Empire and the Law

The impassioned debate currently taking place in the United States as to whether to hold an inquiry into the revelations that captives in the “war on terror” were tortured, indicates that America is at a turning point that will determine the image and substance of its democracy.
The United States has not left any physical marks that will allow the people of the future to grasp the power and influence of the mightiest military and economic power the Earth has seen. It did not build pyramids nor Parthenons nor great roads and aqueducts, like so many empires before it. The great achievements of the Americans have been mostly intangible: the development of technology that empowered the individual, the spread of open markets and the globalization of trade and affluence. Above all, though, the United States was the driving force in the spread of democracy and human rights in countries whose citizens were suffering. Even though US governments cooperated with brutal, autocratic regimes and took part in regional wars, the image of justice that they radiated created a standard that every nation wanted to reach.
With the collapse of the Communist bloc in 1989, it appeared that the model represented by the United States – that of democracy and capitalism – had triumphed. This illusion did not last long: The terrorist attacks of 2001, the ill-advised invasion of Iraq in 2003, the collapse of the global credit system, the widespread recession and the rapid climate changes shook the new order.
The United States found itself facing an unprecedented challenge: How could it protect its people and its interests without endangering the ideals on which the Americans’ global influence depended? It was a great misfortune for the United States – and the rest of the world – that George W. Bush was president at this critical time.
He did not waste time before deciding that what was good for America was good for the world. He adopted the dogma of “preemptive war,” along with extrajudicial killings, the kidnapping of suspects in foreign lands and harsh interrogation tactics (i. e. torture). Not only did these violate US and international laws but, in the eyes of the world, the American model lost the precious sense of its moral superiority. What once took place in the dungeons of dark regimes was now being carried out by Americans.
Beyond its moral decline, however, the Bush government’s greatest crime was its violation of the law. Scrapping punishment for those who break the law leads directly to arbitrary behavior, corruption and widespread cynicism. It destroys the fabric of society.
It’s irrelevant whether torture helped gain valuable information (as its supporters claim) or whether it lead simply to forced and useless confessions born of fear and despair (as others counter). Nor can we know whether the fear of torture dissuaded anyone from committing a terrorist act. What we do know is that undermining civil society is far more dangerous than the threat of terrorism – both for the United States and the countries whose governments might like to do the same.
In his desire for political consensus, President Barack Obama would like to avoid a confrontation with Bush administration officials and the CIA. But this is not a matter of personal choice. Just as the administration officials and CIA agents had no right to break the law, the president has no right not to order an investigation and the possible punishment of those responsible. (Let’s not forget that the revelation by US newspapers of the abuses at the Abu Ghraib prison, painful though they were, saved the reputation of the American media and, to a great extent, cleansed their country’s name of the taint.)
Only the imposition of the law – however belatedly – can heal the wounds of its violation. And only by adhering to the law can a society show its true face.

The G20 Summit

The outcome of the G20 summit in London is looking rather bleak, as its objective is quite unattainable: The international economic slowdown requires a concerted effort that is much easier said than done. The fact that everyone is voicing strong opposition to protectionism means that the threat is probably more real than officials would like to admit.
The crisis threatens, to a greater or lesser degree, every economy in the world and in this sense it is a common enemy. On the other hand, however, it has also highlighted the differences between the G20 countries.
The London summit is, in fact, a first informal and fundamental effort at international governance and this group was chosen by Washington because it suited it best. The G7 group had too much of a Cold War balance of power and the addition of Russia, to make it G8, did little to redress this. Without the participation of the new emerging economic powerhouses (first of all China and to a lesser extent India and Brazil), any synchronized response to the crisis on a global level will be ineffective.
US President Barack Obama is looking to rally the West so that, through it, America can preserve its hegemony with greater consensus and keep a lower profile. His policy, however, is being undermined by the Franco-German axis.
Paris and Berlin demand that stringent supervisory measures are imposed on the market. Washington and London want to see more rescue packages to boost the international economy. These are two very different issues rather than different positions and both, in fact, are necessary.
The reason why the G20 summit may come up empty is that the one side does not really want financial markets to be monitored while the other, and Germany especially, does not want to loosen its purse strings. So, not only is there no rallying of the West against the “others,” but the internal rift is actually stealing the show.

Politics : A Game for the Big Boys

Stefanos Manos, Thanos Veremis and Yiannis Boutaris are among a group of serious folk who announced the formation of a new political party. These are people with the drive to bring change. They are stubborn and they are known for their constant quest for something new. I am not at all certain that they will succeed, but that really doesn’t matter after all. The greatest danger they face is their party ending up doing little more than lamenting the country’s fate.
We can only wonder why neither of the two big parties have room for people like Veremis or Boutaris. What would George Papandreou of PASOK have lost if he had chosen Boutaris for Thessaloniki mayor rather than opting for the lackluster selection of candidates put forth by the party mechanism? Or, what would Costas Karamanlis, the prime minister, have lost by inviting Boutaris to work with New Democracy? As far as Veremis is concerned, it is obvious that he believed in New Democracy’s reformist vision and he took his fair share of risks before realizing that the government did not have the gumption to move ahead with any real change.
Manos is what most people would call a difficult kind of guy, but he has brains and could certainly have made a meaningful contribution. Neither of the two leading parties were ever able to assimilate him into their ranks, either because they saw him as a killjoy or because he simply raised the bar even higher than he himself could handle.
The new party will go on its way. It may even develop into a useful think tank, but the real game for Greece’s stability and development lies in the hands of the two big parties. And on the one hand New Democracy is paying the price for not protecting itself with serious politicians and a serious plan, while on the other PASOK is little more than an anachronism from the 1980s.
The game, whether we like it or not, is played in the political arena and not in the parlors, where, however, you may still hear a few good ideas.