|
[Previous entry: "Absence of evidence? Well, no"] [Main Index] [Next entry: "NuqneH?"] 09 May 2003: "Standards"Let me apologise in advance for participating in what is rapidly becoming a Blogoslavian circle-jerk. This one started off with an observation by Kevin "CalPundit" Drum on the 7th, which started off thus: Instapundit has a post up right now — I think it's about the 500th in a series — asking why "they" complain about Guantanamo but not about the much worse conditions of Saddam's prisons. I assume "they" refers to human rights organizations in particular and perhaps liberals in general, but either way this trope has gone way past tiresome.In response, Brett Cashman at Tabula Rasa offers some critique on Drum's observations; now, I tend to respect Brett's opinion even when I disagree with him (which is partly the result of my having in-laws with very similar political opinions), but in this case I feel compelled to add some comment of my own; not just regarding Brett's entry, but regarding the whole discussion. The problem starts with the fact that Reynolds, in his customary rush to make some facile snark, fails to identify whom he means by "they"; apparently, "they" launch "major PR offensives" and accept money from donors, but otherwise he could be talking about any number of organisations. It has to be said that there is no shortage of commentators and organisations who, in criticising the United States, take a position that for the United States to criticise the human rights records of other countries is a severe case of the pot calling the kettle black; while I agree that the United States should not be spared from being criticised for its errors, the absurdity of presenting the (admittedly disturbing) erosion of civil liberties in post-9/11 America as being on a par with the brutality of the Taliban or Saddam Hussein's Ba'athist apparatus damages the credibility of those expounding these views. An excellent example of this sort of bullshit was this piece by George Monbiot (which I adressed in this entry), in which he asserted: The five soldiers dragged in front of the cameras yesterday should thank their lucky stars that they are prisoners not of the American forces fighting for civilisation, but of the "barbaric and inhuman" Iraqis.Let's not mention those members of the 507th Ordnance Maintenance Company who were murdered after surrendering, eh, George? However, as far as I can make out, the Monbiots and Arundhati Roys of this world are not the ones indicated by Reynolds' "they"; one is left to wonder whether he thought it was obvious, or whether he wanted to keep the option available of saying "that's not who I meant" in case someone pointed out the incorrectness of his assertions in relation to any specific organisation. It's not inconceivable, given he kicks off the entry with the loaded question is "so how come nobody's been howling about [the treatment of Iraqi PoWs by Iran]?" Beats me, Glenn; maybe someone was, but you weren't paying attention. Did you give a toss about Iraqi PoWs before they provided you with a convenient stick to beat "them" with? A cheap shot on my part, but no more so than Reynolds'. That said, it's undeniable that the missteps of the United States do seem to receive a disproportionate amount of focus when one considers the indisputably more egregious violations of human rights carried out by other national governments. Drum offers a couple of potentially contributing factors: those concerned about human rights will pay more attention to their own country because it's where they live, and there is also the factor that a public pressure campaign may be expected to have more effect on a democratic government. Another not unimportant point is raised by Timothy Roscoe Carter in Drum's comments section, which is that the American media are more likely, for whatever reason, to pay attention to campaigns which pertain to the United States. Hence my use of the word "seem"; do campaigns directed at the US receive a disproportionate amount of activist effort, or do they receive a disproportionate amout of media coverage? A thorough investigation could form the basis of a sociology dissertation. Brett's critique of Drum's arguments focuses almost solely on Drum's last point, and applies Den Beste's "searching under the streetlight" metaphor. The metaphor hinges on some old joke in which a guy explains to a cop that he's looking for his keys under the streetlight, even though that's not where he dropped them, because he'd never find them in the dark anyway. The problem is that the metaphor sucks. In the joke, there is one set of keys, which is not under the streetlight; that is the absurdity which makes the joke (allegedly) funny. In real life, however, there are multiple sets of keys, at least one of which is under the streetlight; and for some people, the keys which are in the light happen to be the keys to their own house, while those in the dark are the keys to their neighbours' houses. Given that Den Beste was precipitate in his condemnation of Human Rights Watch, his opinions on human rights activists should probably not be taken as gospel. No, sorry, "precipitate" is too kind; "prejudiced" is more like it, along with "wilfully ignorant." It took a reader to alert him to the fact that HRW had issued their report on the behaviour of the Iraqi armed forces, and he attempts to brush it off as "Human Rights Watch just realized." Bullshit; as I noted, HRW likes to get its facts straight before it issues condemnations, so that it doesn't have to try to weasel its way out of uninformed comments it made earlier. In other words, they know something Den Beste doesn't. But okay, even though Den Beste's analysis is as flawed and self-serving as his metaphor, Brett has a point when he writes: Now, you can argue, as Kevin does, that as a liberal western democracy we should be held to higher standards, and to an extent that's a reasonable point to make. But at some point a fair-minded person has to look at the disproportionate bitching about relatively minor concerns in the United States, versus the just-the-facts-ma'am recitation of ghastly horrors elsewhere, and says to himself, "This is bullshit."Well, fair enough, but that's two variables there: one "to an extent" and one "at some point," and unfortunately Brett fails both to define the values he applies to those variables, and to acknowledge that others may, quite legitimately, assign different values and thus place those standards at a different height. As a result, Brett's concluding statement An honest person can say just one thing: "This is bullshit."loses rather a lot of its validity. Personally, I don't think that a "liberal western democracy" needs to be held to a higher standard by that dint alone; the same standard will do nicely. I can respect someone holding his own government to a higher standard, but since I'm not an American citizen, that's not a standard I can reasonably apply to the US government unilaterally, as it were; I'm a resident of my own accord, and I didn't come here to whinge. That said, the Bush administration has raised the bar of morality on itself by pledging to bring terrorists to justice and to uphold the rule of law, thus drawing a contrast between itself and those it describes as evil.* If, by contrast, the Bush administration had declared "we're going to nail these bastards, regardless of their AD&D alignment, because they're a threat to our national security which needs to be removed," this would not have altered the level of severity of whatever human rights violations occurred in the process, but at least there wouldn't have been any hypocrisy involved. When you get right down to it, "Judge not, lest ye be judged" is simply an extension of the fundamental rule of human interaction: "Do (not) unto others as you would (not) have them do unto you." I subscribe to the version with both instances of "not" included, but either way it's valid. (Of course, "judge not etc." is Matthew 7:1, but the next four verses are applicable as well. I admit it's paradoxical for an atheist to be quoting scripture, but I contend that much of the appeal of Judeo-Christianity lies in the fact that much of its doctrine was good plain common sense, especially in the absence of scientific understanding of the challenges faced by its adherents.) When you get right down to it, this issue is simply one more aspect of the polarisation that has been taking place regarding this war; one extreme views the US as the source of all evil, while the other views the US as incapable of wrongdoing. Both excuse wrongdoing on the part of whoever it is they don't oppose. The truth, as usual, is somewhere in the middle, and the middle is really underpopulated these days. * - Iranians tend to ask the following question: "What has our government done that was so bad as to merit inclusion in the 'Axis of Evil' that Pakistan—a "valued ally" in the "War on Terrorism"—hasn't already done, only more so?" They have a point. Iran may be trying to develop nukes, but Pakistan already has them. Iran may support terrorism abroad (Hezbollah), but Pakistan supported the Taliban up to (and past) 9/11. Iran at least has part of its government which is democratically elected and reformist (which is more than can be said for most of the Middle East); Pakistan has Pervez Musharraf. |
Navigation: home archives backgrounder Blogs:
au currant Miscellanea:
Care to contribute |
