While use of drones has been going on for a while, there seems to be
more discussion of the topic recently, which is definitely a good thing.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/jan/30/deadly-drones-us-cowards-war?mobile-redirect=false
For
me the biggest concern is the potential disconnect between the
aggressor and his/her victim...the more removed and unreal the target,
the less emotionally involved the attacker, surely the greater the risk
of inhuman attitudes. Of course it could be argued that it is precisely
human weakness, fear, overreaction etc that leads to some of the
unnecessary brutality in war, and the collateral damage, since a
panicked soldier is an unstable one, but I think the following quote
from the article is more pressing :
"Citing the Germanmilitary theorist Carl von Clausewitz, it [UK Ministry of Defence]
warns that the brutality of war seldom escalates to its absolute form,
partly because of the risk faced by one's own forces. Without risk,
there's less restraint. With these unmanned craft, governments can fight
a coward's war, a god's war, harming only the unnamed..... The danger is likely to escalate as drone warfare becomes more automated and the lines of accountability less clear. "
The
dogs of war are bad enough, but at least if kept on a leash they drag
their owners with them and make them part of it. The drones of war fly a
bit too freely...
Monday, January 30, 2012
Wednesday, January 4, 2012
sanctioning bad behaviour
I have to say I barely read anything by Simon Jenkins anymore, since I don’t find his arguments at all convincing or well put, and in fact find his style rather vacuously rhetorical. Maybe his intentions are good, and I did agree with him in his arguments against the Iraq war, but looking back I think I may just have accepted poor reasoning since I agreed with the goal. However he does raise an important, and complicated topic in this article on the looming new round of sanctions against Iran.
His arguments seem to be both of practicality and of principle. So for example he claims sanctions were not only useless in achieving their aims in other countries (citing Iraq, Libya and Serbia) but have already long been tried to no avail against Iran itself, for the last 33 years in fact. Furthermore, he claims that sanctions actually lead to the war and conflict they are trying to avoid, since they create an embattled regime whose leaders not only are the ones least affected by the sanctions, but who can use these external aggressions as scapegoats to actually strengthen their power, and in doing so foster in an even more hardline and irresolvable position. Beyond these arguments as to why sanctions needn't be used, he also argues why they shouldn't be, claiming that the sanctioning countries are in fact meddling in areas which don’t concern them, in the case of the UK due to some post-imperial delusion, and in the US as political pandering to the pro-israeli lobby.
Before discussing the practical problems (regardless of the commentator all such points deserve attention, if only to be discounted once and for all) I would like to first reject the idea that it is not the ‘business’ of countries like the UK and the US. Even in basic economic terms, there is I believe a moral justificaton for being involved, since in the interconnected world, especially on important trade routes and in oil supply countries, then the militarization of regions is very much everyone's ‘business’ because the rippling economic effects influence the lives of millions in all countries. A global crisis sending developed and developing countries alike into miserable recession is something worth avoiding on humanitarian grounds as well as material ones. Participation in world affairs for economic reasons need not be solely viewed as trying to maximize exploitation; just trying to keep the game we’re all playing going doesn’t mean one is trying to win it by cheating.
Furthermore, and more importantly beyond economics, other countries’ actions are always the moral ‘business’ of other countries, just as the actions of other people are the moral business of individuals. While neutrality and disinterested isolation are perhaps better than active malicious actions, omission of action is as morally reprehensible as action itself; laissez faire is to accept the status quo, and hence to approve of it, and to be morally neutral is in fact to be morally bankrupt (although sadly not financially bankrupt, as the case of Switzerland in WWII shows). Also, and more practically, as in the social situation, there is the precedent that can be set through inaction. At an individual or international level, if someone is seen as ‘getting away with it’ then it will encourage others to do the same. So involvement is justified, indeed required, especially with respect to a state which has claimed it will wipe another off the face of the earth.
But there being a moral case for action does not mean that any action will do, and especially in world affairs there is perhaps nothing more dangerous than 'the politicians syllogism' (We must do something; this is something; therefore we must do this). When it comes to Iran I don't even pretend to have an answer to the question, and all I think I can contribute to the debate is the general suggestion that any solution will have to involve dealing with the realities of the situation, and taking into account all perspectives. The basic fact is that Iran is an islamic state, with traditions and values which in oe areas diverge from that of the west, and also a powerful one. Historical and diplomatic reasons, and some mistakes on the part of the west have resulted in a near pariah status, but this wasn't and isn't an inevitability. In addition it is brute fact that if it wasn't acquiring nuclear weapons then it should be. Apart from conventional enemies in a very volatile region, it already has a nuclear armed foe nearby in Israel. And of course it is being lectured on the inadvisability of nukes by a country which retains the right to first atomic strike, and has recently invaded its neighbour. Nothing is going to change these facts so they have to be lived with, but the successful defusing of the cold war, which brought the word so close to self-annihilation, shows that such situations can be resolved. Mutual Assured Destruction may still be best described by its initials, but it did work, and might be the only option. There may be suicide bombers in many domains, but that doesn't meant there are suicide states. Even those under dictatorial rule have a supporting elite with a self-preservation instinct (for example the generals etc.), and anyway Iran is no Libya or Zimbabwe.
But, leaving aside what better ways there are to address the Iranian question, some things can be said about the general approach of sanctions. Jenkins refers to Iraq, Libya and Serbia as failed examples , but these are all countries where the end result has been achieved, albeit with additional military (internal or external) intervention and it is not easily ruled out that the sanctions weakend the relevant regimes, militarily and politically. And of course the sanctions, did in all cases probably result in the containment of the problem, if not the immediate solution to it. Indeed it is claimed (e.g. here ) that sanctions were actually very effective in Libya, Yugoslavia and Liberia, and I tend to accept this. Similarly there are many examples of long term sanctions which haven't led to war, and are in no likelihood of doing so by themselves (for example with North Korea).
Also, from a moral perspective the appealing thing about sanctions is they are a relatively civilized way of dealing with disputes, since they are in affect a suspension of normal relations with entities which don't abide by accepted rules. Indeed, in my view, what is often the problem is not too many sanctions but not enough of them, or their inconsistent application, since there are many odious regimes and individuals who are tolerated for no morally good reason. A bit more practice is needed rather than less preaching. And in a rather limited set of options, the withholding of the carrot of material benefits is surely better than the stick of war.
Where Jenkins does have a point, and where sanctions do become problematic, is when they hurt the wrong people. When dealing with non-democratic regimes, where the peope at large have little influence, there is little point in making those people pay. And of course, public misery is easily manipulated to foster a defensive cohesion against an outside aggressor. And of course the classic example of sanctions going wrong in this way are the Iraq sanctions where corruption and incompetence led to starving the population of necessities while feeding the elite with luxuries That said, in well connected and relatively developed countries like Iran, but not perhaps in places like North Korea, there are ways in which that elite, which has interests and influence, can be squeezed. Of course if this is not working, or having undesirable effects, then the approach needs to be re-examined.
So I don't agree either with Jenkins' moral dismissal of involvement, or the outright rejection of sanctions. Something must be done, and if sanctions are the only way, and they are for sure a better alterntive to war, then so be it. But they need to be done in the right way, in a manner that is both pragmatically and morally correct. Boycotts work, but only if we hold back from demonization. The point is not to to ostracize states or people for the sake of it, or them forever from the social fold, , but to scold them into returning to it. It could be sanctions aren't suitable anymore for the Iranian problem, or at least not on their own, but they still can't be dismissed out of hand just because they haven't always worked before. More important is to have realistic and achievable goals, which in this case might not be a nuclear free region, but a stable and secure one, even with nuclear weapons.
I still believe if we can recover from the situation where thousands of nuclear weapons were primed and pointed at each other all over the world, we can recover from a situation where a few not yet existing nukes are planned in one small part of it.
His arguments seem to be both of practicality and of principle. So for example he claims sanctions were not only useless in achieving their aims in other countries (citing Iraq, Libya and Serbia) but have already long been tried to no avail against Iran itself, for the last 33 years in fact. Furthermore, he claims that sanctions actually lead to the war and conflict they are trying to avoid, since they create an embattled regime whose leaders not only are the ones least affected by the sanctions, but who can use these external aggressions as scapegoats to actually strengthen their power, and in doing so foster in an even more hardline and irresolvable position. Beyond these arguments as to why sanctions needn't be used, he also argues why they shouldn't be, claiming that the sanctioning countries are in fact meddling in areas which don’t concern them, in the case of the UK due to some post-imperial delusion, and in the US as political pandering to the pro-israeli lobby.
Before discussing the practical problems (regardless of the commentator all such points deserve attention, if only to be discounted once and for all) I would like to first reject the idea that it is not the ‘business’ of countries like the UK and the US. Even in basic economic terms, there is I believe a moral justificaton for being involved, since in the interconnected world, especially on important trade routes and in oil supply countries, then the militarization of regions is very much everyone's ‘business’ because the rippling economic effects influence the lives of millions in all countries. A global crisis sending developed and developing countries alike into miserable recession is something worth avoiding on humanitarian grounds as well as material ones. Participation in world affairs for economic reasons need not be solely viewed as trying to maximize exploitation; just trying to keep the game we’re all playing going doesn’t mean one is trying to win it by cheating.
Furthermore, and more importantly beyond economics, other countries’ actions are always the moral ‘business’ of other countries, just as the actions of other people are the moral business of individuals. While neutrality and disinterested isolation are perhaps better than active malicious actions, omission of action is as morally reprehensible as action itself; laissez faire is to accept the status quo, and hence to approve of it, and to be morally neutral is in fact to be morally bankrupt (although sadly not financially bankrupt, as the case of Switzerland in WWII shows). Also, and more practically, as in the social situation, there is the precedent that can be set through inaction. At an individual or international level, if someone is seen as ‘getting away with it’ then it will encourage others to do the same. So involvement is justified, indeed required, especially with respect to a state which has claimed it will wipe another off the face of the earth.
But there being a moral case for action does not mean that any action will do, and especially in world affairs there is perhaps nothing more dangerous than 'the politicians syllogism' (We must do something; this is something; therefore we must do this). When it comes to Iran I don't even pretend to have an answer to the question, and all I think I can contribute to the debate is the general suggestion that any solution will have to involve dealing with the realities of the situation, and taking into account all perspectives. The basic fact is that Iran is an islamic state, with traditions and values which in oe areas diverge from that of the west, and also a powerful one. Historical and diplomatic reasons, and some mistakes on the part of the west have resulted in a near pariah status, but this wasn't and isn't an inevitability. In addition it is brute fact that if it wasn't acquiring nuclear weapons then it should be. Apart from conventional enemies in a very volatile region, it already has a nuclear armed foe nearby in Israel. And of course it is being lectured on the inadvisability of nukes by a country which retains the right to first atomic strike, and has recently invaded its neighbour. Nothing is going to change these facts so they have to be lived with, but the successful defusing of the cold war, which brought the word so close to self-annihilation, shows that such situations can be resolved. Mutual Assured Destruction may still be best described by its initials, but it did work, and might be the only option. There may be suicide bombers in many domains, but that doesn't meant there are suicide states. Even those under dictatorial rule have a supporting elite with a self-preservation instinct (for example the generals etc.), and anyway Iran is no Libya or Zimbabwe.
But, leaving aside what better ways there are to address the Iranian question, some things can be said about the general approach of sanctions. Jenkins refers to Iraq, Libya and Serbia as failed examples , but these are all countries where the end result has been achieved, albeit with additional military (internal or external) intervention and it is not easily ruled out that the sanctions weakend the relevant regimes, militarily and politically. And of course the sanctions, did in all cases probably result in the containment of the problem, if not the immediate solution to it. Indeed it is claimed (e.g. here ) that sanctions were actually very effective in Libya, Yugoslavia and Liberia, and I tend to accept this. Similarly there are many examples of long term sanctions which haven't led to war, and are in no likelihood of doing so by themselves (for example with North Korea).
Also, from a moral perspective the appealing thing about sanctions is they are a relatively civilized way of dealing with disputes, since they are in affect a suspension of normal relations with entities which don't abide by accepted rules. Indeed, in my view, what is often the problem is not too many sanctions but not enough of them, or their inconsistent application, since there are many odious regimes and individuals who are tolerated for no morally good reason. A bit more practice is needed rather than less preaching. And in a rather limited set of options, the withholding of the carrot of material benefits is surely better than the stick of war.
Where Jenkins does have a point, and where sanctions do become problematic, is when they hurt the wrong people. When dealing with non-democratic regimes, where the peope at large have little influence, there is little point in making those people pay. And of course, public misery is easily manipulated to foster a defensive cohesion against an outside aggressor. And of course the classic example of sanctions going wrong in this way are the Iraq sanctions where corruption and incompetence led to starving the population of necessities while feeding the elite with luxuries That said, in well connected and relatively developed countries like Iran, but not perhaps in places like North Korea, there are ways in which that elite, which has interests and influence, can be squeezed. Of course if this is not working, or having undesirable effects, then the approach needs to be re-examined.
So I don't agree either with Jenkins' moral dismissal of involvement, or the outright rejection of sanctions. Something must be done, and if sanctions are the only way, and they are for sure a better alterntive to war, then so be it. But they need to be done in the right way, in a manner that is both pragmatically and morally correct. Boycotts work, but only if we hold back from demonization. The point is not to to ostracize states or people for the sake of it, or them forever from the social fold, , but to scold them into returning to it. It could be sanctions aren't suitable anymore for the Iranian problem, or at least not on their own, but they still can't be dismissed out of hand just because they haven't always worked before. More important is to have realistic and achievable goals, which in this case might not be a nuclear free region, but a stable and secure one, even with nuclear weapons.
I still believe if we can recover from the situation where thousands of nuclear weapons were primed and pointed at each other all over the world, we can recover from a situation where a few not yet existing nukes are planned in one small part of it.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)