TORTURE: ITS REPERCUSSIONS FOR THE REST OF US

The infamous torture report came out recently with a harsh reality check for the CIA. Not only did they torture, but they lied about it.  They certainly have their defenders who maintain that valuable information was obtained that protected American lives.  The report itself denies that claim.

In my nightmares it is hard to deny that torture would force many people, including me to give up their secrets.  Real spies and soldiers undoubtedly have more courage than I possess, but there is a limit to how much even the best of them could endure.  Nonetheless there are doubts as to its effectiveness.

We all have heard of confessions under duress.  Sometimes we assume that the person really was guilty and would otherwise have lied with a straight face if questioned.  All too often we learn later that they were in fact innocent.  This suggests the idea that people will say anything to stop the torture and too often their confession may not be true.  It may not be true because of a deliberate strategy of the victim to mislead.  It may not be true because of a deliberate strategy of the victim's overseers.  It may not be true because the victim really doesn't know.  It may not be true because the victim feels it is safer to agree with the accusing tormentors than fight.

When we are desperate, we resort to desperate measures.  After 9/11 there was fear everywhere that terrorists could strike at any time in any place.  We lowered our standards and I don't just mean our leaders, but also ourselves.  Many of us thought quietly to ourselves and some spoke out loud that nothing should be held back in our quest to find out what the terrorists were planning.  If someone died or suffered it served them right for being involved with terrorists.

Whether information gained from torture is useful or not there are other concerns, really costs involved.  We know that many of our enemies don't hesitate to torture and brutalize anyone they capture and assume that they would no matter what we do.  Is that really always true for every one of our "enemies"?  We are creatures of habit and respond to peer pressure, but we all know stories of people who resisted doing bad things and tried to rectify injustice.  World War II with the Holocaust produced significant people who were repulsed by the Nazi brutality and did what they could to shield its victims.  We know there were Americans who protested their own brutality in recent times. Is it not possible that by setting a good example other humans similar to ourselves would feel more resistant to abuses of power by their own side?  What about our front line combatants (in or out of uniform); do we not care about them?

We know that Al Qaeda and other extremists felt that American and allied abuses were very helpful for recruiting fighters.  It is very possible that the latest release of information will be used as a tool by our enemies.  In fact it seems very likely that the new recruits have killed many innocent people.  On the other hand our confession may give credibility to our claims of avoiding future torture.

All that said, politics can be a dirty business and we will see plenty of evidence in the near future. John McCain for all his faults has put things in perspective.  He understands the inhumanity of torture.  However I suspect other Republicans will use the release of this report to prove how soft and foolish the Democrats are and that Obama is a secret Muslim.  We all know that governments do what they feel needs to be done to protect their citizens and often publicly stated rules are bent and kept under cover.  Innocent people die and suffer in "national interests."  In chess, victory is given when one side is able to disable the king--everyone else is killed or captured, but not the king.

I recently read an article by Juan Cole where he recounted several instances of the American Founding Fathers that demonstrated they were against torture.  George Washington was aware that the American rebel prisoners had been killed by the British, but refused to allow revenge.  His thinking and that of other founders was that they were superior ("exceptional" if you will) to the old European way of doing things.  This has been twisted to the idea Americans are superior and can do whatever they want to protect their interests.

Like many I feel somebody should pay for the lies and distortions.  Many actually profited out of these false and brutal things.  Inevitably most will get away with it.  I hope the Americans learn a few lessons and can appreciate that they are all complicit.  I don't exempt us Canadians and other allies as in various ways we are scarcely better.  Sometimes it is very easy to be self-righteous, especially when one is on the outside that we are better people, but the truth is human nature is universal although our particular circumstances are randomly different.

I applaud the courage required to present the report and hope it is a small step for civilization.

Photo:  taken by the Huka Falls in New Zealand.

Why blame the Middle East problems on Obama?

Americans or at least some prominent ones are quick to criticize Obama's handling of the various Middle Eastern problems.  He is too soft, too indecisive and just plain wrong.

It is easy to fault any one action, but one should realize the choices are not all that clear.  People tend to forget the background to the decisions and overlook some of the critical details.

Where to start?  Palestine might be one logical place.  The Palestinians are continually pictured as less civilized and controlled by terrorists.  Why do they seem so ungrateful and hateful?  If you realize the fight is for land and for freedom you might understand why.  They too were promised things, but either they weren't forceful or clever enough and they have been effectively stifled.

Israel has an ancient history and we Westerners rightly consider it one of the essential sources of our culture.  Jews gave the world a monotheistic view.  They were forced out of their land and spread mostly across Europe and later around the globe.  By hard work, intelligence and focused behaviour they were successful to the point of stirring resentment some of which was expressed as anti-Semitism.  The Nazis took it to a new level of hate and after World War II the world realized six million were killed under horrifying circumstances.  Jews did not feel safe in Europe and worried about anti-Semitism wherever they located.  Political movements, mainly Zionism sought out a permanent home and the most logical was Palestine.  The only problem was that other people already were living there.

The world felt guilty and ironically anti-Semitism also played in role in agreeing to set aside land for the Jews in Palestine.  The newly formed United Nations had a vote which declared specific land for the Jews, but also land for the Palestinians.  An article by William R Polk reminds me that the British presided over the independence of India including partitioning off Pakistan that resulted in millions dying.  The British also controlled Palestine when it was divided and literally thousands also died and many others relocated.  Through a series of events (some self inflicted by the Palestinians) the Jewish territory expanded and the Palestinians never did get their promised share. Although oil rich Arabs surrounding the area did invest some of their money and lot of their rhetoric to support the Palestinian cause they never got the support that the Jews did from America, Europe and the rest of the world.    There is a mix of resentment and fear also mixed with some Biblical self-rightiousness.  Some of the significant support for the Jews actually comes from American Evangelicals who await the second coming of Christ and believe that for that to happen the Jews have to control the Holy Land.

An obvious source of distrust is that the Israelis persist in making Jewish settlements in occupied territory although they have been told (it is hard to believe they would need to be told) this is very offensive.  They restrict Palestinians in countless ways at the borders not only for crossing, but for business.  Yes Israeli Arabs are better off.

The Palestinians have been ignored and abused for many decades and they are pictured in our media as uneducated with an insane desire to kill Jews.  There very definitely are a lot of fanatics who hate Jews and unfortunately this number is probably increasing. They have their own version of the situation, but it hasn't gotten much credence in the American mainstream media.  But if you think about it there are some grounds for their resentment.  Other Muslims around the world use what they see as very unfair treatment of their co-religionists by Westerners in their fight against us.

Syria and Iraq.  Let's go back a few years.  Both countries had their borders defined after World War I to the convenience of the wheeling and dealing winning powers.  Ethnic and religious concerns were not considered as important as oil and European maneuverings for colonial power.   The western powers felt dealing with relatively secular dictators superior to fairness to the teeming masses.  It seemed likely that any alternative to the dictators might be religious fanatics who would be much more difficult to deal with.

George Bush Sr was confronted by a problem and was able to organize a coalition to force Iraq to give up Kuwait.  He stopped short of conquering Iraq and replacing Saddam Hussein and that upset some right wingers in the United States.  It was a very delicate situation.  The American government had received United Nations authorization and had negotiated a coalition of many nations with differing perspectives.  Saddam Hussein proved himself adept at taking advantage of the situation to restore himself to full dictatorial power.

9-11 caught a lot of people off guard.  Why would anyone want to do such a horrible thing?  There really is no justification for killing so many innocent people.  Ignorance, resentment and hate played a role.  Quickly it was realized that the deed had been organized in Afghanistan (a story in itself) and Americans planned to attack in order to root out the terrorists.  Nobody much quarreled with that decision, but others saw it as an opportunity to get back at Saddam Hussein who they felt had suckered Americans in their last conflict.  Saddam had more reason to fear Al Qaeda than did Americans, but nonetheless some political factions claimed there was a tie-in.

The Iraq invasion proved to be an expensive distraction that has hurt America immeasurably.   They had not captured Osama bin Ladin and although they had greatly diminished the Taliban, they had not replaced it with anything solid.  On one side the Taliban (with help from Pakistan, a supposed ally) rebuilt itself and became a major factor again.  On the other side where Iraq had not harboured Al Qaeda  now became a recruiting base for them.  Religious and ethnic factions became unbottled and in effect a civil war resulted.  The Americans made at least two big mistakes--they had been advised to go in with a much larger number of ground troops, but authorities ridiculed that notion.  They were never able to clamp down enough to control the situation.  The second big mistake was to get rid of the bureaucratic and military infrastructure, men and women with necessary skills and knowledge to get things done.  Underlying these game changing errors was a basic ignorance of the country.

Iran is another country often depicted as uncivilized.  Americans forget they engineered a coup d'etat of a democratically elected Iranian ruler.  If this is brought up, the right wing points out that the Iranians were planning to nationalize their own oil as if the Westerners should have total control over it.  The Western powers favoured the Shah of Iran who with their help set up a harsh secret police force to control the masses.  As the Pope helped bring down Communist dictators so Ayatollah Khomeini helped bring down the Shah.  The Americans were delighted when the Iraquis  decided to invade Iran and supported them with amongst others things poisonous gas.  We, in the West  looked at them as fanatics who stormed and controlled the American Embassy for 444 days.  So each side blames the other, but they had begun to work together for mutual concerns.  Although they had received some Iranian help in the fight against terrorists, the Americans thought to frame Iran as one of the "Axis of Evil."  Now Iran is trying to assert itself to become a nuclear power causing fear in the rest of the world.

The so-called "Arab Spring" opened up another big can of worms.  Many factors were involved such as food prices, youthful unemployment and political agitation.  The results are very mixed and again a lot of factions have seized the opportunity to force their ideas on others.  Americans could probably had been more helpful if their credibility and resources had not been depleted by mistakes before.  From a conservative point of view Egypt, Libya and Syria were all better off before, except even conservatives wouldn't accept dictatorships in their own country.

Obama has a very complicated mess and limited resources.  It is very easy to offend a faction who feels Israel should be the focus of American foreign policy or those who feel fanatics should be killed at every opportunity  or our energy needs ought to be protected.

Conservative Americans think we ought to forget George Bush Jr's mistakes as if they have no impact on today's circumstances, but how could they not?  Obama has to work with the little credibility we have and try to develop more trust.  He has to balance a lot of domestic (unemployment, inequality, immigration, climate change) and other foreign (Ukraine, North Korea) concerns when his party can easily be blocked by the Republicans in the House of Representatives.

The biggest problem is ignorance and it is on most sides.  Most Middle Easterners and Muslims around the world have many higher priorities than killing Jews or Americans.  Most Westerners have many higher priorities than killing Muslims.  Unfortunately most of us let those with an agenda dictate our agenda.  There are some bridges between cultures, but not nearly enough.  Shed enough light on the situation and you will realize we have more in common than we differ on.

What we can learn from the Arab Spring

As far away observers some of us seem to feel that the Arabs are finally getting some things right. Others forget our side had a lot to do with their suppression. It suited us that their rulers would co-operate with us to give the world a reasonable level of cheap energy and help develop a Western oriented balance of power.

An important lesson we can learn has to do with democracy. We think we set the standards, but we might be a little near sighted. Most new electoral systems incorporate some form of proportional voting. We actually encourage it in foreign countries. Our concerns with Arab nations is not so benevolent, but reflects our fears that the fundamentalist extremists will gain control as under our first past the post system they could very easily do so. We fear that if they get control they will irreversibly institute things that we find offensive such as Sharia law, the banning of alcohol and ally themselves with our enemies. So we want to ensure that the minorities that are more Westernized have a strong influence and have figured out that proportional voting can help make that happen.

In Algeria the fundamentalists a few decades ago did get control and upset the international balance of power. In Iran fundamentalists threw out the Shah that had been propped up by western powers. Lately the situation is different. In Tunisia, although the fundamentalists have a very strong voice they are forced to acknowledge those who have different and even opposite concerns.

German election laws gave the Nazis legitimate power that they were able to leverage into total power that eventaully the whole world suffered from. We in North America should not be so self righteious. In the United States with the help of their Constitution, and the Supreme Court a president was elected with less than the plurality of votes and went on to set policies in such areas as war, environment, financial regulations and taxes that seriously impacted the majority that had voted otherwise.

In Canada in one province a leader with less than 30% of eligible voters and well less than majority of actual votes was able to declare a new holiday amongst other things. In national elections one party with less than 50% of the votes was finally able to do away with distribution of funds to all politcal parties in proportion to the number of votes they were able to attract. This means that in the future fund raising will be even more critical to a party's success. This hardly noticed change in law is very pernicious as the party making this hard to reverse decision saw it as helpful to its own future prospects.

To my mind the most critical change required for true democracy is campaign finance. In theory democracy is a battle of ideas, but in reality those with money have a bigger platform to make their points. Those with the money have greater influence. This is currently a bigger concern in the United States where the appointed Supreme Court has ruled corporations have in some circumstances have the same standing as human citizens, but is a concern in all democracies.

By now you may guessed that I very much favour proportional voting systems. Some critics might think it is a problem to have more than two parties as it leads to minority governments that paralyze decision making. That can be bad, however when there are no restraints the party in power can actually (and in fact often do) effectively ignore the will of the majority of people.

I think with even ten parties it is unlikely that very few people will agree 100% with every policy detail of any one party. But each voter has the right to have their own priorities and to minimize compromise in their decision. Compromises will be made amongst those elected. Those compromises will help determine future votes.

As always those in power do what they can to maintain and increase their power. They look for rules that increase their leverage.

Many new democracies realize the need to represent all viewpoints. Minorities are important. Sometimes they act as a conscience, sometimes they offer viable alternatives, often they are able to constructively criticize what those in dominant positions propose and always they are part of the team that needs to work together for the benefit of all.

Our democracy evolved to what it is today and still needs to evolve to be a truer democracy. We allow more people to vote, but actually the percentages seem to be on a downward trajectory. One reason might be because many people realize their vote will not count or have any significant influence. Our Arab brethren actually have more influence in many circumstances on what will happen than we do. Politicians have to take into account what the people want. When people realize they have influence they are more inclined to weigh it carefully and above all to exercise it.