Wednesday, September 12, 2007

On bin Laden and the relativists

Comment is free: Backing the bombers

This article refers to another one by Martin Amis in which he hits out at those who are semi-apologists for Islamist terrorism.

I like this comment that follows it, on the hypocrisy of much of Europe. (Perhaps it's a little over-stated, but the sentiment seems right):

The US has coddled Europeans for 70 years now, which has helped produce a child-like mentality in Europeans, where there's little thought of consequences. So, for example, Europeans can pretend they're champions of human rights, when not a one of them has ever put their lives on the line or made any meaningful sacrifice for some other country's freedom or rights. They can pretend that running a foreign policy based primarily on giving their businesses access to the most horrendous regimes is somehow moral. Freud called this type of thinking 'magical' thinking, characteristic of childhood, when the child has the mother's breast 'magically' appear whenever it cries.

Camus called this European mentality 'Christianity for others, pagansim for oneself.'

When you're a child, you think Jesse James was really cool for robbing banks. When you get older, you realize that real people died in those bank robberies, so he wasn't really that cool at all.

7 comments:

Anonymous said...

Couldn't you also say that Europe having given up colonialism doesn't go around removing freedoms and rights around the world like America does. America is like China in that only it really exists and the rest of the world exists for their economic benefit only. America has always supported horrendous regimes if it suited their business interests or politics.

what piffle


Geoff

Steve said...

Geoff, the way you and I look at America is always the difference between "is the glass half full" versus half empty, with me on the half full side, of course.

I allow that all countries invariably at times support regimes that, in a perfect world, they never should. The point of the post was more about Europe being hypocritical in terms of criticism of the US in terms of foreign and trade policy.

And by the way, in historical terms, I would have thought that it has barely been the blink of an eye since France gave up colonialism.

Anonymous said...

I suppose my point is that the US is just as hypocritical and holier than thou in its stance as Europe and far more dangerous.

The comment you quote is piffle. You make far more sense than that commentator. Europe has little thought of consequences! Thought of consequences was exactly why the UN and Europe were prepared to take time over Iraq for all the evils of Saddams regime. And who does the US make sacrifices for? No-one unless its serves US interests. As soon as it does not all talk of freedom and democracy vanishes. All politicians are hypocrits, but to suggest that the US has an ounce of oure intentions - now that's magical thinking.

Steve said...

Hmm. I don't really know whether you do it personally, but it is a curious thing that many on the left side of politics tend to give the failed communist regimes some points for at least having the good intention of having a fairer society. Yet when it comes to neo-con theory that the Middle East could be readily democratised, starting with Iraq, and this could be a good thing, you give them no credit for good intentions at all.

In that sense, I reckon "pure intentions" did have a significant influence on the invasion. (And if you say it was pure economic interest in the oil, many people have pointed out that it would have been much, much cheaper, even on an optimistic view of regime change, to have traded with Saddam to secure the oil.)

A mixed motivation which includes a degree of self interest does not make the whole motivation morally wrong.

Anonymous said...

I can't agree that the US has any pure intentions in foreign policy. Look at their inconsistencies Pakistans' dictatorship is a good one, Venezuela's democracy is a bad one, Chile was good as a dictatorship under Pinochet and bad as a democracy under Allende.

The war in Iraq was because the US didn't believe that Saddam had destroyed all the weapons of mass destruction the US had supplied when Iraq was a friend because Iran wasn't. The quest for freedom and democracy only became an apologetic after the effect.

Nonetheless I still say the quote you posted was piffle.

Steve said...

You're a brave commentator still calling Venezuela a democracy!

Geoff, you said that to think America ever had "an ounce of pure intention" was magical thinking. This sounds like a suggestion that no foreign policy decision from there over the last, oh, 70 years or so ever involved any element of good intentions. You presumably don't believe that, but that is how it sounded.

If your clarification is now that the US never acts purely altruistically, well that may be largely true, as it is for all countries; even when supplying foreign aid I suppose it is often in the hope of stabilising countries politically and hoping that they don't become your enemy in future. But there is that element of self interest in the hope of reciprocity from day to day personal interactions too. I don't see why people or nations should be criticised for having an element of self interest in their motivations.

As for that post: I did say it overstated things. The reference to "magical thinking" is not very clear to me. Perhaps the breast it is referring to is the armed forces of America, which after all have been used a few times in the last century to enliven freedom in Europe when, presumably, the fascists or communists could have made good enough trading partners for the US.

Would it satisfy you if I said part of the original post may be accused of being a bit piffle-ish?

Anonymous said...

Agreed - even piffle-esque. Commentary that suggests that the US is actually doing good in the world with their current policies is so ridiculous I get all unbalanced over it. That piece was so wild I saw red. Coddled indeed...

I'll even agree that the US has done some good in the world. WW2 and the Marshall plan spring to mind, although it took Pearl Harbour to drag them in. It is an odd juxtaposition that the US is frequently either isolationist or paranoid in its foreign policy. And in the spirit of a 'pox on all their houses', I'm happy to accept that communism was even more hypocritical than liberal capitalism in its failure to live up to its principles.

I heard a fascinating podcast of the post war Iraq mess refracted through the mistakes made in Germany post WW2.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/programmes/documentary_archive/6731761.stm

The failure and abandonment of denazification was compared to deBaarthing Iraq. Worth a listen.


geoff