Bacevich and Kamm

I've pointed before to Oliver Kamm as the sort of "Atlanticist" eager to see John McCain in the White House, on the basis of him favouring a more interventionist foreign policy. Andrew Bacevich, meanwhile, is more of a stay-at-home conservative type, disadinful of foreign adventures and concerned about the deleterious effects an unwieldy military aparatus has on a free republic.

Here is an interesting instance of the former taking on the latter. A couple of things stick out though. Mr Kamm does his very best to try and chain Bacevich to the thought of historian Charles Beard, an isolationist who regarded American military action abroad as harmful to the republic. The anti-interventionist Beard does indeed feature in Bacevich's writings, but is part of a more general mosaic of 'realist' thought that he is drawing from. In an essay published a little while ago, Bacevich expanded on this:

There is, to be sure, a self-consciously amoral Old World strain of realism, a line running from Metternich to Bismarck in the 19th century and brought to these shores by Henry Kissinger. But there also exists a distinctively American realist tradition that does not disdain moral considerations. This homegrown variant, the handiwork of prominent 20th-century public intellectuals such as the historian Charles Beard, the diplomat George Kennan, the journalist Walter Lippmann, and the theologian Reinhold Niebuhr, provides a basis for seriously engaging the moral issues posed by international politics.

It is, in fact, Niebuhr and not Beard who is the most serious influence on Bacevich - the Cold War pastor who saw the world as it was, was unafraid to use power for good, but who was suspicious of America's moral pretensions, anchored, as they were and are, to delusional fantasies of military dominance. Any attempt to paint Bacevich as some kind of ressurected Lindbergh, unmindful of evil and sedulous in the use of power, will come unstuck, just as Kamm's does.

A few other differences between Mr Kamm and Professor Bacevich: one has had extensive experience in the military; one teaches foreign relations at an eminent university; one has published scholarly works on American foreign policy; one has lost a son in the Iraq war; and one has been, consistently, correct in his analysis of that conflict. That person is not, I might add, Mr Kamm.

Beijing Again

Norm directed me to this very elegant piece of reasoning, concerning a Beijing boycott, sent to him by Jonathan Quong. It goes much, much further into the mechanics of arguing for a boycott than I could have done, and does so in a spare, lucid, generous way. I'm speaking next Wednesday at the Historical Society in Trinity on this subject, and hope to employ some of these very arguments, and so I must declare an early note of gratitude to Mr Quong for setting them out in such a direct and convincing manner.

I would take issue, however, with one stage of the argument: the contention that we "are each under a duty of justice not to participate in, or benefit from, projects or activities that involve violations of other people's rights." Mr Quong assumes this statement, though "stringent", to be "uncontroversial". I'm not so sure.

It is, of course, preferable that people avoid involving themselves in projects that directly violate the rights of others. Torturing people in attempts to extract information is definitely not on. The example given by Mr Quong- declining a dinner party invitation on the grounds that slave labour is used- is pretty open and shut: no thanks. Another example, say, would be not investing your money in companies that, while offering a healthy return, are contributing to genocide.

But, beyond these flourescently obvious cases, their exists a vast, penumbral grey zone, in which any statement promulgating a strict "duty of justice" becomes very problematic: "projects and activities" seems to me a very spacious remit indeed. Without trying to bring in a specifically Christian element, I think its fairly safe to say that we live in a 'fallen' world - a hard, unfriendly place fully-laden with deeply intermeshed injustices, which, however diligently we try, we cannot rid ourselves of. The oranges we buy, the shoes that we wear, the cars we drive, the news we watch, the money we make - all of it, at some point, passes through some stage of production whereby, somehow or other, it is connected to a human rights violation, even if that violation is only minor. An "activity" such as injecting money into the American economy by buying the New Yorker every week might, through a succcession of financial mutations, go to pay the salary of a CIA worker skilled at waterboarding. The taxes I pay can be funnelled, via a "project" like Irish Aid, and a series of graft and theft, into the Treasury of a toxic African regime. And so on, ad infinitum.

In the face of this, any abstract "duty of justice" that is not more rigourously defined falls short of responding to the world as it is. This is not to refute Mr Quong's point; only to add a qualification.

But another, related, issue is when rights are in conflict. Any broadly conceived and "stringently" enforced "duty of justice" doesn't take account of the necessity of sometimes settling for the lesser evil. It's not very edifying to say so, but sometimes, human rights must be overlooked in favour of the greater good. This, obviously, will not always be the case, but a realistic worldview simply can't dispense with this abiding truth. In my own view, its in the tangle and tumult of experience, and not in generalised, postulated "duties", that we must locate the drive to protect human rights. But in doing so, we must also accept that we cannot always protect them, and that, in some way, we may inadvertently - and inescapably - be violating them. Thus a "duty of justice" will, to my mind, simply not always work.

All this does not, however, entirely absolve us of our moral responsibilities. A boycott of Beijing is, in my view, the realistic option for athletes who take seriously the promotion of human rights, and who do not wish to participate in the glorification of a horrid regime. And fair play to Mr Quong for tackling the issue in such a bracing manner.

4000 - and counting

Of all the comment about the US toll in Iraq reaching its next grisly milestone, this stands out as all that really needs to be said.

Bacevich and Obama

One of the books that made conservatism intellectually attractive to me was Andrew Bacevich's The New American Militarism, and he's been making the cogent conservative case against the continuation of the war for a good while now. Here he is making the conservative case for - surprise - Obama.

McCain's merits?

Oliver Kamm still reckons that, like himself, John McCain was "right" about the invasion of Iraq. Leaving aside how anybody can really be "right" about a conflict so fraught with moral complexity and political ambiguity, he then goes on to say that the "Western alliance" would be "well led" by a McCain presidency. Judging from other evidence, though, this seems questionable indeed.

Norm on Beijing

Norm Geras has a characteristically thoughtful response to the issue of whether the Beijing Olympics should be boycotted.

Norm's basic objection is that Irish - or any - athletes should not be made "answerable" for China's human rights record. This is a stance that I agree with entirely, and, were the issue of a boycott to become one of punishing athletes - as Pat Hickey disingenuously implied - I would not have written the article. I would also go further and say that I don't think athletes should be unduly pressured (or 'shamed') into pulling out of something that they have been working hard for, for many years, simply to make a political point that they may not agree with (there are, no doubt, Kissingerian realists among our Olympians).

The point of advocating a boycott however - and of writing the piece - is my own hope that individual athletes would, in the light of his or her own conscience, decline to be part of something that would have such baleful political consequences for the world at large. China's Olympics will, without a doubt, legitimise a regime and a power that has yet to earn that legitimacy. Indeed, it has seemingly worked hard to disown any kind of international legitimacy, playing patron to a host of grisly states - Burma, Zimbabwe, North Korea, and Sudan - who are far beyond the pale of the international community. Ethnic slaughter, mass torture, concentration camps - these are the activities that Chinese influence underwrites. And this is without even mentioning the issue of freedom in China itself, or repression in Tibet, or habitual belligerence toward Taiwan, or the environmental meltdown that the Olympics is precipitating.

The idea is to make credible the idea of deciding to not to go to Beijing for political reasons - but that decision is for each individual athlete to make, just as it will be for every viewer to make when they decide what to watch on TV this coming August. To take away that choice is not what advocating a boycott is about, but to make the choice real, and to (hopefully) show that it has consequences, both good and bad.

If this wasn't readily apparent in the Times piece, its perhaps because I used the catch-all "Ireland" when I should have said "Irish athletes" - as in the closing paragraph that Norm cites. All that said, I think Norm did a far better job than Mr Hickey in articulating opposition to boycott calls.

Boycott Beijing!

My take on why we should avoid the festivities in a torturing, genocide-supporting nation is here. Don't forget to vote!

Bad Birthday News

I couldn't imagine a story that more readily embodies the grim prospects facing Iraq.

Finglas

This is, in a big way, not very surprising. Paddy's Day skankery has been around for a long time, and it was only going to get worse, as kids can now buy drink that is cheaper than water.

The Speech

Obama's speech - with much heft and aplomb - reaffirmed why he is the great hope of those who long to see America return to its greatest traditions. And not only that - he wrote the thing himself. The text is here; the video, here.

Yes, we can.

Five Years On

Two takes on the same site offer competing views of Iraq - Fred Kaplan and Christopher Hitchens.

I have to say that both pieces manage to articulate the divergence and conflict of my own thinking on the war - opposition, support, qualified support, qualified opposition, opposition. This variance no doubt reflects the uncertainty and instability of the conflict itself, its vexed and troubling inconsistencies. Now the country is balanced between the cost of occupation and the complexities of withdrawal, with bloodshed guaranteed either way. What happens next will require both the thoughtfulness and the nuance demonstrated by the gentlemen from Slate.

The Congregation

Publius at Obsidian Wings has a well-reasoned and thoughtful post about the whole Obama-Wright snafu, which would be, in an ideal world, the final word on the subject. Alas, the Kingdom of Heaven dwelleth not among us.

Geras and Gray

This blog owes its inception to the good offices of internet legend and all-round good egg Norm Geras. Here he is easily disposing of serial gloommonger John Gray. One aspect of Gray's argument that Norm doesn't deal with however, and which shouldn't go unchallenged, is that "belief in progress is a relic of the Christian view of history as universal narrative" - that is, that a "Christian view of history" is essentially progress-minded.

This seems to me quite wrong, suggesting, as it does, that the Christian worldview understands history as some kind of linear narrative of incremental improvement. Nothing, of course, could be further from the truth. As John Burrow points out in his recent, magisterial A History of Histories:

"The impact of the Bible on Christian conceptions of history ... was radical and pervasive ... The fact that biblical history presented the dealings of God with his Chosen People in something like a recurring pattern of transgression, punishment and deliverance meant that the same pattern could be expected to be repeated so long as history lasted: history presented as a recurring series of types and situations within the historical macrocosm of primal sin and final judgement." (p 182)

Thus its the "notion of repetition", in Burrow's words, which furnishes the framework for the Christian conception of history - not a "universal narrative" of progress, as Gray contends. He has got it exactly wrong. This kind of ignorance, however, is surely what one would expect from a "philosopher" and "historian" esteemed the world over.

"Standard Operating Procedure"

The New Yorker has been among the best in uncovering and documenting how the United States has become a torture nation. Philip Gourevitch - who incidentally wrote the finest book on the Rwandan genocide - has a detailed and chilling piece in this week's issue that focuses on the sadistic regime established at Abu Ghraib. It continues that good work.

All the News That's Fit to Print

Further to this, isn't it a little timewarpish to read of "sabotage" "masterminded" by nefarious "cliques"? What does it remind one of? This? Or perhaps this?

As Faulkner wrote: the past is never dead; it's not even past.