Re: [Futurework] Re: Expediency not responsibility (was Re: US not an Empire)

[Ed Weick]

My stuff’s in blue. Ed Weick Ed, At 11:52 01/09/2003 -0400, you wrote: >Keith, what we're into here is the thorny question of the extent to which >the people of a modern democracy are responsible for the commitments their >leaders make on their behalf. IMHO, they are responsible, even when it >later becomes evident that the commitments were based on misconceptions or >lies. I don't think you could have a functioning democratic state without >public acceptance of that responsibility. Public indifference and apathy >can not be used as an excuse. People who enjoy the benefits of citizenship >in a modern state must be prepared to take responsibility for what that >state does. I don't think you can say this as a general statement. All democracies have different electoral systems and different 'back-up' and intermediate institutions between the politicans and the people. In Switzerland (from what I can judge) quite small communities, even individuals (who can initiate referenda if they're good organisers), have a great deal of power. The word 'democracy' means power belonging to the people, but in practice true power can be very remote indeed, however 'democratic' the government, particularly in countries with large populations. I think I can say it as a very general statement and as a matter of principle, but you’re right, how effective "power to the people" is varies from situation to situation. I’ve tried to cover it in my response to Brad. >If Bush and Blair lied, one would expect public outrage, forcing >resignations. I don't know if impeachment is a possibility in the UK, but >it certainly is in the US - witness Nixon's resignation in 1974 when it was >pretty obvious that he was facing impeachment. The point is they lied so skilfully (backed up by further spins from their staff) that the public have become thoroughly confused. In these situations the truth takes a long time to be refined well enough to be understood in simple terms. Agreed. They may not even have lied, but only told "half-truths". Saddam had WMDs in the form of poison gas which he used against the Iranians and Kurds. A hundred Iraqi soldiers shooting at five hundred Kurdish men standing at the edge of a burial pit might also be considered a WMD. > From what we read, there has been a substantial outrage toward Blair in the >UK, but not very much toward Bush in the US, at least not yet. Keep the >pressure up and Blair will be forced to resign. When the enormity of what >the US has committed itself to in Iraq and the impact of the Bush tax cuts >on the US ability to deliver become more evident, Bush could become a >one-term President. > >However, even if Bush and Blair were out of the picture, the commitment to >fix up Iraq would remain. I think in principle, yes, the advanced countries have a duty of care to those which need help. But the cultural gap may be so great and the present condition so serious in Iraq that almost anything that can be offered will only make the situation worse. I don't think even the UN would be trusted now. After all, the UN applied economic sanctions against Iraq for many years even while the aid agencies were telling the UN that they were hurting the ordinary Iraqis more than Saddam. We mustn’t forget that pre-war Iraq was a modern secular state. Despite being governed by a brutal regime, the population was relatively well educated and progressive. I personally believe it can be salvaged, but what is needed for that is certainty and stability. If the UN were able to put together a coalition to provide that, it would probably get all kinds of support from Iraqi moderates. A major step would be to get civil reconstruction out from under the Pentagon’s shadow. > The big question would then become whether the >coalition of the willing would turn into the coalition of the unwilling. I >think it would be shameful if it did. Yet I accept your point that it >probably will. Yes, and this is where we come back to reality again. Even if the US and UK governments turned over a new leaf and proposed doing all sorts of good things for the Iraqis, they may not be able to afford it because, at the same time, both governments have driven their countries into deep deficits (not quite yet in the UK, but it's about to happen), so that unemployment and general insecurity will rise. This is not conducive to ordinary people being interested in other country's problems, never mind dipping their hands in their pockets. It will need large resources, larger than the US and UK may be able to provide. Others have to brought in, but to come in, they will have to be convinced that it is in their interests to do so. They may even want some of the work that will be going to Haliburton and Bechtel. Ed