yes again, again
We often hear the lament “never again” repeated, but sadly, it appears that what people actually mean is “never again in the West”.
Since genocide was defined in international law after the Second World War, there have been five genocidal campaigns of which I am aware: Cambodia, Rwanda, Burundi, Bosnia and now Sudan. And in only one of those five, Bosnia, has the West made a concerted effort stop the horror. I do not want to believe that the lack of Western intervention in the other four tragedies is rooted in racism, but reluctantly I have to conclude that there must be some subconscious racism involved.
I do believe it is subconscious because in most corners of the Western world, institutionalized racism has been largely eradicated. Certainly racism lives in the smaller hearts and smallest minds which comprise Western Civilization, but for the most part we have grown past the point were bigotry is accepted as normal within the bounds of the broader society.
But when one takes a closer look at the mass behavior of the West, I cannot exclude racism as a factor in society’s moral reckoning. Each of the five instances of genocide over the last half century were unspeakably horrible. Each of these blood drenched catastrophes implicitly demanded action by the West, but the one time we intervened in a significant way was when the victim’s faces were similar to our own.
I hope I am wrong about this, but I fear that I am not. I fear it in part because I too must search my own soul because of my own failure to speak out or act.
In a weak attempt to right old transgressions, I have taken the time to write my elected representatives to encourage action on the genocide presently taking place in Darfur. I hope you will consider taking the time as well. I admit that this action on my part is out of sync with my general proposition that the elected representatives do not care what you or I actually think. I have not changed my mind on that point, but I feel that in the face of this much death and destruction, I must say something: this blog entry and my undoubtedly futile missives to elected Federal officials are that something.
The situation in Darfur does deserve your and my attention. I have consciously chosen not to write on this subject previously because I am keenly aware that it is improbable we will act and people get more than a little bit weary of reading impassioned pleas for humanitarian causes with little hope of resolution. My attitude changed last night while watching Charlie Rose interviewing the creators of a new movie on the decline of Hitler. The phrase “never again” has pinged my brain incessantly since. You and I know that we should not have let this happen, but we have failed again.
If you want some motivation, a great starting place is Nicholas Kristof’s op-ed entitled The Secret Genocide Archive. A slight warning is in order as there are pictures there that might be disturbing to some though certainly not extreme by the standards of what is happening in Sudan. The short version is that while it is impossible to know the death toll, a plausible number would be on the order of 200,000 and rising. Unlike the merciful Christmas Tsunami, these oppressors torture and rape their victims before killing them.
Tragically, we have not even taken simple steps such as freezing assets in order to put pressure on these evil people.
I hope the attention some are attempting to bring to what is happening in Darfur makes a difference. We will never know how many lives might have been spared had the Allies acted after Kristallnacht rather than shamefully turning its head and letting events take their course. In Rwanda, scarcely even a decade ago, 800,000 people died when we remained silent. I’d rather not find out how many more African Sudanese will loose their lives if we choose to look the other way this time.
It would be nice to believe that our reason for inaction thus far is something relatively benign like ignorance and sloth. But while we deny our racism at an institutional level, it is perhaps still a diffuse element of our national policy. Witness the reaction in my corner of the West, America, to people of Arab descent in the post 9-11 era. The hostility toward Arab Americans stunned even me because Muslim fundamentalism knows no ethnic boundaries. It is hard not to be reminded that during the Second World War, here in the Land of the Free we locked up Japanese-Americans, but not those of German descent.
Racism is often cast about glibly in our culture and I do not suggest it as a contributing cause cavalierly. After all, 200,000 Muslims were killed in Bosnia so acting on a catastrophe of that magnitude which is in relatively close proximity for Europeans is understandable. While making an unqualified accusation of racism is not justified, the facts are still hard to ignore: In Africa we have had far more death and suffering, yet we do nothing.
If anyone wants to make the case for inaction, I’d love to have it explained to me.
22 Comments:
Yoshi,
I kind of figured you would weigh in on the subject. Thanks for the info.
CG,
Well, the problem with your IN or OUT black and white approach is that every situation is liable to be different. For instance, you can’t commit to an automatic military commitment in countries that have nuclear weapons. I think a more flexible approach is called for. I certainly think also that humanitarian causes are the exact causes for which we should seek participation of the global community. I have been talking of the West, but obviously there are non-Western countries that should be in on the action as well.
CG,
I guess I’m a little naive on this point because I always have considered it a foregone conclusion that America did have a national commitment to oppose oppression throughout the world. I look at it more as a failure of leadership to apply that commitment. Take for instance how everybody jumped on the Iraqi humanitarian band-wagon when the lies over weapons of mass destruction became unsustainable. There was nothing phony from the American people in that regard.
So I guess I am puzzled at what sort of commitment you seek. I have trouble imagining what you could do formally that would actually constitute a commitment without potentially binding your hands. I certainly think we should “be committed” to fighting oppression, I just don’t see how my position of wanting to have a flexible response is at odds with the proposition.
I must also acknowledge that there is a fundamental gap between what we want to take and what we are able to take on at any one time. While it would be nice to right every wrong when and where we find it, that is simply not possible. What matters is that we try to be a positive force in the World and do as much as we can. From a self-image standpoint that is already what we are. What we need to do is make our actions rise to the level of our rhetoric-and perhaps that is your point?
CG,
I think I get what you are saying, but lets say you make a legal commitment of some kind. Setting aside the enforcement aspect of that sort of law, how could you write it where the hand of government would be free to deal with contingencies? What if weapons of mass destruction are an issue? What if the rest of the world disagrees that there is a humanitarian crisis? How do you define the crisis? What if any of a thousand things make it more complicated?
I’m not disagreeing with your intent: I am in fact calling for being more active in the world and spending our dough to make a better world. I think developing comprehensive “parameters” on a prospective basis is just not feasible. If I thought you could adequately describe potential situations, I would agree. In fact, I wrote a paper suggesting much the same thing once upon a time but in a narrower realm of action by the Federal Government.
Saurav,
Well, in a broad way I agree with you but I think your conclusion goes a bit far. I believe the US should be involved in humanitarian causes in the World, I just think the effort would be more useful and productive if done under international auspices because of the accountability issues you bring up. Humanitarian aid is a far different thing than military intervention. There of course might be the need for military intervention, but the military should not run the show and in dealing with most of the military situations in the 3rd World, the overwhelming military presence of the US Army will not be necessary.
Really, the problem is not that the US is acting on the World stage, it is how it is acting. While misbehavior is indeed a result of our fundamental lack of accountability, there is no denying that we have the resources needed to address many of this issues. Far better then to seek to act reasonably rather than to simply exit the world stage. As despairing as I am at times over the direction this country is headed, I still believe it is possible (however improbable) for us to change course. An America that returned to its historical roots in foreign relations could be a very good thing for the entire World.
Suarav,
When I spoke of the historical roots of American foreign policy, I chose a poor turn of phrase. What I am referring to broadly is our posture from entry into the first World War up until a recent point which I will not attempt to fix. In that period I view American contributions to the World political situation as overwhelmingly positive, though I could find some substantial errors and missteps (especially in the Mideast), I think that during that period American motives and approach were commendable. It is to this historical principled leadership to which I suggest we return. Your critique to the contrary would be most welcome and I would love to hear it.
When I suggest this return to the past, it is not to suggest that all our past behavior was just fine.
Prior to the First World War, there is much of which we should be ashamed for sure. Perhaps our recent behavior does in fact hearken back to Manifest Destiny in more fundamental ways than simply practical effect. Maybe your thesis has more truth than I will admit just yet. After all, it is oft said that absolute power corrupts absolutely.
But still, I hold out hope-however faint that hope has become-that America can return to a position of leadership rather than dominance. That we can become a force for good from a global perspective and not just our selfish distorted perspective. I hold this hope because underneath all my criticism, I criticize out of a deep desire to stimulate reflection on the part of the American people. I believe, perhaps naively, that Americans believe it when they that say they believe in Liberty. I believe that most of the self-styled patriots that voted for W were sincere in their desire for Iraqi freedom.
Sincerity, however, is not a substitute for sound policy. Sincerity is not a substitute for being a reasonably well informed citizen. And there is no sign that we are going to develop a capable leadership that can leverage sincere hearts to become useful citizens of the larger world.
CG,
First, a quibble. Clinton did not simply lie about sex. He committed perjury in a Federal Court. Clearly criminal. Absolutely impeachable. The whole “he merely lied about sex” is a partisan fiction that obviously strikes a chord with many because I hear the non-sense so often.
What positive do I see in our roots? Well, that is easy really. Probably worth a short essay of some kind actually. I think the foremost thing America has given the World is an example of a successful government built on the principals of human rights from the ground up. I think it is kind of silly to not recognize the role we have played in fostering the movement to freedom around the World. This is not to say we are the sole reason for or the prime agent in that great cause, but rather just to say we have had a large and important part in it. I think too that if you look at how our actions at the end of the Second World War served to help bring peace to Western Europe and our resolute stand against communism helped to bring peace to most of the balance of Europe. Again, we are not alone in deserving credit for that-I am being asked to partially defend America. It is also easy to overlook our civil rights struggle as a positive example for the World. While we have not achieved anything like totally fairness of opportunity, we have struggled toward that goal. Again, I think warts and all we tried to set the tone-for a while at least-for a better and more egalitarian future.
I could go on, but I would rather ask the international readers of the Disenfranchised Curmudgeon what their perspective is. I think their are many example of positive American leadership in the World-particularly through the middle of the Twentieth Century. What do those of you who read from the United Kingdom, Canada, India, Mexico, Australia and elsewhere think?
stilldreamn,
Hey, shoot all the shots over the bow you like. Most folks here can take the heat. If you never read my post on this subject, I did write about it in value of the dollar.
CG,
On what is true human nature. I take my answer to that question straight from the Bible: human nature is vile and base. Absent redemption through Jesus Christ, there is little hope other than to appeal to man’s self interest. This is the strength of capitalism-it turns man’s inherently contemptible acts toward the common good. So I think the US and Sudan are equally representative. The US is what you get when you have institutions to control behavior. Sudan is what you get when those institutions are inadequate. If you doubt this, look at how easily things breakdown here when we take a hit. Look at our Civil War, which in reality wasn’t all that long ago. Look at how quick we were to jail Japanese descent Americans during WWII. Look at how we have treated Arabs since 9-11. The evil nature is lurking just beneath the surface in men of all nationalities.
Yoshi,
I agree that any humanitarian intervention should be genuinely multilateral. It just makes sense on many levels. I think hitting them in the pocketbook early is a good thing as well. I have to believe that there are some targeted military options as well. Possibly decapitating the Government. Creating a safe haven and acting as the buffer you describe. Perhaps taking out specific paramilitary groups. My point is that I don’t necessarily have the answer as to what to do, but the correct answer is not “nothing”.
CG,
Spare you the Rule of Law rant huh? Why, does it bother you that I am right and your are wrong?
The thing is, you can’t have it both ways. You can be a nation of laws except when they are inconvenient. I totally agree that the Republican witch hunt was a bad thing and should have been stopped. It does not follow that we look the other way when the Chief Enforcer of our law lies in a court. By allowing Presidents to flout the law, we just get more of the same. It is getting worse: how tame does what Nixon did look next to that which is routine today?
Facts are indeed stubborn as should be the rule of law.
CG,
Man, this is over reaction day for you. If you had a pony tail, I’d tell you to loosen it.
Capitalism is what it is. It is irrefutable that it provide the greatest common good for a society. That doesn’t mean that it delivers perfect social justice by any means. I consistently state my egalitarianism in terms of limits on liaise faire and reject the collectivist gobbledy-gook of Marxism. Perfect social justice is not attainable with human beings and it will always remain a worthy goal toward which we should continually aspire.
Well, I agree with you up to a point on the multi-national front. I think the entire West is a failure on the humanitarian front. It just so happens that we Americans are so freaking wealthy that we have a disproportionate share of the moral burden. If it is moral to act on humanitarian suffering then it is no excuse that others also fail. Either it is the right thing to do or not. But if you look at the hard data, it looks like the balance of the West does not do significantly more or less than we do-we just have a self-image that we do more than what is the reality.
I guess I’m naive wanting America to be better than all the rest. I still seek the shining city on the hill. I guess deep down, I’m not yet prepared to give that up even though my brain is telling me that the rest of America has already.
Saurav,
First, enjoyed the post. The soft version of what I was saying is that from the US’s entry into WWI to some point in the recent past, our net contribution to the World has been positive. But as you partially cataloged, it is not a story of universally positive as the super-nationalists argue.
I think the distinction I am making poorly is that between the motives of our policy makers and the motives of We the People. A big part of what I am arguing is that the American people are not subjectively insincere when they trumpet Liberty and the desire to see classical liberalism spread throughout the World. My argument is that in spite of good intentions, a poor educational system and personal hedonism has blinded them to reality. As I have said, sincerity is no substitute for sound policy.
Indeed, that is the genius of the political device of Nationalism: sincerity makes unwitting accomplices of the well intentioned. It has been exploited by repressive regimes down through the eons. We are blinded by doubly here in America because in addition to the historical pattern of self-delusion regarding our own goodness or superiority, we have also to deal with our own fantastic material success which reinforces that belief. I look at my fellow Americans not so much with disdain, but with pity. In a real sense, we are victims much like is a cocaine addict. Culpable for sure as is the addict for voluntarily taking the first steps down a dangerous path.
I appreciate that you are self-critical enough to see that growing up after the threat of Communism had largely passed might color your outlook. I think that is a real possibility. Having matured in the era of the Ford and Carter administrations, when those threats were real and palpable, my outlook is probably similarly colored in other ways.
I admit freely that much of the credit I give to America that offsets the many negatives we have given the world, stems from November 9th, 1989 when the Berlin Wall fell. I grew up in an era where when I laid in bed at night and heard planes overhead, I wondered if the end of Western civilization was nigh and the fall of the wall will always be a landmark event of my life. I do give America a great deal of credit for helping bring that about.
BTW, your list of bad stuff we have done on the international landscape omits two of my favorite examples of how we can be less than perfect: Afghanistan from the Soviet invasion forward (including tacit support for the Taliban almost up until 9-11) and Iraq where we supported Saddam Hussein as a regional counterbalance to the threat of Iran right up until he invaded Kuwait and threatened our well-being. Its almost enough to wax nostalgic over the foreign policy naiveté of President Carter.
A couple of interesting links to share. The first is an ominous warning on early signs of the fallout from Shrub’s America First policy in The Washington Times. I have shared often on the dangers of driving a wedge between the US and Europe and I still harbor those concerns. I sense that Europe is more anxious than ever to divorce itself from America in the wake of ratifying our recent National stupidity by returning the idiot in the White House for another four years.
And here is another Kristof piece on Darfur.
CG,
Well, I wouldn’t go as far as you and say we should not export the concepts of liberalism. I just think we shouldn’t be so eager and we should choose those reasonable opportunities wisely. Interestingly, our success stories in that area, Germany and Japan, were multi-lateral efforts and in the process of prosecuting WWII the Allies were not in a moral gray area in terms of the over all purpose to defeat fascism. Things get murkier when Manifest Destiny is your mantra.
What is more interesting is that Americans are surprised that other societies might look at the American Way of Life and not want to emulate it. While I think that most people desire Liberty, they do not necessarily seek the rest of modernity within which we think it must be packaged.
Andrew,
Welcome to my world. Its a bit scary here, but we do have a lot of entertainment value.
As to homebrew, sadly, it has been quite a while since I have brewed. I have recently acquired the parts for a new mash tun so you never know. My personal stock is down to a few bottles of five year old imperial stout that improves every time I sample it. Alas, I am of late confined to more pedestrian beers such as Avery Reverend, Redhook IPA, Samuel Smith in all its fine varieties along with a health supplement of Bass and Sam Adams.
One of the news groups I used to post to (CNN’s Allpolitics-long since defunct) had a thread called “The Rumpus Room” that took the image of a bar scene. That was some fun stuff. I have toyed with getting a generic message board. Maybe I need to think harder about that.
But this brings up the question: should I post more frequently to facilitate discussion. My dabbles in short “what do you think” posts have been successful. I can certainly do that more often if others like the concept.
I have not been living up to my duty of discussing beer adequately. Perhaps a post on the topic is in order.
A couple of notes for beery-folk.
I recently discovered what I have come to believe is the best commercial beer I have ever had: Dogfish Head’s 120 Minute Imperial IPA. It must be had to be believed. One of the few beers I have ever tried and just sat back and gone “Wow!” Dogfish Head is out in Delaware and the only reason I got to try it was some special arrangement between them and the proprietor of my local watering hole, the Flying Saucer. But, if it is every available to you, it is a must try. I suppose I should add that this is not a beer for the faint of heart: it is 23% alcohol by volume and has hopping rates that must make the accountants weep. Still, it doesn’t come off as overdone like the California Cascade bombs that are so familiar.
On a sadder note, one of the home brewers that frequented here and with whom I had personal correspondence (he never posted a comment) died a little while back. He had been fighting cancer for a while. Kind of personally gut wrenching for me as our ages were not far apart and he left behind some youngsters. I’ll leave him anonymous because he chose not to post here for a reason no doubt, but a loss to me for sure. Those of you who are frequent posters would be surprised, perhaps, to learn there are some regular readers out there who never post. I think this is the nature of these sorts of things. I mention it so that you can have some better idea that these discussions do matter even if the circle of influence is relatively small.
CG,
A radio gig would be good...I'm told that I have just the perfect face for radio.
Well, if you do the arithmetic a bottle of that is more like drinking 4 or 5 more convential beers. I only drink one...the second one wouldn't be good-I'd be napping before I got half way through.
John,
Welcome to my world! Just so you know, I'm more of a Knob Creek kind of guy when it come to Bourbon. Hope you'll forgive me.
Yoshi,
That book looks interesting. My bookshelf of unread books unfortunately over-floweth at the moment. I am certain, however, that it is much more complex than meets the eye.
Andrew,
I love coffee so building a latte bar should not be a problem. I warn you though, quality does not come cheap and here at the Disenfranchised Curmudgeon, it is ALWAYS about quality.
You raise in my mind an interesting question: does anyone feel like we have any ongoing special obligations toward Liberia? My first reaction is yes, but I have not thought much about it.
Saurav,
I think you and I generally differ on these points more as to degree than specific points. I share your path of having grown up in a super-patriotic environment. It took many years for me to peel away the veneer and see what lies beneath. But I too still believe in the underlying values that drove the Revolution however great the gap between stated values and actual practice may have been. It is this which drives me to write here.
I view American history up until 1969 as a slow but steady progress toward conforming our actions to our ideals. In 1969 we were tearing down the walls of discrimination and taking steps to insure that equality of opportunity would be real but somewhere we got off the tracks of progress. In many ways we collectively seem locked in a mindset that we have “arrived” and little more need be done. We have dumbed down pretty much everything including our ideals and done so to the point that many people sadly believe that this is something pretty close to the ideal.
Why can’t we have an honest national conversation? I have said this many times, but let me say it again plainly: it is because of our abject self-inflicted stupidity. (I need to find a better word than “stupid” because I mean something closer to “ignorance”, but “ignorance” is a pathetic word without any emotional impact.) We have had a collapse of the educational system that has left our population without critical thinking skills. To substitute for reasoned analysis, they turn to simple minded “faith-based” notions such as Freedom and the Two-party System and thus find comfort by hiding amongst the crowds that label themselves Democrat or Republican. Rather than apply their own analysis, they trust the leadership that sport the symbolic badges with which they are most comfortable. And in the haste to simply and bring order to an inherently complex world, they reduce political discourse to sport, and for all their enthusiasm during national political contests, there is no more content behind “W in 04!” than there is in “Go Cowboys!”
As to specifics, I do think we probably disagree on the use of Atomic Bombs during the Second World War. It is indeed a shame to see people shrink from the discussion however because both sides have points that should be discussed in the nuclear age.
Saurav,
You said,
The collapse of the educational system is part and parcel of an overall collapse in social responsibility, institutions, and civil society. In essence, the last fifty years have rendered American society incapable of understanding the world, and incapable of dealing with it itself.
With that I agree as well. You can find no better example than the reaction of American Society to 9-11. My oft repeated example was the lack of condemnation of the President calling our campaign in the Middle East a “Crusade”. Now, it isn’t such a big deal that the President said it because that is what we expect of our Dim-Bulb-In-Chief. But the lack of criticism from Americans leaves one dumbfounded.
A better example is how in our national media I have not once seen a news story that discusses how fundamentally different the Islamic view of government is to the Western outlook. I shudder to think of how tiny is that percentage of Americans that understand even superficially the religious and social issue created in Arab countries by having government imposed by non-Islamic people. And I have been astounded over the past two years at the number of times I have been told how utterly idiotic it is to try and under stand the grievances of the Arab people. It is as if there were an American allergy to listening to any point of view with which you do not agree out of fear that you might somehow find yourself infected by wrong ideas.
As far as blame goes, I too have trouble fixing the blame. The roots of the problem go back much farther than fifty years I’m afraid. I often cite this book, so pardon the redundancy, but anyone wishing to get a handle on how America has come to perceive the world through its strange and skewed lenses must read Daniel Boorstin’s book The Image: A Guide to Pseudo-Events in America. He traces the roots of our current world view back into the 19th Century and makes a compelling case that all this has been building for a very long time. This is one of the few books that I would say are a must read in trying to understand contemporary American society. Though it is forty years old, it could have been written yesterday. It is sheer brilliance. It is also a short and quick read.
Post a Comment
<< Home