----- Original Message ----- From: "Jason Schulman" <jschulman at world.oberlin.edu> To: <asdnet at igc.topica.com> Sent: Monday, September 24, 2001 6:20 PM Subject: [ASDnet] A response to Walzer
> From DISSENT's online salon:
>
> Posted by George Scialabba on September 24, 2001 at 12:50:23:
>
> I assume the Dissent salon is an appropriate place to comment on Michael
> Walzer's op-ed in last Friday's New York Times. As a guide to military
> operations, it was admirable. One hopes (against hope) that it will
> influence the war plans now being formulated.
>
> But in other respects it was disappointing. One of the immediate causes
> of the attack is said to have been "fervid and highly distorted accounts
> of the blockade of Iraq." No doubt some accounts somewhere of the
> effects of the blockade (and bombardment) have been fervid and
> distorted. But even an accurate, unembellished account would be
> sufficiently horrific. Does Michael mean to deny this? Or, admitting it,
> to defend the policy? We can all agree that even a cruel and destructive
> American policy does not justify an attack on American civilians. But if
> Michael believes that continuance of the blockade is just, perhaps he
> could explain why to his Dissent comrades? And if not, shouldn't he have
> refrained from implying as much by alluding dismissively to the
> international outrage this policy has evoked?
>
> His characterization of the attack's deeper causes is even more
> misleading. Anti-American terrorism is motivated by "hatred of the
> values that, sometimes at least, guide the exercise of American power."
> On its face, this statement appears to mean that it is not because of
> anything at all the United States has done that Islamic terrorists hate
> it. Rather, it is solely because of American policymakers' alleged
> commitment to the self-determination, civil rights, and material welfare
> of other peoples, or whatever other values Michael has in mind. Can
> Michael, or anyone else, believe this? Is the enemy as inexplicably,
> inhumanly evil as that?
>
> And what values does Michael believe generally "guide the exercise of
> American power"? Concern for others' self-determination, civil rights,
> material welfare, etc.? Or concern for American access to resources,
> markets, investment opportunities, and strategic assets, with very
> little regard - often indeed with brutal disregard - for the welfare of
> other peoples? If the former, would Michael please defend this position,
> at least in outline? It seems to me indefensible, utterly at variance
> with Washington's frequent support for repressive and inegalitarian
> governments, truly pitiful levels of humanitarian assistance, imposition
> of harsh economic "liberalization" regimes, and more.
>
> Finally, why is there no mention, when enumerating the legal and moral
> constraints on American retaliation, of the fundamental obligation,
> imposed by Article 51 of the UN Charter, to seek the authorization of
> the Security Council for military action against another state? Does
> Michael believe that a unilateral US reaction, in disregard of
> international law, will set a useful precedent? Can he explain why
> American support for far graver atrocities than WTC in Central America,
> East Timor, Bangladesh, Kurdistan, and elsewhere would not similarly
> justify unilateral military action against the United States by the
> victims?
>
> Michael calls for an ideological campaign to "engage all the arguments
> and excuses for terrorism and reject them." This is a necessary effort
> and, we may be sure, will be amply assisted by the world's most powerful
> government, with its virtually limitless resources. But is there no
> other "work for religious leaders and public intellectuals"? To help
> discredit anti-American terrorism is a duty. It remains at least as
> important, however - even if, now as always, less in tune with popular
> sentiment, media consensus, and official exhortation - to call attention
> to the enormous suffering caused by American foreign policy, past and
> present.
>
> The preceding is a personal opinion. Try not to post more than daily.
>
> ==^================================================================
> EASY UNSUBSCRIBE click here: http://igc.topica.com/u/?b1dj8W.b2KaoW
> Or send an email To: asdnet-unsubscribe at igc.topica.com
> This email was sent to: debsian at pacbell.net
>
> T O P I C A -- Register now to manage your mail!
> http://www.topica.com/partner/tag02/register
> ==^================================================================
>