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
Trying to force a partnership between Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Co (TSMC) and Intel Corp would be a wildly complex ordeal. Already, the reported request from the Trump administration for TSMC to take a controlling stake in Intel’s US factories is facing valid questions about feasibility from all sides. Washington would likely not support a foreign company operating Intel’s domestic factories, Reuters reported — just look at how that is going over in the steel sector. Meanwhile, many in Taiwan are concerned about the company being forced to transfer its bleeding-edge tech capabilities and give up its strategic advantage. This is especially
US President Donald Trump’s second administration has gotten off to a fast start with a blizzard of initiatives focused on domestic commitments made during his campaign. His tariff-based approach to re-ordering global trade in a manner more favorable to the United States appears to be in its infancy, but the significant scale and scope are undeniable. That said, while China looms largest on the list of national security challenges, to date we have heard little from the administration, bar the 10 percent tariffs directed at China, on specific priorities vis-a-vis China. The Congressional hearings for President Trump’s cabinet have, so far,
US political scientist Francis Fukuyama, during an interview with the UK’s Times Radio, reacted to US President Donald Trump’s overturning of decades of US foreign policy by saying that “the chance for serious instability is very great.” That is something of an understatement. Fukuyama said that Trump’s apparent moves to expand US territory and that he “seems to be actively siding with” authoritarian states is concerning, not just for Europe, but also for Taiwan. He said that “if I were China I would see this as a golden opportunity” to annex Taiwan, and that every European country needs to think
For years, the use of insecure smart home appliances and other Internet-connected devices has resulted in personal data leaks. Many smart devices require users’ location, contact details or access to cameras and microphones to set up, which expose people’s personal information, but are unnecessary to use the product. As a result, data breaches and security incidents continue to emerge worldwide through smartphone apps, smart speakers, TVs, air fryers and robot vacuums. Last week, another major data breach was added to the list: Mars Hydro, a Chinese company that makes Internet of Things (IoT) devices such as LED grow lights and the
RSS