Our World-Historical Gamble

Tech Central Station ^ | March 11, 2003 | Lee Harris

[beckett]

1: THE PROBLEM

Of the many words written for and against the coming war with Iraq, none has been more perceptive than Paul Johnson's observation in his essay "Leviathan to the Rescue" that such a war "has no precedent in history" and that "in terms of presidential power and national sovereignty, Mr. Bush is walking into unknown territory. By comparison, the Gulf War of the 1990's was a straightforward, conventional case of unprovoked aggression, like Germany's invasion of Belgium in 1914 and Japan's attack on Pearl Harbor."

The implications of this remark - like the implications of the war with Iraq - are profound. The war with Iraq will constitute one of those momentous turning points of history in which one nation under the guidance of a strong-willed, self-confident leader undertakes to alter the fundamental state of the world. It is, to use the language of Hegel, an event that is world-historical in its significance and scope. And it will be world-historical, no matter what the outcome may be.

Such world-historical events, according to Hegel, are inherently sui generis - they break the mold and shatter tradition.

[walden]

TechCentralStation started out as a techie site and has evolved to where it has some of the best thinking around-- I don't really know what or who it is, but I know that Jonah Goldberg and others at NRO read and refer to it from time to time.

[nathanbedford]

Yes, I am afraid they see the Bush administration as a pit bull that has slipped its leash.

To work another metaphor, they see us as the monster and themselves as Dr. Frankenstein whose duty it is to control their brawny but childlike tool. Their means of control was to be the UN and NATO but we have slippped those leashes.

If we have any sense we will not docilly put the UN leash back on for the occupaption of Irak but we will instead reward our friends and punish our enemies, while we do good for the Iraqi people. Let the liberals call that "imperialism" but it something the world needs a good dose of.

[walden]

"If we have any sense we will not docilly put the UN leash back on for the occupaption of Irak but we will instead reward our friends and punish our enemies, while we do good for the Iraqi people. Let the liberals call that "imperialism" but it something the world needs a good dose of."

I absolutely agree-- the "occupied territories" has basically been run by the U.N. for what, 35 years? Since the '67 war? I'm not sure, but I know that it's been long enough that the U.N. has a HUGE vested stake in NOT getting to a solution to the problem. The same has been true for Iraq, to a lesser degree-- running the "Oil for Food" program has been a huge boondogle since the first Gulf War.

[ggekko]

"But this is a value choice, and no more or less rational than the opting for self-preservation in the face of certain defeat that we would choose...."

This is exactly the heart of the issue but I could not disagree more with your assertion. In the arts and in cultural analysis cultural relativism has exerted a pernicious influence. It has effected the judgement of our elites to the point where we are afraid to assert traditional American values in foreign policy just as many politicians are embarassed to defend traditional American values on the domestic front.

Mr. Harris' piece was very guarded in its language. He coined the term "neo-sovereignty" rather than use the more emotionally loaded term "neo-imperialism". In reality Mr. Harris was describing a new policy of enlightened, non-exploitive neo-imperialism. The attempt to treat all cultures as equally valid has been at the root of the foreign policy malaise in the post-Cold War era.

A brief reprise of the history of British imperialism would be helpful to recount here. British imperialism was chraracterized by economic arrangements that favored the British but at the same time imposed the obligation of building civic institutions and training local administrators in the colony. The British system which has gradations of local autonomy leading to idependence seems preferable to many of the kleptocracies currently in power in the developing world. The fanatical anti-colonialism of FDR's administration led to the premature de-colonization of many counrties after WWII. The results of this policy are plain to see in Africa and the Middle East.

Mr. Harris' sovereignty concept is not "might makes right" but rather "right earns right"; that is to say the degree to which a government's sovereign rights are deemed to be legitimate should be directly proportional to the extent to which the government protects the human rights of its citizens. Based on this criterion many third world kleptocracies have questionable claims on legitmate state sovereignty.

The doctine of the inviolability of National Right of Self-Determination is closely allied with the idea of cultural relativism. The apparent affinity of many strains of Islamic culture for authoritarian governments is no historical accident. They are part of the same cultuaral tap root. An effective foreign policy for the 21st century will recognize that any government that systematically supresses human rights lacks legitimacy even if such a government is favored by the majority of its citizens.

The Natural Law doctrine is starting regain favor in legal circles. Having a universal standard against which to measure the behavior of governments is powerful concept which has been thrown away because of our uncritical acceptance derived from our anti-colonial past of the right of National Self-Determination. The existence of many "illiberal Democracies" in the world today is indicative of that fact that Democracy alone is not a sufficient guarantor of human rights.

[general_re]

This is exactly the heart of the issue but I could not disagree more with your assertion. In the arts and in cultural analysis cultural relativism has exerted a pernicious influence. It has effected the judgement of our elites to the point where we are afraid to assert traditional American values in foreign policy just as many politicians are embarassed to defend traditional American values on the domestic front.

Wait, wait - let's not conflate the notion of other cultures as rational with the notion that they are moral. The two concepts are not one and the same. In one sense, if I can eliminate the risk of punishment, it's a perfectly rational course of action for me to kill you and take your possessions - the risk is low and the rewards are high - but that hardly makes it moral for me to do so. And on the opposite side of that coin, sacrificing one's own life for the life of a perfect stranger is not really what we would call a rational choice, especially where self-preservation is held paramount, but in many circumstances, it is a highly moral choice.

So when I say that they are rational actors, it should not be taken to mean that everything they do is somehow okay - it's not intended to excuse them, but to explain them. And as I said, this is not least because defining them as "irrational" is not a useful designation - they aren't irrational, it's just a different calculus at work. And you can hardly understand your enemies without first coming to understand how they think.

An effective foreign policy for the 21st century will recognize that any government that systematically supresses human rights lacks legitimacy even if such a government is favored by the majority of its citizens.

And what then are we to make of a state that systematically suppresses the fundamental right of self-determination when it happens to dislike the results? There is no moral high ground in such a position, and no particular legitimacy inheres in such a foreign policy. "We know what's good for you better than you know what's good for you" has been the source of endless troubles throughout the world, literally for millennia, but now we're supposed to embrace that on our own behalf? And what will we say when someone comes to us and says "we know what's good for you better than you do"? Or will it simply be meaningless, because we have the power to impose our will upon others, and nobody has the power to impose theirs on us? In which case, isn't that exactly the same as saying that we have the right by virtue of the fact that we have the might?

Having a universal standard against which to measure the behavior of governments is powerful concept which has been thrown away because of our uncritical acceptance derived from our anti-colonial past of the right of National Self-Determination.

It's been thrown away because it's dangerous. It's a great idea, so long as you're the one who gets to decide which standard will apply. But what will we say when the world decides that laissez-faire capitalism "systematically suppresses the human rights" of the American people - namely, their "right" to free health care, free education, a massive welfare state, and so forth? Upon what grounds will we object if they decide to ignore the right of self-determination among Americans, and simply impose the sort of government they think we deserve?

No, I think it's really best to stay out of the crusade business in the first place. Iraq in its present form will die not because we have the "right" to adjudge its legitimacy, but because it is a danger to us and a danger to others, and because we have the right to defend ourselves from madmen with the ability to kill millions. But because we exercise that right, we have a corresponding responsibility to see that Iraq is reborn a better place. We don't do it because we have the right to remake the world as we see fit - we do it because our desire for self-preservation demands it, and leaves us no other choice. We don't act because we can, or because we have the right - we act because we have to. And then we follow the moral and humane course, and rebuild them better than they were before.

[ggekko]

"So when I say that they are rational actors, it should not be taken to mean that everything they do is somehow okay...."

Would that the Islamic fanatics and the Governments that support them act like characters from the "Sopranos"; the motivations and actions of "Soprano" type characters are at least comprehensible and somewhat predictable. What motivates many Islamic fanatics and intellectuals is the historical memory of a supposed Golden Age of Islamic culture that never existed. It is a narcotic fantasy invented by Islamic intellectuals. In my experience, there is nothing more dangerous than a person or culture mired in a delusion.

Your distinction between the rational and the moral is true but somehwat trivial in relation to the issue at hand. You did not address directly the question of cultural relativism in foreign policy. There are certain human freedoms that are universal. The issues you have raised are exactly how the Nazis defended themselves at the Nuremburg trails. Their argument was that everything that they did was legal under German law; since it was legal it was moral for them. Who were the Allies the to judge?

It was only after the prosecutors at Nuremburg adopted a Natural Law argument that asserted universal human rights that they were able to obtain convictions. The chief Allied prosecutor, Judge Jackson, mired as he was in the positivist theories of Oliver Wendell Holmes, nearly lost the case.

"And what then are we to make of a state that systematically suppresses the fundamental right of self-determination when it happens to dislike the results?"

According to this logic, then, Hitler would have been okay along as he didn't invade any other countries and stuck to only murdering German citizens. Under those circumstances according to your logic no other state would have the right to interfere in German internal affairs. A pretty curious doctrine.

I don't think it very difficult to seize the moral high ground from states such Cambodia under Pol Pot or Joseph Stalin's Soviet Union. The abuse of universal human rights in such countries is so pervasive and obvious that they inspire unanimous condemnation.

"It's a great idea, so long as you're the one who gets to decide which standard will apply..."

A Government that does not systemically supress ethnic minorities, does not arbitrarily supress basic economic freedoms, that promotes the rule of law, allows a free press, and does not supress religious expression cuts a broad swath across different cultures and types of Governmental forms of organization. It would include under its umbrella liberalizing Islamic regimes such as Qatar and European welfare states such as Sweeden. Even some Constutional monarchies would be able to deliver these rights to its people.

To think that states that cannot meet these basic criteria are dysfuntional and are potential candidates for change is not very hard to conceive. A Government of "limited and enumerated" powers has very strong appeal around the world. We seem to have forgotten this in a misguided desire to portray very culture and Government as being equally good and valid.

[Sabertooth]

Ping.

[Captain Beyond]

Powell is pretty set in his ways. I don't think this piece would change his mind. I still remember, then General Powell, urging President Bush(41) to give sanctions 2 years to work before deciding to go to war to liberate Kuwait. Bush ignored his advice and invaded about 2 months later.

[general_re]

What motivates many Islamic fanatics and intellectuals is the historical memory of a supposed Golden Age of Islamic culture that never existed. It is a narcotic fantasy invented by Islamic intellectuals. In my experience, there is nothing more dangerous than a person or culture mired in a delusion.

Again, while it is convenient to label them as "irrational" - particularly as we can then use that label to rationalize doing whatever it is we happen to want to do - it is simply not so. Whether their goal is real or attainable or practical or not is all neither here nor there - it is their goal, and it is what motivates them. And they act in a calculated manner, designed to advance that goal.

You did not address directly the question of cultural relativism in foreign policy. There are certain human freedoms that are universal.

Such as the "freedom" to have universal, cradle-to-grave health care, the "freedom" to breathe air that is 100% free of fossil fuel emissions, the "freedom" to advance in society according to the historical victimization of your particular ethnic group. Your argument is wonderful, so long as everyone agrees what those universal freedoms and rights are. Of course, if everyone agreed about what those universals were, we wouldn't be in this kind of mess in the first place.

But, of course, they don't agree, and so it's simply a game of who can impose their universals upon the others. You will notice, I hope, that nowhere do I deny that such a universal morality might exist - what I am telling you is that it is irrelevant. The truth doesn't matter in politics, whether local, national, or international - what matters is what people believe. And most people simply don't believe in your conception of universal human rights, so you have little choice but to simply impose it upon them - "we know what's better for you than you do".

But, the cry goes out, we have the forces of truth and justice on our side! Wonderful. The communists say exactly the same thing. The Islamists say exactly the same thing. I don't claim for a minute that all cultures are equally valid and moral, but in this argument, there is no difference. Everybody says that they have the right to impose upon another, everybody says that they have the right to violate some rights in pursuit of others - what makes you different from them? Why is your cause just, and theirs not? Because your ends justify those means? What happens when they make exactly the same claim?

[PatrickHenry]

Why is your cause just, and theirs not? Because your ends justify those means? What happens when they make exactly the same claim?

One could argue that there's an objective test for all of this. The society with the best values is (we hope) the one with the greatest ability to develop the best weapons, the best army, navy, air force, etc. Present circumstances would indicate that the US has won this objective test, thus we have earned the right to preserve our values against all competitors. History has, up to now, been very convenient for my argument. If we had been defeated in WWII, I wouldn't be making this argument. On the other hand, one can point to past societies that had good values (by our standards) yet which didn't do too well. Athens is a good example. The Roman republic is another. Not bad, while they lasted. I suppose the same is true of us. We should make the most of it. In the days of Confucius they called it the "mandate of heaven." Use it or loose it.

[tpaine]

THe author proposes:


"a double standard imposed by the U.S. on the rest of the world, whereby the U.S. can unilaterally decide to act, if need be, to override and even to cancel the existence of any state regime that proposes to develop WMD, especially in those cases where the state regime in question has demonstrated its dangerous lack of a sense of the realistic.
What the critics of this policy fail to see is the simple and obvious fact that if any social order is to achieve stability there must be, at the heart of it, a double standard governing the use of violence and force.
There must be one agent who is permitted to use force against other agents who are not permitted to use force.
The implementation of the fashionable myth that all violence is equally immoral and reprehensible would inevitably result, in a typical dialectical reversal, in the Hobbesian state of universal war.
Every civilized order, precisely in so far as it is a civilized order, relies on such a double standard.
The only alternative to this is the frank and candid acceptance of anarchy, the state in which all recourse to violence is equally legitimate. But what Mr. Butler and others fail to realize is that anarchy with clubs and sticks is a much preferable to anarchy with nuclear weapons.
_________________________________


-- He then goes on to stress that the USA can ~only~ exercise this double standard in regard to the use of weapons of mass destrution. -- And, -- that in order to do so, we would have to actually curtail efforts in our conventional 'peacekeeping' roles.

-- That the USA would ever adopt a role with such a limit on its power is very naive, imo.

16 by tpaine
__________________________________

It appears from the comments posted so far, that very few here have understood the authors point, as I quoted above.

[jaime1959]

Thanks for posting this. I'm an anti-war conservative and reading this has made me re-evaluate my position.

[Utah Girl]

Ping

[general_re]

The society with the best values is (we hope) the one with the greatest ability to develop the best weapons, the best army, navy, air force, etc.

Like the Mongols? Oh, wait, you probably mean the Huns ;)

Present circumstances would indicate that the US has won this objective test, thus we have earned the right to preserve our values against all competitors.

Preserve, or impose? Preserve, absolutely - and that's what I think we're doing in Iraq - but do we really have a moral mandate to impose our choices on others? If so, why?

I'm not allergic to the proposition that we do, BTW, but let's look at it from the point of view of an objective outsider - he's confronted with a multitude of claims, each one purporting to have universal truths on its side. How is he to evaluate them, and then arrive at the truths we tend to see as self-evident? After all, the "truths" of the Islamists are just as self-evident to them...

[ggekko]

"Again, while it is convenient to label them as "irrational".."

Words have maning and actions have consequences. There is an objective standard by which to measure the actions of political actors. To deny this is to embrace sophmoric anti-nomianism.

Osama Bin Laden has stated that his goal is to insulate the entire Arabian peninsula from the influence of Western culture. That he would adopt such a quixotic goal in an era of instant, cheap communication outlets almost all of which are controlled by Western media companies is a testimony to the depth of the man's delusion.

The fact that an entire culture of the Islamic world can be besotted with a 6th century revanchist fantasy is illustrative of the reality of cultural delusion. That someone (a cultural relativist, most likely) refuses to call such behavior irrational does not make any less so.

"But, the cry goes out, we have the forces of truth and justice on our side!.."

In case of Western civilization there is one important distinction: it happens to be true. Mere cultural chauvanism does not change the facts of history. An appropriate sensitivity about different cultures should not blind to us to the reality of cultural effectiveness in history. It is the worst sort of intellectual dishonesty to accept the "noble lie" of another culture based upon an insincere notion of divesity.

The best thing that could happen to the Islamic world would be to be told that they cannot defer their collision with the 21st century in a coccoon of false cultural nostalgia.

[PatrickHenry]

Me:
Present circumstances would indicate that the US has won this objective test, thus we have earned the right to preserve our values against all competitors.

You:
Preserve, or impose? Preserve, absolutely - and that's what I think we're doing in Iraq - but do we really have a moral mandate to impose our choices on others? If so, why?

It would be fine if these Islamic folk continued to wander in the desert, and were content to be peaceful, non-agressive, and picturesque third-worlders. Or if they matured (as we would see it) to be a mid-eastern version of Kansas or something. But they're not going to accept either role. To preserve our civilization, it would appear that we must, to some extent, impose some constraints on them. Not ideal, perhaps, but quite necessary.

[Mia T]

Survival is not chocolate ice cream; it is encoded in our every cell. To choose anything else is irrational… beyond irrational, even.

[general_re]

There is an objective standard by which to measure the actions of political actors.

Right. The Koran. So the Islamists say, when asked what objective standards should be used to measure the actions of political actors.

To deny this is to embrace sophmoric anti-nomianism.

LOL. See how easy that was? Just label me irrational for pointing out that claims such as yours are advanced by every party, and then you can rationalize ignoring the truth.

That he would adopt such a quixotic goal in an era of instant, cheap communication outlets almost all of which are controlled by Western media companies is a testimony to the depth of the man's delusion.

Better tell the Chinese - they're doing a bang-up job of controlling the flow of media. Or am I an irrational cultural relativist for pointing out that others are successfully carrying off what you claim is an impossible goal?

In case of Western civilization there is one important distinction: it happens to be true.

So you assert, anyway, along with everyone else who makes such claims. Really, if it's true, it ought to be easy enough for you to show it, rather than repeatedly coming up with new and clever ways to assert its self-evidence.

[general_re]

To preserve our civilization, it would appear that we must, to some extent, impose some constraints on them. Not ideal, perhaps, but quite necessary.

Which is about where I end up. Welcome to realpolitik ;)

[general_re]

Survival is not chocolate ice cream; it is encoded in our every cell. To choose anything else is irrational… beyond irrational, even.

As I type this, there are several hundred thousand of our sons and daughters, brothers and sisters, mother and fathers, lined up in the Persian Gulf, all of them ready to die, if necessary, to preserve and protect the rest of us. They willingly forego self-preservation in the name of some other cause. Are they irrational?

And if not, why is it necessarily irrational for others to die in the service of some cause they believe in? Because they have a different flag on their shoulders?