Simple truths, hard choices
By Noam Chomsky
Nov. 26 — In discussion of international relations, the
fundamental principle is that “we are good”—“we”
being the government, accepting the totalitarian concept that state
and people are one. “We” are benevolent, seeking peace and
justice, though there may be errors in practice. “We” are
foiled by villains who can’t rise to our exalted level.
The events of recent weeks — including the US elections, the attack
on Fallujah, the death of Yasser Arafat and the shifts in President
Bush’s cabinet — dramatize the principle and, on a human level,
ratchet up the peril of war and terror.
Washington’s military policies “carry an appreciable risk
of ultimate doom,” write strategic analysts John D. Steinbruner
and Nancy Gallagher in the summer issue of Daedalus, a journal not given
to hyperbole. The authors go on to express the hope that the threat
will be countered by a coalition of peace-loving nations led by China.
Clearly matters are at a bad pass if peace must rely on China. Democracy
can do better.
The urgency is apparent. In Iraq, 100,000 civilians may have died as
a direct or indirect consequence of the US-led invasion in March, according
to a study in The Lancet conducted by a research team at Johns Hopkins
University. (Washington and London discounted the study.)
That’s not counting the recent deaths in Fallujah. The assault
began as US forces and Iraqi troops seized Fallujah General Hospital,
described by officers as a “propaganda weapon for the militants”
with its stream of reports of civilian casualties, according to The
New York Times. Another Times story reported, “Patients and hospital
employees were rushed out of rooms and ordered to sit or lie on the
floor while troops tied their hands behind their backs.”
The attack on the hospital is in explicit violation of the Geneva Conventions,
part of the “supreme law of the land” and the foundation of
modern humanitarian law. The War Crimes Act of 1996 (passed by a Republican
Congress) carries the death penalty for commanders responsible for “grave
breaches” of the Geneva Conventions.
The War Crimes Act also surfaced with the appointment of White House
counsel Alberto Gonzales as attorney general. In January 2002, in a
memo to the president about new measures in the war on terrorism, Gonzales
advised Bush to circumvent the Geneva Conventions — which thereby
“substantially reduces the threat of domestic criminal prosecution
under the War Crimes Act.”
Disregard for international law is a point of pride for Bush’s
people. Condoleezza Rice, Bush’s appointee as secretary of state,
rehearsed her views in the January 2000 issue of Foreign Affairs, where
she condemned the “reflexive appeal” to notions of international
law and norms, and the belief that the support of many states —
or even better, of institutions like the United Nations — is essential
to the legitimate exercise of power.”
Today Washington’s avowed goal is to graft democracy onto the Middle
East. The death of Arafat provides another instructive case study on
democracy in practice.
“The post-Arafat era will be the latest test of a quintessentially
American article of faith: that elections provide legitimacy even to
the frailest institutions,” Steven Erlanger writes in The New York
Times. But the article goes on to point up a paradox: “In the past,
the Bush administration resisted new national elections among the Palestinians.
The thought then was that the elections would make Mr. Arafat look better
and give him a fresher mandate, and might help give credibility and
authority to Hamas.”
In short, the quintessential article of faith is fine if the results
come out the right way. Otherwise, we’ll block them.
There are problems with the US presidential election, far beyond alleged
vote tampering. The election had about the same significance as tossing
a coin to pick a king. If the coin was slightly weighted, that’s
unfair, but not the main issue. Much more important is the democratic
deficit that we’re running up. The evidence is overwhelming that
the opinions of the majority of the population on major issues were
simply off the campaign agenda, either within the political parties
or in mainstream discussion, with rare exceptions.
People end up voting for imagery — Bush, who shares your moral
values and can protect you from terrorism, and Sen. John Kerry, who
cares about the economy and health care. The same people who sell you
toothpaste and cars run their campaigns. How can you expect to hear
the truth?
The democratic deficit extends to the US military. In my opinion, if
there’s going to be an army, make it a citizen’s army. The
top brass prefers to have what we call a volunteer army (with a preponderance
of the disadvantaged). In Vietnam, the US military realized that they
had made a bad mistake, asking a conscript army to fight a vicious,
brutal colonial war.
We have a fairly clear idea of what Bush’s planner’s want,
but what we can expect depends on circumstances, including those we
bring into existence. That should include creating — and in part
re-creating — a functioning democratic culture where the public
enters into planning in a meaningful way, and where we accept the fundamental
moral principle that we apply the same standards to ourselves that we
apply to others.
Source: Khaleej Times
