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]
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