Most Popular This Week
Popular content
Today's Top News
It Takes (Out) a Village: Illegitimate American Power
Hillary Clinton just pointed out that whoever holds the US presidency can, on both national and foreign matters, engage in "split-second decision-making that can affect the lives of millions of people" (AFP, New Straits Times [Malaysia], December 5, 2007).
Clinton made her remark as a criticism, but of her campaign opponent, not the system.
She was saying that her competitor, Barack Obama, was unqualified to have that power, not that there was any problem with the fact that such Zeus-like power exists in the first place.
One American deciding. Millions of lives. Fates determined almost in passing.
If you pull back and think about it -- slowly -- doesn't it all seem a bit improper?
For most political Americans the answer would probably be that they haven't yet thought about it, because in US politics, the existence of such power is taken as a no-need-to-think-of given.
But at the other end of the stick -- or the other end of the rifle, where the bullets come out -- there is a bit more consciousness of this remarkable fact about today's wildly unbalanced world.
Its why the US presidential campaign gets heavily covered in the popular press of, say, Malaysia, while on the other, US, end -- the trigger end -- editors are only dimly aware that that country exists.
It is also why, say, junior US Congressional or Executive Branch aides -- or, for that matter, US journalists -- can get treated like pashas when they visit weaker countries overseas.
If people figure out that you or your perceived (or real) team have the power to kill them or feed them, they tend to -- as one would rationally expect -- act toward you accordingly.
For years, those actions have tended toward deference -- though lately there's sometimes been more anger -- but both the deference and the anger flow from the same realization: that when you talk to extremely powerful people, you are talking to he (or she) who can shape your fate.
Of course, concentrated power is not a modern or a US invention, and it will always exist to some degree. But, as with many things, it is a question of, first,: to exactly what degree? And second, power to do what? To take my life, if you feel like it?
In today's world, power is so skewed -- in its distribution, its nature, and in its very scale -- that people like, say, American presidents can take out villages and barely know or remember it.
I once interviewed former President Ford on the phone and asked him if it was true that in a meeting with the dictator Suharto he had authorized the East Timor invasion.
Although I had told Ford's staff in advance that I was going to ask him about that meeting, he replied -- I think, honestly -- that he just could not remember.
He said the meeting had had a long agenda -- a fact confirmed by the later-declassified transcript -- and Timor was somewhere down the list, so he apologetically said that he couldn't be sure.
In fact, Ford did give the thumbs-up and, thereby, launched -- within a day -- what would become the greatest proportional slaughter since the Nazis.
If you're the ruler of any other country (including China, Russia, England, or France, the arguable candidates for distant -- very distant -- #2 world killing power), you don't have to stick Post-It notes on your computer to remember what countries you've caused to be invaded, or have provided with "lethal aid" (the actual Washington term for US assistance to the killing capacities of friendly forces).
How could such power possibly be legitimate? It can't be, by definition.
Even though you may have won a vote, and the voters are sovereign, the voters do not have the right to authorize you to facilitate murder.
People should not be running for president, they should be running to abolish the American presidency -- and state -- as they are now constituted, that is, as institutions that assume killing rights that no one has the right to give them.
Back in the summer of 2000, before he flew off to his death in Indonesia, I had several conversations with Jafar Siddiq Hamzah about his survival chances.
He was an Acehnese human rights lawyer, the emerging international voice of his people. He was waging a political struggle against the terror of the US-sponsored Indonesian army and police (a Clinton official had told the New York Times that Suharto was "our kind of guy"), and he had left the country after interrogation, surveillance, repeated threats, the torching of his office, and the disappearance or assassination of many of his friends.
But now he had a plan to go back -- for just a couple of months, he said -- and it turned in part on the fact that he had become, arguably, a kind of quasi-American. He had driven a New York City cab, was working on a Masters (The New School, political science), had achieved US permanent residency, and had even met with State Department officials and testified in the US Congress.
That had to count for something, he thought. But it didn't quite suffice.
When they found his body, it was unrecognizable . His jaw was gaping, as in a death scream, and the doctor said that they had apparently sliced off his face, perhaps with razor blades, or knives.
Maybe Jafar's mistake was that he did not become American enough.
Maybe he should have gotten citizenship, moved to Iowa, participated in the caucuses, and then cast that mystically-imbued American vote that grants life-and-death decision over millions, but have figured out how to cast it in such a way that it would have allowed him to return home without ending up outside Naga Lingga, North Sumatra, at the bottom of the village ravine.
I don't know how he could have actually cast such a vote. There was no serious anti-murder candidate.
But, who knows, perhaps he could have figured something out. Jafar was a creative fellow.
Allan Nairn's blog, News and Comment, is at http://www.newsc.blogspot.com/
Comments
Note: Disqus 2012 is best viewed on an up to date browser. Click here for information. Instructions for how to sign up to comment can be viewed here. Our Comment Policy can be viewed here. Please follow the guidelines. Note to Readers: Spam Filter May Capture Legitimate Comments...
24 Comments so far
Show AllIsn't it ironic that the U.S. claims to be fighting terrorism around the world,when in fact, in terms of foreign policy, it is the # 1 terrorist in the world! How would Americans feel if Russia and China said we cannot accept your wars and terrorism around the world, so we are installing military bases in Canada and Mexico armed with ballistic missles! It is actually very simple: IF YOU WANT TO STOP TERRORISM, QUIT BEING A TERRORIST! Pull back the over 700 foreign U.S. bases,that primarily exist to support big corporations and industrial greed and you would see at least a 90% reduction in terrorism against the U.S.
Power is the primary dynamic for explaining all human interactions. Moral and ethical questions shape how individuals make decisions, but their value is limited to the effects they have on power structures.
Like-minded decision makers organize into power-pyramids. Leaders cannot exist independently from the supporters who form the base of the pyramid. As one leaders loses support, the pyramid shifts to create a new apex, a new leader.
Power must be exercised - someone must be on the receiving end. There will always be an opponent.
Large stable power structures bring relative prosperity and security to all members (as compared to smaller power structures), yet they risk placing great power in the hands of few individuals. One strategy for enabling the growth of large power structures that mitigates the risk of abuse is to require that all power transactions take place within a framework of laws. These laws must be universal in that they apply to all members of the pyramid at all times, with no special classes. Even though abusers will still attempt to control the pyramid, the committment to law moderates the effects of their actions.
If Clinton and many other Democratic Party senators and house members were doing what the founding fathers intended (challenging and riding herd on the executive branch) the US president would not have as much power as Clinton alleges.
Reality: The megacorporations own most of the legislative and all of the executive branch of the US Gov.
Solution: Don't vote for corporate-owned candidates.
The President of the US should be elected by the citizens of the world...not just a few US citizens.
Congress should be open to elected (or appointed) reps from every country (bicameral if you wish).
US-, UK-, and Japanese-based corporations should have to answer to elected reps drawn from every country each corporation does business with; the amount of reps from each country would be weighted according to the proportion of each corporation's amount of investment in each country. Each corporation would be answerable to its individual parliament.
In turn, each corporate parliament would send reps to a global economic congress (bicameral). The globally elected US-based president would have to answer to this global economic congress.
The global economic congress would have special reps drawn from indigenous, environmental and poverty-elimination organizations.
The US government would take a proportion of each nation's budget based on ability to pay. In turn, the US military and espionage budget would have to be diverted to the needs of the least powerful and most impoverished nations.
The point is: no nation's president should possess the destructive power of god; no corporation should be able to act as one (or more)of the four horsemen of the apacolypse.
The world changed in 1947 when Truman ordered a bomber (capable of carrying nukes) to fly around the world.
He became the first person in human history to have the power to destroy any spot on Earth.
Is that too much power for a person to have?
There are 193 countries recognized by the State Dept.
My friend can name them all, and their capitals.
Can somebody ask the candidates how many countries they can name?
And can they locate them on a map?
I mean, if we're going to run the world we should know these things.
locust
Read balakirev's suggestions. If they were successfully acted upon, many people would learn the names of each country through the recommended global political and economic processes.
I share Allan Nairn's outrage at the god-like power to destroy human life given to successive Presidents of the US. And I agree that the office should be abolished, or at least the power taken down to the original Constitutional powers of appointing ambassadors and making yearly State of the Union addresses.
But, there was no serious anti-murder candidate in 2000? That is so wrong. Ralph Nader was running. If Allan Nairn considers him non-serious because he wasn't backed by the corporatocracy, then Nairn is not serious about changing America for the better.
Oh greenerthanthou, you're so funny.
Remember back in 2000 when the Naderistas said there was no difference between Gore and Bush? Now Gore has a Nobel and we're wishing for an electable candidate with his credibility. (Yes, yes, I know, I know, Kucinich is a credible, electable candidate too. Sure he is.)
Accusing Allan Nairn of not being serious about changing America for the better is rude though. Remember, he's the guy who had his skull split open protecting Amy Goodman from the Indonesian military.
We should read Sen. Clinton's remark as an unconscious confirmation that presidential usurpation of congressional war powers will continue. We should amend Article II of the Constitution to take away the president's commander-in-chief power and allow Congress (or perhaps just the Senate) to appoint a commander-in-chief, does as it did Washington, and with term limits. Ditto the secretaries of defense and state, and director of CIA. Let the president keep control of Justice and the FBI to snag law-breaking congressmen.
A very powerful article opening deep, interconnected political and existential issues.
Hillary Clinton, no doubt following a sober assessment of the situation based on her long experience, stood on the steps of some building in Washington in front of the cameras and cheered while Olmert's cluster bombs fell on civilian neighborhoods in Beirut. She can stick her experience where the sun don't shine.
militantliberal--your observation is correct and dovetails with mine that the whole reason impeachment is "off the table" is to presevre presidential impunity. Given that, we would never have these problems if the country had remained under the Articles of Confederation, which had NO executive.
"Power must be exercised - someone must be on the receiving end. There will always be an opponent."
That's an assumption. A common assumption, but that doesn't make it written in stone. In fact your statement suggests that such assumptions create the situation condemned in this passionately outraged article. In order for power to justify itself, it must create and destroy opponents. How about a different perspective that accepts all as equally legitimate exercisers of power over their own lives.
"Large stable power structures bring relative prosperity and security to all members (as compared to smaller power structures), yet they risk placing great power in the hands of few individuals."
Another assumption. Stability ensues from majority participation in a set of values which can be summarised as "the rule of law". Legitimacy comes from all the individuals involved, not the bullyboys on top. And in a context like the US or modern Russia, the exercise of exceptional power in fact leads to ever expanding divisions in society. Very few people are very rich, very many are not and increasingly feel their relative poverty. An an escalating number of people, designated opponents, become an underclass who are absolutely poor. This is an inherently unstable, not stable, situation.
Well thought out comments. Especially about suggestions to limit or do away with the war making powers of the president.
Karlof1: I have long thought that we should go back to a confederation of individual states. Any ideas about how that could happen?
I read somewhere yesterday that all of the dimmwit preznit candidates had been asked to sign off on a declartion that they would eliminate nuclear weapons. All signed with the exception of Clinton. I think that says it all.
1967- MLK Jr. "America is the greatest purveyor of violence in the world today."
2007- America and Americans haven't learned enough.
OldBadertoo - thanks for your comments. I appreciate your thoughts in this area. I think its worthwhile to examine the nature of the beast.
I try to be pragmatic when it comes to power dynamics. There are many cases where what ought to be is different from what is, and I find its more effective to focus on manipulating real-world dynamics than it is to ponder moral and ethical philosophies. This fits with my athiest, amoral philosophy. I don't believe that good or bad, or right and wrong, have independent existence. Instead I feel that "good" is what many people believe, and that it can change as easily as any other opinion. I know this offends most people's opinion of right and wrong, but I think such reactions represent a lack of reflection on the nature of morality.
I would love to see a critical mass of people accept "all as equally legitimate exercisers of power over their own lives", but I don't beleive it will happen. People seem to find comfort in being told their opinions by others, rather than thinking for themselves, and there are plenty of people out there who will take advantage of that. From a power dynamic perspective, advocating for this position serves to disrupt the acquiescence to power that is so common, but I expect that its effectiveness is limited.
Your comments about large power structures were interesting, but I think we're making the same point. We agree that concentration of power destabilizes the structure. Do you see the rule of law as a bulwark against this influence of the few?
The essential issue is not about power; it's about legitimacy. The US government holds no legitimate power over peoples who have no voice in its composition. As for the US operating within a framework of laws that "apply to all members of the pyramid at all times with no special classes", if it ever did, it certainly doesn't now.
Arvy---you nailed it, except I take it a step further and ask, who are the actual power brokers behind the curtain (the current US stage)? Those individuals have no allegiance to anything but POWER, raw and uncontained. It isn't even about the wealth that such power commands---there aren't enough "things" to own with that much wealth.
It is POWER OVER everything and everyone that drives them. Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely.
Only the Lords of Karma have the power to deal with the likes of those who would worship power over others. Our choice is to affirm LOVE and LIGHT and service to others.
And to trust that all things in their time will be balanced by beings infinitely wiser than we.
STAROFTHESEA. I use to frequent a restaurant called STAR OF THE SEA, any connection? Oh, and they served excellent cuisine.
If a person has/acquires/is given "god-like" power, at some point that person will percieve itself and be pervieved by others as a "god" or even "God".
"For most political Americans the answer would probably be that they haven't yet thought about it, because in US politics, the existence of such power is taken as a no-need-to-think-of given."
Thats exactly the point America.Our politicians dont want us to "think" about what powers they have and what they can do,because we would want to remove those powers. DUH!
"Remember back in 2000 when the Naderistas said there was no difference between Gore and Bush? Now Gore has a Nobel and we're wishing for an electable candidate with his credibility."
Please remember, or do some research if you don't remember, that in 2000, Gore did indeed completely fail to distinguish himself from Bush. Bush was even to the left of Gore on some issues. As far as the present day Gore, his miraculous conversion just makes me more suspicious of him.
But let's remember that Nairn's point is that the problem is the system; life-and-death power of the US presidency, by it's nature, corrupts. The US presidency in it current state would be unacceptable and immoral even if Gandhi were US president.
And Karlof1, excellent point in impeachment being "off the table" not as a political ploy, but the prevent a precedent being set on limitations to any presidents murderous impunity.
It is all so sad... It was realized a long time ago that... the World IS us.
As long as ANY of us take up ARMS against others, this Evil POWER will be increased.
As long as ANY of us WORK for this POWER, we are complicit in its DESTRUCTION.
As long as ANY of us Vote for these Cosmic Criminals, we are as GUILTY as they.
As long as ANY of us PAY the TAXES that POWER Extorts, we are Doomed.
EXTRACT from this EVIL System NOW !
This is just an observation, or perhaps a suggestion, but as I read the above comments, I started thinking about "truth in advertising" (or in naming).
For many year, we had a War Department. Its primary job was to keep a well manned and equipped military in case we were attacked. In case of attack, they could defend us and prosecute the war until its end. Then they went back on standby until the next time.
Then it became the Department of Defense and since then has studied and equipped the military to take offensive or "preemptive" war anywhere on the globe that its leaders decide are not doing our bidding.
We had the Employment Office, where people went to find jobs, and to get a stipend to tide them over until they found work.
Now that is the Department of Human Resources which seems mainly to investigate any out of work applicants to discover if they are breaking any of the voluminous rules and regulations so they can deny any help or assistance.
The FDA was to oversee the quality of food and pharmaceuticals and see that the people were not given tainted food or dangerous drugs. Now, the heads are appointed from the ranks of the CEOs of agribusiness and big pharmacy, dedicated to removing any checks on the greed of the above organizations.
I could go on listing agencies and their perversion by the Executive and the Congress, but you get the point.
Why don't we trim several hundred billion off the "Defense Department's" budget, rename it the "War Department" and return it to its limited role as one of actual defense?
We could take some of that hundreds of billions and form a Department of Peace with a mandate of using diplomacy, negotiation, compromise and help, to eventually eliminate the need for a War Department.
But, for God's sake, don't form the Department of Peace and give them the nuclear button as an aide to peace. That leads to the peace of the grave.