I’ve been thinking a bit more about the conference on
Terrorism, Security, & America’s Purpose
that I sat through for a long day on Tuesday and most of yesterday. There
was lots of great substance, from some very impressive thinkers and analysts
(and a fair bit of dross, too.) The “spectacle” aspect of it was notable
too: 700 people sitting at banquet tables in a vast banquet-hall in the Capital
Hilton; panel after panel of big-name politicians, thinkers, and funders
following each other with clockwork regularity to a long “front table” lit
with heavy TV lighting and flanked by massive video screens…
(And, it has to be said, a gallery of performers that was very heavily tilted
towards white males… What is it about “security” issues that makes the
guys sweep women’s wisdom aside so lightly? I swear to God things were
better in Washington DC in this respect ten years ago, than today.)
At one point early along the way I got to wondering, “What is this massive–and
not cheap– undertaking all about?” And as I noted
here,
I concluded that it was an an attempt to stage a public forum on the listed
was “both high level and wide-ranging”. And it’s true that the
conference did lend itsK-Street-glitzy stamp of political “legitimacy” to
ideas as far-reaching as that (1) Bush’s Iraq policy needs a serious re-thinking
, and even that (2) the non-resolution of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict
had contributed to Muslim and worldwide hostility to the US. As
an addendum to the latter proposition– which I had voiced a few times in
my work in the working-group on “Underlying causes of terrorism”, and which
Nir Rosen, Juan Cole, and a number of other speakers made very explicitly
from the big podium– it was even urged that (3) the US government needs
to be much more pro-active in working for a Palestinian-Israeli peace than
it has been until now.
Well, none of those propositions is actually terribly radical– though number
2 there scarcely ever gets adequately voiced in the mainstream political
discourse in the US. But all three of them have been under-argued until
now. So the conference made a good– if perhaps not optimally cost-effective?–
contribution to opening up the space in the mainstream discourse wherein
such propositions can be more fully aired, discussed, and even seriously
advocated…
Regarding number 1, the case for a US withdrawal from Iraq that is both speedy
and total was never really made, by anyone up at the podium; though several
speakers urged some form of withdrawal that would be rather short of that
definition. A number also pointed to the need to open negotiations
with Iran— another proposition that until now has generally been taboo
in mainstream policy discussions in the hyper-charged atmosphere of DC.
By the way, by far the most effective public advocate on propositions 2 and
3 above was Daniel Levy, Shimon Peres’s chief point-man (point-person?)
on negotiating the Track-Two “Geneva Accords”, who was passionate and articulate. At one point
he described US support for Israeli maximalism as being “the elephant in
the room regarding Muslim opposition to the US”, and said it was high time
Americans recognized the existence of this elephant and dealt with it, rather
than trying to pretend it doesn’t exist.
So the space-opening function of the conference was a good one… But along
the way there another question about the conference started to niggle at
me… What about this whole concept of America’s “purpose”, anyway?
Why should we think that a nation, or a country has to have some form of
“purpose” any “higher” or any different than the purpose of, for example,
supporting and optimizing the wellbeing of its citizens? (Something
that, this week of all weeks, we should note the United States of
America is not terribly good at doing, anyway.)
Why, in particular, does a nation need to have a “purpose” that in any way
transcends its own national borders– regardless of whatever it might choose
to do within its borders?
Do citizens of any other nations earnestly sit around and discuss what the
“purpose” of their nation, or their country, might be?
Isn’t the “purpose” of, say, Norway, primarily to look after the wellbeing
of Norwegians; of Hungary, Hungarians; of Malawi, Malawians; and so on?
And inasmuch as any nation seeks to have a “purpose” that might transcend
its own borders, shouldn’t citizens of that nation be rather cautious about
defining what that purpose might be? Certainly, one would want its people
to err on the side of both conservatism and benevolence, if the concept of
the country having some form of trans-national purpose is not to slide over
into some form or another of “manifest destiny” or “mission civilisatrice
“.
No-one that I heard speaking from the podium at the conference raised the
ontological question about America’s “purpose” in this form, at all. That’s
a pity. It would have been a good and important discussion to have.
(I referred to it a little bit in one of my submissions to the working
group, archived here
.)
One last note about the “purpose” of our nation being to optimize the wellbeing
of its citizens. The UN Development Program’s Human Development
Report 2005 has just come out. It has a fascinating box of info
about “Inequality and health in the United States.” You can find
it on p. 10 (58) of
this
PDF file. It notes, inter alia, that:
mortality trends are especially troublesome. Since 2000 a half
century of sustained decline in infant death rates first slowed and then
reversed… Malaysia
“The US government needs to be much more pro-active in working for a Palestinian-Israeli peace than it has been until now.”
if only Clinton had devoted more of his time working for a peace settlement, this quarrel doubtlessly would be history by now…there certainly is a lesson for Bush here.
Yasir Arafat deserves another Nobel Peace prize — for dying. Since his death the peace process has moved forward. The other contributors to peace have been the Wall and the deaths of the leaders of Hamas.
The disengagement may be part of the same trend, but if the Hamas types are serious in believing that it was caused by their military offensive, then the disengagement will work to increase, rather than decrease, military activity.
The Palestinian-Israeli conflict has been preserved and extended by the intervention of the world powers — the US and the Arab states. Left to themselves, a resolution, military or diplomatic, would have been accomplished decades ago. More external intervention can only provide both sides with “Military insurance”, that is, launch a small military adventure and you cannot lose territory, your backers will protect you.
The disengagement that is needed is for the Arab states and the US to pull back from the region and let them resolve it. The Oslo accords fell apart because both sides knew they could demand “One more centimeter” without incurring major losses.
Of course, it is absolutely impossible for the Arab states or the US to pull back. The conflict will continue.
WarrenW you are cruel and disrespectful. I have seen the late Yasser Arafat and heard him speak. I respect him as a brave man and a leader of his people. I don’t think ugly remarks like yours should pass without a challenge.
Dominic.
Warren,
I tend to agree with you. Perhaps our friend Dominic should consult with the family of Cleo Noel before heaping praise on Arafat.
This is way off-topic, but do you know what happened to Baghdad Burning? She has not posted since July 15 and then due to the arrest of a fellow-blogger. Is she still alive?
Alice
O.k., JES, for once I have followed one of your links and what I find is that you are spreading an accusation by Ariel Sharon that the late Yasser Arafat was recorded ordering this person killed.
This is how you guys work, isn’t it? You slip an allegation into a memorial on the Arlington Cemetary web site and then you cite it. After that you start citing the citations and pretty soon you’ve got a whole dodgy dossier to shove around.
Now would you like to tell me how many people Ariel Sharon has murdered? He’s still alive, of course. Or will you rather just agree to stop this nonsense.
WarrenW, why do you feel you need to come here and air your hate-fueled accusations in public– and to do so moreover on a post to which they bear no relationship?
The other contributors to peace have been the Wall and the deaths of the leaders of Hamas.
The Wall… a contributor to peace?? Tell that to the Palestinian farmers and townspeople.
And “deaths” of Hamas leaders? How about using the correct term which is “extra-judicial executions”. EJE’s are of course are illegal under all provisions of international law and of the national law of all civilized states.
Then this: The disengagement that is needed is for the Arab states and the US to pull back from the region and let them resolve it. The Arab peoples and states were in “the region” long before the creation of Israel. But now you’re saying they should leave it? Where do you suggest they go?
You just seem consumed with fear and hatred. I hope your situation gets better.
And JES, your propagandizing is only a little less crude– but equally off the subject here.
Let’s return to a discussion of “Nations and purposes” please?
The more I think about it, the more I would tend to distrust any political leadership that claims that its nation has any kind of unique, unilateral purpose in the world. Of course, such “purposes” are always presented in seemingly benevolent terms. (The “Greater East Asian Co-prosperity Sphere” comes to mind.) But if they are presented as uniquely vested in one particular national leadersip, how can they not be a thin cloak for imperialist or other exploitative interests?
(Alice: check it out: Riverbend is back, today.)
No-one that I heard speaking from the podium at the conference raised the ontological question about America’s “purpose”
Frankly, I can say its not the Americans citizens chose, all we see JWB surrounded by a few who had ambustion plan to control the ME wealth, who cares about Americans , killed or die, Katrina its A God massage to Americans to wakeup.
Another telling incident that points to a “nefarious plan” is what New Orleans Mayor Ray Nagin said at the height of the crisis. He said publicly, “I fear the CIA may take me out!” Mayor Nagin, a Black, said this twice. He told a reporter for the Associated Press: “If the CIA slips me something and next week you don’t see me, you’ll all know what happened.
America’s “purpose” = a group purpose
Helena, I share your strong suspicion of any talk about our national “purpose.” There is no possible reason for such foolishness, other than to distract attention from the failure of the governing elites to address the real problems confronting the citizenry. We all know perfectly well what those problems are: poverty, health care, housing, education, unemployment, crime, pollution, old age security. But these are problems that affect only the little people, not the powerful elites. In fact, they are the very elements that define and distinguish the two groups. To “cure” these problems would mean eliminating the
advantages that allow the few to control the many. Why would they want to do that?
Of course, steps must be taken to keep the herd from growing too restless and stampeding in the wrong direction. Hence, the national “purpose.” If the little people can be convinced that something like fighting the “global war on terror” is critical to the survival of the herd, then they will bear their individual hardships with a sense of pride, and direct most of their anger and frustration toward outsiders and dissenters. At least until a large number of them have gone over the cliff, as is now happening in Iraq, Mississippi and Louisiana.
So my cynical view of your conference and others like it would be this: the more sensible elites all know the current national “purposes” (GWOT, spreading democracy, etc.) aren’t going to keep fooling the people much longer, and they need some new products to roll out. The current party leadership (on both sides) is incapable of generating any new compelling ideas. So the support groups are doing some brainstorming, hoping to develop new marketing strategies in time for the mid-term election season. This also explains such artifacts as Richard Holbrooke’s op-ed in today’s Washington Post.
I think the probability of this process resulting in substantive policy changes benefiting the masses is approximately zero. Do you disagree?
I think the probability of this process resulting in substantive policy changes benefiting the masses is approximately zero.
So far, JC, “the masses” have been notably absent from all such discussions– both as participants and as reference points. On the other hand, any step at the policy level that ends the US occupation of Iraq and does something to right the balance of power and relationships between the US and the rest of the world will certainly benefit the US citizenry as a whole.
But yes, the non-elite portions of the citizenry definitely need to be brought back into the discussion on as proportional a basis as possible. Who will do this, though? Re-engineering the Democratic Party so it would be positioned to do it could take us a long, long time!
“any step at the policy level that ends the US occupation of Iraq and does something to right the balance of power and relationships between the US and the rest of the world will certainly benefit the US citizenry as a whole.”
Not necessarily. The US occupation of Iraq is most likely to be ended because of the fact that we are losing the war, not because our leaders are suddenly becoming more enlightened (although defeat can be a learning experience). The balance of power between the US and rest of the world will be “righted” because of a quarter century of disastrous economic policy and looting of the nation’s wealth by a handful of global capitalists. It is unclear to me how either of these developments will benefit the US citizenry as a whole. Perhaps you would care to explain.
A national purpose around the optimization of the well being of its citizens is a very reasonable starting point. It may need some refining where, like any optimization problem, one has to define in what time horizon. The policies required to optimize my own well being are very different than those that focus on the well being of my grandchildren. If you ask me I worry more about my grandchildren’s future than my own.
A short term optimization limited to our own citizens might support some of the unpopular stances of the US, like consuming a disproportionate fraction of the world resources, ignoring global warming and pollution, opportunistic immigration policies, and unequal global wealth distribution.
A longer term view may fix some of those, but then again may underpin some imperialistic behaviors. It is clear that reality is more complex than said uni-dimensional optimization. Outsourcing US jobs to China and India does not respond to either optimization horizon, yet it is rampant.
I concur with Dominic’s insistent view of the world as sliced into classes as much as it is sliced into nations, perharps even more so.
David
“A vast association of the whole nation… in which the free development of each is the condition for the free development of all”
Karl Marx, Communist Manifesto, 1848.