There was a time when I had enormous respect for Jonathan Schell, and thought his books The Fate of the Earth and The Abolition inserted a note of realism into the nuclear arms debate. He even grudgingly admitted that Mutually Assured Destruction had a kind of logic, and was a substitute, in some sense, for government. I therefore don't know what to say about his miserable performance on Charlie Rose. I suppose the sort of rhetoric Mr. Schell indulged in is just wearing me out. But I noticed that after declaring several times that he was "no expert on the Middle East or Iraq" he managed to express an opinion so profoundly pessimistic that he not only saw virtually no possibility of a "happy" outcome, but was certain (in spite of having no credentials applicable to saving failed states or building successful ones) that the more the US is involved, the worse the eventual outcome would be. And I wonder if this is an empirical or verifiable certainty, or if it's something more like an emotional illness.
Somewhat later in the interview Mr. Schell mentions another certainty: his conviction that there is (I'm paraphrasing from memory) "some principle by which social change and governance can come about without ultimately resting on force." And the case he made for such a principle involved the transformation of the Soviet Empire (though I'm not sure he called it that), and especially the role of Solidarity in Poland as though Ronald Reagan had nothing to do with these events. Well, I'm no expert on non-violence, so I sure don't know what that mysterious principle might be. And he is purportedly an expert on non-violence, so if he doesn't know, then I'm not quite sure why I should feel especially confident about it.
But I can see why he'd have to be pessimistic about the prospect of the US successfully nurturing a liberal regime in Iraq, and especially about the possibility that we'd actually be a net positive influence on that transformation. That would be something of a blow to the notion that force can't play a role in beneficial epochal social change. Although strictly speaking his hypothesis has nothing to do with that. He's merely saying that there's "another way" that he doesn't seem to know very much about, but in which he nonetheless maintains a rather inspired faith. Apparently a "Jonathan Schell Game" doesn't have a pea. Just a strong conviction about one. And that's as good a reason as any to pull out of Iraq and leave a power vacuum for the totalitarians, innit?
Posted by Demosophist at October 23, 2003 12:23 AM | TrackBackCan we ask Jonathan Schell the following questions?
* Did non-violence prevent or liberate the Jews from the death camps?
* Did non-violence eliminate slavery in the South?
* Did non-violence stop the slaughter of Muslims in the Balkans?
In fact, the only true geopolitical victories of non-violence were the liberation of India and (maybe) South Africa -- but that was because the oppressors were Western democracies, answerable to the people, and concerned with their own records of human-rights abuses. Also, in both cases, the oppressed vastly outnumbered their oppressors, and the threat of violence (especially South Africa, where it was used by others) remained high enough to make the oppressors nervous.
Posted by: Captain Ed at October 24, 2003 09:19 AMEd:
Also, in both cases, the oppressed vastly outnumbered their oppressors, and the threat of violence (especially South Africa, where it was used by others) remained high enough to make the oppressors nervous.
Excellent points. And, of course, the implied threat of force was hardly irrelevant to Poland or the Soviet Union, either. And the mere fact that a "revolution" can sometimes be conducted without force doesn't make it a viable principle for governance. Government quells violence by maintaining a monopoly on the legitimate use of force. And it maintains legitimacy by being transparent and accountable. I really don't know what Schell was talking about. It seems extraordinarily incoherent, for him. That's why I said his "problem" may be emotional in nature. I've discussed it elsewhere. He has no program or philosophy for coping with human calamity, so his only recourse is to deny it, no matter how illogical that ultimately is.
Posted by: Scott (to Ed) at October 24, 2003 12:02 PMpretty pictures of flowers http://prettyppof.adavertise.info/
caribbean spa vacation http://caribbean-spa-vacation.adeis.info/
private medical insurance http://private-medical-insurance.adipurnama.info/
direct line home insurance quote http://directdlhiq.acyspalace.info/
lawyer fax http://lawyer-fax.acton-aa.info/
apartment listing savannah http://apartment-listing-savannah.activein.info/
colorado malpractice lawyer http://colorado-malpractice-lawyer.adlersberg.info/
wireless router compare http://wireless-router-compare.adamico.info/
awning canopy blacks beach http://awningacbb.adavertise.info/
fashionable maternity clothing http://fashionable-maternity-clothing.acyspalace.info/
papa roach concert tickets http://papaprct.activashow.info/
pictures of honda sports car http://picturespohsc.acuition.info/
sunroom tulsa http://sunroom-tulsa.acyspalace.info/
replacement inks for epson 7600 http://replacementrife7.harehore.info/
better business bureau in texas http://betterbbbit.adminmed.info/
cabins with hot tubs michigan http://cabinscwhtm.adavertise.info/
anxiety medications prescription http://anxietyamp.acuition.info/
casino proposal near grand beach http://casinocpngb.adholics.info/
intermetro shelving http://intermetro-shelving.addalamp.info/
car rental tampa international airport http://carcrtia.haotronic.info/
corsi di spagnolo in spagna scuole di lingua spagnola famiglie http://corsidsissdlsf.add-a-ware.info/
bumper pool table http://bumper-pool-table.adavertise.info/
aafes calling cards http://aafes-calling-cards.actorr7.info/
dynamic air filters http://dynamic-air-filters.adageinc.info/
graham aol business men names and email contacts 2005 http://grahamgabmnaec2.harpmri.info/