Coercion, not
Reason
With the headline “CIA nominee opposed by some for
role in enhanced interrogation program” Gina Haspel is awaiting her
confirmation as CIA director. As the debate continues over what’s illegal vs. what’s
immoral, the guest panel on a Sunday afternoon talk show discusses how and why
they are or are not in favor of this nomination.
As I watch the show, I am reminded why I am pursuing
this degree. I am reminded how much I enjoy having gained this new perspective
on socio-political issues and foreign affairs, as expressed in guests’ views.
One of the guests argues that Gina Haspel has promised
that going forward, she will not do what’s immoral even if it is “technically
allowed.” Another guest responds by asking what that would mean in a spy
business - what is considered immoral? How can the head spy promise to never do
anything immoral, when in fact, “all they do is blackmail, extort and steal
secrets every day of the week?” Guests later blithely exchange that when it is
done in the interest of the United States, that does in fact, make it moral. As
this discussion conflated the three: the person, the organization, and the
country, I couldn’t help but think of Hobbes, and the confusion in the
interpretation of his work: when does he refer to a person, and when does he
refer to a state?
The socio-political likeness
of a human being to a state is not foreign to many regimes that we proudly denounce
in this country. Is it not ironic then, that in our democracy, where no single
branch of government holds absolute power, let alone any one agency or a single
human being, one person can be held responsible for the decision of the state
to act in a way it did? Were there no lawyers who drew up agreements and
ensured all procedures were followed? Have we become so politically biased that
we make up our mind first and justify our position later, rather than, think
through an issue and arrive at a decision after?
When we do things in the interest of the United States (aka our
self-interest) Hobbes’ perception again comes to mind - of the world beyond his
familiar ecosphere, to which he refers as “other,” as a threat from which the
state must defend. And again we act individually, but collectively as a state,
to justify the means that lets us achieve the goal. And the goal, in the end,
is survival.
Thank you for your response.
ReplyDeleteI find it interesting that Ms. Haspel, the CIA director nominee, used the word ‘moral’ in her speech too. I’m not sure if this was planned or something spontaneous but the choice of words will undoubtedly be the cause of debate and chatter in the days to follow. Afterall, it is a spy agency we’re talking about here and using the word moral to describe their activities is perplexing and ironic.
The comment about America being moral is very pompous and scary. I know that the U.S.’s propaganda is superb and it is the reason why the nation is seen as moral, just and democratic even though it has committed atrocities which the U.S. itself denounces when committed by other actors. However wrong this may seem, Hobbes would probably remind us that U.S. acts are neither good or bad, wrong or right, but rather a product of its mechanism or being. From what I have gathered reading chapter 13 in The Leviathan, different actors have different desires. This basic human characteristic will eventually leads us to conflict unless there is some form of agreement between me and you, or between the U.S. and China lets say. Without a social contract everything is up for grabs. There are literally no rules to guide us or keep us in check. So, when people say that whatever the U.S. does is moral I think these words serve as a strategic move in power relations. In Leviathan, Hobbes says we are all equal. While some are stronger and quicker others may be more clever and intuitive. And I think, the U.S. is such a successful country because it is both “physically” (militarily and economically) and social (diplomatic, strategic) strong.
With our rapidly evolving political stage at the moment, it's interesting to see how these issues are developing along with our course discussions.
ReplyDeleteAs I made my way through our readings this week one of your questions stood out to me, are we making up our mind first and justifying our position later? I think this case has potential to become an example for the rationalist argument for ideas as commodities where "the creation of ideas is not haphazard; instead they are supplied in response to the 'demands' of politicians" (Laffey and Weldes, 207).
The idea that ideas or beliefs can be carried and then inserted into politics to fill a gap seemed extremely relevant in this case. As we've seen so far, the nominations put forward by our current administration have been approved by the Senate even in the face of substantial opposition. It seems in this case that a decision was made and then principled ideas applied as an afterthought to fill in the gaps in rationalization.
This is evident in the expressed idea that when an action “is done in the interest of the United States, that does in fact, make it moral” which very much seems like an idea formulated after the fact as a catch all solution. Not to mention that this kind of ideology is a slippery slope! If actions done in the interests of the US are moral, the application of morality can become quite broad and vague. Making the kind of propaganda, as mentioned above, valid and necessary to US interests.