One consequence of the Iraq war is to expose (once again) the false divide between "civilized" and "barbarous" nations. The US seems as capable of barbarism as anyone else, as the abuses at the Abu Ghraib prison make clear. Much of the time the barbarism in Iraq goes unrecorded, as when US tanks sweep into Iraqi neighborhoods and kill dozens of innocents in the name of fighting "insur-gents." But barbarism is found in many quarters, as the grisly beheading of a US hostage made clear.
Every society, under certain conditions, is vulnerable to a descent into barbarism. Many historians have argued that German society under Hitler was somehow uniquely evil. False. Germany was destabilized by defeat in World War I, a harsh peace in 1919, hyperinflation in the 1920s and the Great Depression of the 1930s, but was otherwise not uniquely barbarous. On the contrary, in the early part of the 20th century, Germany was one of the world's richest countries, with enviably high education levels and scientific prowess. Hannah Arendt was closer to the mark when she wrote about the "banality of evil," not its uniqueness.
ILLUSTRATION: MOUNTAIN PEOPLE
There seem to be two common characteristics of the descent into barbarism. The first is the relentless human tendency to classify the world as "us" versus "them," and then to reduce "them" to subhuman status. Such classifications probably evolved because they strengthened the cohesion of the "in" group, facilitating cooperation by harnessing hatred for those outside.
Hatred and violence against "others" seem to be manifested most powerfully as the result of fear: They are survival reactions. The descent into barbarism generally occurs in the midst of economic crisis or when localized violence has already flared. Fear leads one group to coalesce in order to protect itself, perhaps by attacking a competing group.
This pattern was evident in Yugoslavia's wars of the 1990s, where ethnic communities that had lived together more or less peacefully became enmeshed in civil war in the midst of a deep economic crisis. Similarly, Israelis and Palestinians have both en-gaged in barbaric acts in a tragic interplay of mutual fear that empowers extremists in both communities. There is no glory on either side of the Israel-Palestine debacle. But Israel, with its vastly stronger army, could and should have taken much wiser political decisions than occupying the West Bank with settlers.
US reactions to the Abu Ghraib torture scenes, followed by the beheading of Nicholas Berg, show clearly the route to barbarism in a supposedly civilized country. In May 2004, The New York Times polled readers in a city in the US heartland, Oswego, Illinois. One retired businessman said, "Let's kill them all. Let's wipe them off the face of the earth."
A Nazi leader would not have said it differently.
A tow-truck driver said that the beheading "just affirms what I thought before. We're not being tough enough. This is something that we've got to do. We should attack our enemies directly and not back off till we succeed."
A third respondent said something similar. "There was so much outrage about the prisoner abuse, which I certainly don't approve of, but this was much worse," she said, referring to the Berg murder. "What it tells me is that we can't let this kind of evil put down roots. We have to fight it decisively right now, or else we'll never be able to stamp it out."
Barbarous thinking comes easily, and right-wingers fuel the fervor, as when Rush Limbaugh said on his radio program "They're the ones who are perverted. They're the ones who are dangerous. They're the ones who are subhuman. They're the ones who are human debris, not the United States of America and not our soldiers and our prison guards."
I am not saying that the US is more depraved than other countries. What I am saying is that human society, even in the 21st century, is capable of sliding into barbaric thinking and action, no matter the level of "development."
The idea that any nation is morally superior, or that it has been divinely chosen as a leader of nations, is dangerous. Once we recognize how vulnerable all of the world is to this kind of descent into violence, the importance of international law and international institutions such as the UN become all the more obvious. The UN successfully resisted the powerful pressures of the US to condone a war with Iraq despite repeated US claims, now known to be false, that Iraq was in possession of weapons of mass destruction. The UN process worked. It was US policy that failed.
The events at Abu Ghraib underscore why international rules such as the Geneva Conventions on the treatment of combatants are so vital. By putting itself above the law, the US allowed itself to succumb to barbaric behavior. Similarly, these events prove why the new International Criminal Court (ICC) is vital. The US strongly resisted the jurisdiction of the ICC, but US abuses at Abu Ghraib show why the US, should be subject to international law.
Perhaps that lesson -- the need to subject even the most powerful country to international law -- will be one benefit of the otherwise disastrous war that the US launched in Iraq. If this lesson is learned, the world will be far safer. The US itself will be safer, in part because it will be less likely in the future to unleash a spiral of violence fueled by its own irrational fears and misunderstandings of the world.
Jeffrey Sachs is professor of economics and director of the Earth Institute at Columbia University.
Copyright: Project Syndicate
In a summer of intense political maneuvering, Taiwanese, whose democratic vibrancy is a constant rebuke to Beijing’s authoritarianism, delivered a powerful verdict not on China, but on their own political leaders. Two high-profile recall campaigns, driven by the ruling party against its opposition, collapsed in failure. It was a clear signal that after months of bitter confrontation, the Taiwanese public is demanding a shift from perpetual campaign mode to the hard work of governing. For Washington and other world capitals, this is more than a distant political drama. The stability of Taiwan is vital, as it serves as a key player
Much like the first round on July 26, Saturday’s second wave of recall elections — this time targeting seven Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) lawmakers — also failed. With all 31 KMT legislators who faced recall this summer secure in their posts, the mass recall campaign has come to an end. The outcome was unsurprising. Last month’s across-the-board defeats had already dealt a heavy blow to the morale of recall advocates and the ruling Democratic Progressive Party (DPP), while bolstering the confidence of the KMT and its ally the Taiwan People’s Party (TPP). It seemed a foregone conclusion that recalls would falter, as
The fallout from the mass recalls and the referendum on restarting the Ma-anshan Nuclear Power Plant continues to monopolize the news. The general consensus is that the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) has been bloodied and found wanting, and is in need of reflection and a course correction if it is to avoid electoral defeat. The Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) has not emerged unscathed, either, but has the opportunity of making a relatively clean break. That depends on who the party on Oct. 18 picks to replace outgoing KMT Chairman Eric Chu (朱立倫). What is certain is that, with the dust settling
Mainland Affairs Council Deputy Minister Shen You-chung (沈有忠) on Thursday last week urged democratic nations to boycott China’s military parade on Wednesday next week. The parade, a grand display of Beijing’s military hardware, is meant to commemorate the 80th anniversary of Japan’s surrender in World War II. While China has invited world leaders to attend, many have declined. A Kyodo News report on Sunday said that Japan has asked European and Asian leaders who have yet to respond to the invitation to refrain from attending. Tokyo is seeking to prevent Beijing from spreading its distorted interpretation of wartime history, the report
RSS