One thing I love about being in DC is the opportunity to attend countless policy events. I try to attend a fair number, on a variety of subjects and so far I've been fairly lucky in their quality. One in particular stands out, not for its stunning brilliance, but rather for the opposite. I studied religion and ethics in international relations in college, so I was particularly excited about the Center for American Progress' event 'Pursuing the Global Common Good' to launch their report of the same name. Instead, I was sorely disappointed.
The event itself wasn't bad, just unoriginal and mediocre, prompting me to tell a friend later: 'If you've seen heard one lecture on morality in the practice of foreign policy goals, you've heard them all.' Still, I held out hope for the report. Some ideas and thoughts don't translate well into events; the report would present each position as it was intended. Sadly, length and thoughtfulness of presentation do nothing positive; rather the sense of a missed opportunity only heightens the disappointment.
Pursuing the Global Common Good is intended as a reader, particularly for those who respond to the call of religion moral teachings. While the report also explores secular moral reasoning, the central arguments stem primarily from the Abrahamic religions. Not surprising, considering the book is in part the work of the Faith and Progressive Policy Initiative at the CAP. Each essay examines an important international issue, treating it within the context of current affairs. The intent is to outline a multifaceted and holistic ethical foreign policy. In that vein, it suggests that there is a role for morality and ethics in the theory and practice of foreign policy, and by extension, a place for peoples of faith within the ranks of policy makers. As a libertarian, I have every interest in maintaining the separation of church and state. But this provision in the Constitution was not meant to exclude people of faith from the practice of statecraft, or even to force them to discount their moral views learned from religious instruction. Indeed, the Founding Fathers were religious men, and their belief that 'all men are created equal' (my emphasis) in God's image, with His Spirit, infuses the American system's logic of inalienable rights, even if Biblical teachings are not cited directly. Plus, since I was a religion minor, from a personal/academic standpoint, I was ready for a good debate. Unfortunately, PtGCG has serious substantive and analytical flaws. While I haven't addressed each essay, most of the specific sources of my disappointment are detailed below.
Introduction I have to say, I think the Introduction was my favorite chapter. Part of the reason I studied anthropology and religion as an IR major was that I am fascinated by concepts of identity (individual and communal) and the influences they have on policymaking. I was especially taken by the appearance of ubunto, a word I became familiar with while writing my thesis. I think it is a fascinating concept, and really enjoyed the author's effort to open it to debate for Western audiences. At some point, my attempt to write about the Introduction developed into an outline for an essay on communalism and liberalism (sample discussion questions: Is individualism inherently modern? Can communalism sometimes be modern?) In the interest of staying on point, I decided to set aside the ubunto piece. It's still in development, but I'll post when its done.
Pursuing the GCG (Title Essay) Each section is more like a set of bullet points. While I can't (and probably wouldn't) argue with any of the points specifically, in total they come across more as many good points set in an outline (not even necessarily in best order) to be written into a longer paper. Unfortunately, all we are presented with is the outline, and not the thesis. There is the requisite Darfur paragraph (not to in any way diminish the events in Darfur, but what about Niger a few years ago, or Somalia even now? Or the Congo, past, present, and possibly forever?- to name just a few. If we're going to be serious about stopping genocide and human rights violations, then lets' actually acknowledge all of them, not just the popular ones). I understand that one of the authors is a Ph.D student at Georgetown, but couldn't he have produced something more than an outline?
Forging a Response to Climate Change: Why Communities of Faith Are Essential
I will admit that I was thrilled to see a section entitled 'The Federal Response' in the essay on global warming; although this work is aimed at an American audience, perhaps, in recognition that this is an international issues, and falls under the jurisdiction of several international governmental organization, the authors meant the US response as one state in a larger (global) system?! Sadly, my hopes were dashed. The authors mean Presidential and Congressional policy responses. Which leads me to a temporary digression for a rant:
In a federation (such as the US), they are ALL 'federal' levels. What the authors meant to say was 'national', as in, 'of the nation.' I don't expect everyone to always get it right, but there are some who should really know better (here's looking at you Washington Post). |
A Faithful Case for Intervention: Our Common Responsibility to Protect Humanity and Prevent Atrocities
In this essay, one section discusses the problem of ‘Protecting People under Threat.’ The author, Dr. Elizabeth Ferris, informs the reader that
most of the debate about the responsibility to protect has focused on the use of military force. The International Commission’s impressive work on the responsibility to protect includes many pages of possible actions that can be taken… but most attention has focused on when a military response should be initiated. Yet intervention can be seen on a continuum.
She goes on to list non-military interventions:
fact-finding missions, promises of new assistance or withdrawal of assistance, diplomatic demarches, disinvestment or economic sanctions, monitoring by human rights monitors, police action, deployment of military force, and many others.
And yes, she is correct; there are many ways and means of intervening internationally without resorting to ‘boots on the ground.’ And the authors of Responsibility to Protect do an excellent job of discussing those options. But I think that part of the reason for the focus on the military option is that countries are so loathe to use it. Diplomacy, disinvestment and sanctions are all well-used tools in the international community’s belt (read about the controversy over ‘smart’ sanctions here), with varied results, precisely because they are not military options. Most politicians look first to those options so that they can give the appearance (and occasionally actuality) of acting, without invoking the generally unpopular option of use of force. So, for those who are concerned with preventing genocide and other violations of human rights, more emphasis must be given to military solutions, in order to force a debate on a country’s true level of commitment. All options must be of course discussed, but there are situations in which the use of force is no longer an option, it is a necessity. Rwanda was such a case. Kosovo as well. Darfur has proven itself to also fall into this category. In fact, whenever the threat of genocide is real (whether or not the politicians actually label it as such), we must use force must to prevent it. Economic sanctions are not strong enough. For someone claiming to write a ‘Faithful Case for Intervention,’ I am surprised by Ferris’ failure to honestly discuss the arguments for military intervention. Instead, her superficial mention of the idea seems instead intended to dissuade the reader from supporting the use of force. I am disappointed by her treatment of the subject; I feel that it is almost dishonest. After all, St. Augustine essentially invented the notion of ‘just warfare’, under which the prevention of genocide morally, and legally (1948 International Convention against Genocide- mentioned a page earlier in Ferris’ article) falls.
I generally think that the emphasis of this report may have been a bit off. While keeping in mind that this aims to encourage communities of faith to produce global citizens, CAP is a secular organization, and it is from that perspective that many of its supporters arrive. This work should be a means to: 1. Persuade a secular audience to welcome faith-based actors in to foreign policy on the basis of their common goals and 2. Strengthen the arguments facing secular actors who may disregard (or are pushed away by) realist concerns but are attracted to moral appeals. PtGCG really does neither.
PtGCG is a truly promising abstract, but as a finished piece, it fails to deliver. I expect this quality from undergraduates (of which I was one not all that long ago), but not from graduate students and experienced practitioners. I really hope this is not the CAP's final work on the matter, because it is an important discussion to have in US politics. But we, the American people, deserve, and desperately need, a real debate, with all sides honestly and fully represented. One of my favorite lines from the West Wing is from 'Let Bartlet Be Barlet' in the first season: 'We're going to raise the level of public debate in this country and let that be our legacy'. Why does it take a television show to subscribe to that purpose?! Americans aren't stupid, or apathetic (just overwhelmed). But how can we expect to lead the "free world" if we don't actually discuss what that leadership entails?
Thats really more than I had ever intended to write about this report, so I think I'll stop. I will have to revisit some of the topics discussed here (the Introduction in particular) so those will appear in due time.
No comments:
Post a Comment