self-interest.
Ban Ki-Moon thinks it's humane. D'Escoto, along with a lot of not-quite-so-powerful states, is skeptical.
A few thoughts:
1. I still don't understand how R2P fits into international law. Is it just a more specific way to enforce international humanitarian law and the genocide convention? Does it cover human rights law as well?
2. The article notes that R2P is "carefully crafted" to respect the UN Charter and therefore the Security Council, enshrining the current power structure of which smaller states are justly skeptical. Have I mentioned that I'm a big fan of Security Council reform? Down with the P5 and their lousy veto!
3. The article mentioned that Russia used R2P to justify its incursion into Georgia last August. While Russia was not the aggressor, it certainly acted aggressively and escalated a conflict that increased regional tensions and caused death and suffering in Georgia, even as it attempted to protect the people of South Ossetia and Abkhazia. Recently reminded, thanks to reading a friend's thesis, of the often Orwellian logic (WAR is PEACE) behind warfare, I respect D'Escoto and see that his skepticism must be justified.
But oh well. Giving up on justice is giving up on life, so try we must.
It is a General Assembly showdown, my friends!
UN leaders agreed, kind of, upon the "responsibility to protect"- or R2P- doctrine in 2005, which says that states have the responsibility to protect their citizens against war crimes, crimes against humanity, and genocide, and that if they don't, other states have the right to intervene. In the aftermath of genocides and crimes against humanity like the Rwandan genocide, the doctrine sounds prudent, humane, and arriving none too soon. In the aftermath of wars like the present one in Iraq, sometimes justified by the Bush administration as a war to protect the citizens of Iraq from a cruel dictator, R2P sounds dangerous, an excuse for large powers to intervene in the affairs and sovereignty of smaller states for their own self-interest.
Ban Ki-Moon thinks it's humane. D'Escoto, along with a lot of not-quite-so-powerful states, is skeptical.
A few thoughts:
1. I still don't understand how R2P fits into international law. Is it just a more specific way to enforce international humanitarian law and the genocide convention? Does it cover human rights law as well?
2. The article notes that R2P is "carefully crafted" to respect the UN Charter and therefore the Security Council, enshrining the current power structure of which smaller states are justly skeptical. Have I mentioned that I'm a big fan of Security Council reform? Down with the P5 and their lousy veto!
3. The article mentioned that Russia used R2P to justify its incursion into Georgia last August. While Russia was not the aggressor, it certainly acted aggressively and escalated a conflict that increased regional tensions and caused death and suffering in Georgia, even as it attempted to protect the people of South Ossetia and Abkhazia. Recently reminded, thanks to reading a friend's thesis, of the often Orwellian logic (WAR is PEACE) behind warfare, I respect D'Escoto and see that his skepticism must be justified.
But oh well. Giving up on justice is giving up on life, so try we must.
Monday, June 29, 2009
the price of an American life
Of the many, many figures and statements I could quote from Samantha Power's stunning A Problem from Hell: America and the Age of Genocide, I give you this anecdote, from her chapter on the Rwandan genocide. It's for all those of you wondering how, exactly, the worth of an American life stacks up against the lives of Others.
Ready?
"On July 29 President Clinton ordered 200 U.S. troops to occupy the Kigali airport so that relief could be flown directly into Rwanda. Ahead of their arrival, [Major General Romeo] Dallaire, [commander of UN peacekeeping forces in Rwanda,] says he got a phone call. A U.S. officer was wondering precisely how many Rwandans had died. Dallaire was puzzled and asked why he wanted to know. 'We are doing our calculations back here,' the U.S. officer said, 'and one American casualty is worth about 85,000 Rwandan dead.'" (pg 381)
Ready?
"On July 29 President Clinton ordered 200 U.S. troops to occupy the Kigali airport so that relief could be flown directly into Rwanda. Ahead of their arrival, [Major General Romeo] Dallaire, [commander of UN peacekeeping forces in Rwanda,] says he got a phone call. A U.S. officer was wondering precisely how many Rwandans had died. Dallaire was puzzled and asked why he wanted to know. 'We are doing our calculations back here,' the U.S. officer said, 'and one American casualty is worth about 85,000 Rwandan dead.'" (pg 381)
Monday, June 15, 2009
dreaming with Ali Abunimah
Ali Abunimah, Palestinian-American, activist and founder of The Electronic Intifada, lays out his vision for a one-state solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict in his 2006 book One Country. The conflict feels more like a stalemate than ever, a two-state solution the only one most people consider publicly. Most Israelis, many Palestinians, and many activists in disparate camps, bristle at the notion of a one-state solution. So even talking about this right now seems a little crazy.
But One Country is one of the most hopeful things I’ve heard about Israel-Palestine. Abunimah asserts that the issues any peace process must resolve- West Bank settlements, refugees, Arab citizens of Israel, Jerusalem- cannot be truly reconciled with the creation of two states. He then suggests that Israel proper, Gaza, the West Bank, and all of Jerusalem, be turned into one multi-ethnic, democratic, pluralistic state, with protections in place to ensure that the majority group cannot enforce discrimination against the minority.
It sounds idealistic, but Abunimah’s model, unlike most suggested for Israel-Palestine, is rooted in history. South Africa also created a multi-ethnic, multi-party democracy with protections for minorities, ending the injustice of apartheid and a conflict that seemed, as it does in Israel, intractable. “If peace could happen in South Africa,” Desmond Tutu says, “peace could happen anywhere.”
Abunimah does not touch on regional politics in his book. But I suggest that a one-state solution could significantly diffuse the larger regional conflict, too, for three reasons that come to mind.
1. The market for supporting Palestinian militias will dry up. Assuming that, given the choice between real democracy and fighting, most people will in fact choose real democracy, groups like Hamas will either be marginalized or drop their military efforts to become political parties. (Skeptical? Sinn Fein in Northern Ireland. The PLO in the 90’s. Etc.) Then, Syria, Iran, or whoever happens to be arming them will have no means- and perhaps no cause- to arm Palestinians; there will be no “proxy wars” fought in Gaza.
2. Tensions surrounding Palestinian refugees in Lebanon will ease as they are allowed to return to Israel-Palestine peacefully. Historically, Palestinian militias have formed and fought from neighboring states. Palestinians in Lebanon have not been integrated into Lebanese society; a failing of Lebanon, no doubt, but their conflicts with the Lebanese and with the Israelis will end if they’re offered full citizenship and a chance to return.
3. A multi-ethnic state will diffuse anti-Semitism regionally, undermining the potential for ethnicity or religion to play a role in conflicts. Many chaff at the idea of diluting Israel’s Jewish character. And understandably so. But one can argue- as one Jewish, anti-occupation, anti-Zionist activist I know does at his family gatherings- that Jews are actually much safer if they live in peaceful, pluralistic societies than they are in a defensive, militaristic enclave. In a multi-ethnic Israel-Palestine, one could not conflate the state’s actions with the actions of Judaism or “the Jews.” And Israelis, seen as Others in the Arab Middle East, will be far less demonized if they partner with Palestinians to form a working state. What cause will Arab nations, those who’ve claimed to support the Palestinians for the past 60 years partly out of a sense of pan-Arabism, have to consider an Israel-Palestine an enemy state?
But One Country is one of the most hopeful things I’ve heard about Israel-Palestine. Abunimah asserts that the issues any peace process must resolve- West Bank settlements, refugees, Arab citizens of Israel, Jerusalem- cannot be truly reconciled with the creation of two states. He then suggests that Israel proper, Gaza, the West Bank, and all of Jerusalem, be turned into one multi-ethnic, democratic, pluralistic state, with protections in place to ensure that the majority group cannot enforce discrimination against the minority.
It sounds idealistic, but Abunimah’s model, unlike most suggested for Israel-Palestine, is rooted in history. South Africa also created a multi-ethnic, multi-party democracy with protections for minorities, ending the injustice of apartheid and a conflict that seemed, as it does in Israel, intractable. “If peace could happen in South Africa,” Desmond Tutu says, “peace could happen anywhere.”
Abunimah does not touch on regional politics in his book. But I suggest that a one-state solution could significantly diffuse the larger regional conflict, too, for three reasons that come to mind.
1. The market for supporting Palestinian militias will dry up. Assuming that, given the choice between real democracy and fighting, most people will in fact choose real democracy, groups like Hamas will either be marginalized or drop their military efforts to become political parties. (Skeptical? Sinn Fein in Northern Ireland. The PLO in the 90’s. Etc.) Then, Syria, Iran, or whoever happens to be arming them will have no means- and perhaps no cause- to arm Palestinians; there will be no “proxy wars” fought in Gaza.
2. Tensions surrounding Palestinian refugees in Lebanon will ease as they are allowed to return to Israel-Palestine peacefully. Historically, Palestinian militias have formed and fought from neighboring states. Palestinians in Lebanon have not been integrated into Lebanese society; a failing of Lebanon, no doubt, but their conflicts with the Lebanese and with the Israelis will end if they’re offered full citizenship and a chance to return.
3. A multi-ethnic state will diffuse anti-Semitism regionally, undermining the potential for ethnicity or religion to play a role in conflicts. Many chaff at the idea of diluting Israel’s Jewish character. And understandably so. But one can argue- as one Jewish, anti-occupation, anti-Zionist activist I know does at his family gatherings- that Jews are actually much safer if they live in peaceful, pluralistic societies than they are in a defensive, militaristic enclave. In a multi-ethnic Israel-Palestine, one could not conflate the state’s actions with the actions of Judaism or “the Jews.” And Israelis, seen as Others in the Arab Middle East, will be far less demonized if they partner with Palestinians to form a working state. What cause will Arab nations, those who’ve claimed to support the Palestinians for the past 60 years partly out of a sense of pan-Arabism, have to consider an Israel-Palestine an enemy state?
Saturday, June 13, 2009
suspect iranian elections
The BBC quotes Ahmedinejad as blaming the current tensions in Iran on Western propaganda.
Is most of his rhetoric just a way to keep himself in power? There must be some recipe for leaders: create an Other, rally everyone together against the Other, claim yourself a victim of the Other, decry the injustices of the Other, and accuse everyone who questions you of somehow colluding with the Other. Distract everyone from your real aim: amassing and maintaining your own power.
Is most of his rhetoric just a way to keep himself in power? There must be some recipe for leaders: create an Other, rally everyone together against the Other, claim yourself a victim of the Other, decry the injustices of the Other, and accuse everyone who questions you of somehow colluding with the Other. Distract everyone from your real aim: amassing and maintaining your own power.
Monday, June 8, 2009
extremists are the new terrorists
Guess what word President Obama did not use, not even once, during his hour-long speech to "the Muslim world" in Cairo last week.
Terrorism.
Did you notice? I didn't realize the absence- which should have seemed so conspicuous- until the day after I heard the speech. Sure, he talked about the extremists who commit violence against civilians, "exploiting tensions" in Muslim countries and harming more Muslims than non-Muslims. He talked about how America needs to remain secure against the violence of the extremists, and how it benefits the Muslim world to marginalize them. But he never referred to any acts of "terrorism," and he never labeled these "extremists" terrorists.
What gives? We all knew what he was talking about so maybe it's just a simple exchange of signifiers. But the choice must have been intentional, and I wonder if his language shows a shift in thinking about "terrorism," a word we all understand but find difficult, in the end, to define.
Terrorism.
Did you notice? I didn't realize the absence- which should have seemed so conspicuous- until the day after I heard the speech. Sure, he talked about the extremists who commit violence against civilians, "exploiting tensions" in Muslim countries and harming more Muslims than non-Muslims. He talked about how America needs to remain secure against the violence of the extremists, and how it benefits the Muslim world to marginalize them. But he never referred to any acts of "terrorism," and he never labeled these "extremists" terrorists.
What gives? We all knew what he was talking about so maybe it's just a simple exchange of signifiers. But the choice must have been intentional, and I wonder if his language shows a shift in thinking about "terrorism," a word we all understand but find difficult, in the end, to define.
Thursday, May 28, 2009
Augustine on sovereignty
Maybe we don't all like St. Augustine so much. Still, check this out (ripped from Ryan Spencer Reed's website):
“In the absence of justice – what is sovereignty but organized robbery."
“In the absence of justice – what is sovereignty but organized robbery."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
