Miguel pointed his readers to an essay by Bill Wittle about confidence and why it contributed to America's greatness.
I read most parts of Bill's essay. (It is way long) What he says about confidence really hits the spot in terms of how Americans think in my opinion.
Most things are achieved in the US because of this absolute belief that they can be achieved.
Other countries lack that spirit. My country (Germany) for example is not confident at all.
Well, we all know the reason for that... last time we were confident we killed millions of people because we thought we were the best.
Anyway, as good as confidence is... overconfidence can be dangerous. And I don't mean as grim an example as the German one here. But maybe sometimes confidence leads you to errors, wrong decisions and you might fail your purpose although you acted with great confidence and meant really well.
The Iraq war is one of the main sources fueling this kind of discussion but it is not a good example because it hasn't ended, yet. I'd say we could talk about that in like ten or even twenty years. If by then a working democracy based on the free will of the Iraqi people is in place we can all bow down to the spirit of confidence that led there. If Iraq is still in trouble with terrorists, rebels who think of themselves as freedom fighters or if a corrupt and/or oppressing system is in place we might acknowledge that overconfidence led to the situation.
A nice quote from Bill's essay is:
"...if we actually believe the US is the source of all the misery in the
world,... then something is indeed very wrong with our foundation..."
Of course it isn't. And everybody who thinks otherwise is in need of a quick reality check.
But what if I said:
The US is the source of all the greatness in the world.
Or
Nothing other than greatness has come from American soil.
Wouldn't I need a reality check as well?
Now, I don't know a single person who actually and literally would have claimed that. The confidence, however, with which the US is trying to spread its opinions, its way of life, its products and anything maybe disturbing for others.
Look, I really try to understand the American psyche. A nation founded on the principle:
We can! I lived in the US and tried to embrace that principle. But please don't take it to extremes!
If you think, we must because you can then you are at the point of overconfidence clouding your view for reasonable arguements. (And promoting the rule of the fist over the democratic culture of debate, which is ironic because you are actually trying to promote democracy)
I have observed that a plea like mine is received very defensively in the US. If I question your judgement then I am favoring "the enemy". Don't paint in black and white.
Recently, so called "Old Europe" sometimes acted as if it knew everything better while it actually didn't. Please don't do the same.
Not everyone who dares to criticize certain decisions of your politicians is either a well meaning, naive hippy or a "stinking commie".
(Those paragraphs about the stinking commies, the losers and so on... they remind me of the communist witch hunts in McCarthy's era. Please don't start seing a communist in everyone who has a stronger social conscience than the bootstraps-belief. You can only pull yourself out of a mess by your bootstraps if society gave you the opportunity to have boots.
I think, communists are the tiniest group among the people criticizing US government's decisions. But it is pretty convenient not having to deal with arguments if you can cry "commie!" instead.)
In any case,
finally I think I found the fundamental difference between the American and the Old-Europe psyche: In contrast to the confidence of "We can" in Europe there is this belief in the law. The way to the war in Iraq seems to be a good example for that. (Iraq is not a good example however to measure whether America's action was driven by confidence or overconfidence as I mentioned above)
This belief in law has flaws, arguably. Sometimes we are rigid. We didn't want to start a war in Iraq because we were not sure wether the outcome would be better than the current situation. When the US decided they wanted to wage that war (in order to install a democratic Iraqi regime) but not all by themselves, they searchedUN approval. But none would come because the UN couldn't agree on that Saddam's breaches of UN resolutions were important enough to wage war. So some guy in the US government or in an association closely related to it may have felt the obligation to forge evidence about Weapons of Mass Destruction. Either that or the people analyzing data about possible WMD were just incompetent for the job.
So in a way, the European rigidness of believing in law may have forced that forgery because America wanted to appeal to our kind of reasoning in order to convince us of what they (confidently) knew: That they were right as well as the war was right(eous) .
Maybe a departure from both sides would be a good idea. If Europeans understood that law is not always more important than human life and if Americans understood that they can be wrong even though they are confident of their decisions then we could all grow as people and help create a better world, couldn't we?
Sometimes, everything that is needed is the courage to admit to have been wrong. That goes to Europeans and Americans alike. As I said, for the Iraq situation it is too early to tell.
But, I may be wrong about that. :-)
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
25 comments:
Very well put. Though I think Whittle does know the difference between confidence & overconfidence. But your points are all very valid. Also, I wrote briefly about this European/American difference a while back, here (it's an analysis based on American superhero culture):
http://www.centellas.org/miguel/archives/000284.html
I do not think departing from the believe in law is that good of an idea. It sets precedents for others to break law. With the US going it "alone" (alone with allies) what prevents other nations from marching into to other countries trying to take out their leaders? On what grounds is the action of the US more justified than the one of another country if both comes down to breaking law? I know I know - the US were helping the Iraqi people. I am afraid many Iraqis would laugh at your face currently if you'd told them that, for many of them the terrible regime of Saddam was more predictable than what's going on now and has it improved security in this world. I have my doubts as Iraq has become a perfect recruiting ground for terrorists and I am not sure I do see a change in that situation in the near future.
I think it might have been better to push for a change in law that strengthens the capabilities of an institution, but to outright condemn breach of that law.
But then again I am too European in that believe.
I do not like the "because we can that's why we do" attitude of Americans. It has a certain arrogance to it. But I do like a part of this thinking. The encouragement to dare to risk something. But this risk taking, that would help sometimes if we had it in Germany, should still happen within the framework of the law. And if law proves to be imperfect, maybe daring to fight for a change of laws might be the better way. Just my two cents. Not too coherent yet, but there they are.
Melli,
I agree with you. Now wonder, we may have been brought up similarly. For us law provides the safe environment enabling us to pursue our happiness.
For Americans the absence of law (in the sense of regulations) is the guaranty for the chance to pursue happiness.
So, I would have rather preferred change of law than breaching it just because one has the power to do so. I agree that America sets a dangerous precedent and that the message sent to any other nation is:
"Wow, we don't have to care about international agreements as well, we can do what we want."
But Americans disagree on sending this message. I think their opinion is that they sent the message:
"Don't mess with us or you'll regret it big time."
Only one point where I am hesitating with my judgement more than you, Melli.
I honestly believe, that the decision for going to war in Iraq should not be praised or condemned as yet.
The good things, law can do are beyond question but history holds a few examples where breaking the law improved the situation. I think of the Kosovo war, for example. The situation in Kosovo and Yugoslavia is far from being great, but I think they are closer to the right track than they used to, when Milosevic was still in power.
Melanie:
I disagree w/ that oh-so-European notion that the law is somehow sacred, just because it's the "law" -- and not for the reasons why it's a "good" law. Best example? Nazi Germany. Everything that regime did was "legal", since it passed laws explicitly requiring the elimination of Jews, repression of all dissidents, etc. And in their blind faith in the "law" many Germans marched in lockstep w/ their regime.
What Americans believe more than any other Western society -- and believe it at their core -- is that there are things superior to law. Yes, it's a very Anglophile notion. But watch some American cowboy Westerns sometime w/ this very point in mind. I especially recommend the following:
"High Noon" <-- probably the best (also an amazing analogy for Iraq)
"The Sons of Katie Elder"
"High Plains Drifter"
"Open Range"
"Unforgiven"
Let's see... I'll try to give an objective observation:
Miguel's view (or maybe an American view) of the world seems to be a little like the state of nature of John Locke or even Thoas Hobbes. I mean on a global level. (international politics)
There is no law that you can count on. In the end you have to defend what's yours by yourself.
Hence the American belief in the tradition of Wild West lifestyle: The message of those Western movies mentioned is that self-justice is the only solution if you want to live and prosper.
Maybe Melanie's view (or the European view) could be compared to Locke's view of a society.
A power providing a frameset of laws that one can rely on, allowing everyone to persue his/her dreams as long as they are within this frameset.
Let me elaborate on this:
When Saddam invaded Kuwait he challenged this frameset, so he was stopped.
When the US invaded Iraq in 2003 they challenged the frameset as well.
Hence the outcry of protest and anger from Europe.
But since Americans see the world differently (more state of nature like) they don't feel that they did anything wrong. In the end one's interests need to be pursued by oneself!. So although Americans acknowledge that such a frameset exists it is regarded as not binding because it does not fulfill its purpose: Providing a safe environment where everyone can live happily and prosper. (I was trying an analogy to Hobbes' view of England during the Civil War)
Self-justice and blind belief in law both have their downsides. Both can lead to errors, tragedies and death.
Thing is, it won't help to say America is right, Europe is wrong or vice versa.
Call me crazy, but I think Europeans and Americans need to work something out so that the real bad guys (terrorists) won't get stronger.
Finally I want to apologize for generalizing about Europeans and Americans. No offense, it was just for the sake of the argument.
I think you're definitely on the right track, Marco. But I'd go further. Locke's view of society, after all, is a social CONTRACT made between people in order to escape the harsh realities of the state of nature. But Locke clearly stipulates that this contract can be broken, even by individuals, who decide to "appeal to heaven" (as he puts it) or, in better words, to overthrow the state & authorities.
A fundamental difference between the US & Europe is that basic foundation of what the state is. The state is made for man, not man for the state. The founding document of "America" is the Declaration of Independence, a document that doesn't really stipulate a plan for government, but a fierce defense of the RIGHT TO REVOLUTION against a state. No understanding of American political culture is complete w/o that fundamental point firmly in mind.
The US was founded on the very idea that individuals can challenge law, that they can destroy a state & develop new laws, and that this can be done through violence, if necessary.
Even the US Constitution, includes the famous Second Amendment, which was included in the constitution to uphold the right of individuals to posses weapons, weapons they might someday use to excercise their right to revolution. What European state would recognize this right to its people?
Marco,
Ignore what's below if I'm repeating something you've already considered. Just thought I'd weigh in.
Don't entertain the thought that a majority of Americans subscribe to the cowboy ethos. I think most just want to go about their over-consuming saily lives without the burden of thinking of the rest of the world. And who view the threat of terrorism as a big-time potential disruption to that lifestyle, and would support a "stronger" president gto defend their lifestyles.
As to the rule of law, I also think many Americans tended, in the leadup to the Iraq war, to view "Old European" adherence to the letter of the law as a cop-out, or a sign of weak political acumen. I disagree with this personally, but many Americans believed that security would have been sacrificed by giving Saddam any more time.
As to international law, the international legal system has always been characterized by chaos. Only within the last 60 years or so have international legal norms (other than international customary law applicable to merchants and commerce) been given wider recognition. The prevailing view of state sovereignty being the ultimate repository of authority prevails in the US. Realpolitikers would argue that the only law that matters at the end of the day is that of the sovereign state, and that treaties, conventions and the like are invalid if they conflict w/the security needs of the state. A "state first" approach.
There are two ways of viewing the international legal system: monistically or dualistically. The monist view is that international law is incorporated into the state legal system. For example, an American monist would argue that b/c the US Constitution explicitly counts treaties as part of the "law of the land" (on par w/federal laws), then international law is part of the single US legal system. The other view, dualism, seems to prevail in the US. The dualist would argue that there are two concurrent legal system: state and international. And state laws should prevail if there's conflict, based on the doctrine of sovereignty (which has lost some of it's gravity since the Nuremberg and Tokyo Trials, and the UN's international criminal tribunals).
Forgot to add the point of my last paragraph: the dualist view of international permitted Americans to view breaches of, say the UN Charter as to the aggressive use of force and other intl customary and conventional laws as being in conflict with fundamental tenants of American jurisprudence, such as the right to self-defense. (For example, under American tort law if A reasonably believes that B intends to and is capable of imminently harming A, then A can "preemptively strike" B in self defense.
Point being, American dualist lawyers have argued the War in Iraq in a way that conforms w/US law, and whether it conflicts with international law is inconsequential b/c state law prevails.
Two things (briefly):
First: Yes, not all Americans subscribe to the "cowboy mythos". But I think it's an integral part of social political discourse. And the "cowboy mythos" applies to more than cowboys. The American movie's archetypal renegade anti-hero is the modern cowboy. And I think box office figures speak volumes; tastes in entertainment culture tend to enter political culture.
Second: I keep wanting to point out that the Iraq war was in keeping w/ UN resolutions. The 1991 war ended w/ a ceasefire agreement (not a peace agreement), meaning hostilities were still on-going (as they are in Korea). The US & UK signed separate cease-fire agreements w/ Iraq , which were not lived up to by Iraq (why they could continue to bomb the country over a decade). In the absence of a UN mandate to fight, the US-UK led a coalition (including a majority of NATO members) to reignite the 1991 war. For the US action were "illegal" under UN mandates, the UN would have had to declare the 1991 war over (and the 18 resolutions over 12 years indicate the issue was still pending, not "resolved") and/or pass a resolution specifically stating that the US/UK could not use force against Iraq. Essentially, the Iraq situation showed (in my opinion) the weak nature of existing international law.
@ Miguel
yes, a cease-fire was called. Let me ask you something:
Was the Iraq war in 1991 started in accordance to the UN? Was the cease-fire established in accordance to the UN? Was the breaking of that cease-fire in accordance to the UN?
(I think the answers are yes, yes, no)
So... fine if all this accordance (even put to paper in resolutions) isn't binding, so be it:
Are you saying then that the US in 1991 (by going to the UN) lured the rest of the world into the belief that UN institutions matterd, and had authority?
And is the breaking of the cease-fire then the end of that "show" displaying America's belief on who really is the boss?
One could get under the impression that appealing to the UN whenever it's favorable and riding roughshod over it afterwards is quite a cheap trick.
PS.: I am curious whether there is a nicely named fallacy in this comment. ;-)
@Tom
"For example, under American tort law if A reasonably believes that B intends to and is capable of imminently harming A, then A can "preemptively strike" B in self defense."
Well, sounds like Carl Schmitt theory basically stating:
(I talked a little about it last summer)
if my group feels threatened in our way of life by another group, we have the right to extinguish that group even if the threat we feel is imaginary.
Too bad that the Nazis followed Schmitt's advice and comitted genocide.
No, I don't think there's a logical fallacy to your argument, though it's based on a weird formulation of the evidence. Or, at least, a misuderstanding of the cease fire & the 1991 war itself.
The thing is, the UN authorized military action in 1991. But the US, if you recall, has this little problem w/ operating under non-US military command (even in WW2), unlike European & other countries. So the US led the UN-sanctioned coalition, but the forces weren't "officially" a UN "force" (no blue berets/helmets). So. It was UN-sanctioned US-led multilateral force.
After the end of the war, in 1991, the US, UK, France, and other participants signed separate end-of-fighting agreements w/ the UN & individual nations involved. So. The UN sanctioned the use of US military force against Iraq, but the US, once engaged in hostilities, signed a *separate* cease-fire agreement w/ Iraq. Notice that the US/UK continued to patrol/enforce the no-fly zones -- and often fire cruise missiles at targets in Iraq -- from 1991 to 2003. France continued in Iraq (patrolling the no-fly zones) for a few years, but then ended its hostilities w/ Iraq, and w/drew from the post-91 US/UK enforcement coalition.
So long as the conflict was in a case-fire, and not a formal peace treaty ending hostilities, the 1991 war was still, essentially, in effect. That means that the US had some legal claim to argue it was still operating under the 1991 umbrella resolutions, and didn't need another one. Even if it did, the US could still argue that once the 1991 war broke out, the US was engaged individually as an independent belligerent in a conflict w/ Iraq & could use the Iraqi violations of the bilateral (US-Iraq) cease fire agreement as an act of agression (which is how cease-fire violations are viewed in internainal military law), placing US retaliation into the realm of UN-sanctioned (by the Charter) self-defense.
That's why, as I've argued, the US had something of a legal umbrella to protect its war in Iraq. The legality may be dubious, and I'll readily conceded that. International law is, after all, only in its infancy. But to call it "entirely illegal" is a bit too much.
I think you're being unfair to Tom. The idea that pre-emptive justice is possible is far from the slippery slope (how's THAT for a nice name for a logical fallacy!) you're proposing.
In the American legal system, A does have legal cause to preemtively strike at B to prevent a harm. An example would be a restraining order against an abusive husband. Notice the example, however. A can't just claim that B might harm him/her. A must be able to demonstrate that B is indeed a clear & present danger. Then, the preemptive strike against B isn't death (that's absolutely unprecedented, as far as I know, in American common law), but rather something reasonable. Such as a court order that person B stay at least 500 yards away from A at all times.
Another example of a restraining order would be something like a court order (an injunction) barring an employer from firing an employee (preventing harm) until a legal case between the two is settled.
But I'm sure Tom can give much better legal explanations than I can.
I think you misunderstand me, Marco.
When I referred to tort law, I was only stating a very general rule that tends to manifest American jurisprudential thinking on issues of self-defense. Moreover, "anticipatory" self-defense is qualified by requirements that the act taken be reasonable AND proportional, in which case, clearly, if one group strikes anticipatorily based on a perceived threat, it must (1) be reasonable (an objective standard that precludes random declarations of perceived threat), and (2) the response be the narrowest possible to neutralize the threat - or, in other words, you can't murder a group just b/c you perceive a real threat. Moreover, the threat must be imminent and real.
So the tort I mentioned is not strictly applicable to international law. I offered it only as insight into American thinking.
Also, I disagree that the US didn't violate the UN Charter. I'm not familiar with Miguel's argument, but based on what I've read here I don't think it's the best one made by the US Govt. I think the best argument is the one that was put primarily forth: anticipatory self-defense. But, I think that the timing of the war precluded the US from using this defense in the aftermath, not which least reason is the fact that the US Govt drew an arbitrary line in the sand, and after some politicking by Iraq invaded. Should further inspections occurred, war may have been averted. We'll never know, because of the arbitrary deadline, which Iraq crossed and was consequently levelled by the US.
Since the UN Charter, on par w/federal law, permits war only in either self-defense or w/permission of the Security Council. I believe that the timing of the war was poor (the US could have waited, in which case the anticipatory self-defense argument would have ripened to fruition), and that by striking early the claim to legitimate self-defense was premature.
Suppose you're a cop in a confrontation with a hostile person with a criminal record and who has his hands in his pockets You command him to show his hands, and he refuses to pull his hands out of his pockets, but does little else other than say, I'm not armed, I'm not armed." You don't then fucking shoot the guy just b/c of his record and the fact that he won't show you his hands. You take further steps to ensure he isn't dangerous, or is.
@ Tom
I think we both misunderstood each other.
1. I didn't want to attack your argument. I know that you were trying to explain widespread American point of view and were not neccessarily stating your opinion in the example you gave.
2. I obviously didn't make clear what I meant with my analogy to Schmitt.
The key words in your example are "reasonable believe"
Was Iraq a real threat or an imagined threat?
The way you had phrased the example sounded as if it is enough under tort law to THINK there is a threat (no need of proof)in order to retaliate.
And IF retaliation is allowed on the basis of a perceived threat then... this leads down the path of Schmitt.
See, my question is who decides whether you have reason to believe that you will be attacked?
(After all, the NAZI govnt did exactly that: decided that there was a threat and that they would need to retaliate. ... There was no threat but that didn't help the victims)
And if someone has come to the conclusion that a threat is real and immenant, then who decides how far an appropriate response may go?
Internationally, so everyone needs to hope that the US has the right judgement in retaliating the threat of Iraq by war?
I think the reasoning I gave about a defense of war simply based on the legality due to cease-fire norms, is, I think, in line w/ the meta-argument I've been giving about difference in how "Americans" and "Europeans" view law.
Look at American common law trials. You (sort of) can find some case that lends precedence to pretty much anything, so cases aren't (in civil trials) as clear-cut as they are in code law tradition countries (most of Europe). You have stuff like you see on TV, where lawyers just make the best argument they can come up w/. If there's a better argument, but they don't know to use it (due to ignorance or not being prepared or wahtever), too bad.
Anyhow, this gives an instrumentalist view of law, right? If you can find some law or precedent that supports your argument, you appeal to it. Iraq violated the cease-fire, we wanted to attack, so there's our precedent. And since there's no enforcing international mechanism (other than force, I"m afraid), our government just picked the best legal recourse they couuld to go to war because of the broader strategic view it has on what the war on terror should look like.
I think the above paragraph's a pretty good assesment.
@Miguel,
I like the way you explain how US law tradition fits into the situation.
I can understand why Americans appeal to who- or whatever, that fits their purpose. Instrumentalist view of law, indeed.
Well, I don't share that view, but that is no surprise, is it? :-)
So if I understood you correctly my statement still holds:
The US appeals to the UN whenever it's favorable and rides roughshod over it afterwards, when that is favorable.
And the US feels good about it, because the US law has no normative value, but is just instrumental.
So if you view law that way, then it is quite natural not to join The Hague for example. That would require a long commitment. Plus it would require trust that law wouldn't be turned against them in an instrumental way but would be objective, equal for everyone.
Americans are sceptical about that, because they can't grasp that normative value of law as much as we can't grasp the instumental law perspective.
Thinking about that, a lot of the socalled anti-americanism of recent months/years was not about hating American liberties, it was hating American view of law.
(But I don't think, most people who are angry at America have really understood that this is the case)
Europeans probably feel cheated by the US if they don't commit to a higher (normative) standard of law.
They ask: How can for example The Hague work if US expects everyone to be subject to it but refuses to do so itself?
In my opinion, international politics heavily relies on trust. And trust is built up best with continuity and not with shifting ends and means (while even ignoring the authority of institutions they themselves created).
So again, if everyone would view law similarly, we probably wouldn't have this discussion. I strongly recommend that (internationally) in the future one will expect from others only as much as one is willing to give himself.
European "anti-americanism" won't stop until an understanding about the value of law is reached.
Hm, I don't see that coming in the next few years
But that recommendation goes both ways of course. I didn't mean to sound ad if only the US has to move.
Miguel's last post is very interesting. I've not considered that perspective.
@ Marco:
Exactly! Our view of what is law, its relationship to justice, etc. is very much a product of our common law tradition (law as instrumental, etc). And we could debate for eternity which is better (instrumental or non-instrumental), but it's enough to just point out that these two views probably explain the bulk of why Anglosphere (US/UK/Australia) don't act internationally quite the same as "Europeans". Essentially, we have a jaded view of the law.
Look at all our lawyer jokes! Or how Edward's biggest handicap is that he is a civil trial lawyer. What do we call 100 lawyers at the bottom of the ocean? A good start. Etc.
Also, in US common law, you can appeal to ANY precedent at ANY time. So that gives you centuries of laws that are still available for use in argumentation. Lawyers can cite any case, in any state/county as an argument for/against pretty much anything. So we feel we can do the same w/ international law. Appeal to the cases/precedents that best suit our current interest.
Speaking of which, I've found that many American legal movies are completely misunderstood by non-American audiences for precisely this reason. THink of the recent movie "Run Away Jury" (or something like that, it had John Cusak). Unless you understand that importance of jury selection, it's process, etc. the movie is absolutely meaningless. An observation I learned by talking to Bolivians about the film after it premiered in La Paz.
The primary thing they didn't understand about hte movie, was that the trial itself would creat the law. Most US laws (if I understand it right, as I learned co-teaching an American judiciary class) are NOT (!!) made by the legislature, but by precedent-setting trials in court rooms all over the country. Once a court decides that X is the law on some issue, it becomes law, even if states, etc. only slowly change their statutes accordingly, mostly just to avoid being sued under the terms of John Doe v. State X.
Oh, I guess the whole point of the above is that not only do Americans view law as instrumental, they:
1) view most (if not all) issues as decided on a case-by-case basis
2) law as constructed by these case-by-case decisions
3) "law" as a "settlement" (think of what the word can also imply, to "settle") between numerous positions based on a wide number of alternative "settlements" negotiated by the parties involved
add to that the concept of judicial discretion ... and it's such a different view of law altogether.
Hi, a few comments and a question...
1) I think Miguel is spot on about confidence. Remember that the Golden age of Greece came in the burst of confidence they gained by defeating the Persians?
2) It is vastly oversimplifying to say that the Americans think life is more important than the law and leave it at that. Of course we do, but everyone does, ultimately. It's common sense. The law exists to help people, and it's not useful anymore when it's not doing its job. That's where we differ on the Iraq issue. Americans believe VERY strongly in the rule of law; we founded the UN after all, and envisioned the world united by international law. Saddam disobeyed international law countless times, and the UN refused to enforce international law. Eventually we became threatened by this and enforced it ourselves, through 1441. This also shouldn't be viewed as something that rested easily with the American psyche. Intelligent war supporters were very dubious about the whole thing, because it completely went against our notion of state sovereignty. I think most people who supported it just went along because they trusted that the administration knew something we didn't know (which was false), and was better qualified to judge.
3) The idea that someone in America fabricated information is totally false. Colin Powell presented the facts as given him by the CIA, which was working with limited human intelligence. Much of our intelligence was based on information provided by dissidents, who were wrong, and assumptions we made in our lack of knowledge, which also turned out wrong. But to say we manufactured information is totally false. All the other intelligence agencies, inlcuding the French and the Russians, had reached the conclusion that Saddam had WMD because only that could explain his continued dissimulation. If we were really that nefarious, we would have simply manufactured WMD and "discovered" them when we got to Iraq.
4) On the other hand, there is a tradition of civil disobedience in the US - the idea behind which is that justice is more important than the law. This is not uniquely a "cowboy" tradition. For example, in the 1960's there was discrimination against blacks in many places, and protesters broke the law by non-violent demonstrations. In one famous instance, an old black woman named Rosa Parks refused to give her seat in the front of a bus to a white man, as the law dictated. This is what the idea of civil disobedience is all about. Americans see disobeyal of the law as justified if it 1) is necessary to protect human life, and 2) it actually attempts to redress a wrong, and 3) it is non-violet (if possible).
Conservatives tend to agree with the notion you attribute to the Europeans that the law must always take precedence, and emphasize law and order, while liberals have a stronger tradition of civil disobedience, and sometimes hate the police. That is, at least in domestic politics. Internationally, conservatives are suspicious of the U.N., and the liberals are the ones who support more acceptance of international law.
Eric
Questions -
Question 1: Are Europeans moved at all by the humanitarian argument for the war? The idea that we are helping a downtrodden people is essential to giving support to a war in America (unless we have been directly attacked). Our history has been one of fighting and defeating oppressive empires, first the British, then the Spanish, then the Germans twice, the Japanese, and the Communists in Korea and Vietnam (except we lost that one). Thus we tend to see war in terms of freeing people and spreading democracy. The European experience of wars has been one of fighting for dynastic, imperialistic, and nationalistic reasons. These have now all been discredited, and so the Europeans, I believe, tend to think that nothing positive can come from war. Also their continent was desolated twice, which adds to that feeling.
Question 2:Does anyone over there talk about the fact that the current European attitude towards war is quite similar to the one that prevailed in the late 1800's? That generally, a great war was extremely unlikely and the future was one of continued progress?
European history seems to be following a pattern:
A) 30 years war, then sustained period of limited war,
B) French Revolution and Napoleonic wars, then sustained period of peace (except Fr.-Pr. war),
C) WWI, then period of denial and appeasement,
D) WWII, then period of wishy-washyness about Communism and now Terrorism
E) possibly the War on Terror, which may be as dangerous as many Americans fear, and may demand as much commitment as winning the other great wars did.
Thus, 1) it seems that after a terrible struggle, people are not willing to fight wars for a long time and are caught by suprise when others (like Hitler or Osama) are, and 2) the pattern is total war, peace/limited war, total war, peace, total war, peace, etc.
I should say that I think internecine European wars seem unlikely now, but there may be wars with other powers in the future, like China, or even America if the French insist on making the EU a rival to us.
Question 3: What is the difference between normative and instrumental law?
Thanks,
Eric
And another thing....
1) I think the Europeans have such respect for international law right now because:
A) the EU is a supernational authority and the Europeans think the world could be governed by laws like the EU.
B) Europe is so weak militarily and economically, the only way they have to compete with the US is by restraining it through international institutions such as Kyoto, the ICC, and the UN. Remember just a few years ago, the Europeans thought nothing of violating the sovereignty of Serbia without UN approval.
So I think that respect for the law by European nations is quite selective. Another example: the French and Germans have been violating EU budget deficit rules for years, even though the Germans are the ones who put them in place.
I read one account recently that compared the Euroepan and American views on democracy. It claimed the European view on democracy was that it should be promoted within Europe but not elsewhere, which is why Serbia was bombed and Yushchenko has been supported in Ukraine, but nothing is being done about promoting democracy in the Middle East or stopping Genocide in Darfur.
America on the other hand, sees itself as having a mission to promote democracy everywhere in the world.
Any thoughts?
Eric
P.S. I don't mean to generalize about Europeans and Americans. I realize it's much more complicated than that, but it simplifies communication.
Eric
There are two other aspects which seem to create a different environment.
The first of these is Europeans tend for the most part to confuse words with action. Many times they feel as if they have talked about something some action will result from it. As they tend to talk about the most difficult things, these are the ones where little or no action is never taken on.
The second difference is Americans have less fear of failure therefore they are more willing to try different things. Americans tend to use failure as a building block to a future success. Europeans tend to fear failure more and because of this fear are willing to take less risks..
Americans tend to establish high goals and when they fall short they still have accomplished more than a lower set of goals which are accomplished.
Post a Comment