The following is an archived copy of a message sent to a Discussion List run by the Campaign Against Sanctions on Iraq.

Views expressed in this archived message are those of the author, not of the Campaign Against Sanctions on Iraq.

[Main archive index/search] [List information] [Campaign Against Sanctions on Iraq Homepage]


[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

[casi] ethics: ideal and practical policy





Dear M and everyone,

This is as good a time as any to say this. In what I say below I am not
defending or speaking for Colin Rowat, though I share a lot of his
beliefs, and I aspire to emulate what I know, through long friendship, to
be his intelligence and deepgraven humanity.

The issues that you raise, M, with Colin's posting seem to me to have
missed a central point about mode of discussion, one that is frequently
missed in 'conversations' taking place on this list. I share your
concerns, M (as I think does Colin, for that matter), but I think we
have to make a distinction between *ideal policy* and *practical policy*.
I'd imagine that a large majority of the people on this list agree on many
important principles, and that, in an ideal, constraint-free world, we'd
all opt for peace, prosperity, mutual respect, and happiness (in the
Aristotelian sense). Where we seem to differ is in our approach to
normalizing these principles in a practical environment--in adapting these
beliefs to the world-as-we-know-it.

I read Colin's questions, suggestions, and tentative judgments as (fairly
brave) attempts to address the current (horrible) situation in a practical
way. It is true that (it seems to me) he leaves a lot
unstated--throughout, you might continuously append the phrase, 'given
likely American policy alternatives' or the equivalent. There is no
question, for example, that even if the US decided (as some frustratedly
and frustratingly suggested in the past few days) to push for a complete
lifting of the embargo at 1 p.m. GMT today, it would have to come up with
a credible story that would allow it to save face, for reasons good and
bad (and atrocious). The fact is, we are in a position now where the
alternatives between war, invasion, weapons inspections, sanctions, etc.,
are not constrained only by fundamental principles of humanity, but by
political economy and basic schoolyard ego-accommodation. Pretending that
this is not the case is only going to make us appear less credible to the
policy makers who *very occasionally* bother (or are forced) to listen to
us. The 'fundamental humanity' angle is one that religious celebrities
like the Archbbishop of Canterbury and the Pope (and their equivalents in
other faith traditions) can champion while retaining credibility, because
that license is allowed them, and respected. We aren't so lucky, I think.

So in general, while I share M's frustration and concern with
certain habits of thought and language, of ideology, that we all suffer
from (myself more than any, I'm sure), I do wish that people on this list
would *also* be careful to remember the crucial distinction between the
ideal and the pragmatic. I recognize the value of no-compromise Crying in
the Wilderness; but there are also times when it is important to engage
with the world-as-we-know-it, and I hope we won't waste time, and
frustrate our own solidarity, by confusing one with the other. It seems to
me that they are both ethical modes of engagement.

az

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Andrew Zurcher
Gonville & Caius College
Cambridge CB2 1TA
United Kingdom
tel: +44 1223 335 427

hast hast post hast for lyfe


_______________________________________________
Sent via the discussion list of the Campaign Against Sanctions on Iraq.
To unsubscribe, visit http://lists.casi.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/casi-discuss
To contact the list manager, email casi-discuss-admin@lists.casi.org.uk
All postings are archived on CASI's website: http://www.casi.org.uk


[Campaign Against Sanctions on Iraq Homepage]