This aggression will not stand, man

Dear Sirs and Madams,

Historicism dictates that the specific rhetoric utilized in deliberating our moral dilemmas indicates our society’s attitude, culture, and values. Observing the political language since and before the Bush administration betrays something highly disturbing. Enshrouded within the popular rhetoric exist the oppressive institutionalized suppositions that falsely pose as mediums for debate while marginalizing independent assessment.

Observe the value of justice. The debate in the popular media following the invasion of Iraq was whether or not the war in Iraq was just. However, to even contemplate the matter seems redundant. It is absolutely unjust for any state actor to contemplate the exchange value of individuals' lives and demean the basis of life, liberty, and justice by sacrificing innocent civilians without their consent. To debate whether or not a specific war is unjust would be to imply the plausibility of certain wars to be just.

The very fact that we have a rhetorical medium in place that could possibly justify war is unsightly. Presupposing that wars ‘should be just’ alters the inherent nature of war and undermines the premise of any argument against war. This makes any engagement in a debate a concession.

With this semantic shift, war itself enters into a definitive crisis. It goes from a form of excessive brutality to a legitimate solution, bolstered by human rationale. Robert McNamara said that the problem with war is that the human race have not yet grappled with the rules of war. However, how do we produce civility out of something that is inherently uncivil. Today, official terminologies such as “smart bombs” and “minimized collateral damage” work to exacerbate the basic fallacy in society’s perception of war.

Rationalization of war is not a modern construct, but there is a clear difference in rhetoric used in the past and today. When Britain engaged France during the Napoleonic War, Pitt never proclaimed that British victory would in any way better the French people. To the extent of my knowledge, even during the Second World War, the Allied forces never used the liberation of the German people from Nazism as a cause for war. In fact, the only precedence upon which the western civilization took it upon themselves to impose the benefits of war upon the opposing peoples was during the brutal imperial aggression against the peoples of colonial possessions.

The misuse the utilitarian value to justify war is a modern construct and is rooted in the perverse language used by the imperial powers with racist presuppositions. Journalist and author Chris Hedges writes that war "corrupts language... preoccupied with the grim perversities of smut and death". War rhetoric and war stories are addictive. Moral philosophers like Adam Smith recognized this danger in the Wealth of Nations. This corruption of reasoning through attractive rhetoric may be best depicted in the Coen brothers' movie The Big Lebowski in which the protagonist repeats President Bush's (senior) quip "this aggression will not stand".

We are deeply engaged in the semantic game established for the specific purpose of controlling independent public interpretations and institutionalizing the acceptable debates. Our entire society, regardless of whether or not we are for or against state intervention, has been duped into a trap. An illusion of a plausible ‘just war’ is created by establishing parameters on the rhetoric utilized in debates. The public conscience is effectively limited to a foregone conclusion established by the ideological apparatuses of control. The current mass media perpetuates and consolidates these parameters. For the sake of providing legitimacy to an illegitimate debate, the public rationale was sacrificed, processed, and institutionalized.

As we again charge into Afghanistan and Pakistan with renewed resolve under the new administration, let us not forget that no war is just. There will be many more innocent deaths and lives ruined despite the best intentions of the United States. This is the reality of war and I guarantee there will be unintended consequences.

Let us be always skeptical of our governments' best intentions.
Afterall, intellectual laziness leads to state abuse.

Best,
Yong Kwon

"Smokey, this is not 'Nam. This is bowling. There are rules... Has the whole world gone crazy? Am I the only one around here who gives a shit about the rules?" - Walter Sobchak from The Big Lebowski

Injustice in the eyes of children

Dear Sirs and Madams,

I just reread Roald Dahl's intensely touching short story "The Boy Who Spoke with Animals". To give a brief summary, the story is narrated by an unnamed tourist in the West Indies who witnesses an extraordinary event. A child intervenes upon a group of tourists savaging a giant turtle on the beach. While the pompous tourists are merely concerned with flaunting their masculinity and turtle soup, the child empathizes and communicates with the sea turtle and at the end of the story escapes from the cruel adult world on the back of the giant sea turtle.

I do not know whether or not this was the acclaimed author's intent, but it seemed to me that this short piece was a critical assessment on colonialism. If it was not, its prevailing message on dignity and the straightforwardness of decency pushes a reader of colonial history to evoke the savage injustices of imperialism in all its splendid façade of marble halls, uniforms, steamships, and trains.

The key elements of the story like the setting on a pristine Caribbean island, its beauty sullied by the boorish conducts of English tourists, and its resident-victim, the sea turtle who "was senior to any of [the tourists] in age," all betray a deep sense of injustice that is undetected to the characters save to the narrator and the boy. The savagery of these self-proclaimed civilized gentlemen are made more evident by their gross appearance such as having "exceptionally hairy chest" while the absence of their shirts "was obviously a calculated touch". This unnecessary overcompensation by the self proclaimed heroes and their absurd actions range from attempting to drag the giant turtle by a rope (as they did in the story) to slaughtering thousands over the control of a desert wasteland (as the Europeans actually did). In imperial propaganda literature masculinity was inseparable from heroism and any decent subject of the crown was clearly required to reflect the prowess of the empire through his arrogance. It is an image which Roald Dahl completely lays to waste with his depiction of the tourists' ludicrousness and barbarity. Dahl further highlights the sinful nature of the patronizing tourists by admiring the turtle who while "[the tourists] were discussing [its] destruction, [its] consumption and [its] flavor... seemed, even when upside down, to be extraordinarily dignified." This was imperialism in its truest form.

The hero of this tale is a boy whose unashamed sentiments for another living being made even the most condescending adults to feel as though they were "caught doing something that was not entirely honorable". The simplicity of the boy's virtues rightly brought "a feeling of uneasiness, a touch even of shame" to the so-awesomely-masculine men. The rejection of this cruel adult world by the boy is celebrated by the narrator who rests assured that the boy is "quite happy where he is".

This short story reminds us that at the end of the day what remains unassailable is not quantifiable rationality like gains and losses in capital, but the unadorned and unpretentious nature of mutual respect and learning to enjoy each other's companionship.

Hat off to you Mr. Dahl.
The children had it right all along.

Best,
Yong Kwon

How a Few remain at the expense of the Many

Dear Sirs and Madams,

Last year, I met the wife of the former Argentine minister of transport. Her husband was once imprisoned under Peron’s regime for refusing to consent to the nationalization of the railways. At the time of my meeting with her (of all the places, at the Bahraini embassy), the hotly debated issue was the plan by President Cristina Fernández de Kirchner to nationalize $24 billion of private pension funds. Since then the Argentine senate has passed the project into effect, but it raised serious questions about the role of governments and the intimate relationship between nationalization, populism, and individual liberty.

Populism in Latin America go hand in hand with the policies of industrialization by import substitution (ISI). Many blame this economic model for Latin America’s troubles, yet it is wrong to assume that ISI bears full responsibility. After all, European nations, South Korea, etc. have utilized some form or shape of ISI to establish a robust economy. The problem with ISI in Latin America was the shape it took under politics.

ISI required strict fiscal and monetary policies, applied over an extended period of time while carefully managing foreign loans. What had happened under the helm of populist governments in Latin America was the perversion of ISI for the objective of sustaining political control. Populist governments took advantage of catch phrases like “autonomy” from the economic model and used it to justify expensive projects (like nationalizing the rail which Peron’s minister of transport refused to sanction) in order to rally votes. Evita and Peron presented the most gross example of development derailed by unsustainable and irresponsible public spending. Their policies eventually led to deranged methods of raising revenue such as bullying their own voting base of urban laborers into paying mandatory donations. While the public was squeezed for their every last penny, the ruling elites squandered much of the revenues and loans on private spending. Eva Peron again best represented that abuse of public finances. (which makes me wonder why so many of my female peers admire Evita. Wouldn’t you rather support Mrs. Thatcher, ladies?)

The increasing need for revenue created an over dependency on the ever-less-valuable export of raw materials and development was simply pushed aside. The consequences of the economic disorder permeated into the rest of society making the political atmosphere increasingly unstable. The rest is history.

Returning to the concurrent point on the nationalization of pensions, private pension funds were unpopular, but mainly because the government bullied people into investing 55% of their assets in public debt. The Argentine government still puts on a populist standard by declaring that nationalization will defend future pensioners. Yet, the nationalization was clearly an attempt by the Kirchner administration to grab as much capital as possible for public debt. This is evident in the fact that under voluntary terms only 12% of pensioners opted to return to the state system. This is because Argentines understand the danger of entitling the vital provisions of the many into few hands that are not accountable for their losses.

If it is dignified to make decisions and take responsibilities for one’s own means of survival, then Kirchner’s government has sapped a major element of self worth from the Argentines. Without self worth, is every individual still equally entitled to life, liberty, and justice?

It is a point not just for Argentine pensioners.

Best,
Yong Kwon

Quote of the day

"Indeed, the test of orderliness in a country is not the number of millionaires it owns, but the absence of starvation among its masses."

- Mahatma Gandhi, Economic and Moral Progress, December 22, 1921.

More on Europe, Africa, fishing, and survival

Dear Sirs and Madams,

I would like to supplement my previous article on piracy and fishing with an article from the Guardian.

Nobel laureate economist Amrtya Sen had argued that famine is not always the result of not there being enough to eat, but rather the basic condition of individuals not having enough to eat. In another words, there may be store houses filled with food or a body of water capable of supporting the population, yet the individuals may not have the entitlement to access the necessities. The resulting starvation is a famine. Sen noted that the famines of the 20th centuries have all been man-made disasters, a product of inept and misguided politics.

The Guardian journalist George Monbiot makes a similar argument in his criticism of the European Union's fishing policies. His article highlights the legal depletion of Senegalese food source by European fishing boats. While Senegal refuses to renew its fishing agreements, European fishermen found loopholes to continue fishing on an industrial scale.

According to ActionAid "fishing families that once ate three times a day are now eating only once or twice."

European trade commissioner, Peter Mandelson, is trying to negotiate an economic partnership agreement which would legalize the dodges used by European fishermen.

Monbiot scathingly declares that "the rich world's governments will protect themselves from the political cost of shortages, even if it means that other people must starve."

The Guardian article recognizes two problems: Europe's failure to manage the fishing industry properly when it can no longer meet European demands and Europe's refusal to confront fishing lobbies and decommission all the surplus boats.

These problems were also noted in an Economist article few weeks ago.

Fishing is a larger issue than an average individual may presume. From piracy to an existential threat, as consumers, to what extent are we responsible? It's very unsettling to me that one part of the world is taking, albeit legally, the very basic items necessary for the survival of individuals in another part of the world.

Forget the millions of tons of emergency cereal poured into the African continent, what we need is a solution which establishes a long term means of sustenance.

God forgive us.

With much fear of what to come,
Yong Kwon

Stalin, Khrushchev, and Althusser

Dear Sirs and Madams,

With school out for the summer, I now have time to recognize how rewarding it was to write my term paper for Russian History. My interests have always been in Czarist Russia, but this essay forced me to examine the very individual that lies at the heart of our conception of the Soviet Union, the Big Brother himself, Stalin.

Essential in my paper were the observations on power and the state by the French Marxist philosopher Louis Althusser. The depiction of Stalin as simply deranged and insane is a popular one, but also an intellectually lazy one. I much prefer the assessment by Hiroaki Kuromiya, a very recent biogrpaher of Stalin, that Stalin’s flaw was not his irrationality, but rather his “subsumption of everything human under politics”. This in conjunction with Althusser's theory on the repressive state apparatus creates an interesting insight upon Soviet politics. The conclusion I have made goes against the popular musing of many apologists who assume that communism would have succeeded in the USSR had it not been for Stalin.

Khrushchev's Secret Speech against Stalin is most telling. Stalin's successor makes the conventional argument that Stalin was an insane individual who did not follow his own ideological convictions. Yet by continuing to condemn the opponents of Stalin (Kamenev, Bukharin, Trotsky, Zinoviev), Khrushchev makes a clear distinction between Stalin the person and Stalin the ideology. The deification of Lenin under a false narrative of Soviet economic history, praise for collectivization, and complete disregard for the famines betray Khrushchev's political motive in his portrayal of Stalin.

According to Althusser, in order for a state (or a class... perhaps the proletariat dictatorship) to constitute individuals as social subjects and maintain control, it has to maintain ideological legitimacy. The recreation and re-imposition of the unquestionable authority of the communist party in the post-Stalinist period required the repressive state apparatus (military, secret police, criminal justice, etc.) to be legitimate in the eyes of the people who had suffered tremendously. Stalin's initiatives and ideology could not be disestablished from the party line because Khrushchev, by being Stalin’s successor, was subject to the same framework of ideology and power. Khrushchev must have realized that to survive politically he could not undermine Stalin in his entirety.

Khrushchev bolstered the state apparatus by invoking Lenin’s rule which he depicted as a heroic one, consistent with ideological objectives (when in fact Lenin initiated the New Economic Policy, bringing capitalism back). He does not criticize the repressive state institutions of the Cheka or the NKVD because he required the repressive state apparatus to maintain the power centered around dogmatic centralism and unanimity of the party.

In short, Stalin’s temperament of eliminating political opposition was facilitated by the party doctrine and when unexpected resistance did rise, coercive and violent means were utilized at Stalin’s will. What made Stalin become portrayed as a monster is his calculation of everything in terms of power and body politics, but it was the Soviet system that allowed the gross human catastrophe to get so out of hand. I believe it is safe to say that the faceless system of power and the amoral state apparatus is as culpable as any one individual.

Voters, accountability is not just for the Russians.

Best,
Yong Kwon

So long and thanks for all the fish

Dear Sirs and Madams,

My friend recently told me about the near patriotic frenzy that his NROTC classmates fell into after the US Navy Seal snipers killed the 3 Somali pirates who was holding Captain Richard Phillips hostage. Thank goodness that the courageous captain was rescued without harm. Yet the whole “we are going to kick their ass” attitude does nothing to resolve the situation and does not prevent future ship captains from facing similar perils.

I am at a loss when I hear people talking about how cool it is that pirates still exist, as though imagining Jack Sparrow facing off the US Navy off of the Horn of Africa. The fact of the matter is that piracy in Somalia is the direct result of abuse. A lot of people have argued about how decreased naval movement after the fall of the Soviet Union allowed pirates to return. In reality, most of the pirates are former fishermen who have lost their means to continue their trade due to poaching and pollution. Few years ago, Somali fishermen learned that an armed response to foreign vessels illegally dumping pollutants was the only means of collecting proper compensation. Now, they’ve taken the lesson to heart as international fishing ships illegally poach off of Somali waters on an industrial scale, depleting the fish and threatening the very survival of the Somalis. Ordinary people turn to brutality and violence when pushed to the extremities of survival, the Somalis are no different.

Looking long term, the Horn of Africa will not become any safer under an international military presence. Only a comprehensive plan protecting the livelihoods of the Somalis can achieve that goal. The governments and organizations of the world should seek to create a condition in which the use of arms would be unnecessary to the Somalis.

Poaching fish and dumping pollution needs to be vigilantly watched for and violators must be punished.

The serious political and ecological consequences are not limited to the Somali coast. Fishermen in the Philippines have turned to dynamite fishing, for many of the same reasons as the Somalis, damaging the reefs and endangering the fish population and the entire ecology of the region. Fishing rights is a far reaching issue.

I find it ironic (? perhaps ironic is not the correct term here but bear with me) that during the height of the financial bubble Icelandic university students abandoned studying the economics of fishing for finance and marketing. Now, they and we must recognize the utmost importance of conservation and sustainable fishing.

We are what we eat, provided we have something to eat.

Best,
Yong Kwon