Date: Tue, 28 Oct 2003 19:15:20 +0800
Subject: Re: interPolltation
From: Malcolm Riddoch <m.riddoch-AT-ecu.edu.au>



On Saturday, September 27, 2003, at 01:49  AM, John Foster wrote:

> There's certainly a lot of truth in what you say, Malcolm

Well, I really wouldn't know, but I do think interpreting these 
'historical truths' in terms of Heidegger's Destruktion of the history 
of philosophy is a rather interesting way to go about it. Who on earth 
knows if it's 'correct' or not? I'd say we're much more in the realm of 
a phenomenological 'attestation' here than any sort of 
historiographical account of the 'real' world. What do you reckon?

> however there are
> laws both national and international, which in many cases have to be 
> applied
> in all situations.

So from the perspective of power I would have to say that all law, and 
most especially international law, means nothing without the 
acquiescence of power. Our laws only mean something because we agree to 
live by them, and it is a fundamental fact of human freedom that we can 
choose to break any law we like. That's why our various communities 
have a judiciary, a constabulary and prisons, and in the case of civil 
war, a military power to secure and enforce the laws of the land, or 
change them. How else can you 'apply law in all situations'?

On the international stage all law is a mediation of state power, and 
legality only has power if states agree on its implementation, the UN 
is our symbol of this mediation and legality. But law, being dependent 
on the self-interests of state power, is also utterly impotent, as is 
its 'justice', and the good. The only thing that guarantees our global 
order is the ongoing mediation of the national interests of power 
whether by lawfully agreed means or by force of arms. This has been the 
way of the European nations since their global colonisation began 
several centuries ago, more or less based on the Roman model. The 
British Empire for instance either lawfully negotiated with its 
sovereign rivals or fought them. If you didn't have the power to fight 
them they subjugated you and colonised your lands, as was the case with 
the indigenous peoples of Australia, perhaps the most complete example 
of racial and cultural genocide in our shared Western history since the 
Roman dissolution of Israel, or worse. Then again there's always the 
Armenian genocide. An interesting case in point here is the Maori of 
New Zealand who managed to fight the British to a standoff and force a 
treaty of sorts, in the process teaching their colonial aggressors 
everything they knew about trench warfare.

Modern power is based on a nations technological accomplishments, on 
science, industry, commerce and a strong military force, a 
military-industrial power all of which is today derived from ready 
access to oil. Any state power is essentially free to secure the basis 
of its power and way of life by whatever means necessary, whether by 
law and trade or by force of arms. I can't see that anything has 
changed in this regard for centuries apart from the brief glimpse of 
hope that is the UN.

> Secondly, I thought it interesting that technological
> calculative thinking is amoral! It is in many situations, however, 
> applying
> law, ethical standards, and relying on democratic consensus all 
> together are
> forms of ethical comportment before a decision is made to proceed with 
> a
> technology: nuclear power, drilling for oil, and so on.

Yeah, I think individual decisions always have ethical and moral 
considerations, and all leaders must confront these both for themselves 
personally and in relation to the moral beliefs of their constituents. 
But these decisions can only be made with respect to balancing the 
demands of power and especially in relation to other powers. Maybe this 
relation to foreign power is where the amorality arises in that 
individual leaders must decide on the basis of national self-interests, 
not ethics or morality, where competing powers are concerned. Why else 
would atomic bombs exist? And why else would non-nuclear nations be so 
eager to acquire them, especially if they have been named in the axis 
of evil?

So then what rules the ethical decisions of leaders is something 
outside their own purview, and that is the historical rule of power 
which is essentially amoral. I think we might need to get beyond seeing 
this in terms of a leader's decisionism, in terms of subjectivity, 
because power is nothing particularly subjective, it's an organising 
principle governing the decisions leaders can make in the context of 
international power relations, with no one at the helm, and which 
somehow has its origin in the understanding of being as Gestell. The 
leaders are never the masters of national destiny since they have to 
work within the historical rule of power.

>  What Anthony is
> suggesting is that a few who have the power to act violently can use 
> what
> ever salient reason they believe is necessary outside of consensus, 
> law,
> ethical standards, et cetera to justify the homicides they know will 
> result.

I think he's confusing questions of 'justification', and his own 
self-justification, with something that has no need for justification 
at all outside of propaganda, since power is its own justification. It 
remains a fact that leaders _do_ use whatever means necessary to 
justify decisions that result in 'collateral damage', unless you're 
Stalin of course. For many of their constituents some sort of moral 
justification is necessary, especially in a democratic system, and even 
the flimsiest will do nowadays it seems, so long as we can just shrug 
and forget about it as soon as possible and go back to living the lives 
we have grown accustomed to.

> Anthony has even suggested that murder cannot be 'characterized' as 
> murder
> (homicide). I think he may even be suggesting that manslaugher is not
> predictable in the US involvement using cruise missiles, driect cun and
> artillery attacks on Iraqi conscripts. What law or moral standard is 
> Anthony
> suggesting is he relying on here?

I don't know and don't really care, I don't think it matters apart from 
its use as propaganda for support of the notion of 'preventive' war. I 
do think it's important we argue about this though as the US action has 
basically taken global power relations back to the moment the Nazi's 
invaded Poland. Unilateral action and regime change means that conquest 
by war is now back on the agenda as an article of international law. 
And again it's power that defines law, not the other way around, and 
the time honored way to define a new order of power relations is to 
just go ahead and do what you want. If anyone wants to dissuade you 
then 'bring em on', and if you have the power to back up your actions 
then who is going to challenge you? In Hitler's case he was supported 
by the Soviets and militarily opposed by the fading British Empire and 
the vulnerable French. Today the only threat to US dominance is its own 
constituency, and it is looking quite likely that Bush might be 
defeated at the next election, barring another catastrophic 'Pearl 
Harbor' attack or a dangerous escalation of fighting in the middle 
east. Israel's recent act of aggression in Syria and the passing of the 
'Syria Accountability Act' in the US certainly don't make matters any 
calmer in that regard.

> "Unfortunately it seems now that the WMD matter was largely 
> fabricated."
>
> Emphasis on 'unfortunately' meaning that he would have liked that 
> there were
> WMD in Iraq post invasion, pre-invasion.

That was me you're quoting, and I was being understated in an ironic 
sense because I have what is probably a very obscure sense of 
humour.... It is unfortunate for everyone who supported the war that 
absolutely no WMD's have been found and that all the pre-war propaganda 
now looks to be 'sexed up' lies and innuendo, it's certainly 
unfortunate for Bush and Blair. Strangely enough here in Australia it 
doesn't seem to matter for Howard, perhaps because everyone is used to 
him telling outrageous lies, and our mass media ownership is perhaps 
the most concentrated in the OECD, even the 'independent' national 
broadcaster is censoring politically sensitive discussion.

Cheers,

Malcolm



     --- from list heidegger-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu ---