I read a really sad article today in the Wall Street Journal (12/4/06, front page). Since I don't subscribe to the online version, and I doubt anyone who reads this does either (except maybe Old $), I won't bother trying to link to it. The main point of the article was that Paul Rusesabagina, the hero of Hotel Rwanda, is apparently no longer popular in Rwanda and it might even be dangerous for him to return. He has been making the most of his fame by doing public speaking tours and living comfortably here in the US. Before I continue though, I should add a disclaimer that we don't know for sure if what the article insinuates is actually true. The danger might be hyped and his unpopularity might be due to the appearance that he has ditched Rwanda for the US.
For now though I will take the article on face value, and the article says that Paul Rusesabagina is unpopular because he has made statements that are critical of the Tutsi-lead government in Rwanda. He has claimed that the government has only given Hutus token positions and has suppressed dissent. The later claim is believable considering a statement denouncing Rusesabagina from Rwanda's President. There also could be a rivalry since Rusesabagina has hinted at a desire to run for President.
But there are some larger issues that seem to be lurking behind the scenes. Whenever there is a genocide, we tend to want the victims to be completely innocent. In some cases they were (Jews during the Holocaust), but in others the ethnic groups were in open rebellion (the Kurds in Iraq and Muslims in Bosnia). This in no way excuses the genocides. But it does mean we need to be open to the fact that the once victims might one-day be oppressors (and might have been in the past as was the case with the Tutsis). We need to be as vigilant in condemning them as would be anyone else.
Unfortunately, the article also gives the appearance that civil war might descend on Rwanda again in the future. In many of the genocides, people who didn’t want to act dismissed the situations as generations-long civil wars that we cannot stop. Those favoring intervention will argue back that it is not a mere civil war, but an attempt from the top of one government to exterminate an ethnic / racial / religious group. The truth though tends to be that both sides are kind of right. No matter how much we wish that Tutsis and Hutus would learn the differences between them are largely false and created by their colonial power to create division, I have to accept that it will take time. Until then, further flair-ups are a possibility.
If Rwanda were to flair up again, it would probably make some people feel justified that we didn’t intervene. They would say that we will never be able to stop the fighting. While that may be true, the fact remains that we still need to intervene to stop genocidal governments, even if we decide not to intervene in civil wars (although I would prefer to intervene all the time if at all possible).
Tuesday, December 05, 2006
Sunday, December 03, 2006
Sweat Shops - Redux
I had an intense debate with The Beard a while ago about sweat shops. My basic position was that there was nothing we could do to improve the working conditions in manufacturing jobs in the developing world. The reason wages are so low and conditions so bad is because there is an oversupply of labor. My argument is that the economic circumstances will resist our efforts at reform. Our goal therefore should be to do as much as we can to build up their economies while will drive up wages and allow for improved conditions.
My underlying assumption though does cause me problems. I do feel strongly about poor labor conditions in the developing world, but I also feel like some efforts to intervene will be useless (or even counterproductive – meaning driving jobs away). I have a lot of difficulty reconciling these two points in my mind. I want to say that I see these same issues at play in other policies like fair trade coffee and domestic price supports for agriculture (which I oppose for different reasons).
The issue here is what do we do about a situation that we think we are powerless to change? My position of waiting for the economies to grow allows for the suffering of the workers to continue for the foreseeable future. The Beard on the other hand, even if he accepted that the economic principles at play impede progress, would likely still advocate for some reform rather than accepting the current situation.
As I consider myself a moral being, I should not be okay, accepting the workers’ fate, even as I realize that dangerous working conditions for low wages are everywhere in the developing world (notably in agriculture and mining).
I realize now that the Nicholas Kristof column that inspired our debate, and my post supporting that column, were both insensitive to the horrible working conditions of the workers. What I should have said is that we want to somehow force better conditions, without driving the labor away. The workers need the money, and the countries need that boost to the economy.
But I also want to distance myself from the well-meaning but poorly thought-out proposals, like the ones that make comparisons between wage increases and price increases of the final product. A proposal like this one ignores the fact that the downward pressure on wages isn’t coming from consumers always needing cheaper Banana Republic shirts, but instead from the over supply of labor in the developing world and the need for bigger profit margins by the companies to remain competitive.
The bottom line is that I should not tolerate terrible working conditions. But I think we need to be more creative and think of solutions that keep in mind the serious economic constraints we work under.
My underlying assumption though does cause me problems. I do feel strongly about poor labor conditions in the developing world, but I also feel like some efforts to intervene will be useless (or even counterproductive – meaning driving jobs away). I have a lot of difficulty reconciling these two points in my mind. I want to say that I see these same issues at play in other policies like fair trade coffee and domestic price supports for agriculture (which I oppose for different reasons).
The issue here is what do we do about a situation that we think we are powerless to change? My position of waiting for the economies to grow allows for the suffering of the workers to continue for the foreseeable future. The Beard on the other hand, even if he accepted that the economic principles at play impede progress, would likely still advocate for some reform rather than accepting the current situation.
As I consider myself a moral being, I should not be okay, accepting the workers’ fate, even as I realize that dangerous working conditions for low wages are everywhere in the developing world (notably in agriculture and mining).
I realize now that the Nicholas Kristof column that inspired our debate, and my post supporting that column, were both insensitive to the horrible working conditions of the workers. What I should have said is that we want to somehow force better conditions, without driving the labor away. The workers need the money, and the countries need that boost to the economy.
But I also want to distance myself from the well-meaning but poorly thought-out proposals, like the ones that make comparisons between wage increases and price increases of the final product. A proposal like this one ignores the fact that the downward pressure on wages isn’t coming from consumers always needing cheaper Banana Republic shirts, but instead from the over supply of labor in the developing world and the need for bigger profit margins by the companies to remain competitive.
The bottom line is that I should not tolerate terrible working conditions. But I think we need to be more creative and think of solutions that keep in mind the serious economic constraints we work under.
If it Moves, Tax it
I got another one of those emails that tries to show that government is too big through a few short and clever jokes. Although I did laugh at them because of the stereotype they are using, I do think that sometimes jokes like that allow people to oversimplify issues and prevent them from thinking through their beliefs.
The big government attacks from fiscal conservatives (besides being hypocritical) are more often aimed at a few specific programs. They aren’t talking about the military, police, or even prisons; instead they are talking more often about social programs like welfare, Medicare and Medicaid, and sometimes even education spending.
In my mind though, the size of the government isn’t the issue. What matters is whether or not we want to provide a basic level of support for every person in this country. I never really understand why this is so controversial. If we are to consider ourselves an advanced and humane society, we should be willing, first and foremost, to protect everyone in our society.
The most common response to this is that the government shouldn’t be the one to do this. I will never understand this argument because it rests on the assumption that private and non-profit groups will be able to provide all the resources necessary to care for those in need through the generous donations of private citizens. Somehow I find it hard to believe that the people who aren’t willing to share their money with the government for these purposes will have a change of heart and give what is required.
If everyone agreed that we do need to take care of everyone, the next step is to decide what a basic level of services should be. I feel that this is a productive argument. Is minimum wage enough to live off? When should health care benefits get cut off (right now, there is a disincentive to getting a job because if you are paid a certain amount, you no longer receive Medicaid). How much public assistance is enough to take care of a family? This is where the argument should be.
I have to say before I close that setting a time-limit on welfare is a strange concept to me. I don’t know what the research is yet, but I can’t see how we will stop giving people the money they need for food and shelter because they have been receiving money for more than five years. This was an experiment though that many people wanted to try, so I guess for this we will have to wait and see the effects.
The bottom line though is that I want to see that everyone in this country is taken care of. And towards that end, I don’t care how big or small the government is (which is obviously relative) as long as we can accomplish that much.
The big government attacks from fiscal conservatives (besides being hypocritical) are more often aimed at a few specific programs. They aren’t talking about the military, police, or even prisons; instead they are talking more often about social programs like welfare, Medicare and Medicaid, and sometimes even education spending.
In my mind though, the size of the government isn’t the issue. What matters is whether or not we want to provide a basic level of support for every person in this country. I never really understand why this is so controversial. If we are to consider ourselves an advanced and humane society, we should be willing, first and foremost, to protect everyone in our society.
The most common response to this is that the government shouldn’t be the one to do this. I will never understand this argument because it rests on the assumption that private and non-profit groups will be able to provide all the resources necessary to care for those in need through the generous donations of private citizens. Somehow I find it hard to believe that the people who aren’t willing to share their money with the government for these purposes will have a change of heart and give what is required.
If everyone agreed that we do need to take care of everyone, the next step is to decide what a basic level of services should be. I feel that this is a productive argument. Is minimum wage enough to live off? When should health care benefits get cut off (right now, there is a disincentive to getting a job because if you are paid a certain amount, you no longer receive Medicaid). How much public assistance is enough to take care of a family? This is where the argument should be.
I have to say before I close that setting a time-limit on welfare is a strange concept to me. I don’t know what the research is yet, but I can’t see how we will stop giving people the money they need for food and shelter because they have been receiving money for more than five years. This was an experiment though that many people wanted to try, so I guess for this we will have to wait and see the effects.
The bottom line though is that I want to see that everyone in this country is taken care of. And towards that end, I don’t care how big or small the government is (which is obviously relative) as long as we can accomplish that much.
Half-Way Through
I have had to stop in the middle of reading non-fiction books before. I didn’t make it straight through John Adams by David McCullough or His Excellency: George Washington by Joseph Ellis. But this time I am stopping for a different reason. It isn’t that I have temporarily lost interest in A Problem from Hell: America and the Age of Genocide like I did with the others. This time I have to stop because it is affecting my mood. I find that I can only read the book in small doses because of how enraged it makes me. So I will start again with Rwanda after a short break.
If there was only one thing that I could impart on people after reading through half of this book, it would the following: that there are many options of intervening to prevent genocides that are short of a full-scale ground invasion. Too often our leaders supported doing nothing simply because we were unwilling to perform the most drastic option of a full-scale invasion. During the Holocaust we could have bombed the train lines that were carrying prisoners to the concentration camps. In Iraq, we could have enforced a no-fly zone over the north to protect the Kurds, like we did after the Gulf War. In Rwanda, at the very least we could have jammed the radio signals that were issuing the killing orders. In Bosnia we could have ended the arms embargo against the Muslims in Bosnia and we could have launched air strikes against the encampments that were shelling Sarajevo. And in Darfur, we can also enforce a no-fly zone so that the Janjaweed cannot get air support from the Sudanese military.
But in all of the situations we could have at least spoken out against it, and done so without using confusing language that portrays the situation as a centuries-long civil war between groups that will never get along and trying to make both sides of the conflict equal partners in the atrocities. In all of these situations, we could have demonstrated leadership instead of refusing to act because there wasn’t already a pre-formed consensus to act.
If you are willing, there are other things that are important that I have learned from the book. To my extreme dismay, I found that there are very few lawmakers who are free of guilt in our inaction in the face of genocide. While I knew President Clinton ignored Rwanda, I didn’t realize he also refused to do anything significant in Bosnia. Also, I used to respect Colin Powell because I thought he was the only one in the Bush II administration that was advocating for intervention in Darfur. I based this on his insistence to use the word “Genocide”. I have to admit that I don’t know his actual position on Darfur now, but I do know that he advocated against intervention to protect the Kurds in Iraq before the Gulf War and also against intervening in Bosnia both during the Bush I and Clinton presidencies. I should admit though that I was pleasantly surprised by a number of politicians because of their forceful advocacy for intervention, including Senator Bob Dole.
What has made me particularly upset so far are the quotes from various administration officials in many different presidencies and how they talked around the truth in the same way that Bush II administration officials do over issues like Iraq. For example, Warren Christopher during a number of Congressional testimonies, referred to the situation in Bosnia as “tantamount to genocide.” It angers me so much to watch government officials try as hard as they can to avoid saying what is obvious because of what that entails.
Another thing I have learned is the importance of paying attention to early reports and projections of deaths even though they may lack the level of legitimacy that we seek in other circumstances. In most of these situations, people refused to act, or even pay attention, because they didn’t believe refugee reports or rough estimates of deaths. In retrospect, many of the stories out of Cambodia, Iraq and Bosnia gave a pretty accurate picture of the situation. I also have to recognize that while I tend to discount anecdotal evidence, I cannot let this influence me to ignore something like this in the future.
In the end, the only way this book will be useful is if it encourages action in the next genocide. Although forcing people to feel guilty for their lack of concern over the genocides, that feeling is meaningless if it doesn’t change behavior the next time around. But this is where the book has really changed my outlook and view of politics. I feel so much more cynical now because I get the feeling that we will never actually get involved unless it is in our interest. My resolve has doubled to pay attention to international events and speak out against tolerating these situations, but in the end I do feel like my efforts will be useless. When I tried to talk to my family about genocides, some of them said that we shouldn’t intervene and should take care of our own country first (for the record, two very smart women said we can do both). If I can’t convince my own family that 800,000 dead in Rwanda or two million in Cambodia is completely intolerable, than I am left with no hope that the rest of the world will ever come around.
It is time for another book so that I don’t completely lose faith in humanity and retreat into myself. For those of you who are tired of my moral crusades, rest assured that you will get a brief reprieve.
If there was only one thing that I could impart on people after reading through half of this book, it would the following: that there are many options of intervening to prevent genocides that are short of a full-scale ground invasion. Too often our leaders supported doing nothing simply because we were unwilling to perform the most drastic option of a full-scale invasion. During the Holocaust we could have bombed the train lines that were carrying prisoners to the concentration camps. In Iraq, we could have enforced a no-fly zone over the north to protect the Kurds, like we did after the Gulf War. In Rwanda, at the very least we could have jammed the radio signals that were issuing the killing orders. In Bosnia we could have ended the arms embargo against the Muslims in Bosnia and we could have launched air strikes against the encampments that were shelling Sarajevo. And in Darfur, we can also enforce a no-fly zone so that the Janjaweed cannot get air support from the Sudanese military.
But in all of the situations we could have at least spoken out against it, and done so without using confusing language that portrays the situation as a centuries-long civil war between groups that will never get along and trying to make both sides of the conflict equal partners in the atrocities. In all of these situations, we could have demonstrated leadership instead of refusing to act because there wasn’t already a pre-formed consensus to act.
If you are willing, there are other things that are important that I have learned from the book. To my extreme dismay, I found that there are very few lawmakers who are free of guilt in our inaction in the face of genocide. While I knew President Clinton ignored Rwanda, I didn’t realize he also refused to do anything significant in Bosnia. Also, I used to respect Colin Powell because I thought he was the only one in the Bush II administration that was advocating for intervention in Darfur. I based this on his insistence to use the word “Genocide”. I have to admit that I don’t know his actual position on Darfur now, but I do know that he advocated against intervention to protect the Kurds in Iraq before the Gulf War and also against intervening in Bosnia both during the Bush I and Clinton presidencies. I should admit though that I was pleasantly surprised by a number of politicians because of their forceful advocacy for intervention, including Senator Bob Dole.
What has made me particularly upset so far are the quotes from various administration officials in many different presidencies and how they talked around the truth in the same way that Bush II administration officials do over issues like Iraq. For example, Warren Christopher during a number of Congressional testimonies, referred to the situation in Bosnia as “tantamount to genocide.” It angers me so much to watch government officials try as hard as they can to avoid saying what is obvious because of what that entails.
Another thing I have learned is the importance of paying attention to early reports and projections of deaths even though they may lack the level of legitimacy that we seek in other circumstances. In most of these situations, people refused to act, or even pay attention, because they didn’t believe refugee reports or rough estimates of deaths. In retrospect, many of the stories out of Cambodia, Iraq and Bosnia gave a pretty accurate picture of the situation. I also have to recognize that while I tend to discount anecdotal evidence, I cannot let this influence me to ignore something like this in the future.
In the end, the only way this book will be useful is if it encourages action in the next genocide. Although forcing people to feel guilty for their lack of concern over the genocides, that feeling is meaningless if it doesn’t change behavior the next time around. But this is where the book has really changed my outlook and view of politics. I feel so much more cynical now because I get the feeling that we will never actually get involved unless it is in our interest. My resolve has doubled to pay attention to international events and speak out against tolerating these situations, but in the end I do feel like my efforts will be useless. When I tried to talk to my family about genocides, some of them said that we shouldn’t intervene and should take care of our own country first (for the record, two very smart women said we can do both). If I can’t convince my own family that 800,000 dead in Rwanda or two million in Cambodia is completely intolerable, than I am left with no hope that the rest of the world will ever come around.
It is time for another book so that I don’t completely lose faith in humanity and retreat into myself. For those of you who are tired of my moral crusades, rest assured that you will get a brief reprieve.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)