At best, governments are amoral entities. At worst, they are immoral. Formed from a large number of individuals, each with their own views of right and wrong, as well as other private interest groups, it is impossible to conceive of a government as a moral actor. Ultimately, its interest is defined by its quest to consolidate and perpetuate its own power. Secondly, and perhaps equally, the interests of the nation state, not to be confused with the people who form the nation, guide it.
In light of the horrific chemical weapons attacks in Syria recently, it is then galling, although not surprising, that a vocabulary of moral superiority was deployed by the representatives of a nation that has not only created and invested money in creating weapons of mass destruction but has also used them, sold them and continues to sell them on onto third parties.
Secretary of State, John Kerry, described the events in Syria as “a moral obscenity…that should shock the conscience of the world.” He added, “It defies any code of morality.” What Mr. Kerry says about the horrendous loss of life is absolutely true. However, the next statement and its logical concomitant, military intervention in Syria by a consortium of various powers, makes one wonder what the source of this moralising is when it clearly exhibits such historical amnesia. Mr. Kerry warned: “President Obama believes there must be accountability for those who would use the world’s most heinous weapons against the world’s most vulnerable people.” This too is an admirable sentiment but then one cannot help but wonder: Who will hold the United States accountable for the use or supply of said chemical, biological and nuclear weapons in nearly every decade of the last 70 years?
Sixty-eight years ago, Hiroshima and Nagasaki were devastated by two atomic bombs and the effects of those are still felt today with children who are born with deformities and other health issues. Incidentally, Israel was forced to apologise for the remarks of its online spokesperson Daniel Seaman who called annual commemorations of the events ‘self-righteous’ and while addressing the Japanese said ‘you reap what you sow.’
In the 1960s and 70s, 8 million tonnes of napalm was used with deadly effect in Vietnam. Napalm is a gelatinous substance that when ignited sticks to anything and burns at temperatures of more than 815 degrees and cannot be put out with water or any other substance. The US army also sprayed 20 million gallons of herbicides and defoliants, including Agent Orange, which not only killed a large number of people but wrecked havoc on ecological systems so that people even today are born with birth defects.
In the 80s, the US, and a whole host of European countries supplied Saddam with the wherewithal to expand Iraq's nuclear capabilities and also provided various chemical and biological agents. These were used not only on the Iraqi Kurdish population but also against Iran and their effects are still visible today. As with any other country, there is no dearth of sane voices in the United States although often these are marginalized. As American diplomats Flynt and Hillary Leverett noted in their compelling recent book Going to Tehran that Iran chose not to weaponise their missiles with chemical agents despite facing attacks by said weapons in the first Gulf War. In the most recent Iraq war, white phosphorus and depleted uranium shells were used by the US army leading to affects that have had horrific effects on civilians and will continue to plague coming generations as the example of Vietnam has already proven.
In light of these various examples, it is then inconceivable to assume a higher moral ground. All these attacks are well documented and the evidence is there for all to inspect. Were the weapons used not ‘heinous’ and were the victims not ‘vulnerable?’ In addition to the use of weapons of mass destruction, there is a historical precedent for selling these weapons to those deemed allies. So it is not entirely inconceivable that the rebels, as UN investigator Carla del Ponte said in May, might have used sarin gas and other toxic agents. Although forming a relatively small part of the opposition, there are certain rebel outfits that are comprised of the very militant Islamists who have wrecked havoc in Afghanistan, Iraq and North Africa and have been patronised by other Arab countries that are in turn allies of America. These are the very people who have also slaughtered— quite literally— prisoners and feel no compunction in beheading people on camera. It is not unthinkable then that they might use any means possible to further their cause.
Today, there seems to be an aversion towards highlighting the double standards and hypocrisy that is so openly practiced by many countries in the world. People who do choose to remind others of these are either thought of as conspiratorial, are labelled right-wing or left-wing nuts (depending on the issue at hand) or indeed dismissed for being naïve, irrational and not understanding the intricacies of realpolitik. The fact is however that it is imperative to remind people of the appalling crimes, for many of which, no one has been held to account, because as has been proven countless times war only leads to more war. Just a few days ago Obama asked the Department of Justice for immunity for George W Bush and many of his advisors in a case that alleges that the war in Iraq violated international norms.
The reality is that if the United States, European countries and various Arab states, for their own geo-strategic interests, want to invade Syria then no one can stop them. However, invoking morality for their cause is an affront to the hundreds of thousands of people, from Iraq to Vietnam, who are living proof of the use of such ‘heinous weapons.’ Tens of thousands of people have died in Syria over the past year and Obama’s red line was never quite violated. What makes a chemical weapon a red line and not armed drones, heavy munition bombs, mines, depleted uranium shells, mortar and cluster bombs? Just recently, despite an international condemnation of cluster munitions and a treaty which, of course, was not ratified by either party, the United States sold Saudi Arabia cluster bombs worth about $641 million. Cluster bombs are widely regarded as indiscriminate as they put civilians at high-risk risk.
The fact is that this civil war has to be resolved through diplomacy and negotiation because a failure to do so will only protract the conflict and in the long-term lead to more regional instability. Many Muslims see the war in Syria in sectarian terms rather than as the struggle of a brutalized people against a tyrannical dictator and often those very people who have highlighted and protested against American atrocities in the past now want America to intervene in Syria. This too is a double standard that does not bear up to moral scrutiny for as Hannah Arendt eloquently wrote, “the hypocrite’s crime is that he bears false witness against himself... Only crime and the criminal, it is true, confront us with the perplexity of radical evil; but only the hypocrite is really rotten to the core.”
How can baying for blood stop further bloodshed?
Ali Khan Mahmudabad is a PhD student in History at the University of Cambridge who writes a fortnightly column for the Urdu Daily Inqilab
The US and its Allies intervene whenever they smell a threat to their strategic interests in the Region!
I seem to have typed the word, 'reson', when it is 'reason'.
It's pretty obvious, that personal acts of any person, cannot be monitored. The U. S. is also a democracy, in the globe. People are united in the economic endeavor, but it seems, dependance on govt. forecasts, figures provided by the govt., and measures advised by the govt., over the short term that matters in perception, hasn't helped the economy. The question is, how is any govt., immoral, or amoral, in this situation? I did mention, that Kashmir was declared to be a 'core issue', because Pakistan isn't a politically self considering nation, like others. Gen. Zia ul Haq found that there was unusual social phenomenon, like bomb blasts, and agitations, which didn't seem to have any reason behind it. This, when the people in Pakistan didn't have any reson to need to experience the same.
The idea that Afghanistan was a strategic consideration, is due to the fact that Afghanistan showed it was more politically stable, than many local areas in Pakistan. The Taliban was a movement, where tribe affiliation was wanted to be made secondary to a national political and religious affiliation. Afghanistan is predominantly Sunni, Iran is predominantly Shia, and Pakistan is a mix of Shia and Sunni influence. The Pashtun tribes on the border, have a commonality with Afghanistan and Pakistan.
The reason why Muslims might brook some issues with people they see in cultures that are different, doesn't mean, they don't brook the same differences among themselves, when they are visible. Govt.'s are trying in the Muslim world, to bring some understanding, and it seems this is a battle which is seen to be futile. The govt.'s in these areas, are mostly secular, and Bashar Assad is seen to be secular. He doesn't want to influence Syria on religious matters. Saddam Hussein was supposed to head a democratic, secular republic, and the U. S. hoped, Saddam Hussein and his party would be replaced. It appears, the people in Iraq are expressing that U. S. influence is the cause of unrest, and the same is in Egypt, and Libya. Perhaps, there should be some room for people to decide a peace among themselves.
All political thinkers have emphasised that:
Law follows Order.
Thus, Order of the day shall decide what is the Law.
This means that global hegemon of the day shall decide on law and it's interpretations and implementations.
This is not to say that Order is not answerable to the Public Conscience and the Law.
It does however mean that accountability towards Law can be 'waived' and even 'managed' till Public Conscience does not 'Rise in Revolt'.
One such instance was the Hiroshima/Nagasaki event. Another was the "Berlin Wall Breakdown'. We can recall numerous small events of this type.
This is how all entrenched authorities operate and are able to hold on to 'Power'. If Revolt is prevented-- through whatever means, Order does not Breakdown.
Having said all this, I have a question- will change in Order mean that "Hypocricy of Authority' will die? Or will it settle as a mantle on the new Hegemon's head and continue it's reign?
The pretext of Iraq war was that stinking "45 minutes" WMD "threat". Now we know how ridiculous and blatant a lie that was. And most of the US/UK media helped propagate that lie without any questioning whatsoever and then they kept cheerleading their side for years.
Indian media (mostly) hardly had any views on those events - they were just feeling happy because Dubya liked us.
Iraq had a dictator then but now it's hell with hundreds of thousands of innocents dead, and a civil war raging on (71 people dead just yesterday). They don't make news anymore.
How soon we forget things! And why bypass UN security council? And again US and its junior partner UK (whose foreign policy is decided in Washington DC, while Cameron does doing some nice, intense acting) constitute what is revoltingly called the "coalition of the willing".
This will surely spill over with Russia, Iran all playing their parts.
Most interestingly US will now be on the same side as Al-Qaida. Read this brilliant piece from The Independent:
Perpetual war going on for perpetual peace!!
We at Outlookindia.com welcome feedback and your comments, including scathing criticism
1. Scathing, passionate, even angry critiques are welcome, but please do not indulge in abuse and invective. Our Primary concern is to keep the debate civil. We urge our users to try and express their disagreements without being disagreeable. Personal attacks are not welcome. No ad hominem please.
2. Please do not post the same message again and again in the same or different threads
3. Please keep your responses confined to the subject matter of the article you are responding to. Please note that our comments section is not a general free-for-all but for feedback to articles/blogs posted on the site
4. Our endeavour is to keep these forums unmoderated and unexpurgated. But if any of the above three conditions are violated, we reserve the right to delete any comment that we deem objectionable and also to withdraw posting privileges from the abuser. Please also note that hate-speech is punishable by law and in extreme circumstances, we may be forced to take legal action by tracing the IP addresses of the poster.
5. If someone is being abusive or personal, or generally being a troll or a flame-baiter, please do not descend to their level. The best response to such posters is to ignore them and send us a message at Mail AT outlookindia DOT com with the subject header COMPLAINT
6. Please do not copy and paste copyrighted material. If you do think that an article elsewhere has relevance to the point you wish to make, please only quote what is considered fair-use and provide a link to the article under question.
7. There is no particular outlookindia.com line on any subject. The views expressed in our opinion section are those of the author concerned and not that of all of outlookindia.com or all its authors.
8. Please also note that you are solely responsible for the comments posted by you on the site. The comments could be deleted or edited entirely at our discretion if we find them objectionable. However, the mere fact of their existence on our site does not mean that we necessarily approve of their contents. In short, the onus of responsibility for the comments remains solely with the authors thereof. Outlookindia.com or any of its group publications, may, however, retains the right to publish any of these comments, with or without editing, in any medium whatsoever. It is therefore in your own interest to be careful before posting.
9.Outlookindia.com is not responsible in any manner whatsoever for how any search engine -- such as Google, Bing etc -- caches or displays these comments. Please note that you are solely responsible for posting these comments and it is a privilege being granted to our registered users which can be withdrawn in case of abuse. To reiterate:
a. Comments once posted can only be deleted at the discretion of outlookindia.com
b. The comments reflect the views of the authors and not of outlookindia.com
c. outlookindia.com is not responsible in any manner whatsoever for the way search engines cache or display these comments
d. Please therefore take due caution before you post any comments as your words could potentially be used against you
10. We have an online thread for our comments policy:
You are welcome to post your suggestions here or in case you have a specific issue, to directly email us at Mail AT outlookindia DOT com with the subject header COMPLAINT