|
[Previous entry: "New software, new page"] [Main Index] [Next entry: "Why "No Cameras"?"] 24 February 2003: "Dennis Prager"
All right, let's get some things upfront. I'm European - Dutch, to be exact - and in October 2002, I emigrated (or immigrated, depending on your point of view) to the US and got married to an American citizen. I'm also a former employee of the UN ICTY. "For at this moment, there are two civilizational wars taking place: Islamist hostility to Western liberty and European hostility to American values. Why this European hostility?" With the governments of eight western European nations having declared their solidarity with the US regarding the current Iraq crisis, and the fact that Colin Powell is well-liked throughout Europe, the only possible response is "What hostility?" Following the 11 September attacks, Europeans scrambled to express their sympathy with the United States; moments of silence for the victims of the WTC and Pentagon attacks were held all over Europe. When Le Monde declares that "we are all Americans," there's something special going on. And whatever it is, it's not motivated by hostility. "First, Europe believes in socialism, while America believes in capitalism. This difference can hardly be overstated. Most Western Europeans believe in socialism as fervently as religious Christians, Jews and Muslims believe in their respective religions. To many Americans, socialism is only an economic system, but for Western Europeans it has largely replaced Christianity as their faith." The only way this even begins to make sense is if Prager's definition of "socialism" is one not found in any European dictionary, even in some American ones. Many Europeans tend towards what they call "social democracy," certainly; Europeans like having the safety net provided by the "welfare state," including health insurance and unemployment benefits. But the welfare state needs funding, and you do not have to travel far wherever you are in Europe to find someone who will readily complain about how high his taxes are. There is nothing ideological (and religion is but a form of ideology) about Europe's welfare state; it's just the way we do things Though theoretically they have nothing in common, as Osama bin Laden just announced, "in the current circumstances, the interests of Muslims coincide with the interests of the socialists"—opposing America." Bullshit; that quote is torn completely out of context. A quick reading of the transcript of the "Bin Laden" tape (if it was Bin Laden at all) shows that when "Bin Laden" speaks of "socialists" he is referring primarily to the Iraqi Ba'ath party, and to certain extent other secular leftist nationalist parties elsewhere in the Arab world: "Regardless of the removal or the survival of the socialist party or Saddam, Muslims in general and the Iraqis in particular must brace themselves for jihad against this unjust campaign and acquire ammunition and weapons. [...] Socialists are infidels wherever they are, whether they are in Baghdad or Aden." Maybe Prager doesn't know Aden isn't in Europe. I wouldn't be surprised. Moreover, "Bin Laden" calls for resistance against "the Crusaders"; anyone with an ounce of historical insight must see that "the Crusaders" include the Europeans. Back to Prager: "Second, as a result of the massive bloodshed of the nationalism-based World Wars, Western Europeans concluded that the abolition of national identities is a moral necessity. Europe's elite decided to believe in Europe and the United Nations rather than in their individual nations." As a result of having their continent devastated twice in one century by World Wars, Europeans have - predictably - become wary of confrontation as a means of solving disputes, since confrontation tends to lead to war. This has led European governments to embrace international agreements and international bodies like the UN and the EU as means to resolve their differences. If you think Europeans don't embrace their national identities, you've clearly never watched the European football (or "soccer" if you really insist) championships. Of course, Americans tend not to care much about football (i.e. "soccer"), which would explain Prager's ignorance. But one might also watch the continuing rows within the EU over the Common Agricultural Policy, the European Convention, etc. to know that national interests are very much foremost in Europeans' minds. "While Europeans and the American Left have more faith in the moral judgment of the United Nations, where Libya chairs the Human Rights Commission and Syria and China vote in the Security Council, most Americans have more faith in America." This is an oft-heard fallacy from the American right wing. Firstly, it neglects that the United States—in the form of the Roosevelt and Truman administrations—was the driving force behind the founding of the United Nations in the first place. Secondly, while Americans may have faith in America, Europeans have no reason to have more than hope in America; World War II had gone on for over two years before the United States became involved, and that was only due to the fact that Japan and Germany declared war on it, not vice-versa. One of the greatest fears in western Europe during the Cold War—especially after the Nixon administration pursued "détente"—was that the US would pull out of Europe in the event of a Soviet invasion. Thirdly, Europeans do not rely on the United Nations for moral judgement, they rely on it as a forum where international disputes can be settled - within a framework of international treaties and conventions - by "jaw, jaw" before resorting to "war, war." "Third, pacifist ideas dominate European society. Another major ideological consequence of the World Wars was the belief that wars are wrong, that any evil—from Communism to Saddam Hussein or North Korea owning weapons of mass destruction—is better than fighting." Again, because of the devastation inflicted by repeated wars on Europe, each more devastating than the last, Europeans prefer to look for non-violent solutions, lest they get dragged into a war from which, this time, they will not recover. In the Cold War era, a conventional war between NATO and the Warsaw Pact would have taken place on European battlefields, devastating European cities, with European civilians being displaced or killed. As I stated earlier, throughout the Cold War period one of the primary fears the European governments had was that if the Warsaw Pact were to invade, the US would not get involved. The fear on the opposite end was the threat of nuclear war. It is very important to remember that the armies were of the Warsaw Pact - with an overwhelming numerical superiority - were never poised to overrun North America, they were poised to overrun western Europe. Under the circumstances, a certain unwillingness to risk confrontation is at least understandable. And what was the US policy of "détente" if not seeking coexistence with Communism anyway? No, Prager asserts, Oceania has always been at war with Eurasia. Uh-huh. Yeah, right. "America, on the other hand, believes that it is sometimes better to fight evil." And at other times, it will support evil—it may be a lesser evil, but evil it is nonetheless—in the pursuit of its interests: Pinochet, Savimbi, the Argentinian and Guatemalan juntas, the Diem and Thieu régimes in South Vietnam, the Contras, the Afghan mujehaddin, the list is rather long. "Fourth, Europe passionately affirms secularism, while America remains the most religious among the industrialized democracies. In this sphere, too, either America or Europe is right." Given that there is at least a centre-right (by European standards) "Christian-Democrat" party - which tends to be a dominant player in national politics - in almost every country on the European mainland, and usually a smattering of smaller religious parties as well, this statement is rather hard to credit. France, certainly, pursues secularism in its government to a degree unmatched by few other countries, which means it is a shining example of the separation of church and state - one of the goals of the First Amendment of the Constitution of the United States. But even if Prager's assertion were true (which, given church attendance in the Republic of Ireland, is doubtful anyway), then what? There are many religions, all of which claim to be the one true religion; logically, only one of them can be right at the most. But which is the right one is for the individual to decide, not for the state, which is precisely why freedom of religion is enshrined in the Constitution of the United States, as it is in most European constitutions and the European Convention on Human Rights. "And the predominance of America, a religious country—one, no less, that affirms the religion the European elites have rejected—infuriates the Europeans." This simply does not make sense. The United States as a country does not a affirm a single religion - the Constitution prohibits that - and its people practice many different religions, all of which claim to be the one true religion etc. "Positing no transcendent or religious basis for an objective and universal standard of good and evil, Europe disdains moral absolutes and moral judgments. Whether it was President Reagan calling the Soviet Union an "evil empire" or President Bush labeling North Korea, Iran and Iraq an "axis of evil," Europeans (and the American Left, whose values are identical) found such moral labeling contemptible." Since there are many different religions, each of which claims to be the one true path, it is impossible to set a universal standard of good and evil on the basis of religion in general. Europe's next best solution has been to take the law of man (since we haven't heard from god much lately), and especially international law, as the basis for anything resembling a common European system of ethics; the European Convention on Human Rights has force of law in all countries which have ratified it. This is certainly a more effective standard than the (conveniently undefined) "moral absolute" standard which Prager posits. By which absolute moral standard was it acceptable to support the Contras and repressive military juntas the length and breadth of Central America? It made sense from a perspective of Realpolitik, certainly, but no more than that. Thus, to hear a president whose administration backs human rights violators in one part of the world refer to another regime as "evil" is a rather difficult thing to take as anything but hypocritical. Similarly, the Bush administration seems to pay no more than lip service to absolute moral standards—or even the US Constitution, which it is supposed to uphold—in its fight against al-Qaeda; arbitrary arrests, long-term detentions without charges or trial, and reported use of torture in Afghanistan leads any right-minded person to wonder whether the pot wasn't calling the kettle black. Europe does not disdain moral judgements; American governments just resent it when they are the ones to be judged negatively, even when it is deserved. "Indeed our president personifies all that Europe dislikes in America. He comes from the business world, wears an Americans [sic] flag on his lapel, is ready to go to war against an evil regime, and believes deeply in God, in Christianity and America's Judeo-Christian identity. He even wears cowboy boots." To use a good American expression, that is a fucking load from start to finish. For openers, most Europeans don't actually dislike the US, and they tend to like Americans quite well. They just don't like Bush, and certain members of the administration, especially Cheney, Ashcroft and Rumsfeld (though they tend to like Rice and Powell); moreover, this viewpoint is shared by a great number of Americans. Oh, sorry, those aren't "real " Americans. Plenty of European politicians have backgrounds in business; what worries people about such politicians is when they display a tendency to forget that they are now public officials, sworn to serve the voters, not their former business cronies. That goes for Americans as much as for Europeans. Colin Powell wears an American flag pin as well; and yet he is quite popular in Europe, as he is elsewhere. The main worry about Bush's intentions to go to war against Iraq is what his motives are; he hardly displayed himself a model member of the UN during 2001, and it's hard to imagine he underwent a sea change on that point. And yeah, the Biblical references in foreign policy speeches are disturbing, but mainly to people who worry it will reinforce Bin Laden's categorisation of the West as "Crusaders" in the minds of the Arab world. And hey, the US has a Judeo-Christian identity? That's news to me; the INS didn't ask me "Are you a Judeo-Christian?" before they let me into the country. Probably because there's something in the Constitution against that. Oh, and guess what? Cowboy boots sell in Europe too. What rather pisses me off is that Prager was probably paid good money to pull this column out of his arse, sans research, sans basis in reality, containing a ton of inflammatory language, but what perturbs me most is that there are probably people out there who think he's right. Certainly, his work does not speak well for Columbia University's School of International Affairs. I note Prager's bio only mentions of his travels that he "has lectured on five continents, in 45 U.S. states and in nine of Canada's 10 provinces"; maybe he should try listening as well sometime. |
Navigation: home archives backgrounder Blogs:
au currant Miscellanea:
Care to contribute |
