08
Jan
2008
18 Comments
1/11 Wear Orange
Friday, January 11 is the 6 year anniversary of the first arrival of prisoners at Guantanamo Bay. It is also the day of action organised by the ACLU to protest against Guantanamo, and the treatment of the ‘detainees’ there. As it says on the site they are “calling on everyone opposed to torture and indefinite detention to wear orange to symbolize their sadness and disgust with the national shame that is Guantanamo Bay.”
I’m not entirely sure what exactly this fashion statement will achieve, beyond maybe slightly raising the level of awareness. But then, where so many still seem to find Cheney’s “they’re living in the tropics” assessment accurate, even that would be an achievement.
Join the Conversation
I think that as a strategic matter,Guantanamo is a way of detaining people, some of whom may be quite dangerous, and obtaining information from them, without affording them the rights that the Federal judical system would give them on U.S. soil.
Whatever the merits of this kind of analysis, in the long run Guantanamo is a stain on the image of the U.S., and if this is factored in, this stain outweighs whatever strategic advantage there is in keeping the place functioning.
America has to worry about what people around the world think, because in the final analysis, it will take a worldwide effort to contain the threat of ideological extremism.
It is sick to keep these people in there with no public or official trial.
One in how many “suspects” of Guantanamo prisoners are actual terrorists?
I thought America prided itself on the “innocent until proven guilty” fluff, apparently that is only applicable to American citizens and not the many other innocent individuals whose only crime is having an Arab or Pakistani name.
You know what I don’t get about the ACLU and other human rights organizations that fight for the rights of the Guantanamo prisoners? They have nothing to say about the official explanation of who was behind 9/11?
They will accuse the President and his administration of lying about many things, but they accept 100% who they say was behind 9/11. Ironically, the FBI’s webpage on Usama Ben Laden makes no mention of the 9/11 attack that killed 3000 people. See http://www.fbi.gov/wanted/terrorists/terbinladen.htm
There is a growing grass roots movement questioning the official 9/11 “investigation.” Many of them are non-Muslims.
Nissim Dahan you wrote, “America has to worry about what people around the world think, because in the final analysis, it will take a worldwide effort to contain the threat of ideological extremism.”
America was not worried about its image when it killed 3 to 5 million Buddhists during its bombing of Vietnam and Cambodia. This fact hasn’t affected how other countries have treated the US. Even those on the political left don’t discussed the millions of deaths, in the name of democracy, the US is responsible for.
So if no one cared about what America did to Buddhists, why would anyone care about what it does to Mulims?
Randall, to add, no one gave a crap about the plight of East Timorese Catholics when America gave Indonesia the green light to invade East Timor in 1975 and supported Indonesia’s claim to East Timor, whereas the rest of the world did not.
Yes it does, and yes what Gitmo has done to America’s image is one of the main arguments used by those who want the place shut down.
But to be honest I’m just slightly sick of the way any discussion of harm done by the US is turned into the harm done to the US image.
I agree.
Ethics > PR
This should be condemned because it’s downright wrong; not because it harms any particular image.
I wish people of the world could come to a single way of treating the suspects and the criminal. I wish that treatment would be just and humanistic as well, because how could you wash dirst with dirt?
Esra’a: I think that the “image” argument is used primarily for those folks who are not persuaded by ethics, or who are making exceptions due to “extraordinary circumstances.”
You could say to a Guantanamo supporter, If you won’t condemn torture on moral grounds then how about because it’s counter-productive in the long run?
Randall, I take your point about the slaughter of innocent Vietnamese and Cambodians. The justifications for the war, as it was happening, don’t seem to hold up in hindsight, as is the case with many wars. The U.S. was in the throws of the Cold War against Communism, and there were fears about the Domino Effect, and we convinced ourselves that we were doing the right thing, only to discover, however painfully, that we may have miscalculated. And in the process, you are right to point out that millions of innocent people lost their lives.
You worry that the same thing will happen to Muslims, and that the world will not care. I think the situation here is different. Vietman was a geopolitical war in which the control of territory was important, and the triumph of one ideology over another manifested itself by the territory you controlled.
Here, the conflict is not about territory, but is rather more ideological at its core. It is a war of ideas. It is a war for hearts and minds. To win such a war, the U.S. will not be allowed a blank check with regard to killing, and will have to worry about empowering moderate Muslims in the struggle against extremists. It will take a multi-faceted approach, in my opionion, which will be focused not just on warfare, but rather a combination of: Ideology, Investment, Hope,Diplomacy, and least of all but also important, the willingness to Fight.
In this regard, Tasnim, and Esra’a, maybe I used the wrong word by saying that Guantanamo hurts the “image” of the U.S. I don’t mean image in the sense of PR. I mean image in the sense of “credibility.” If the U.S. comes to the conclusion that it must win hearts and minds to win the war against ideological extremism, then it will have to take actions consistent with her good intentions. Guantanamo contradicts any good intentions we may have had, and undermines the credibility we will need to Sell a Vision of Hope in the world, and to thereby solicit the support of other nations, including the support of Muslim moderates.
It can’t be about oil. It can’t be about territory. It must be about Hope, and using a sense of hope to inspire people to deal with one another ideologically and economically so as to bring stability to the world, by empowering moderates, by forging alliances based on mutual needs, and by marginalizing extremists.
Nissim Dahan,
People constantly make excuses for the millions that the U.S. administration has killed and the infrastructure it has destroyed. How many billions does the United States have to kill before we say it is wrong and put on trial high level government officials for their actions? Surely with all the highly educated minds in the United States, we could figure out how to do what’s in our interest, without committing genocides around the world.
You say that I worry that salughter of innocent peoplewill happen in the Muslim world, I say that it has already happened in Afghanistan, Iraq, Somalia, Sudan; it has also happened in other religions such as the predominantly Christian Congo and the mixed religions region of Palestine.
The “war onterror” is not an ideological war because Saddam was secular. It is not a war for democracy and human rights because the United States had helped bring Saddam Hussein into power and supported him, strategically and financially, when he was committing his worst atrocities.
I can’t say what was the exact one reason why the U.S. decided to invade Iraq, but everything leads to economic reasons. Before the U.S. invaded Iraq (the second time) Saddam had converted from using the U.S. dollar to the euro.
Randall Jones,
Sorry for getting back to you late. I didn’t realize I could be notified of your comments, as they occur.
You may be painting with too broad of a brush by saying the U.S. is behind all these genocides. A lot of genocide occurs because indigenous people are screwed up in their thinking, such as Ruwanda, for example. Also, I don’t see how you can pin Somalia and Sudan on the U.S. either. But maybe I’m not well informed.
However, if you’re saying that there have been missteps in U.S. foreign policy, and that some of these missteps could have contribued to genocide, then you’re probably right. For example, we did support the Afghanistan “freedom fighters” again the Soviet Union, and this could have paved the way for the Taliban’s rise to power. We did bring down Saddam Hussein,and this did result in a blood bath, but don’t forget that Saddam had previously caused the deaths of one to two million people.
The U.S. is a great country, but it is not without blame. It seeks to protect its geopoltical interests, and in doing so, it does initiate policies which cause the deaths of innocents, and which eventually work agains U.S. interests.
So what is needed is a re-thinking of America’s strategic interests, and the policies that are best suited to accomplish those interests. That’s why I say that Selling a Vision of Hope may well define what is in the best interest of the U.S. and the West.
There is a pattern emerging in the world. The world is moving toward common ground technologically and economically. In that type of system, it becomes imperative to come together ideologically as well, to keep the money machine well oiled, so to speak. In addition, it becomes imperative to give everyone on earth a place at the table, a stake in his or her future. A Global Economy which is not Global is a lie. If we could come together ideologically, and give everyone on earth a place at the table economically, then we will have a chance to usher in an age of peace, and to solve some of the big-ass problems that we have looming, like Global Warming, and nuclear proliferation, and the like.
I agree with you Randall, that U.S. policy cannot be explained by simple reference to universal values. But it may well be up to us to make universal values the bedrock of U.S. policy, in order to make that policy trually effective in bringing about the changes that our time call for.
Nissim Dahan, you wrote, “… but don’t forget that Saddam had previously caused the deaths of one to two million people.”
Don’t forget that the United Sates had sold weapons and provided strategic “help” to both sides of the Iran-Iraq war. Our beloved Nobel Peace Prize winner Henry Kissinger said he hoped they would kill each other.
Since the Untied States had caused the deaths of 3-5 million Buddhists in Vietnam and Cambodia then should a foreign power bomb and occupy the United States?
Here is and article about the role of the Untied States role in the violence in Somalia
http://www.antiwar.com/justin/?articleid=11778
and Sudan http://www.blackagendareport.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=447&Itemid=1
Randall Jones, when a nation like the United States implements policy, there could very well be unintended consequences. And when policy is formulated on narrow grounds, then the chances of unintended consequences is increased, and innocent people get killed. That’s why it becomes very important to formulate policy that takes as many variables as possible into consideration.
Take Somalia, for example. The policy of the U.S. is intended to stop Somalia from becoming a fundamentalist regime. However, support for Ethiopia could be causing untold killing and rape. Your writer suggests staying out of the fray. However, he admits that doing so could very well result in additional bloodshed.
So what is the answer? My guess is that we have to broaden our horizons with respect to the formulation of policy, and take things into consideration which were previously ignored.
Let’s say, for example, that there is a young, wealthy, strong, single man making some decisions in his life. If all he thinks about is himself, then the decisions he makes will leave others out of the picture, and they may end up getting hurt in the process. Now, suppose he gets married and has children. The decisions he makes will probably take their needs into account, but those outside this circle will be left out in the cold, and may end up getting hurt. Now, suppose he decides to take into account his fellow man. His decisions, at this point, are likely to take into account a wider circle of humanity, and will probably inure to the benefit of a great many people.
This is how I see policy evolving for the betterment of man. The world is becomming smaller. People around the world are coming together technologically and economically. We have not, as yet, found a way to come together ideologically, but we will have to, because the problems we are facing, like Global Warming, will require an unprecedented level of global cooperation. Therefore, policy makers, in the U.S. and around the world, will have to increase the circle of people who are taken into consideration, as policy is made.
It can’t be just about U.S. strategic interests. It has to be about global considerations, because those considerations are quickly becoming part and parcel of U.S. interests.
Will this avoid the kind of problems that you speak of? Not completely, because there will always be those who want to throw a wrench into the affairs of nations. In fact, there are people out there who see it as a plus to create turmoil. But to confront these people, however imperfectly, the world will have to come together, and create a consensus that overwhelms the schemes of those who would wreak havoc.
I realize that it is not a complete answer. But I think that Selling a Vision of Hope is the kind of framework that could bring people together, around the world, in an effort to avoid some of the injustices that you so rightly point to.
Nissim,
You’d have made a fine preacher. Where I come from, that’s considered a compliment.
I’ll take it as a compliment, Two Cents.
Actually, preaching is step one. Implementing is step two.
I am beginning to meet people, of late, who actually have the wealth and the power to make something happen along these lines. The are not, however, an easy sell. But once you get their attention- easier said than done- it could make all the difference.
Most of us are struggling for a living. Certain wealthy people, however, struggle for something else; a way to make a difference. They are often searching for their legacy. If you could somehow capture their imagination, they may be inclined to invest the kinds of dollars that could make a difference in peoples’ lives. And if enough of this takes place, then the policy makers may take note, and a new foreign policy could be in the offing.
It’s quite a stretch, I grant you. But it may just be possible, if enough people get on board.
Nissim Dahan, “Take Somalia, for example. The policy of the U.S. is intended to stop Somalia from becoming a fundamentalist regime.”
HAR! HAR! HAR!
I guess you missed the headlines about the United States’ plans to sell billions of dollars of weaponry to Saudi Arabia.
Its so easy for you to rationalize the United States violence when its not your people who are being killed, your home and your country’s infrastructure being destroyed.
There was a time when Europe and the United States were steeped in religious fundamentalism, persecution of religious and racial minorities, slavery, and oppression of women. It took centuries for things to improve. Changes happened within the countries by the people living in those countries, not by foreign powers bombing and occupying the countries.
You make some good points, Randall Jones. First of all, I like how your smiley faces move. I wish I could figure out that stuff. Up until recently, I’ve grown accustomed to chiseling notes on stone tablets. Boy, were they ever heavy. And erasing was murder.
You mention the 20 billion arms deal in Saudi Arabia, as a way of containing the Iranian threat. Saudi Arabia, you are right to point out, is pretty fundamentalist. But there’s faundamentalism, and then there’s fundamentalism.
Saudi Arabia makes no pretense about wanting to deal with the West. And actually, even through you may throw some more smiley faces at me, I think that it may just be possible to get Saudi Arabia to buy into, and to finanace a Vision of Hope
To my mind, Saudi Arabia made a deal with the extremists, in a bid to hold on to power, and now, the extremists are after the House of Saud. Bin Ladin has a bigger beef with the ruling family, than he has with almost anyone else. The Saudis have financed midrasas which teach hate, and now a new generation of haters are out to get them. Hate is a hard thing to manage, if you ask me.
What if the ruling class in Saudi Arabia could somehow be persuaded that in the long run, finanacing a Vision of Hope is a better way to consolidate power, than to fund off the wall midrasas and imams?
As for Europe and the United States, you are again right to point out that change came from within and that it took centuries to pull off. And yes, we suffered from the same kind of oppression that prevades the Arab world today. The trouble is that we don’t have centuries to make something happen. If we don’t start reform right here and right now, then the world will spiral downward, with cataclysmic results, given the devastating power of modern weaponry.
And so, the challenge is: How do you stimulate reform, even if it has to transpire from within? I agree with you that you will not be able to impose it by force, even though some military force will be needed to disrupt extremist intentions. But the real answer is to compete for hearts and minds in the public arena, and to inspire people with hope, and to use that hope to fuel the movement toward reform. In other words, the new imperialism of today will be different from the imperialism of yesteryear. The imperialism of today is to empower and embolden Muslim moderates to do what must be done to bring about reform inernally. As a sign of our good intentions, we in the West must be prepared to invest heavily it this enterprise, both economically, and ideologically. Sellin a Vision of Hope will give our good intentions a good measure of credibility, and will embolden moderate Muslims for the fight that lies ahead.