|
|
Concessions of a Lifelong Diplomat, written by Jordan Hirsch, Fall 2007 The Games We Play, written by Jordan Hirsch, Fall 2007 Defining our Generation, Bit by Byte, written by William Lane, Winter 2007 Concessions of a Lifelong Diplomat
To the Editor:
I read Jordan Hirsch’s critique of my book
Statecraft with interest and a sense of irony. I
say irony because, as he says in his concluding
sentence, the last thing we need to restore our
standing in the world is “hollow diplomacy and
selective thinking.” I could not agree more. In
effect, his criticisms are in almost every case
highly selective and even misleading. In my
chapter on the Israelis and the Palestinians, I
certainly do not suggest that the unilateral withdrawal
from Gaza was a good thing because it
would “mollify those Arabs demanding Israeli
concessions.” Not only do I not suggest anything
like that, I actually criticize heavily the
lack of preparation for the Gaza withdrawal,
the fact that it was carried out in a way bound
to strengthen Hamas, and that there needed to
be mutuality of responsibility built–into the approach.
Mr. Hirsch attacks something that is
not in the book.
Similarly, he says that to counter Muslim
extremism, we need to engage in statecraft with
serious partners, and he adds a “responsible
long–term strategy requires the U.S. to demand
accountability from those leaders with whom
it engages.” I agree, and in my chapter on how
to deal with radical Islamists, I focus on how
best to identify and work with those partners in
the Muslim world who will be accountable and
therefore can discredit the radical Islamists. I
do say that “Islamists feed on indignity and a
psychic landscape of frustration and anger. To
be defeated, they must be seen as producing
one more source of failure. Just as we want to
create models of success for the reformers, we
also need the Islamists to fail.” But that is why
I call for strategic dialogues with our partners
both inside and outside the Muslim world who
share our objectives, so we can fashion effective
strategies together.
Of course, Mr. Hirsch thinks my “grievance
philosophy” is a case of selective analysis, not
just misperception. He believes that al Qaeda
has transformed the Palestinians, and according
to him, I am blind to that. It is true I don’t
see causation where it does not exist. Have Islamists
become more influential among Palestinian
rejectionists? Absolutely, and the more
they seem to succeed, the more they will feed
those among the Palestinians who reject peace
and a two–state solution. That is one of the rea
sons I say in the book that “Hamas must be
forced to change or to fail––with change itself
being a demonstration that Islamism is not the
answer.”
Given his theme that I “habitually cherry
pick,” it is interesting that he chooses to cherry
pick in suggesting that my solution to the problem
of convergence between some neoliberal
and neoconservative attitudes on troop presence
in Iraq at the outset of the war is to say
that Bill Kristol’s view is actually a neoliberal
one––effectively demeaning any significant difference
between neo–conservatives and neoliberals.
In fact, I said that “unlike Kristol and
other thoughtful neoconservatives, neoliberal
supporters of the war were far more preoccupied
with what would be needed in the aftermath
of Saddam’s demise. There was much
less optimism about the ease of the mission and
much greater concern about the messiness of
the reconstruction or nation–building phase.” I
go on to talk not just about the concern about
the vacuum after Saddam and the implications
for security, but also the neo–liberal concerns
about the risks of sectarianism, the likelihood
of a Sunni insurgency, and the long–haul nature
of the responsibility we would be assuming.
This is hardly an indication that I could
not distinguish between the neoliberals and
neoconservatives.
There are other instances of selectivity in
what Mr. Hirsch chooses to highlight and then
use for his purposes which are, unfortunately,
unrelated to what is in the book and why it is
there. For example, the way he uses a quote I
cite from Hafez al Asad to suggest that I believe
we should humble ourselves before such a quality
tyrant may be clever but is completely taken
out of context and in any case belies how I
think one should negotiate with rogue regimes.
True, I think we want their bad behavior to be
at issue and not our reluctance to talk, but the
whole point of the chapter on negotiations and
then the discussion about Iran in the book is
that we must have leverage when dealing with
them. They must not think that we are weak or
need the negotiations more than they do.
Lastly, I don’t just suggest buzz words for
trying to resolve the Palestinian conflict like
“engagement” or a “hands–on approach.” I
actually describe the specific steps that would
need to be taken on the ground to change realities
and see whether peace is possible. I applaud
Mr. Hirsch for reviewing the book and
understand that it is tempting to use a book review
to make one’s own preferred points. Next
time, when doing so, try to actually reflect on
what is in the book and not on what isn’t.
Sincerely,
Dennis Ross
Dennis Ross is counselor and Ziegler distinguished
fellow of the Washington Institute for
Near East Policy, and published Statecraft: And
how to Restore America’s Standing in the World (Farrar,
Strauss and Giroux) in June 2007. Ambassador
Ross served as a State Department official
in three US Administrations and served
as the lead U.S. negotiator between the Israeli
government and Palestinian Authority for over
twelve years. To the Editor: Regarding PeaceMaker’s usefulness in the classroom: No one ever forgets to do his or her videogame homework. No one’s videogame homework has yet been eaten by his or her dog. And on the scheduled PeaceMaker discussion day, attendance is always outstanding. PeaceMaker is not a perfect replication of reality, but it is a novel, fresh, and entertaining break from the textbook and realistic enough to give students an opportunity to experience the frustration, disappointment, and rare happiness that is Arab–Israeli peacemaking. It also gives them the chance to apply the vocabulary, issues, and geography they have been reading about. If the textbook is the driver’s manual, PeaceMaker is the car that students can take out on the road. When was the last time a professor gave you an assignment to put the pedal to the metal and see if you could handle the sharp curves? And wouldn’t that be a great class—and a topic—you’d remember?!
Sincerely,
Eminent Domain: Properties, Principles, and Strange Bedfellows Evan Daar, Winter 2007 To the Editor: Evan Daar, writing in The Current’s Winter 2007 issue, accuses the International Socialist Organization of arguing “out of convenience rather than conviction” in opposing the use of eminent domain in Columbia’s expansion into West Harlem. His premise for this accusation: that the ISO has grounded its opposition to eminent domain in a defense of property rights – a strange position for a socialist group. However, there is a reason Daar does not provide any kind of quote or citation for his claim. His depiction of the ISO position is, in fact, based on argumentative convenience, not reality. The ISO opposes any use of eminent domain for Columbia’s expansion because we oppose the exercise of state power to transfer property from historically oppressed communities to wealthy private institutions. As revolutionaries we are skeptical of any exercise of coercion by the capitalist state; as socialists, we are against the processes of gentrification that are slowly driving working people and people of color out of Manhattan. We do not support the “right” of a CEO who has driven his or her company into the ground and laid off thousands of workers to exit with a golden parachute and keep the profits; we do support the right of Harlem residents to preserve their homes and their community. Universal rights to decent housing, education, and health care do not entail full property rights. Rather, the two approaches are irreconcilable. Sincerely, David Judd, SEAS ’08
Defining our Generation, Bit by Byte
I was disappointed to be lumped in with Thomas Friedman in William Lane’s article, Defining Our Generation, in the Winter 2007 issue of The Current. I appreciate Lane’s argument that information–sharing programs such as Bit–Torrent have contributed to an online community of young, culturally savvy users exchanging interesting ideas, and I have never meant to imply that young people are “quiet and unsystematic,” as Lane puts it. The internet and the opportunities it provides for information sharing are hugely important for young, politically or socially conscious people (in my own defense, I did make that point in the essay of mine that Lane cites). Anyone who watches cable news knows that YouTube and Dailykos have become information sources and indicators of popular trends that are in many ways as important as traditional opinion polls and onthe– ground reporting. I also think that access to the myriad art forms that Lane refers to are important in allowing younger generations to find their own forms of cultural expression. However, digital activism should be a means to an end and not an end in itself. While he acknowledges Friedman’s (snide) criticism that young people can’t just “email it in,” Lane does not necessarily point to a method of harnessing digital and cultural activism for real social change. Don’t get me wrong: I think William Lane has written a good defense of the information generation. In an age where mass media and public opinion can be so shamelessly manipulated for political and economic gain as they have been in the past eight years, a grassroots forum for opinion and information exchange is a prerequisite for social organizing. However, to boil the internet revolution down to a vehicle for “progress in artistic and cultural appreciation” is to ignore its real potential. In the Democratic primaries of 2004 and 2008, it has already shown its potential for fundraising and awareness–raising on a national political scale. In a million other ways it has shown itself a forum for large–scale debate and information exchange. But to have a real effect in the material world (which still does matter), the digital universe needs to provide more than efficient “distributional models”—it needs to provide forums with structure and vision to harness the energy that has taken refuge on the internet. Cyberspace has yielded some nascent versions of these communities (see Idealist or the much sneered–at moveon.org, or the websites of numerous pre–existing groups), but they are still in their infancy. If information–sharing programs and the like are to be the lasting legacy of our generation, as Lane argues, then they need to be geared toward larger goals. We cannot confine ourselves to the online exchange of films and movies. The digital world is great and largely untapped, no doubt, but this one still needs fixing, too.
Nick Handler
Dear Editor, William Lane discusses “distribution” in Defining our Generation, Bit by Byte, Winter 2007, as our generation’s central dogma and argues that it promotes the consumption of art and the dissemination of ideas. While it is accurate that increased ease of distribution has made it easier to access and consume information, this is only half the story. The other half of the story is distribution’s positive effect on creativity. Distribution of content promotes creation of content. For instance, Wikipedia, the free online encyclopedia, is premised both on its ability to reach masses (simple distribution) but also on its ability to encourage the masses to create. Wikipedia is possible only because millions have engaged in a creative–productive process fueled by ease of distribution. While this is distribution in a different form than downloading music, it is distribution of a creative process and just as important. Hundreds of websites (YouTube, Digg, Reddit, etc) and other community–built repositories of information (Gracenote, formerly CDDB) rely on this effect of distribution and we are enriched by it. We must recognize that the consequence of making content easier to distribute (and create) is that bad content comes with good content. Lane’s suggestion that distribution is worthless if most of what is disseminated online (via Bit– Torrent) is “cheap pop culture and the new hit singles” is unfair. Distribution today may be pushing Britney Spears—but it is also fueling the next Simon and Garfunkel. Both “art” and Art will emerge in any society – distribution just increases the volume of both. Finally—because it cannot be left unanswered— downloading or sharing copyrighted music is not, as Lane states, theft. It is both legally and semantically copyright infringement. I can steal someone’s bicycle and leave them bicycle–less; I cannot steal someone’s song and leave them song–less. This has been treated extensively online and I leave it as an exercise to the reader to explore the subject. If there is anything that our generation rejects, it the transformation of copyright from creative (and protective) force to profitable enterprise. We want the freedom to create and recreate, to master and to mix, while still ensuring that artists are fairly compensated for their work. Lane is completely right that copyright infringement is a huge problem for our generation, but we must endeavor to strike a balance between fair compensation for producers and fair use for consumers. Sincerely, Ron Gejman CC ’10 Member, FreeCulture My primary disagreement with the contents of Mr. Gejman’s letter is not concerned with the positive effect on creativity that improvements in digital content distribution have produced, but rather that he has pigeonholed me as being against this creativity and dismissive of the popular culture bit–torrent websites disseminate as “worthless.” As I specified in my essay, the digital revolution and its rapid online dissemination opens up a world of possibilities for people to connect with the content they enjoy. Naturally some people will use this newfound opportunity to access materials that are already available to them (for a price), whereas others will seek out information and artwork that they do not have access to. While I consider the latter group the more pioneering of the two, I leave to aestheticians what should be considered “high art” and what should not. Mr. Gejman is correct that websites like Wikipedia and Gracenote rely on fluid distribution to generate new content, but he is mistaken when he presents me as not recognizing that relationship between content distribution and content creation. I reference both sites in the conclusion of the essay for the purpose of putting bit–torrent in the context of larger online contributions our generation has helped to create. Wikipedia and YouTube are in the vanguard of online development; that we are using our distribution models to create huge bodies of information that can be accessed quickly and freely by all speaks to how much good our generation, the primary users of and contributors to those websites, has done and will continue to do. Finally, I concede that I was mistaken in my terminology: downloading copyrighted material is not stealing; it is merely breaking copyright laws. While I agree with Mr. Gejman that we need to find a better way of dealing with the problem of fair compensation and freedom of artistic exploration, I intentionally adopted a more “mainstream” position—or as one member of Free Culture put it in an e–mail, “the rhetoric of the recording industry”—because to be any more radical would have shifted the focus away from the main point of my essay. I wanted to demonstrate that bit–torrent websites are one example of how our generation is contributing to the world even if it gets no recognition for doing so, or in other words, that bit–torrent has cultural and generational value. At the same time, I do hold that copyright laws are inimical to our generation’s productivity, a position that I might explore at length in another essay. – William Lane |
Web design by Caitlin Martin