I see that Andie refers to Amnesty International. In so doing he does not account for how A.I. works in the real world. When and how A.I. is successful I think is more of a support for my argument than for his.
In many cases A.I. eschews __public__ protest, in favor of quiet and behind the scenes campaigns, precisely because they know that public protest is counterproductive. I have many problems with much of the "human rights" ideology of many people in A.I. but they do get some of it right.
Many I have talked to involved with organizing A.I. campaigns know, for instance, that a letter writing campaign by private Norwegian and Swedish citizens about political prisoners in Cuba, might help those political prisoners, where as a letter writing campaign by us in the United States will often have a negative effect on those political prisoners. It is precisely effects like this that neither Doug, nor Brian, nor Andie have seemed to consider.
Given the political situatiion, public protest in the United States against human rights violations in places like Cuba or Iran are liable to not only have negative effects in Cuba but also negative effects in the United States. Such protests, no matter how "well intentioned", will most likely have the further effect of justifying U.S. superiority and U.S. use of force.
So in many ways the example of A.I. illustrates my point. Doug, Brian, or Andie, or any U.S. citizen, "speaking out" against the abuse of homosexuals in Cuba is more likely to cause more harm than good. Where as A.I. has realized that organizing private campaigns from within countries that do not have an imperialist relation with the target country is more likely to be helpful then simply any public campaign.
If your reason for speaking out is simply so you can feel good about yourself and relieve some of your anger at the violence of the world, then you will act in one way. But if your reason for acting is to actually ameliorate the suffering of the people who are supposedly your concern, then you will take into account how you are acting and speaking and from where!
Given our actions in the Middle East since 1945, I think that it is beyond debate the U.S. policies and U.S. actions have resulted in more suffering and deaths through violence and imprisonment in that part of the world, than anything that the current Iranian government has done. I don't think that there is even any comparison. Comparing the crimes of the current Iranian government with the crimes of the U.S. is like comparing the crimes of a an ugly schoolyard bully to the crimes of a major organized crime boss.
But even this does not get at the heart of the problem. I have no doubt, given our actions, that United States policies are responsible for more death and suffering of women and homosexuals in Iran than the Iranian government. The U.S. may not have killed women, qua gender, or homosexuals, qua sexual orientation, but given our support for the massive slaughter of Saddam Hussein's war against Iran, the numbers should be obvious. And the amount of deaths that would occur in any U.S. military action against Iran should also be obvious.
But why do we talk about Iran at all? Why are we not talking about U.S. allies in the Middle East. The most oppressive country by far, of women and homosexuals is Saudi Arabia. Saudi Arabia is our ally. It is mainly because the U.S. is protecting Saudi Arabian stability that we have such great involvement in the Middle East in the first place.
So the question I put to you is – How can we have the best effect on Saudi policies toward women and homosexuals? (Here even the premises behind the question are skewed. It displaces our moral responsibility onto our 'ideal' effect on other people, instead of taking moral responsibility for the actions done within the compass of our own agency. But I put the question simply as food for thought.) Do you think that we can effect Saudi policies toward women and homosexuals by taking public poses or even private letter writing campaigns? Well the latter might have a small effect in very limited cases, but the former will probably have the opposite effect of what you are hoping for, and will be seen as nothing more than a form of hypocrisy. The attitude in the region will be following: "The U.S. is responsible for maintaining the Saudi government in the first place, and now a U.S. intellectual, either because he is misguided or to soothe her conscience, is going to tell Saudis how they should run their 'private' lives?" I mean talk about undeserved moral arrogance!
The best effect that we can have on policies that effect people in that region is to somehow and in someway stop the U.S. government from dominating, trying to dominate the region, stop the U.S. government from trying to control the oil in Saudi Arabia, stop the U.S. government from supporting Israel, and despots in Egypt, Saudi Arabia, etc. It is not by striking poses to show that we our liberal and open minded.
I have another question: In the eyes of Iranian people how are we liberal intellectuals different from George Bush? Bush was governor of a state where sodomy was outlawed. There is no indication that while he was governor of that state that he ever gave one thought to the oppression of homosexuals that his state perpetuated. Why should any Iranian listen to George Bush when he says that homosexuals should be free in Iran? I hope that all of us recognizes that George Bush has no force of persuasion, no moral authority, when he speaks in this mode, and that he is purely and completely a hypocrite. But what distinguishes us, in reality from George Bush? Is it because we are consistent in our beliefs in sexual liberation of all kinds. (At least those are my beliefs.) But beliefs do not matter one bit. Beliefs do not distinguish us from George Bush.
If beliefs do not matter very much then what would matter? What would distinguish us from George Bush and give us at least a little moral authority to express our opinions in this area? Perhaps if we were members of some international organization with deep roots not only in the United States, but the Middle East and South America, Europe and Asia; then as members of such an organization we could work out policies that have an effect on social relations not only here but in places like Iran. I am assuming that such an organization would be truly solidaristic, and that United Statsians would participate in their proper position of trying to learn how the institutions of their world has effected the worlds of other people.
Amnesty International is an international organization. But it is not a deeply rooted mass movement. And thus in order to act responsibility those in the organization know that they often have to refrain from "speaking out" and to act quietly. Until we consider the effects of "speaking out" on the people at the other end of the guns we pay for, it is sometimes better to not say anything at all.
Jerry
> --- Dennis Perrin <dperrin at comcast.net> wrote:
>
> > Jerry M:
> >
> > > I don't get it Brian. Why should any person in
> > the Middle East or Central
> > > America (where there is great amount of gay
> > bashing, who knows maybe even
> > > as
> > > much as in the Middle East) listen to us? Why?
> > Why are you
> > > concentrating
> > > on Iran and not Columbia?
> >
> > Wait -- there's gay bashing in Morningside Heights?
> >
> > Dennis
> >
> >
> > ___________________________________
> >
> http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk
> >
>
>
> __________________________________________________
> Do You Yahoo!?
> Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
> http://mail.yahoo.com
> ___________________________________
> http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk
>