Quoheleth Matthew Yglesias:
Samantha Power is a Pulitzer Prize winning author, and a brilliant and original thinker and advocate for the intelligent deployment of American power in order to build a more just and humane world.There's nothing worse than people of obvious intelligence and felicity using cheap euphemism because they are embarrassed (and rightly!) by their own committments. Matthew Yglesias is lauding Samantha Power for her advocacy of killing people in other countries at our discretion in order to affect social and political changes. They believe that they possess the capacity to judge societies sufficiently or insufficiently equitable, free, "just", "humane", modern, etc. They believe that they can grasp local complexity easily enough in the more backwards regions of the world to effectively adjudicate others' civil conflicts. They believe that as Americans, they have a right to kill people to accomplish these ends. They know that such ends have rarely, if ever, been accomplished, but they're pretty sure that's just because Samatha Power and Matthew Yglesias, or people like Matt Yglesias and Sam Power, haven't been the ones in charge. It's only a question of getting their kind of people.
I am going to suggest to you all, madman that I am, that there is exactly no moral distinction between killing people to take their oil and killing them to bring them the wonders of anglo-saxon common law, the jury system, and franchise democracy.
45 comments:
that was good
That was VERY good. I tried elsewhere to make that very point to an Obama supporter who is convinced that we did a very just and courageous thing in Kosovo, but an outrageously immoral thing in Iraq. I went on for about 5 times as long as you did trying to explain the absurdity of his position, but didn't manage to make the point nearly as well as you did.
But Ms. Power was right about Ms. Clinton. Though I suppose by any reasonable standard they are just about all monsters. Maybe Clinton is a monster^2?
The difference is the franchise fees; namely that we pay the franchises. Much better to just kill and steal than kill and remunerate.
Of course we're utterly incompetent at both so the nets end up equal regardless of the grosses.
"The effort to impose the total and unqualified power of a truth" is a form of evil.
They're all monsters. Power does mean well, but she's sold her soul to be near those with power (no pun intended--or rather, it would be intended if it were funny). Google Richard Holbrooke and Samantha Power and you'll find that they're pals. Then go look up Holbrooke's record in East Timor (he was in charge of policy for that region under Carter and he supported Indonesia), and Power's virtually non-existent discussion of East Timor in her widely praised genocide book. You don't make friends in Washington if you're excessively honest. You'll make lots of friends if you say that the main problem in US foreign policy is that we don't invade enough countries.
Donald
We think it and quiver with inchoate rage at our inability to find the words; IOZ finds them. For him, random verse from the first book at hand:
He said no more. The Furies struck him dumb.
But the fiery runner Achilles burst out in anger,
"Why, Roan Beauty—why prophesy my doom?
Don't waste your breath. I know, well I know—
I am destined to die here, far from my dear father,
far from mother. But all the same I will never stop
till I drive the Trojans to their bloody fill of war!"
A high stabbing cry—
and out in the front ranks he drove his plunging stallions.
Let me preface my remarks by stating that I am a relative newbie to this site and haven't taken a Political Philosophy course (with the late, great Mulford Q. Sibley), or any Philosophy course in decades.
And I agree with everything stipulated above.
That said, is there anything that can be done by well-meaning, well-heeled individuals or groups who witness suffering in the Kosvos and East Timors of the world and want to DO SOMETHING about it?
Because one thing is for certain: we will never run out of these situations.
It seems that the Amy Goodmans and Ms. Powers begin as good reporters with the best of intentions and then they seem to go astray - in their thinking and/or choice of compatriots - once they achieve some measure of fame and respectability.
But, to return on point, what is the prescriptive - assuming their is one - for dumb whities like (some of) us?
There; I've teed it up for you fine folks. Rip away!
TT
I am beating you for your own good.
But is there a moral distinction between taking their oil plus bringing them the wonders of anglo-saxon common law versus just taking their oil?
The results are the same, but at least the second doesn't stink of self-justifying righteousness.
Samantha Power is nothing but a 3d rate Irish Ann Coulter.
Matthew Yglesias is nothing but a 4th rate Markos Moulitsas Zuniga.
(but hey, Sammy is cute, what with that embers-red hair and the poxy freckles. Right Matthew?)
This dovetails nicely with the announcement that Tony Blair will be teaching "religion" at Yale next year. The UK is doing its best to export its doom-phoque devotees, eh?
First, your closing point reminds me of this article:
"Dead Iraqi would have loved democracy"
http://www.theonion.com/content/news/dead_iraqi_would_have_loved
Second, on the question of whether there's any difference between killing people for oil and killing them for democracy: The problem with those who maintain that there is a difference is that, well, there is indeed a difference, but it only matters in some hypothetical world where these things actually work out well. If the sacrifice of a few really does bring about some long term greater good for the many and it really is the only way and if the status quo was just as bloody as the intervention, then, yeah, maybe it makes sense. But that's a lot of ifs and they never actually work out.
With Kosovo, we've expended blood, treasure, and diplomatic capital to create an enclave that will require the constant supervision of foreign troops and that will be a thorn in east-west relations for decades. Um, yeah, great success story.
"That said, is there anything that can be done by well-meaning, well-heeled individuals or groups who witness suffering in the Kosvos and East Timors of the world and want to DO SOMETHING about it?"
The USA is fairly sure that the only way to solve an international problem is to send people in to shoot at it.
So, in most contexts, "American power" means "American military power", and doesn't really have anything to do with giving people money or sending scientists and doctors to help set up programs to help with whatever people might need help with.
So, uh, I guess my answer to your question would be that as long as your solution to a problem doesn't involve murdering the people you're trying to help, you're probably good to go.
anonymous, "That said, is there anything that can be done by well-meaning, well-heeled individuals or groups who witness suffering in the Kosvos and East Timors of the world and want to DO SOMETHING about it?
"Because one thing is for certain: we will never run out of these situations."
Whoa. Dewd. First, those well-meaning, well-heeled individuals might not confuse the respective positions of Samantha Power and Amy Goodman. (Both of whom are "whities," by the way.) Then they might start informing themselves on other issues. Then they can join activist groups, though it's true that there's little those groups can actually do most of the time.
Beyond that, I'm not sure what the hell you're asking. You are aware, for example, that Power lied when she wrote that the US looked away from the Indonesian invasion of East Timor? That the US okayed the invasion before it began in 1975, and supported it materially with arms and troop instruction right up until the final reluctant pullout in 1999? And that after the first few years, the US Congress tried to cut off funds for Indonesia but every President -- that includes Carter, Reagan, Bush, and Clinton -- simply diverted funds from other areas so that the killing could
go on? That Amy Goodman was, along with Allan Nairn, beaten by Indonesian troops in East Timor in 1991 because they had witnessed the Dili Massacre? (I wonder if Power knows that last.) As for Kosovo, the NATO bombing made things worse, not better, but Power has preferred not to acknowledge that either.
What can be done about governments that do these things? I have no quick answers; I don't think there are any.
Though it's not about Powers, I think the latest AmConMag cover sums it up best.
@anon:
nope. not a damn thing. and somehow I still sleep soundly at night - imagine that.
truly yours,
Mr.Fun
ps. and as for Msr's last point re: there is no moral difference. what we are stealing is their right to self determination.
Indicted democratic leadership and the liberal-leaning blogosphere, called for a completely defensive foreign policy (at a minimum), explained a complicated and well-obfuscated false distinction, compromised every liberal's moral landscape...and just embarrassed yglesias, in a brisk 235 words.
If there is an Art du Blog or somesuch, and I think there probably should be, this is the shit.
i'd happily take someone who wasn't willing to murder for resources over their counterpart. the body count would be much smaller. so, uh, all anybody has to do is find someone like that.…
"It seems that the Amy Goodmans and Ms. Powers begin as good reporters with the best of intentions and then they seem to go astray - in their thinking and/or choice of compatriots - once they achieve some measure of fame and respectability."
Can you tell us about Goodman? I don't know what you are talking about.
Yes Powers is horrible.
"...killing them to bring them the wonders of anglo-saxon common law, the jury system, and franchise democracy."
Like that's ever been a motivation!
...killing people to take their..."
Like anyone ever claims that as a motivation.
How am I going to tell the Hitlers, Maos, Milosevics and Saddams from the Bushes, Carters, Clintons and Kennedys, if all I go by is what they SAY?
C'mon, IOZ -- your premise is laughable!
Thanks folks.
The points made were all good ones.
Catherine: I didn't mean to single out Amy, per se, except as a euphemism to underscore IOZ's point: "It's only a question of getting their kind of people."
If I have a general complaint of people in positions like hers it is that no one seems interested in being a reporter anymore. Everyone in that field has to be a JOURNALIST.
Other than asking the occasional pointless question ("What does it mean that Obama won in one of the whitest states? [Vermont]") she's good at what she does, and I'm sure means well. It's what she does that leads, in part, to situations like the one IOZ is highlighting here. To wit: "They believe that they possess the capacity to judge societies sufficiently or insufficiently equitable, free, 'just','humane', moderne, etc."
Thanks again folks.
TT
noma nym: You are being quite unfair to our host. Of course he realizes that no imperial intervention has ever really been for the purposes of spreading FREEDOM. Now With Hundreds of Thousands of Refugees!
He is merely puncturing the pretentions of the self-described "liberal" wing of the Imperial Project.
I would also note that our freedom- loving democracies have created apocalyptic situations different only in absolute scale and efficiency from your list of monsters. Unless the lives of a million Phillipinos who we were supposedly "Christianizing" and "civilizing" don't count as much as the millions of kulaks? Or, the millions of Indians allowed to starve by the Brits, under penalty of law, so that the glorious free market can set the "proper" price of grain. (A devotion to the purity of ideology Pol Pot would love). Or the lovely depredations of King Leopold and his Belgian successors in the Congo.
Empire is always monstrous. It's a matter of degree, and whether the depredations are foucsed on the center or off in some benighted foreign land where only the brown wogs are impacted.
TT
Why do you lump Amy Goodman in with Samantha Powers?
CM
Killing to spread Dem-Free(tm) just feels so much better than killing to take oil, however. It's been said many times many ways, from Adolf (with glee) on the right to Galbraith (with sadness) on the left; but morality is relative, you see.
At the level of the individual, we depend on other individuals for our surival (loosely analogous to the cells of an animal); whereas at higher levels of organization, the state (loosely analogous to the whole animal) for example, this dependence weakens, and morality follows the same pattern.
The conflict that arises from this situation we resolve with large helpings of bullshit.
there is exactly no moral distinction between killing people to take their oil and killing them to bring them the wonders of anglo-saxon common law, the jury system, and franchise democracy.
Sure there is, if the latter saves more lives than it takes. But that never happens, as Thoreau pointed out.
Judging other people's local disputes and humanitarian atrocities would be laudable if we judged ourselves by the same standard. If we did so, we'd find that war tends to make bad situations worse. We'd also find that none of our overseas adventures were motivated by noble impulses on the part of our political leaders, and that quite a few were outright genocidal. We'd find that many of the evil dictators our leaders yell and scream about were once our puppets, and that our leaders only started yelling and screaming after the puppets broke loose from the strings.
Judging is good. I wish the American people would judge more. But that day will be long in coming.
I dunno, youze guys make it seem so simple...
...how about a hypothetical:
You are walking in the park and carrying your favorite walking stick when you come upon a drunken man trying to rape a young girl. Do you simply leave it to them to resolve their differences? Wait for the law to arrive? Or do something with that walking stick?
That's actually a very good moral framework, Ash, and one which permeates the socio-cultural landscape, so to speak. It is also and therefore one I frequently find myself countering.
If, in every previous instance in which a stranger had come to the rescue of a young girl in the midst of abuse, she was more brutally beaten, more systematically demoralized, and more thoroughly raped, and you knew of this fact, you would react in two ways. First, you would not do something with that walking stick. Second, you would try to figure out why that eventuality perpetuated and make sure of the answer before you even considered raising that stick.
Yet, neither national party - which is to outline the framework of acceptable political debate - responds in this way. Instead, one appears to either not notice or not care that the young girl always gets it worse, while the other makes a poorly reasoned guess as to why it happens (they were not in charge!) and lurches forward, stick in hand.
Ash: Countries aren't people. Talk about trying to make it seem so simple...
If you're going to extend such a simple-minded analogy, at least have some fun with it. Like make it a semi-automatic instead of just a stick so there's an even chance you might take out the girl too; add the fact that you were the one who bought drinks for your pal the drunken rapist in the first place; and you've always kind of had the hots for this girl yourself, and whether or not she survives your rescue, you reason that she's probably "ruined" anyway, so you might as well cop a feel too...
ash: you are not a country, nor a nation, nor a state. You are one person, an individual. Nor is the solution a person might impose on a rape analogous to the solution one state might impose on a foreign state or population.
Yes, I did choose a very simple example and I agree that people are not nations but it also points to the simpleness of IOZ's strawman (Killing for OIL vs killing for Democracy with the equivalent bad being the killing).
Personally I think there is a lot of 'evil' in the world and a single nation acting in its own interest is not a good way of addressing 'evil'. The solution lies, I believe, in a justice system which will overrule individual nations sovereignty and, at times, require violence to assert itself. The ICC is a good place to start.
Still, ash, your analogy is a poor one. I might indeed use that stick to beat the drunken rapist. But we're talking about a country, the US, that when it figuratively encounters a virgin being ravished by a drunken rapist, shoots the virgin (and everyone else within a 100-mile radius), shakes the drunk rapist's hand, then gives him a free case of Jack Daniels and a key to the nearest girl's high school.
I've often run into your approach before; I think of it as the "But we've got to do something!" argument. But the "something" they have in mind always turns out to be cluster bombs, white phosphorus, and death squads.
no, its not that we 'have to do something' but neither is it simply a matter of US interfering in others affairs. Darfur is one example. The killing going on there is pretty bad, the Janjaweed are raping and pillaging with the tacit consent of the Sudanese government. Not doing anything is essentially doing something. What we do is important whether it be nothing, pressuring the Chinese, invading and occupying, or getting behind what the ICC is doing. In my example, the person standing there not doing anything has an effect on the outcome as he would if hit the bugger over the head with his stick. Similarly we have choices in Darfur and elsewhere.
I've often run into your approach before; I think of it as the "But we've got to do something!" argument.
Yep, that's a terribly common way of looking at it.
Just one little point, and it's not meant to be critical of any of us, because we can't help our upbringing and at least we're concerned enough to discuss the issue, but...
Here we all are, once again, discussing what WE should do about east Timor or Darfur.
And there's not a single East Timorese or Sudanese voice to be heard.
Wouldn't it be interesting to know what the east Timorese think should have happened? Would we have agreed with their ideas? Would we have been comfortable seeing the issues the way they framed them?
Still, the Imperial court has never seen things from the point of view of the barbarians on the frontiers, no matter how moral their intentions.
And so the world turns.
ash, "Darfur is one example. The killing going on there is pretty bad, the Janjaweed are raping and pillaging with the tacit consent of the Sudanese government. Not doing anything is essentially doing something."
That's true. And if the US is not doing anything, it's because the US doesn't care. I just want to know what sorts of "interventions" are being proposed. Unilateral invasions (including those with cosmetic "coalitions of the willing") are generally a bad idea, from what I can tell. Witness our noble intervention in Iraq, which was going to liberate the suffering Iraqi people from the brutal heel of Saddam, and bring them whisky and sexy and democracy.
Remember how we got here, though: Samantha Power's claim that the US "looked the other way" when Indonesia invaded East Timor. This is a lie. Not only did the US arm and otherwise aid the Indonesians directly, the US intervened in the UN to make sure it did nothing to stop the killing. Not only am I skeptical of people who justify American (or other) violence with "We've got to do something!", I'm skeptical of claims that the US is "doing nothing," which usually turns out to mean we're not using our cluster bombs and tanks.
oh, and anonymous:
"Here we all are, once again, discussing what WE should do about east Timor or Darfur."
Waddaya mean "WE", paleface?
"Wouldn't it be interesting to know what the east Timorese think should have happened? Would we have agreed with their ideas? Would we have been comfortable seeing the issues the way they framed them?"
Damn, you're deep. Actually, it's quite easy to find out what the Timorese think and have thought, if you care. This is the age of the Internet, after all. American activists who opposed But it sounds like you're just playing "more liberal than thou." I've heard that "I don't see enough X or Y in this room" before; it's a handy way to derail discussion.
hey promiscous reader - I'm actually a different anonymous to the one you were first talking with (too lazy to differentiate, sorry).
In terms of 'finding out what the Timorese think' I was being devil's Advocate' - since I've actually worked there, and know people who still are, and know many Timorese myself...
There is, in my humble opinion, no easy answer to issues like Darfur and the benefits or otherwise of external intervention.
I think we actually agree on this point - should have specified a different name.
I'm not attempting to derail conversation - simply to ask about the value of discussing countries like intellectual exercises (or a giant game of geopolitical Risk) without taking into account local voices.
The Other Anonymous
I am glad we helped Croatia - I like them and the Dalmation coast is beautiful. The Croatians are pretty happy with us too.
So far so good. But does this mean Serbia won't try again? Probably not. But I'm glad we made the effort for them.
How that fits in with a geopolitical framework, I'm not sure, but I'm happy I can still fly into Dubrovnik and not have it be occupied territory.
Well said!
other anonymous, the trouble is all you anonymouses (anonymice?) look alike.
again: "discussing countries like intellectual exercises (or a giant game of geopolitical Risk) without taking into account local voices."
Well, first, the activists who publicized the Timorese situation in the West did take into account local voices: they were in touch with Timorese refugees and used Timorese sources. Someone like Amy Goodman, the American left journalist, actually went to East Timor, where she was badly beaten by Indonesian goons, along with the Australian journalist Allen Nairn, because they witnessed the Dili massacre. Many Americans who opposed US support of state violence in Latin America built solidarity movements with "local" people. Those who opposed US terror in Iraq often pointed to and quoted Iraqi opposition voices (as opposed to the voices bought by the US government, like Chalabi). I think you'll find that's often, even generally the case.
"There is, in my humble opinion, no easy answer to issues like Darfur and the benefits or otherwise of external intervention." Ah, the Complexity argument. I don't think it's unduly ignoring Complexity to suggest that killing and maiming the very people you're claiming to help is not a good option. About Darfur, I admit I'm underinformed. About East Timor, I think there were some "easy answers," like "not supporting the external invasion." I believe that the Complexity argument was used by people like Bill Clinton as he funneled aid to the Indonesian army.
It is a complex world and there are loads of competing interests. Never do a 'people' speak with one voice so what are the options. You can't totally disengage from the world nor can you control it. Nations, and people in general, act in their own self interest. We've created judicial systems to mediate peoples self interest on a national level and we need to find ways to do it at the international level. Currently the US has resisted, strongly, relinquishing any power to 'foreigners'. The Bush administration has actively tried to thwart the formation of the International Criminal Court. This is a mistake. The US should actively work to support and give teeth to treaty arrangements such as this one.
The Bush administration has actively tried to thwart the formation of the International Criminal Court. This is a mistake. The US should actively work to support and give teeth to treaty arrangements such as this one.
So the solution to governments killing people is... more government?
"Nations ... act in their own self interest."
Leaving aside the problematic implication that nations have a "self," if the assertion were true we'd have the same nations today we had in 4,000 BC. Nations act in aggregations of their most powerful citizens and the blind inertia of hoi polloi.
freuheit, it isn't so much more government as it is a treaty based limit on government action. Actually, that isn't really what the ICC is about, it targets only the most heinous crimes (genocide for example) and it targets individuals.
ashley, yeh, nations are an ephemeral - unless you are facing one of its representatives pointing a gun at you telling you to do sumtin.
ash: "The Bush administration has actively tried to thwart the formation of the International Criminal Court. This is a mistake. The US should actively work to support and give teeth to treaty arrangements such as this one."
Why leave out the Reagan, Bush I, and Clinton administrations here? Blocking the ICC, except when we could use it for our own political purposes (like prosecuting Milosevic), is a time-honored, bipartisan tradition.
Why is it a mistake? Why should the US make it possible for sleazy foreigners to drag American Citizens before their evil kangaroo courts? And is this how you would intervene if you caught that drunk raping that young girl -- yell, "Hey! Stop that, or I'll bring you before the ICC"? Good form, Ash!
Naw I'd hit the guy on the head with a stick but if I knew of other guys who were doing it I'd call the cops as opposed to hunting them down myself.
yeppers, Americans should sign the treaty and pledge to prosecute any of our citizens of the crimes specified. If we didn't then the ICC will. Rummy didn't perpetrate a genocide so he can sleep safe in his own bed. Maybe someday there will be legal ramifications making those ordering offensive wars like Iraq think twice.
Post a Comment