Addendum

I realize in my previous post on the poppy trade I said “the Taliban and other terrorist groups,” thus calling the Taliban “terrorists” by association.

Unless we take a broad definition of terrorist, which I do not, I believe this is a mistake.

It is not out of love for the Taliban, or any violent Islamist politico-military organization, that I prefer not to paint them with the broad brush of “terrorist.”  Rather, it is because I believe in a precision in terms.  It is useful, not only for clear discourse, but in forming proper policy prescriptions.

First, not all Islamist political groups are the same.  The current ruling party in Turkey has an Islamic bent, but they will not establish shari’a in place of secular Turkish law.  They were elected legitimately, and rule peacefully.  The Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt would establish some kind of Islamic law, but it is unlikely that it would be the kind of totalitarian social control seen in countries like Saudi Arabia.  They operate peacefully, and are the majority opposition party in Egypt, even with all of Mubarak’s shady dealing and election corruption.  These two groups have little in common with militant organizations like Hezbollah, the Taliban, and Al Qaeda.

Second, not all militant Islamist groups are the same.  Hezbollah and the Taliban are trying to establish control over their respective countries – in the case of Hezbollah, they might even settle merely for increased representation in the existing government. (I’d be wary of any such arrangement, though – fair representation in Lebanon would mean Hezbollah and their associates would have a strong majority in parliament.  Left untempered by good institutions, some of Hezbollah’s more radical members could lead the country in an unsavory direction.)   Hezbollah has strong popular support because they operate as a shadow government, providing important social services where the official government has failed.  The Taliban had popular support because they had a reputation as being incorruptible, as well as bringing stability to a war ravaged country.  After their authoritarian rule, the popularity of the Taliban waned, though it is on the rise again.  Al Qaeda, in contrast to either of these organizations, more closely resembles anarchist groups.  They attack civilian populations with the main goal of causing fear and anarchy, their overarching goal is ambiguous and general rather than specific and political, and they operate in small, covert cells.

These differences are not superficial, but strike to the heart of how they must be understood and dealt with, individually.  If we see all Islamists, or worse, all Muslims, as the same, we risk grossly misunderstanding their goals, strategies, and constituents – and in so doing, undermine our own efforts to rebuff, defeat, or compromise with them.  The latest issue of Foreign Policy has declared Samuel Huntington the number four “winner” of the war in Iraq.  His views, whether explicitly or merely de facto, have certainly been gaining ground with many in the West since 9/11.  Yet, this idea of a clash of civilizations denies the multiplicity of interests and identities in the Islamic and Arab worlds.  It leads to the view, illustrated by Mark Steyn, that there is some kind of grand competition with Muslims everywhere, that they jeopardize Western “civilization” (whatever that is) and that we must fear being outbred (!) by them.  Bigoted nature aside, this kind of thinking leads to a dangerous “Manichean Paranoia,” as Zbigniew Brzezinski terms it, where we assert ourselves as an Ultimate Good facing a monolithic, unified Ultimate Evil.  The only possible result, then, is the triumph of Good over Evil, completely and utterly, by any means necessary.  And if that kind of ideology on the part of the world’s most powerful leaders is not a frightening prospect, I don’t know what is.

Instead Of A War On Poverty, They Got A War On Drugs So The Police Can Bother Me

Man, over two weeks. Time to get back in the game I guess.

American Footprints notes the creation of a US “drug czar” for Afghanistan to deal with the opium problem there. They say:

“You know I prefer the military option of using herbicides and napalm in liberal quantities, so spare me the options of legalizing the opium trade, offering economic alternatives to the farmers, prosecuting corrupt Afghan officials, yadda yadda. All I know is that the metric of success – reducing the number one opium-producing nation’s ability to export opium – isn’t going in a positive direction.” (Emphasis added)

That’s not the metric I’d measure by. Though heroin is a dangerous drug that ruins lives worldwide, I believe that seeing the stabilization of Afghanistan, and the repulsion of the Taliban and other terrorist groups is the focus of our efforts there. If, as suggested, we destroyed poppy farms en masse, not only would we be contributing to the humanitarian crisis in Afghanistan by destroying the livelihood of many Afghanis, we would radicalize the entire population. It does not take an analytical genius to realize poppy destruction creates support for the Taliban and hatred of NATO. To simply destroy the entire crop would be foolish on a grand scale.

The options that “Armchair Generalist” dismisses so easily – legalizing the trade, government intervention to assist in crop diversification, a crackdown on corruption – are in fact the only viable options. First, NATO needs to be in the business of buying as much poppy as possible. This takes opium out of the hands of heroin producers while allowing farmers to live. From there, a program of crop diversification by offering crop exchange, new agricultural technology, and targeted government assistance would be the intelligent step. This is much more expensive than carpeting the country with napalm, but simple destruction of poppy in Afghanistan will not end the opium trade, or the production of heroin. All it will achieve is the further impoverishment of millions of Afghanis.

A Brief Look at Nepal

I don’t have the time or ability at the moment to fully address the democratic process in Nepal at the length I would like. However, there’s been some interesting events lately so I feel it needs to be touched on in some fashion. The Maoists are backpedaling on their recent statement about having a considerable stock of weapons outside UN containment, as expected. Even the Maoists do not want to jeopardize the peace process at the moment. When the government becomes more stable, interests clash, and they ultimately fail to deliver the desired social legislation to the people – then we will see how committed these factions are to peace.

Federalism is a wise decision. Nepal has a number of ethnic groups and strong regional identities based on rural kinship structures. This is not to say they have anything even close to the identity conflicts that exist in areas like Iraq or Rwanda, but when people protest in the streets for independence, cutting their base out from under them with a federalist system will help keep the country united.

International Crisis Group has come up with several excellent policy prescription reports for Nepal that are far more detailed and erudite than anything I could deliver. On the note of federalism, their latest deals with the constitutional process. A point I found interesting:

“8. Carry out internal reforms in line with Article 142(3)(c) of the interim constitution, including the setting of minimum quotas, to improve the representation and participation of women and minorities such as dalits and ethnic groups in party bodies such as central committees.”

It is notable that the only party that has any kind of substantial female or dalit population is the Maoist party. The Maoists, like nearly all leftist revolutionary groups, were based among the marginalized, including women, minorities, and much of the rural population who felt ignored by the insider politics of Kathmandu. One of International Crisis Group’s complaints earlier in their prescription is that there is little popular democracy as of yet – that it remains an inside game. All democracy, at one point or another, is an inside game. It’s doubtful that we’ll really see anyone other than elites in the Nepalese political circuit for a long time. What’s important is to establish that these elites represent the interests of the people. I don’t know how much the Maoists, once they have tasted the nectar of power, will keep their ties to their marginalized base – and as I mentioned earlier, I doubt any social legislation will be as widespread or as effective as the people desire. All we can do is hope the institutions established are strong enough to bar serious corruption or tyranny. As the International Crisis Group states:

“The demise of the 1990 Constitution illustrates that no new constitutional order will gain legitimacy unless it visibly incorporates public input. Diverse education efforts, including both local initiatives and internationally-funded projects, have already begun; expectations of significant changes have been aroused. However, there are no institutional structures to channel, process and consider the results of consultation. The Interim Constitution Drafting Commission invited public input but lacked a clear mandate or adequate mechanisms to deal with submissions. The result was public frustration and dissatisfaction with the end product. The CA process will need to do better if it is to deliver greater legitimacy.” (emphasis added)

The Maoist “economy” established in the countryside during the war – the “Prachanda Path” – was really more of a system of social services. People sided with the Maoists, as they side with Hamas and Hezbollah, because the Party was feeding, sheltering, and teaching them, while the state had failed to provide. The legitimacy of this new regime will hinge on two things – the belief in representation of the popular will (even if all politicians involved are still bourgeois elites and Maoist elites) and the effective delivery of desired services.

More later.

I’ve Been Thinking About Suicide Recently.

No, not committing suicide. I was thinking about whether an individual has the right to take their own life. I often fall on the libertarian side of social issues, since I believe that, as a general rule, one should have as many freedoms as possible without injuring others or society.

To have as many liberties as possible without infringing on the liberties of others is an old chestnut, and really unenforceable when one gets to the brass tacks. It is the nature of society that the group may have to limit the individual’s liberty for the benefit of society, such as with food regulation. Greater men than I have struggled over where the line between the rights of the individual and the rights of society (or other individuals) lies, so I don’t think I could settle the question here, even if I needed to. It is clear enough from legal precedent that personal liberties mean little if the government can establish a serious interest in limiting those liberties, and if the law does not seem too unreasonable – thus we infringe the rights of employers in order to protect equal opportunity for all ethnicities.

I also believe in quality of life over quantity, which is why I believe in Death with Dignity programs for the terminally ill. However, these people are already dying, and great measures are taken to insure that they are of sound mind when they choose suicide. Though I generally believe in choice, and that in such a scenario death would be preferable to suffering, I don’t believe in rushing headlong into the void if one is otherwise healthy. You can look forward to an eternity there anyway. If I knew any suicidal people, I would try to dissuade them. I also would try to dissuade a Nazi from his views, but this does not mean I believe in making racist speech illegal. Though I believe it is wrong to try to kill oneself in the prime of life, is that a reason to pass legislation banning it?

What about seat belt laws? That is essentially what the question of suicide amounts to. Suicide bans are a case of the state protecting you from yourself. Such a statement is odious to many liberal (as in free, not necessarily leftist) people. It sends a small shiver up my spine to type it. What else will the government do “for my own good”? How do they know better than I what I need?

I believe in both seat belt laws and suicide bans. Though we often speak of separating law and morality, ultimately law carries a moral power. It normalizes certain behaviors and shapes the ideological frame in which we all operate. I, and many others raised in the years since the seat belt mandates, unthinkingly reach for the seat belt when i get into a car. It is no longer about fear of punishment, or even a rational cost-benefit analysis, but the normalization of the practice of seat belt wearing. Though the utility of the seat belt is emphasized (“It will keep you safe in an accident”) this is just a part of the justification for the social imposition of a ritual. Luckily, in this case the ritual is important for the safety of all. Similarly, making suicide illegal stigmatizes the act and normalizes the thought of suicide as unnatural. Thus, if we believe suicide is wrong, there is a compelling argument for a ban in terms of whether the law will even matter.

Is suicide wrong, though? This is a difficult philosophical question, and would require another essay, if not a library full of them. An important note, though – people who are suicidal are often so because of harsh conditions in their life. Yet, it is possible these conditions are temporary. Most of the time, we do not know what the future brings. Suicide as a reaction to existential crisis, unlike buying a sports car or traveling the world, will permanently end any potential for improvement in your life. It is like the argument in Roe v Wade about the state’s interest in banning late term abortions. The state has the interest in the potential life of the being; similarly, the state here has an interest in your potential life. Especially with suicidal teenagers, there could very well be decades ahead of them in which to grow as human beings and surpass their suicidal feelings. Suicide is a permanent solution to what is often a non-permanent problem – and this is why it should be illegal for most people. No matter how tempered the suicidal party may believe their reasoning to be, it is not really a rational decision, in the economic sense. Not because it is irrational to desire death – it may be that, after weighing the costs and benefits of living, one views death as preferable, such as with the terminally ill – but because typically one lacks the knowledge to make that decision well. A rational self-interest decision is not only one made by careful cost-benefit measurement, but by the possession of considerable knowledge about the situation (economics actually requires full knowledge of the situation). If you cannot know what your life ahead holds, you cannot make a good decision about whether or not to commit suicide.

300

I also saw 300 recently, but I don’t have much to say about it that wasn’t previously said in this article from Ain’t It Cool News, which I usually hate.  But really, this guy sums up my feelings on the film entirely.  For example:

“I can’t spoil the plot because THANK GOD THERE ISN’T ONE. Just ass kicking that kicks ass that, while said ass is getting kicked, is kicking yet more ass that’s hitting someone’s balls with a hammer made of ice but the ice is frozen whiskey.”

Indeed.

The Lives of Others

Recently I watched The Lives of Others, a German film from freshman director von Donnersmarck. It really is an excellent film, with a full plot summary and review at the New Yorker here.

It takes place in East Germany before the fall of the Berlin Wall (mostly), and centers on a Stasi agent, Wiesler, who monitors a writer, Dreyman, and his actress girlfriend, and allows them to get away with dissidence against the state. In the New Yorker’s review:

“Slowly, the tables turn. Wies-ler steals Dreyman’s copy of Brecht and takes it home to read; he starts to omit details in his official account; and, for some fathomless reason—guilt, curiosity, longing—he lets the lives of others run their course.”

It is more fathomable than Anthony Lane believes. A centerpiece of the film is the “Sonata for a Good Man”, specially composed for the film. When he plays the piece, Dreyman asks, “Can someone who’s listened to this music – really listened – still be a bad person?” Meanwhile, Wiesler sits a floor above him, listening to Dreyman play. Though the film has many powerful themes, a significant one is the role of art in the liberation of the soul.

East Germany is not a terrifying place in the physical sense. I was surprised by the relatively well-furnished apartments and the access to luxury items – though admittedly everyone in the film is in the government and art elite. Instead, the horror is the control of the mind, the person. The Stasi have agents everywhere, monitoring all thought and action. When Dreyman writes his dissident piece to publish in the West, it is about suicide rates in East Germany. He’s not writing about the numbers of executions, or imprisonments – he’s writing about the desperation that causes person after person to take their own life. Later in the film, Wiesler was bent on turning in Dreyman, but was dissuaded when he heard his superior talk about methods of imprisonment. There would be no torture, no interrogations, he said – they’d just lock Dreyman up in the dark, for a year or so, and then let him out again. No explanation. The best part, the Stasi officer added, was that these artists would often be so broken, they could never write again. The knowledge that, by reporting Dreyman, he would destroy Dreyman’s hopes and creativity, prevented Wiesler from reporting him. This, too, is what led him to protect Dreyman throughout the film.

There is little glory for Wiesler in the end. One of the most powerful scenes is at the end, some years after the fall of the Wall. Wiesler is walking down the street – same dull jacket, same blank look on his face – the only difference being the graffiti marring the great gray buildings of the communist past. Nothing has changed for him. He works a dead end job, in a poor part of the city – all his heroism, while it benefited Dreyman, came to nothing for him personally. The Lives of Others is one of the best films, foreign or American, that I have seen in quite a while.