Race to the Bottom


I haven’t posted much over the past few weeks. One reason is that we increased the size of our garden, and spring planting occupied most our spare time. This year we are growing tomatoes, zucchini, cucumbers, squash, corn, eggplant, peppers, grapes and herbs in addition to the lettuce and chard from winter, and our fruit trees. Another reason, however, is that sometimes words just can not do justice, one must stand in awe at the capacity for cruelty and (self-) deception which can often characterize human behavior.

Much of the recent news from the Middle-East has filled that bill, and has taken the concept of a “race to the bottom” to a new and more gruesome dimension. Many environmentalists are concerned that increasing economic globalization will lead to a “race to the bottom” in environmental standards because states that maintain high standards suffer competitive disadavantage as a consequence. In fact, conservative trade advocates like the Bushes, Cheney, and even ol’ Dan Quayle, have often supported lowering environmental standards precisely on this these grounds. They argue that environmental protection policies put America at an economic disadvantage, and thus they seemingly bolster the environmentalists’ contention that increasing global trade can lead to an environmental race to the bottom.

The Falloujah mutilations and the subsequent razing of the town, the depraved prison antics and the beheading, suggest a different kind of race to the bottom. They exemplify the Pandora’s box and morbid chains of events all too often unleashed when reckless and unnecessary resort to violence and force of arms occur. And it is ever more obvious that the Iraqi War, as opponents charged from the beginning, was not thrust upon us by any state or global necessity nor as a consequence of any serious threat to security, but represents instead an ill-conceived diversion from the so-called “War on Terrorism.” Today’s report “Al Quaeda Ranks Swelling Worldwide”
notes that according to the International Institute for Strategic Studies “Far from being crippled by the U.S.-led war on terror, al-Qaida has more than 18,000 potential terrorists scattered around the world and the war in Iraq is swelling its ranks.”

Whether the principle driving force for the invasion was oil, personal petulance or ideological commitment, it was neither initiated nor followed through with the moral and logistical thought and scruples one would hopefully expect in a situation where untold thousands of human beings are put in harms way. The moral limitations of leaders on both sides in this war, the Baathists and jihadists as well as the Bushists are surely evident, with one side reveling in terror, and the other side engaged in sublimation and repression of its own heinous acts - until that path is no longer feasible because of an honest whistleblower and loose pictures and videos. As former Vice-President Gore noted "reservists photographed abusing prisoners 'were clearly forced to wade into a moral cesspool designed by the Bush White House," which, he said, had abandoned the Geneva Conventions."

This may, however, ignore some of the systemic aspects of what occurred, since investigations have shown that the many of the practices engaged in at abu Ghraib prison "echoed" those in some American prisons. In fact, one of the Abu Ghraib defendants, Spc. Charles Graner, "is a former guard at a maximum-security prison in Pennsylvania that has a history of prisoner abuse. Although accused, he was never found guilty. And Lane McCotter, a senior contractor brought in to reopen Abu Ghraib and train guards, was forced to resign as the head of corrections in Utah: A mentally ill inmate died there after being strapped naked to a restraining chair for more than 16 hours."

Nonetheless, this affair, in addition to the WMD and the many deceptions, does seem to point to the breathtaking absence of statespersonship. As one engaged in the study of international relations and political science, I am often surprised at how seldom the concepts of the statesperson and statespersonship make their way into the disciplinary jargon. It is not surprising, therefore, that so little of that quality is apparent among current world leaders. Bush and Blair clearly, if somewhat dishonestly, want to appear as strong leaders. Yet they seem incapable of distinguishing, on the one hand, between egoistic manipulation and leadership, and on the other, between leadership and statesmanship (of which neither has shown even the slightest hint) in the whole sordid affair. They clearly view leadership as getting others to do what they want, whether by persuasion, force or deception. But good leadership, as discussed by well know theorist Irving Janik, involves more - it involves open minded consideration of all possible alternatives, and a rational evaluation of the most appropriate course to take in the face of the existent situation. Most important it involves transcending the intellectual and moral “groupthink” that constrains consideration of alternative plans and ideas.

In fact, all things being equal, the world may well be better off without Sadaam as the Bushists contend. Unfortunately however, all things are not equal - the thousands of dead and maimed Americans and Iraqis may represent a bigger casualty count than Sadaam was responsible for in the previous several years. And to much of the world, Bush's militarism and arrogance presents just as much a threat and problem as did Hussein. George Montbiot
presents well the dilemma posed by the world's potential need to get rid of pathological leaders (such as Hussein), and the appropriation of the task by self-rightous, self-appointed, wannabe empire builders(e.g., Bush) as a means to further their own ambitions. His suggestion is a clear set of rules and procedures which establish a path to international legitimacy in any such case. It is clear that UN can not at present meet such a task.

There is another need, however. In our era of increasing globalization and planetary vulnerability to war and environmental destruction, it is statespersonship, not simply leadership that is truly needed. Leadership is certainly a necessary but insufficient component - statespersonship involves not only skill and knowledge, but the use of “wisdom” in the choice and pursuit of policies and interests. In this case the absence of genuine leadership is evidenced by the fact that skill and knowledge were devalued in favor of enforced groupthink, as is shown by the jettisoning of military and civilian personnel who pointed to the potential problems likely to arise after military action. The decision for a policy of war appears incredibly unwise since, as the IISS study points out, it has been detrimental to the security of the world and our nation. And as the lies, deceptions and brutalities continue to unfold, my guess is that our reputation and our security (both national and global), will also become more and more shaky. And subsequently, we may have a way to go before we see the end of this race to the bottom.