"Of one thing we may be sure. The future will never have to ask, with misgiving, what could the Nazis have said in their favor. History will know that whatever could be said, they were allowed to say. They have been given the kind of a Trial which they, in the days of their pomp and power, never gave to any man.
But fairness is not weakness. The extraordinary fairness of these hearings is an attribute of our strength. The Prosecution’s case, at its close, seemed inherently unassailable because it rested so heavily on German documents of unquestioned authenticity. But it was the weeks upon weeks of pecking at this case, by one after another of the defendants, that has demonstrated its true strength. The fact is that the testimony of the defendants has removed any doubt of guilt which, because of the extraordinary nature and magnitude of these crimes, may have existed before they spoke. They have helped write their own judgment of condemnation.
But justice in this case has nothing to do with some of the arguments put forth by the defendants or their counsel. We have not previously and we need not now discuss the merits of all their obscure and tortuous philosophy. We are not trying them for the possession of obnoxious ideas. It is their right, if they choose, to renounce the Hebraic heritage in the civilization of which Germany was once a part. Nor is it our affair that they repudiated the Hellenic influence as well. The intellectual bankruptcy and moral perversion of the Nazi regime might have been no concern of international law had it not been utilized to goosestep the Herrenvolk across international frontiers. It is not their thoughts, it is their overt acts which we charge to be crimes. Their creed and teachings are important only as evidence of motive, purpose, knowledge, and intent.
…
Let me emphasize one cardinal point. The United States has no interest which would be advanced by the conviction of any defendant if we have not proved him guilty on at least one of the Counts charged against him in the Indictment. Any result that the calm and critical judgment of posterity would pronounce unjust would not be a victory for any of the countries associated in this Prosecution." – Justice Robert Jackson, July 26, 1946, Summation for the Prosecution, Nuremburg Major War Figures Trial
In 1987, I visited the Plötzensee Memorial Center in Berlin. In Plötzensee there is a small brick shed that served as the execution chamber. During Nazi rule nearly three thousand people were executed in that small shed. They were either hanged from the eight hooks that line the ceiling or beheaded using a guillotine. I still remember standing in that death room, looking up at the hooks (the guillotine had long vanished), with hushed silence all around me. The death room was small, almost claustrophobic, yet the thousands murdered there testified to the ruthless efficiency of the Nazi killing machine.
Plötzensee stands today in silent remembrance of the evil that touched this planet in the first half of the Twentieth Century. From the ashes of World War II and the Holocaust were born the great institutions of civilized society.
Faced with the horrors of Nazi atrocities, the victorious allies, the United States chief amongst them, decided to try the Nazi leaders involved in the Holocaust. The Nuremburg Trials laid bare for the world to see the Nazi crimes and, at the same time, the fairness and justness of the rule of law. But as Justice Jackson noted in his summation at Nuremburg, "fairness is not weakness."
The Nuremburg Trials became the foundation for much of international criminal law that followed. Both the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the 1949 adoption of the Geneva Conventions owe much to the trials at Nuremburg. Beyond its legal ramifications, the trials were important in establishing the moral authority of the United States in the latter half of the 20th century. That moral authority found its most powerful expression during the Cold War – there was never any doubt during the decades of struggle between the Soviet Union and the United States about who was on the right side of history. John F. Kennedy carried that authority when he asked the world to "come to Berlin"; Adlai Stevenson carried that authority when he demanded an answer from Soviet Ambassador Zorin at the U.N. Security Council; and, Ronald Reagan carried that authority when he asked Mikhail Gorbachev to "tear down this wall."
During the 1990s, as Islamist extremism began to spread its claws over the globe, once again there was very little doubt that the United States was on the right side of this struggle and on the right side of history.
Then 9/11 happened. The entire world rallied to the side of the United States in the aftermath of the attacks. On September 12, 2001 the French publication Le Monde declared, "We are all Americans":
In this tragic moment, when words seem so inadequate to express the shock people feel, the first thing that comes to mind is this: We are all Americans! We are all New Yorkers, just as surely as John F. Kennedy declared himself to be a Berliner in 1962 when he visited Berlin. Indeed, just as in the gravest moments of our own history, how can we not feel profound solidarity with those people, that country, the United States, to whom we are so close and to whom we owe our freedom, and therefore our solidarity?
The beacon of freedom, justice and liberty was attacked on September 11, 2001 and the world rallied in support. There was little doubt on September 12, 2001 that the United States would battle this extremism and come out victorious. There was little doubt that the United States would defeat this enemy and defend the ideals of freedom, liberty, and Justice Jackson’s fairness.
That was then.
Five years later we have seen the willful destruction of a nation and its people over a fictional casus belli; we have seen the kidnapping and disappearing of individuals by the United States of America under the absurd sounding phrase "extraordinary rendition"; we have seen the rise of a modern variation of the gulag archipelago as American run secret prisons began to blanket the globe; we have seen the all too familiar justifications for torture posited by legal minds untethered by a moral compass; we have seen the detention of innocents on made-up charges presented in kangaroo courts; we have seen American torture practices roundly criticized by international human rights bodies; and we have seen the American President, George W. Bush, blithely declare that "we do not torture."
The Bush Administration has always committed or justified detention without charge and torture with a wink and a nod. However, last week it moved to legitimize its actions by writing torture into the law. The Bush Administration legitimized torture much in the same way other odious regimes have done in the past – they have redefined torture and then claimed that they do not "torture". So, small things like punching, kicking, cutting, and other thuggery are now not really torture unless you end up killing or seriously maiming the victim. They have also taken away the power of the Geneva Conventions by stating that the "Geneva Conventions" in effect do not exist for the purposes of defense against torture by the United States. Apparently, even if one could show that the United States violates the Geneva Conventions, the victim could not invoke the Geneva protections. They have left it up to the President to decide which methods constitute activity short of torture unless the method is a "grave breach" of the Geneva Conventions – how very civil!
Ultimately, the Bush Administration’s retreat from international humanitarian laws and customs is not about the ability of the Administration to legally justify its position. It is about what kind of a country the United States is and wants to be. It is about the moral authority of the United States and its people. By broaching this discussion on torture and how to try to walk on the edge of the law without gravely violating it, the Bush Administration has already abdicated the moral authority of the United States on the issue. The era that began with the trials at Nuremburg has come to an end. The United States has declared that it is no longer important to be fair or just – the goal is to get your way at any cost. It is no longer important to uphold our values in the face of an onslaught from an enemy that seeks to destroy them. It is no longer important to show the enemy’s evils for what they are by holding them up for all the world to see in a forum that demonstrates the very values that we seek to defend and in a forum that makes it clear to all the stark difference between us and them. Justice Robert Jackson’s words no longer matter in this new era.
Now that we have abdicated our moral authority, the real question is what exactly are we fighting for?
[Cross posted at Taylor Marsh]
Mash, very powerful, again. The London Times and the Washington post have their focus on this issue this weekend as well.
I was born and raised in Germany. Many of the men that were tried in Nuremburg had the potential to become a symbol and a martyr for their perverse cause. Trying them openly, laying bare the pathetic minds of these men, helped to avoid that Germans flocked back to their “cause”.
Moreover, the patient and loyal help to the German people by the Americans, e.g. while Berlin was blocked off by the Soviets, the reconstruction efforts that must have cost the U.S. citizens lots of money, went straight to many Germans’ hearts. And, although some of us have become more sceptic about the American Way of Life later on, we were abhorred by the ferocious attacks on 9/11.
Now German soldiers are in Afghanistan trying to bring something there, what we have received so abundantly. Because we know that this is the right way to peace. America has shown us the way after 1945 and seems to have lost it’s own direction after 2001.
So sad.
Mash – firstly, excellent post. Of course to even consider “re-defining” torture, “clarifying” the “vague” Geneva Conventions and so on indicates perfectly the mindset of the Administration, and moral that mindset ain’t.
However, I find something fundamentally wrong in your analysis. You seem to imply that 9/11 changed everything regarding American morality. Before 9/11, America stood up for progressive values like ‘freedom’, ‘human rights’,’justice’, etc. but afterwards, thanks to the Bush administration, it does no longer.
For example:
In fact, the only thing I regard as unique or distinctive about the Bush administration is not its complete moral bankruptcy, but simply how blatant they’ve made it. It’s not subtle or hidden like the atrocities of previous administrations – it’s all right out there in the open.
But what of this “moral authority” you seem to grant the pre-9/11 USA, and lament the erosion of by the current administration?
Would this be the “moral authority” that, in the 1980s, led the US to fund, train and arm the Contras in their fight against the people of Nicaragua? The World Court convicted them of international terrorism, and in response the USA increased the intensity of its campaign in Nicaragua and announced it was beyond the jurisdiction of the World Court. Is that the “moral authority” you accuse the current administration of destroying?
You describe how the “United States has declared that it is no longer important to be fair or just – the goal is to get your way at any cost”.
Undoubtedly, the US under Bush II has done that. But are you really saying that before 9/11, the US did find it important to be fair and just, and did not simply try to get its way at any cost?
I’m the sure the people of East Timor would be surprised to hear that, after 200,000 of them were exterminated by the US/UK/Australia-backed Gen. Suharto of Indonesia. There, too, as on many occasions past, the US sponsored the use of torture. One favourite method of the Indonesian soldiers was to hang victims up by their feet, slice off their genitals and stuff them in the victim’s mouth. Apparently, it was a slow death – most died from asphyxiation.
My point is this – of course you should criticise BushCo for their despicable approach to torture (and to human rights generally), and this you do excellently. But you sometimes seem to imply (and I noticed this in your Clinton vs. Bush comparison posts> that the problem of the US not respecting the law/human rights is a recent one, localised to Bush or since 9/11, and this is false, as the above examples and many others will testify to.
Nevertheless, your basic point about the erosion of any moral legitimacy the US might once, looong ago, have had is an important one, so thanks for this post.
Excellent post, Mash. I do agree with The Heathlander on his points. There are quite a few things this country has done in its past that go against our morals.
For example, we assisted Saddam Hussein in his war against Iran in the 80s.
Pingback: Serious Golmal » Torture? What Torture?
Heathlander, thanks for the spanking. I probably deserved it. (My butt hurts!) b-(
I don’t want to suggest and nor did I (I hope) that the US has been always on the right side of world events – it has not. From 1946 to now, the US has not traveled on a linear path toward enlightenment. There have been ups and downs depending on which administration was running the show. Some notable downturns were during Nixon and Reagan’s first term.
I was in college when Reagan was President and I remember vividly the support of despots in Central America. I marched against Apartheid and I protested our Central American follies. I have not forgotten the CIA’s various escapades before the Church commision laid down some rules.
No country has their hands clean. However, over the last century, the US has been on balance a force for good. Whenever a President has gone too far, there have been forces that have pushed back – be it Watergate, be it Iran-Contra, be it Eisenhauer in Iran. That is what has separated the US from a fascist regime – the inherent check and balance to unfettred use of force or power.
But over the past few years, those checks and balances have atrophied. This is new in my lifetime. This is different – the Congress has been rolled and we are now making torture the law of the land. That is a fundamental loss of morality.
There is a reason that Bill Clinton is so wildly popular in the world. Do I agree with everything he has done? No. But in terms of foreign policy he moved the US toward a direction that was more good and right than not. He went further than any US President on resolving the Mid East crisis – in the end, he ran out of time. Did I expect miracles from him – no. I expected effort and he delivered. Did he screw up in other parts of the world -certainly. But the world was safer and the US was more moral under him. Things have changed.
By the way, my next post is on Iran (and I mention Mossadegh) and there is one comiing on Nixon’s “tilt”. So, my criticism is in no way confined to Bush. But, nonetheless, I stand by my post above.
(Now, fire away! :d )
doro, I think it is evident that Bush is not a student of history. Apparently the Geneva Conventions have now become quaint. These guys who struck on 9/11, and not for lack of trying, have not even come close to causing murder on a massive scale that the Nazis did. Yet, somehow we are to throw away all our liberties and values because of this threat when the Nazis ultimately were vanquished by the the very values which we now apparently must give up.
To call the Geneva Conventions quaint, as this Administration has done, is to not fully comprehend the gravity of the Holocaust and WWII – and how the post-war institutions were born.
I guess they have fooled the people long enough.
When I visited Berlin few years ago the vast lands on both side of where the wall stood were quickly being replaced by sky scrappers, there was only a remnant of wall left. I didn’t get to visit the Plotzensee prison (I was more into visiting Pergamon museum and Charlottenburg castle, boat ride on Spree…etc). But I did visit the notorious check point Charlie – the museum. The evidence of 28 year long oppression was so vivid, Gosh!
Anyway talking of faux pas undertaken by U.S.:
During the 9 month long liberation war (considered the worst genocide of the late half of the century) in Bangladesh Nixon admin with advise from Kissinger stayed mum. Kissinger’s idea was that it was necessary to keep Pakistan as the ally because the Russians already befriended India. So they did nothing to protest the atrocities of the Pakis.
There had been many evidences (Archer Blood et al) that then U.S. embassy sent telegrams to Sec of state repeatedly about the mass murder launched by Paki army and their corroborators on the night of March 26, 1971. But the sec. of state absolutely ignored it.
Did you know Mash that an Australian law firm is bringing the ’71 genocide to UN’s attention?
“Raymond Solaiman & Associates, an Australian Law firm, has announced that it will lodge a formal communication in the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights in Geneva against the Governments of Bangladesh, India, Pakistan and USA for failing to stop selective and systematic genocide in East Pakistan (now Bangladesh) during 1971, for failing to prosecute the persons responsible for those genocides.”
If you want to read about it:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/uttorshuri/message/5882
Don’t mention it…:d
There have been “ups and downs” in the sense that some adminstrations have been responsible for more atrocities/crimes/deaths than others. But I think if you look you’ll see a consistent lack of respect for the law, willingness to kill and murder in the interests of furthering the US’ own percieved self-interest, and so on, This is fairly consistent, right back to the days of Woodrow Wilson (probably before then too, although my US history gets very fuzzy beyond that point. Then again, there was the ethnic cleansing of the Native Americans…).
I don’t think it’s a question of ups and downs, or of one administration versus another. I think the problem is systematic, in that whoever ends up ruling rules primarily in the interests of the elite. These interests, from the point of the poor and the weak around the world, and very rarely benign.
Do you think so? I think the majority of the people of Africa, South America, the Carribean and the Middle East would greatly disagree with you there. It’s true that in a democracy, the people do provide some sort of check on power, in that if you go too far and they are able to see through the propaganda machine, they will stop you. However, usually, thanks to either propaganda spin or cover-up, the US has been allowed to get away with monstrous crimes time and time again.
It may be new that torture is taking place so openly, but the US has long supported and sponsored torture. As to checks and balances – this is most definitely not the first time a US government has tried to use fear to take away civil liberties. Now that fear takes the form of terrorism and before it was Communism. As I said, the only difference I can really see with this government is how open they are about everything.
Did he? In terms of the Middle East, he didn’t do anything significant. Contrary to popular mythology, Barak did not offer Arafat anything close to a workable deal at Camp David. He offered a deal that would have split the Palestinian state into four seperate, de facto non-contiguous cantons. East Jerusalem would not be their capital. No refugees would be allowed to return. Israel would not retreat completely to the Green Line. Moreover, there was a clause that declared the agreement a ‘final settlement’ – i.e. on signing it Arafat would have relinquished any future claims the Palestinians had based on international law. There was no way he could sign it.
Besides, Clinton, like other US presidents, was completely and utterly partisan on the issue. He never stopped diplomatically, financially and militarily aiding Israel despite its occupation and oppression and crimes.
As to ‘moving the US in the right direction’ – I think you are only able to say this because you use euphemisms like ‘Clinton “screwed up” in parts of the world’.
No, he didn’t “screw up”. He committed aggression (the “supreme war crime”), he murdered, he committed war crimes, he was reponsible for the deaths of hundreds of thousands of innocent people. I don’t consider that to be ‘moving in the right direction’.
If you want to dig deeper in U.S. history there’s more to add to the stigma.[-(
Bypassing the period of the early settlers, when the founding fathers were screaming for the independence from England, each one of them owned plenty of slaves.
When Jefferson was writing about freedom and liberty and justice for all, he was the third largest slave owner in Virginia. He and his fellow statesmen practiced the most reprehensible act of human rights abuse.
Here’s an interesting read: Founding Fathers and Their Notion on Freedom and Equility
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/uttorshuri/message/5049
Ack! Heathlander, now that was a spanking! :-s
ok, I have to take this one at a time. (Deep breath, here goes):
1) Do I think govts inherently favor the elite? Yes. However, I cannot look at the whole history of the US using the prism of present day. I do not think there is a systemic corruptness in the US that causes it to commit atrocities as you suggest. US self interest has not always served the Third World well, but, I do believe there are both good and bad aspects to US foreign policy. Painting it simply as a lawless country is far from accurate.
2) The United States does not have a monopoly on atrocities. You say:
It is a common parlor game in the Third World to pretend that the only evils have come from the West. That is simply bunk. People in Asia, Africa and the Middle East have been killing each other since the dawn of time. Let me just name a few genocides of the 20th century for you: Bangladesh 1971 (up to 3 million dead), Pol Pot in Cambodia (up to 3 million dead), Rwanda (800,000 dead), Indonesia in 1965 (1 million), Iran-Iraq war (1 million), etc.
3) As for the plight of the Palestinians, I have long been an advocate for Palestinian rights. However, there is little doubt that Clinton went further than any American President to try to work out a compromise. He got them to a point of discussing the two most sensitive issues: the right of return, and the status of Jerusalem. Both are not only emotional issues but are also powerful bargaining chips. Just as Arafat would not give up the right of return without Jerusalem, the Israelis would not give up Jerusalem for free. Getting to that point was a huge achievement. Its simplistic to think that the Israeli offer would have been final. Ultimately both the right of return and Jerusalem will have to be negotiated away in any comprehensive deal and I am certain both sides knew that. The crap you hear from Barak and Dennis Ross is all lipstick to pretty up the pig after the fact. Clinton put his political capital on the line for this and I certainly will give him credit. He did so in the prevailing pro-Israeli environment within Congress and the American govt – which makes his acheivement even more remarkable. If you are looking for a saint, you wont find one. I am looking for people who can get us from here to there – not by revolution. The Bush neocons want a revolution at all costs – I do not.
4) I would not be so quick to accuse Clinton of war crimes. Real war crimes are cheapened by wild accusations of this sort. Take a poll in the Third World and you will find that Clinton is #2 in popularity amongst American presidents (#1 would be JFK).
Finally, I criticize the US government heavily in this blog. However, I will not do so in a vacuum and simply for the sake of bashing the West. My goal has always been to improve relations between the Third World and the West – not try to tear it down. Against the backdrop of history, I am very comfortable asserting that on balance the United States has been a force for good. That does not mean I overlook where it has committed horrible acts. But my goal is to improve this government, point out its faults, and expect better from those we help elect.
JFK-Clinton similarities: great presidents, married beautiful and intelligent women, cheated on them anyway.[-(
Zafa, you suggesting Third Worlders are biased toward philanderers? :d
Not really! I didn’t say they were 3rd world favorites – you did.
To keep the record straight when Clinton visited Bangladesh his agenda included visit to a village, but that had to be cancelled because the mullahs wouldn’t allow an adulterer to enter their village – it’s true, not a fabrication.
:d
Zafa, I remember Clinton’s visit quite well. My understanding was that there was a big security scare before he got to Bangladesh so they basically brought the villagers to the US embassy to meet him instead.
There was concern in both Pakistan and Bangladesh. In Bangladesh the issue was that they could not guarantee that the helicopter ride from the embassy to the village would be safe, so they scrapped the trip. I also recall that Clinton landed in Dhaka in an unmarked airplane while everyone was expecting him a little later in a different airplane.
Here is a CNN news item about Clinton’s visit to Bangladesh and his cancellation of the village trip. You will note in the article that back in 2000, the US was pressuring Pakistan to do more to get Bin Laden. For those who now want to rewrite history, here is an account from that time that Clinton was not ignoring Bin Laden.
I’m not suggesting US foreign policy has been all bad. Firstly, whenever doing ‘good’ is in the perceived self-interest of the US, good is done. Beyond that…rarely. How can you accept that governments inherently favour the elite (a corruption) and then deny a systematic corruption that causes the US to commit atrocities? It doesn’t commit atrocities for kicks. It’s not some evil sadist monster. It does so when it is in the percieved self-interest of the ruling class. This is a systemic problem, which is why it resurfaces so regularly.
Of course the US doesn’t have a monopoly on evil. But pointing out that ‘they do it too’ is no defense of the US.
Incidentally, the US was very heavily involved in all of those examples you cited, except perhaps Bangladesh and Rwanda (I don’t know so much about those).
It is an “achievement” that is down to the Palestinian’s use of terror, not Clinton diplomacy. Israel only discussed the right of return issue if by “discussed” you mean ‘refused outright any sort of compromise’. It’s not that Israel isn’t willing to “give up” Jerusalem for free. It’s that Israel is not willing to return E. Jerusalem because it really wants it, and thinks it can have it forever. One of the reasons it thinks it can keep it forever is that it knows it can rely on US diplomatic and financial support no matter how much it breaks the law and no matter how oppressive it is to the Palestinians, a reliance Clinton did nothing to dispel.
But why? Why should Israel think it will eventually have to give up E. Jerusalem? It has a vastly superior military and it has the unconditional support of the world’s only superpower. It has kept up the occupation for decades, and in the meantime it was worked to create “facts on the ground” and strengthen its annexation of West Bank settlements blocs and E. Jerusalem so that when the final settlement does come, if it does, Israel will not have to give either up.
There was an actual clause in the proposal Israel presented to Arafat that said ‘this is the final resolution.’ Israel knew that Arafat could never sign it, and so the whole Camp David thing was just another example of Israel’s strategy of ‘endless negotiations’. Some “achievement”.
Well, I guess that has more to do with image and lack of competition than actual policies.
I’m not using the word ‘war criminal’ lightly at all. The sanctions in Iraq were surely one of the worst genocides in the latter part of the 20th century. One million people were killed, half of them children.
Clinton, although he didn’t initiate them, kept implementing them throughout his term in office.
The bombing of the al-Shifa plant in Sudan was an unquestionable aggression, defined at Nuremberg as the “supreme war crime”.
Do you disagree?
Well, obviously I disagree. But would make for an interesting discussion…care to state your case?:)
Great post Mash…the loss of whatever defective moral compass we might once have had is one of the things that bothers me most about this administration.
But in fairness, Heathlander…you state that the US has done good only when it meets its own perceived self-interest. Well, of course that’s true. And INEVITABLE. NO country in the world has ever knowingly acted in a way contrary to its own self-interest…any leader who did so would not be serving the interest of the people he leads, and thus would not be a very good leader (like GWB, acting in the oil companies’ interest but certainly NOT the interest of the US as a whole). Did Britain give up India out of the goodness of its heart? No, they did so because India was becoming too expensive to keep, in terms of blood, treasure, and international reputation. Even the Marshall Plan stipulated that the Europeans receiving aid should purchase American goods. Did that self-serving caveat invalidate the good that the Marshall Plan did? Certainly not. Did the French, Germans, Italians and others kept warm and fed by Marshall Plan aid throw rocks at the aid ships or ignore the good intent behind the plan? No, they didn’t, because they saw that, regardless of the benefit to Americans, they were surviving thanks to the Americans.
My point is, if you judge the actions of ANY nation simply by self-interest, you’re only seeing half the picture. It might be nice to hope that the US will start using its vast wealth and influence to help others, even at its own expense, but that hope is not realistic, and more to the point, without precedent. While I wholeheartedly agree that the US has done some awful things in its own (or its elites’) self interest, that doesn’t make the US different or worse than ANY other nation on earth…in fact it confirms the basic notion that nations are groups of individual human beings, and are thus neither perfectly altruistic nor universally good, even when they appear to be DOING good. Americans are no better or worse than anyone else…we just have more wealth and power to get on the front pages and take the heat from OTHER self-interested parties.
Mash, I didn’t mean to undermine Clinton’s actions to diffuse terrorism. I absolutely agree that the maximum headway towards peace in mid-east occurred during his time, with his leadership. I was actually pointing to the moronic gestures of the uneducated, shariah driven Mullahs of BD. I’m sure you heard about the latest outcry on the dispute involving first day of fasting? Hell, even in U.S. the so called Muslim scholars (knowledgeable ones!) can’t agree on which day should to be the first of ramazan.8-|
As for popularity of U.S. prez in 3rd world countries – BD is just one of the many 3rd world countries. In BD the west is viewed widely as an Israeli ally, always partial to the Muslim world. But never in history has anybody been as unpopular as GW is in BD. He is the most hated U.S. prez ever in BD – there’s just divide on that.
Listen, Clinton obviously was waaaay better in foreign policy than Bush can ever dream of being.
I remember the time during W’s first campaign when he was asked what he knew about foreign policy his response was, and I quote “I’ll read up.â€:o
About that time he couldn’t even pronounce Yugoslavia or Slobodan Milosevic.
During one of the initial debates before the primaries he said “that guy from that place….†while referring to Milosevic.
Oh well, he still says ‘neukeller’ to mean ‘nuclear’. =))
[Having said all that, it DOES bother me that some of the greatest personalities of recent times lack on moral ground. MLK had affair, even Einstein had multiple (allegedly) affairs. But that’s really like going on a tangent …not the subject of this thread.]
“But in fairness, Heathlander…you state that the US has done good only when it meets its own perceived self-interest. Well, of course that’s true. And INEVITABLE”
Yes, it’s inevitable, but we should be clear about this – I never said the US acted in its own self-interest (and if I did, I didn’t mean to). I said ‘percieved’ self-interest, or sometimes ‘percieved short-term self-interest’.
Because, of course, the ruling class don’t act in the interests of the majority of the public. They act in their own interests. And, usually but not always, these interests do not coincide with those of everyone else. So Iraq – that was undertaken by the ruling class in America because they percieved it to benefit their short-term self-interest.
The problem with the current system, then, and most systems tried in the past, is that the ruling class are able to act contrary to the interests of the majority of the people. The idea of ‘democracy’ was supposed to get rid of this, and in a true democracy this might well happen. But, of course, the US does not have a true democracy. For example, a basic requisite for an actual as opposed to a simply notional democracy is that the citizens are well-informed. The mainstream media in the US act to disseminate corporate propaganda disguised as balanced news. No well-informed citizens, no democracy.
But if we had a system where the citizens were informed, and where the ruling class could not act against the interests of everyone else, I think we would see far more justice and legality in the world.
What that system will be, I can’t tell you. Some say anarchism, some say communism, some say a true democracy, some point to participatory economics.
In the mean time, we can work to make citizens more informed about the atrocities/injustices being committed in their collective name, and that will help put a stop to it. In fact, that’s the only thing that can put a stop to it.
The alternative is a grim defeatism that accepts as a ‘fact of life’ that the strong will always prey on the weak, the rule of law will never be enforced universally and states will always murder, torture and bully to get their own way. That is what the ruling class would like you to think.
The truth is that every form of oppression in history that has been overthrown has been overthrown due to mass popular pressure. Slavery, feudalism, sex discrimination…all systems of oppression that were overthrown by the sheer collective will of the public. The current system is no different, and it will require no less public pressure to overthrow (or change).
“Even the Marshall Plan stipulated that the Europeans receiving aid should purchase American goods. Did that self-serving caveat invalidate the good that the Marshall Plan did?”
No, it didn’t – but I never said it did. But the point is that, due to the very nature of exploitative capitalism, although corporate interests occasionally coincide with humanitarian interests, mostly they do not.
“Americans are no better or worse than anyone else…we just have more wealth and power to get on the front pages and take the heat from OTHER self-interested parties.”
Well, I’m not sure about that, but anyway it is not constructive to talk of ‘better’ or ‘worse’. What matters are the facts. The US is terrorist state, its leaders have consistently broken laws and supported human rights abuses, it isn’t a true democracy and simply saying that this is all ‘inevitable’ means we are doomed to another century of the same. What is true is that citizens of the US enjoy an extraordinary amount of freedom and civili liberties, which means they have more power (and so more responsibility) than anyone else to change the system.
sorry to be pedantic – it’s the Times of London – there’s no such thing s the London Times 🙂
Mash – you might be interested in the CIA ‘secret wars’
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article4068.htm
Sonia, I am not a particular fan of the CIA’s covert actions. I do however disagree with Heathlander’s characterization of the US as a “terrorist state”. As for the “secret wars”, the CIA has supported or helped along a lot of atrocities in the Third World. However, almost all those deaths were caused at the hands of Third Worlders. Just because the CIA was involved does not absolve the tyrants in the Third world of the blood on their hands. I guess that really is my point. From Indonesia (The Year of Living Dangerously) to Bangladesh, from Rwanda to Angola, it was native people killing native people. There is no way around that.
The rest of my response will have to wait until later in the day…:d
But the point is that, due to the very nature of exploitative capitalism, although corporate interests occasionally coincide with humanitarian interests, mostly they do not.
Amen to that. So, how do we move forward? I think we need to separate speech from money…that is, the “freedom of speech” should no longer be equated with “freedom to buy a politician.” How do we do that? Public financing of all campaigns, financed by a realistic corporate income tax structure (combined with a REAL capital gains tax). Those with most of the money to spend should bear the burden, but that doesn’t mean that every dollar they spend should be attached to a quid pro quo. Until that happens, your statement that
What is true is that citizens of the US enjoy an extraordinary amount of freedom and civili liberties, which means they have more power (and so more responsibility) than anyone else to change the system.
Is NOT in fact true! As long as big money rules American politics, the elites will remain in control and ordinary “citizens of the US” will NEVER have the power (notwithstanding the responsibility) to truly “change the system.” Though I try not to be fatalistic, with the elites in firm control of US democracy, I don’t see the power of the people being sufficient to change this, even in the face of EPIC Republican pay-to-play crony politics. Bald-faced theft and well-exposed hypocricy of the magnitude of the Abramoff/Tigua Casino scandal (or the Teapot Dome scandal, or the ABSCAM debacle) got plenty of people mad and ready for change; but that wasn’t enough to clear the HUGE hurdle put up by entrenched political interests.
In short, you outline all the reasons why Americans are truly NOT free and NOT empowered, then say they are the only ones who can change the situation. I see a bit of a contradiction here, to my great sadness. I WISH we could overcome this, and maybe someday we will. And I’m certainly not saying we should stop trying! But I’m not holding my breath for the change in my lifetime. Call that cynical and defeatist if you will; I call it realism.
I will, of course, wait for your full reply. But, in the meantime, I just want to say that of course it doesn’t absolve the Third World tyrants of anything. I have never tried to compare the US to anyone else in terms of atrocities – we were talking about the US, so I talked about US crimes. That isn’t to say the US is the only criminal.
Well, as I say the answer to that depends on who you talk to. I have not made up my mind yet. However, I think it’s a bigger problem than just separating ‘money from speech’. Money, or mor sepcifically, self-interest, must be separated from power. How to do this…as I say, I haven’t made up my mind yet.
No, but here’s the thing – the whole system works to place obstacle after obstacle in the way of people who want a change. The system is designed to try and make this as hard as possible to do, and to teach you that even if you wanted to, you can’t. But the fact is, with a democracy (even a far from perfect one like the US’) it is possible to change the system. You just need to have massive and sustained public action. For that, you need public awareness, which is what the system works so hard to destroy.
But, as slavery and feudalism and the like have taught us, it is possible.
Well said and summed, as always Mash!
Eek, Heathlander, I have not forgotten our discussion thread…
🙂
Don’t worry – it is unlikely we’re going to solve the problem of the American empire in this discussion thread.
Just some points to mull over, though…
Incidentally, what happened about that Bangladesh blog competition? Did ya’ win?
I’ve been engaged in taxations for lengthier then I care to admit, both on the individualized side (all my employed life!!) and from a legal stand since passing the bar and pursuing tax law. I’ve offered a lot of advice and corrected a lot of wrongs, and I must say that what you’ve put up makes complete sense. Please carry on the good work – the more individuals know the better they’ll be armed to deal with the tax man, and that’s what it’s all about.
Due to my experience you can get really high interest savings accounts online within minutes!