I must not think bad thoughts

I love this quote from Donald Cameron Watt on British appeasement, something that American politicians should reflect on whenever they try to play the historian:

In May 1945 Britain was the only power whose people could say that they entered the war by choice [edit: the French could say that in 1939-1940.], to fight for a principle, and not because their country was attacked. They entered to fight Hitler and those who supported him. ... But it is odd that the greatest reproach so often made against the Government which commanded a majority in the House of Commons and in the country is that it did not go to war against Hitler a year earlier.

Even at Munich, Chamberlain engaged Hitler, and when that failed, he went to war. Current American policy is to let situations escalate until they become direct threats to American security or interest and to wait until the problem is of sufficient magnitude as to justify the use of overwhelming force. America waits until it can "use a sledgehammer when it could have used a chisel earlier" (paraphrase of Peter Maass). It is important for US to act now in Haiti at a point when smaller forces can be deployed to deal with the situation rather than wait until it would cause a crisis of force deployment to balance interests in Afghanistan, Iraq, West Africa, and Haiti.

Posted by: Nathanael / 11:29 AM : (0) comments

Tuesday, February 24, 2004

Ambassador Sarek on Transatlantic relations

Here is an interesting commentary by Mark Leonard (similar name, not the Star Trek actor) on the aftereffects of the UN Resolution 1440:

The truth is that Iraq, despite the noisy domestics, has actually been good for Europe and has considerably strengthened Britain's hand. Though the continent was divided on their tactics for handling the US, all countries shared three fundamental goals: firstly, to preserve the transatlantic alliance; secondly, to restore the authority of the UN; and thirdly, to prevent "pre-emption" from being established as a norm. Through an unplanned good-cop/bad-cop routine Europe has somehow met all these objectives. ...

... The UN was sidelined and mocked during the 1990s - powerless in the face of civilian massacres in Rwanda and Somalia; ignored over Kosovo, and perpetually starved of dues by big donors. But during the run-up to war, it became the crucible in which the arguments were aired and decisions on the basis for war were made. ...

... Most importantly, the doctrine of "pre-emption" has disappeared into the desert sands. At their most hubristic, the neo-cons argued that the US could take advantage of their success in Iraq by unleashing a "democratic domino effect" in Iran and Syria. A year later no-one is listening. The political and economic costs of invading Iraq rule make another intervention impossible for several years. The "bad cops" of France and Germany have made any future action harder by refusing to pick up the tab this time around.

I do not share the optimism of the commentator. The problem is not that the Europeans were disunited and that they have now found common cause. The problem is that America will continue to act outside the bounds of international norms. The possible impending capture of bin Laden will reinforce Neocon notions of diplomacy even if pre-emption clearly played no role in the capture. Furthermore, I would say that Britain is still on the shit list of France and Germany. The recent meeting between the leaders of the three reveals good intentions and genuine desire for unity, but also injuries that will smart for some time. The question that should be posed is what will happen if the Bush administration undertakes another major military operation? Furthermore, what alternative vision to current UN diplomacy will emerge that will make the unity between the three European nations permanent and useful? (Perhaps more urgently, what evidence of cooperation is there between French and British operations in West Africa?)

Posted by: Nathanael / 6:16 PM : (0) comments

I am only 46% Yankee?

Are you Yankee or Dixie?

Posted by: Nathanael / 5:58 PM : (0) comments

Iraq: Sabotage of Weapons Inspections

Did US and Bush administration allow the UN weapons inspections to be performed in good faith?

CIA withheld intel from UNMOVIC

The US Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) did not give UN weapons inspectors a complete list of sites to scrutinize in Iraq before the US invasion, as the White House had claimed, according to a report by the New York Times. In the run-up to the war last year, White House officials had repeatedly accused the UNMOVIC weapons inspectors of dragging their feet over alleged banned weapons hidden at various facilities in Iraq, and had claimed that UNMOVIC had been briefed on all intelligence related to alleged Iraqi weapons stores or arms depots. If no WMD had been found, the White House hinted in early 2003, it was probably because of UNMOVIC's reluctance to follow up on leads supplied by the US intelligence community. Democratic Senator Carl Levin received a letter on 20 January from the CIA's Congressional Affairs department stating that information on 21 out of 105 sites that the CIA allegedly found suspicious was withheld from the UNMOVIC team, the Times reported. Both CIA chief George Tenet and National Security Advisor Condoleezza Rice have stated publicly that the US briefed the United Nations inspectors on all sites of "high value and moderate value", the Times said. No details were available on the identity or nature of the alleged weapons sites for which information was apparently withheld. Senator Levin said that he now believed that Tenet had misled Congress, which he said was "totally unacceptable". Levin suspected that the administration had held back information in order to persuade the public that UN inspections had reached the limits of their usefulness. However, no forbidden weapons have been discovered since the US invasion of Iraq, and the White House has shifted the justification for its attack from Saddam Hussein's arsenal to his purported "desire" to acquire chemical, biological, or even nuclear weapons. To justify its attack on Iraq, the White House has in the past cited a non-existent IAEA report that Iraq was about to acquire nuclear
weapons; a plagiarized "dossier" based on information that was over a decade old; and a report on alleged Iraqi attempts to buy uranium from Niger that the CIA said was an obvious forgery. The latest exposure of false information from the Bush
administration will likely help Democrat front-runner John Kerry add to the pressure building on the White House in the current presidential campaign.

Posted by: Nathanael / 10:53 AM : (0) comments

Passion Politics

I have been considering whether I will see Mel Gibson's Passion, going back and forth for several weeks. The question of anti-semitism has been thrown around quite a bit, but it is one that Gibson could not necessarily have answered on his own. [On edit: The Angry Crafty Girl has a different look at this issue.] Passion plays have had a long history of anti-Jewish violence associated with them. The purpose of the Passion play is to draw as much attention as possible on the suffering of Jesus through theatrical presentation. The villainy of the those who wanted the crucifixion (as recorded in the Gospels) is accentuated for dramatic effect.

Of course, Jews are blamed, as individuals and as a people, by the Gospels. The Gospels have suffered from contradictions between what is known about the historical actors and their portrayal. At least one is that the religious group that pursued the execution is the one that would have most approved of Jesus zealotry and his defiance of Roman rule. The "good" religious sect in the Gospel is the one that historically collaborated with the Roman occupation, that represented the interests of the Hellenized Jewish bourgeoisie, the one that was bringing Judaism closer to Roman and Greek paganism. In essence, the Gospels have Jesus delivered over to the Romans by the religious leaders who were trying to revive spiritual life in Judea and who supported movements to expel the Romans--contradistinction. The second is the inconsistencies of the authorities that conducted the execution. Jesus was executed by Roman soldiers in the manner consistent with Roman law in the manner that Romans would have found most humiliating. He was not executed by Jewish authorities in the manner that they would have mandated (stoning) at a time when they would have allowed it (Pesach). The Gospels fail to question whether Pontius Pilate could have washed his hands of the guilt and transfer that guilt, whether to the Jews before him or the entire Jewish nation.

In Passion plays, Jews are the obvious villains, and the ugliness of their character is played up. Passion plays typically roused anti-semitic feelings, and coming at the most emotional part of the ritual calender, encouraged violence. Indeed, many Passion plays ended with the sacking of the ghetto. It is only in the last several decades that Jewish groups have sought to deal with this problem and have protested against the presentation of Passion plays in order to have them changed. Bu this itself is a thorny issue. As James Shapiro points out in his excellent book, Oberammergau: The Troubling Story of the World's Most Famous Passion Play (New York: Pantheon, 2000) (no Amazon link--look for it discounted in overstock sales), the story of the Passion can only be changed so much and remain faithful to canonical texts. The outreach between the two has been productive, but it is not yet clear how to present the Passion and deal with its antisemitic sections. At best, the newer scripts have emphasized the Jewishness of Jesus. Shapiro himself notes that German actors at Oberammergau were made to recite the Hebrew blessing over the Last Supper meal (at moment that he interfered in as he was asked to correct their pronunciation, a moment that is not recorded in his book).

It is unclear how Gibson would be able to resolve these problems on his own. He wants to remain faithful to the text. His antiquated version of Catholicism would necessitate an overly traditional reading of the Gospels. And if the movie were destined for a smaller audience, no one would care.

The other issue is the violence of the movie. I heard of it before I left for class yesterday on MSNBC. I heard people talking about it on 96.9 in Boston. Everyone is being critical of the movie as a reductive portrayal of Jesus' life. In the film era of stylized violence, I am surprised by this criticism. Gibson has put the story into a style that is very current. And the Passion is a story that should be conveyed with the spotlight put on the suffering that Jesus endured. Should we feel revulsion? I cannot answer that. But what strikes me is that the attention put on the violence is typical of how more "Protestant" political cultures react to more "Catholic" ideas of communal activism. Catholics emphasize the importance of Crucifixion, Protestants emphasize the importance of Redemption. This is a generalization, but a defensible one. I think that the reaction to the film is typical of a culture that is losing confidence in social programs and that is seeking solace in closed communities in which people look and think alike. It is typical of a culture that is unwilling to weigh the burdens suffered by different economic classes.

Thursday, February 26, 2004

Tuesday, February 24, 2004

Sunday, February 22, 2004