Tuesday, October 05, 2004
Global test: "legitimate in the eyes of other people"
Kerry's clarification of his "global test" for the use of pre-emptive force is very helpful. There had been a question of what it would mean to "prove to the world" that you have "legitimate reasons" for the use of force. (Debate transcript here.)
Now Kerry has clarified that what he means by legitimate is "legitimate in the eyes of other people." The rest of the world is to be the judge of our reasons.
Kerry's original statement was pretty clear in itself:
Still, there are ways to put a benign spin on this original formulation of Kerry's "test." Some commentators, like Mark Kleiman, suggest that this is not so different from Thomas Jefferson's "decent respect for the opinions of mankind." What is wrong with making sure you have good reasons?
The problem with this benign interpretation is that we DID have good reasons for invading Iraq, 27 of them by one count, and we went the extra mile a hundred times to lay out these reasons, and Kerry still doesn't think we did enough. Thus in practice at least, Kerry seems to think that his test is not passed unless the rest of the world actually agrees with us, and he has said this many times: that we should have held out until a larger coalition agreed to help us.
Also, the Jefferson parallel is not very parallel. As noted by Roland Patrick and JustOneMinute, Jefferson was simply explaining to the world. He did not concieve that there was any "test" the nation had to pass, or that we needed to "prove" our charges.
Since the Patrick's of the world were not about to convince the Kleiman's, it is nice of Kerry to clarify for us that his "global test" for legitimacy means legitimacy in the eyes of others: i.e. permission.
Now Kerry has clarified that what he means by legitimate is "legitimate in the eyes of other people." The rest of the world is to be the judge of our reasons.
Kerry's original statement was pretty clear in itself:
No president, through all of American history, has ever ceded, and nor would I, the right to preempt in any way necessary to protect the United States of America.
But if and when you do it, Jim, you have to do it in a way that passes the test, that passes the global test where your countrymen, your people understand fully why you're doing what you're doing and you can prove to the world that you did it for legitimate reasons.
Still, there are ways to put a benign spin on this original formulation of Kerry's "test." Some commentators, like Mark Kleiman, suggest that this is not so different from Thomas Jefferson's "decent respect for the opinions of mankind." What is wrong with making sure you have good reasons?
The problem with this benign interpretation is that we DID have good reasons for invading Iraq, 27 of them by one count, and we went the extra mile a hundred times to lay out these reasons, and Kerry still doesn't think we did enough. Thus in practice at least, Kerry seems to think that his test is not passed unless the rest of the world actually agrees with us, and he has said this many times: that we should have held out until a larger coalition agreed to help us.
Also, the Jefferson parallel is not very parallel. As noted by Roland Patrick and JustOneMinute, Jefferson was simply explaining to the world. He did not concieve that there was any "test" the nation had to pass, or that we needed to "prove" our charges.
Since the Patrick's of the world were not about to convince the Kleiman's, it is nice of Kerry to clarify for us that his "global test" for legitimacy means legitimacy in the eyes of others: i.e. permission.
Comments:
<< Home
In his follow-up, Kerry made the simple point that if you want other people to help you, you need to persuade them. That's not the same as getting "permission." Kerry made it clear, both in the original statement and in the follow-up, that getting permission was not on the agenda.
I didn't know that "error theory" involved attributing to others errors that they did not, in fact, make. Live and learn.
I didn't know that "error theory" involved attributing to others errors that they did not, in fact, make. Live and learn.
Of course Kerry wants to have it both ways. Nobody gets veto power over us, AND we have to prove to them that our reasons are legitimate. It is hard to be impressed by Kerry's strenghening of the first part of this contradiction when he at the same times strengthens the second, clarifying that legitimacy is to be judged by others.
Here is what Kerry said:
The president always has the right, and always has had the right, for preemptive strike. That was a great doctrine throughout the Cold War. And it was always one of the things we argued about with respect to arms control.
No president, through all of American history, has ever ceded, and nor would I, the right to preempt in any way necessary to protect the United States of America.
But if and when you do it, Jim, you have to do it in a way that passes the test, that passes the global test where your countrymen, your people understand fully why you're doing what you're doing and you can prove to the world that you did it for legitimate reasons.
Here we have our own secretary of state who has had to apologize to the world for the presentation he made to the United Nations.
I mean, we can remember when President Kennedy in the Cuban missile crisis sent his secretary of state to Paris to meet with DeGaulle. And in the middle of the discussion, to tell them about the missiles in Cuba, he said, "Here, let me show you the photos." And DeGaulle waved them off and said, "No, no, no, no. The word of the president of the United States is good enough for me."
How many leaders in the world today would respond to us, as a result of what we've done, in that way? So what is at test here is the credibility of the United States of America and how we lead the world. And Iran and Iraq are now more dangerous -- Iran and North Korea are now more dangerous.
Now, whether preemption is ultimately what has to happen, I don't know yet. But I'll tell you this: As president, I'll never take my eye off that ball. I've been fighting for proliferation the entire time -- anti-proliferation the entire time I've been in the Congress. And we've watched this president actually turn away from some of the treaties that were on the table.
You don't help yourself with other nations when you turn away from the global warming treaty, for instance, or when you refuse to deal at length with the United Nations.
You have to earn that respect. And I think we have a lot of earning back to do.
Now, let's understand this. Kerry says he will not cede a right to preempt -- that's fine. I have a right to color my hair orange. Not much chance of me invoking that right.
He has also said that he will not give any country a veto over foreign policy. Very well and good. However, if you never propose a foreign policy that might offend any other country, this is also a moot issue.
The funny thing here is that Kerry proposes a global test that is supposed to insure that the US has credibility in the eys of other countries by proving our case, then he cites approvingly an example of where the French were satisfied --- BUT WITHOUT SEEING PROOF.
We can only conclude that the global test is to adopt French policy as our own.
Post a Comment
The president always has the right, and always has had the right, for preemptive strike. That was a great doctrine throughout the Cold War. And it was always one of the things we argued about with respect to arms control.
No president, through all of American history, has ever ceded, and nor would I, the right to preempt in any way necessary to protect the United States of America.
But if and when you do it, Jim, you have to do it in a way that passes the test, that passes the global test where your countrymen, your people understand fully why you're doing what you're doing and you can prove to the world that you did it for legitimate reasons.
Here we have our own secretary of state who has had to apologize to the world for the presentation he made to the United Nations.
I mean, we can remember when President Kennedy in the Cuban missile crisis sent his secretary of state to Paris to meet with DeGaulle. And in the middle of the discussion, to tell them about the missiles in Cuba, he said, "Here, let me show you the photos." And DeGaulle waved them off and said, "No, no, no, no. The word of the president of the United States is good enough for me."
How many leaders in the world today would respond to us, as a result of what we've done, in that way? So what is at test here is the credibility of the United States of America and how we lead the world. And Iran and Iraq are now more dangerous -- Iran and North Korea are now more dangerous.
Now, whether preemption is ultimately what has to happen, I don't know yet. But I'll tell you this: As president, I'll never take my eye off that ball. I've been fighting for proliferation the entire time -- anti-proliferation the entire time I've been in the Congress. And we've watched this president actually turn away from some of the treaties that were on the table.
You don't help yourself with other nations when you turn away from the global warming treaty, for instance, or when you refuse to deal at length with the United Nations.
You have to earn that respect. And I think we have a lot of earning back to do.
Now, let's understand this. Kerry says he will not cede a right to preempt -- that's fine. I have a right to color my hair orange. Not much chance of me invoking that right.
He has also said that he will not give any country a veto over foreign policy. Very well and good. However, if you never propose a foreign policy that might offend any other country, this is also a moot issue.
The funny thing here is that Kerry proposes a global test that is supposed to insure that the US has credibility in the eys of other countries by proving our case, then he cites approvingly an example of where the French were satisfied --- BUT WITHOUT SEEING PROOF.
We can only conclude that the global test is to adopt French policy as our own.
<< Home
