Monday, November 01, 2004

What's at Stake: The Election and the World-System

Today I read "What's at Stake" on It sounded like the typical argument that I keep hearing: we need to stand strong as a beacon of freedom and justice against this onslaught on our freedom by terrorists. I think that this misses the point. Either through hubris, ignorance, isolationism or all of the above, we keep thinking that this is all about us--that 9/11 was an attack on the American way of life or on freedom or something like that. It's my opinion that it was nothing of the sort.

Bin Laden wants to establish an Islamic Caliphate throughout the Arabic Middle East. To do that, he needs to remove the secular regimes that are currently in power. Most are supported by the US (Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Yemen, Oman, UAE, Qatar, Bahrain, Kuwait, Iraq, Pakistan, Jordan, etc.). Most are autocracies of one form or another (Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Yemen, Oman, UAE, Qatar, Bahrain, Kuwait, Iraq, Pakistan, Jordan, etc.). He probably thinks (in my opinion correctly) that removing US support to these regimes is a key part of any plan to make them fall. He also needs to polarize the average person in these countries against their leadership and the US. He does this in part by linking the US with Israel. This is also achieved by making the US out as an occupying, corrupt force in the Middle East, using the era of British imperialism as a model.

In my opinion, this is what 9/11 was about. It wasn't a strike on freedom: if we were sponsoring freedom, then we wouldn't be supporting all those regimes that I mentioned above that stifle it. We would just let people follow the course that they want to follow. Even in Iraq, for example, we aren't really fostering freedom. We're working on ways to better shape their elections, because if they are held today the country would elect a Shiite, pro-Iran party by a large margin (60%), and we can't accept that kind of free outcome. The Kurds would vote overwhelmingly for autonomy, and we can't allow that either (that would be freedom, but it would also annoy our allies the Turks).

People in the Middle East are, understandably, cynical about our motives. If a truly freely elected Iraqi government elected to nationalize their oil infrastructure, would we just stand by? No one can claim to KNOW the answer to that, but they can point to history. We didn't choose to support the side of freedom when Iran nationalized their oil infrastructure, nor with Cuba (who didn't request Soviet assistance until after we had passed an embargo after their nationalization). Normally people argue that nationalization is illegal due to "property rights", but conveniently overlook that in most of the world these property rights were established during an age of overt imperialism (Iran and Cuba both apply).

The problem here, in my opinion, isn't that we support freedom, or that we don't support freedom. It's that we act in our own selfish interest, and when applicable we use "freedom" as a cover. When not applicable, we find another cover, like "defeating the spread of communism" (Central America), "stability" (supporting 50 years of Indonesian dictators), etc. This is why we have no credibility in the international arena: everyone outside the blanket of US news coverage can see and hear what's actually happening, and then they can hear us calling these actions "upholding democracy" and "supporting freedom". At least overt imperialism is honest.

Now some will respond to this that "Hey, we're American... I don't live in Beirut or someplace like that, and, after all, you've got to look out for #1".

There are two basic economic theories:
1. Increase wealth through exchange. I trade something that I have a lot of, and you have little of, for something that you have a lot of and I have little of. We both benefit, and wealth is increased. Tends to produce stable, long-lasting historical patterns.
2. Increase wealth through exploitation. I use my (usually temporary) power advantage over you to take what you have lots of and I have little of. I benefit, you hate me, and my wealth is increased. Tends to produce a system of reciprocity and volatility in history.

The "got to look out for #1" theory is clearly economic theory #2. Use the cover of "freedom" to ensure that our own selfish interest is protected. Recognize that it will result in acts of reciprocity (terrorism, etc.), but that as long as we have the power advantage (dominating military), the benefit gained will outweigh the reciprocity. History tells us that, inevitable, tides will turn, and we'll end up getting exploited in a world dominated by this system. I see this as the world-view of George Bush, the neocons, etc. Is it a perfectly valid strategy? Yes. Do I think that it is the wisest course of action for our country? No.

The alternative, illustrated by economic theory #1, is to pursue mutually beneficial action. Following our selfish interest (even in the "name" of freedom) may be more profitable in the short term, but increasing our mutual wealth through following the most mutually beneficial action is the most profitable in the long term. The prisoner's dilemma in economic game theory illustrates this clearly. So does the Nash Equilibrium (have you seen "A Beautiful Mind"?). It is difficult, in an age of immediate-horizon politics and an emotionally reactionary American populace to follow such a policy, but it is possible, and in my opinion, it is clearly the wisest choice. While by no means perfect, I think that John Kerry will follow a set of policies much more in line with this principle of mutually beneficial action. He has demonstrated (and more importantly, Bush has demonstrated the opposite) that it is often necessary to make short term sacrifices to build relationships that will foster the kind of world system that provides benefit to all, not just to the powerful. Power only makes you safe as long as you have most of it. Setting aside our national hubris for a moment, we should realize that history tells us that we will inevitably, eventually be in a position where we don't have most of it anymore. When that happens, our safety, our prosperity will be determined by what kind of world-system we foster today. Memories of our temporary wealth will make us (or more likely, posterity) wonder what kind of short-sighted people our ancestors were. Just my opinion, but I think that is the true answer to "What's at Stake".


Jeff Vail said...

A perfect example of the kind of thinking that I mention, taken from a comment on "The Angry Arab News Service", the blog of As'ad AbuKhalil(

republican | 11.01.04 - 12:39 am "

Ruilong said...

CLICK TO PLAY VIDEOWatch this special video message from John Kerry

Sign John Kerry's "Every Child Protected" pledge today and forward it to your family, friends, and neighbors:

Sign the pledgeDear People,

I want to thank you personally for what you did in the election -- you rewrote the book on grassroots politics, taking control of campaigns away from big donors. No campaign will ever be the same.

You moved voters, helped hold George Bush accountable, and countered the attacks from big news organizations such as Fox, Sinclair Broadcasting, and conservative talk radio.

And your efforts count now more than ever. Despite the words of cooperation and moderate sounding promises, this administration is planning a right wing assault on values and ideals we hold most deeply. Healthy debate and diverse opinion are being eliminated from the State Department and CIA, and the cabinet is being remade to rubber stamp policies that will undermine Social Security, balloon the deficit, avoid real reforms in health care and education, weaken homeland security, and walk away from critical allies around the world.

Regardless of the outcome of this election, once all the votes are counted -- and they will be counted -- we will continue to challenge this administration. This is not a time for Democrats to retreat and accommodate extremists on critical principles -- it is a time to stand firm.

I will fight for a national standard for federal elections that has both transparency and accountability in our voting system. It's unacceptable in the United States that people still don't have full confidence in the integrity of the voting process.

I ask you to join me in this cause.

And we must fight not only against George Bush's extreme policies -- we must also uphold our own values. This is why on the first day Congress is in session next year, I will introduce a bill to provide every child in America with health insurance. And, with your help, that legislation will be accompanied by the support of hundreds of thousands of Americans.

There are more than eight million uninsured children in our nation.

That's eight million reasons for us to stay together and fight for a new direction. It is a disgrace that in the wealthiest nation on earth, eight million children go without health insurance.

Normally, a member of the Senate will first approach other senators and ask them to co-sponsor a bill before it is introduced -- instead, I am turning to you. Imagine the power of a bill co-sponsored by hundreds of thousands of Americans being presented on the floor of the United States Senate. You can make it happen. Sign our "Every Child Protected" pledge today and forward it to your family, friends, and neighbors: is the beginning of a second term effort to hold the Bush administration accountable and to stand up and fight for our principles and our values. They want you to disappear; they are counting on that. I'm confident you will prove them wrong, and you will rewrite history again.

Here is what I want you to know. I understand the strength, commitment, and passion that are at the core of what we built together -- and I am determined to make our collective energy and organization a force to be reckoned with in the weeks and months ahead.

Let's roll up our sleeves and get back to work for our country.

Thank you,

John Kerry