Around and about

As regards the allegedly ‘disturbing news’ on racism in Switzerland, what Counsell writes is that “Even if you, your father, and your grandfather spent their entire lives in Switzerland you do not automatically qualify for Swiss citizenship.”

What’s so ‘disturbing’ about that? Similar rules apply to Israel and no reasonable person would call Israel a ‘racist’ country – unless it is deemed racist to wish to retain your cultural and ethnic identity and to prevent your country from being balkanised. The Swiss, quite sensibly, want to remain the way they are – a civilised, peaceful and egalitarian European country. And if their citizenship rules help stave off the entry of the misogynist Muslim barbarians at the gates, so much the better.

Three cheers to them!

For some odd reason I am disappointed but not surprised by McMahan’s mediocre essay.

The shortness and inaccuracy of his dismissal of the invasion on humanitarian grounds stands out –

‘The reason why the Iraq war cannot be justified as an instance of humanitarian intervention is not just that at the time the persecution of the Iraqi people failed even to approximate the scale necessary to justify the resort to war (a failure of proportionality); it is also, and more importantly, that there was no indication that the people whom the US claimed to be saving actually welcomed American intervention. For humanitarian intervention to be justified, it must be consistent with the will of the supposed beneficiaries. People who suffer under tyrannical regimes often resist the overthrow of their government by a foreign army.’

‘it is also, and more importantly, that there was no indication that the people whom the US claimed to be saving actually welcomed American intervention.’

That is either inaccurate or disingenuous.

Both pre and post war polls clearly indicate that a majority of Iraqis approve of the removal of Saddam’s regime via force.

‘The reason why the Iraq war cannot be justified as an instance of humanitarian intervention is not just that at the time the persecution of the Iraqi people failed even to approximate the scale necessary to justify the resort to war (a failure of proportionality);’

McMahan himself pretty much concedes that the invasion as opposed to the occupation meets the criteria of proportionality.

‘It was possible that if, after the rapid and relatively bloodless initial military success, the US had acted quickly to restore and rebuild the country and had immediately involved Iraqis from all sectors of the country in the work of running the country, it could have earned the gratitude and respect of the people and thereby have achieved a retroactive justification of sorts for the war. Instead the Bush administration squandered its opportunity by allowing and perhaps even encouraging corruption, venality, brutality, and even torture, with the consequence that there is now armed opposition to the US presence in virtually every Sunni and Shiite town in the country.’

Maybe McMahan thinks the failed occupation had to follow an invasion? Oh wait he clearly states the opposite.

Ok, maybe taken as a whole the invasion and the occupation have caused a disproportionate amount of suffering. That wouldn’t mean the invasion was unjustified but the invasion plus the occupation has been unjustified.

But at a bare minimum you would think McMahan would make some attempt to support that claim other than just making the claim. Even if it is the less important factor.

Especially when McMahan himself claims that the pre-war situation was so horrible ‘allowing thousands of its citizens to die from the effects of economic sanctions’ and ‘the continuing imposition of devastating economic sanctions that had kept many of those who had managed to survive the war in deepest misery ever since.’

Is it so obvious that the post war situation has been so much worse than the pre-war situation? How many thousands or 100s of thousands does McMahan believed died from the sanctions? Why are the deaths of the thousands or tens of thousands who have died since the invasion so much greater than those pre-war deaths. How much greater is the misery of now than the deepest misery of then? How much is infinity + 1?

But perhaps the sanctions were unjustified?

Well if that is the case, aside from being on or already having fallen down the slippery slope that, leads to the moral place where no realistic coercion would be justified in stopping a vicious madman from obtaining WMD, you would again think that McMahan would feel the need to elaborate on and support this view.

I could go on. I could wonder if McMahan realizes his levels of evidence and requirements regarding divining the wills of captive peoples would be sure to doom the most helpless peoples to the least help.

Since we seem to largely be taking utilitarian stroll, I could wonder how we know that an occupation that has not yet ended has resulted in net gain of misery that is much greater than the misery of the pre-existing status quo. Like adding one to infinity this is another neat trick.

But what would be the point? I am just an irrational Republican, so what do I know?

“Similar rules apply to Israel and no reasonable person would call Israel a ‘racist’ country – unless it is deemed racist to wish to retain your cultural and ethnic identity and to prevent your country from being balkanised.”

Is it possible to justify race-based citizenship and retain a liberal political order? I’m no expert, but I suspect the answer is no. Switzerland and Israel both need to be regarded as racist countries to the extent that citizenship in either is dependent on race.

Perhaps someone can offer a historical example to the contrary, but I find it hard to imagine that the rule of law can long be maintained in a country that refuses citizenship to a group based on their race. Fair enforcement of the law for the excluded race is unlikely if citizenship implies full legal protection and that race is denied it.

Switzerland and Israel both need to be regarded as racist countries to the extent that citizenship in either is dependent on race.

Hey, wait a minute, citizenship in Switzerland is not dependent on race or ethnicity.

could have toppled, rather.

You have reminded me of A.N. Wilson’s remark that C.P. Snow’s Strangers and Brothers series was like A Dance to the Music of Time written by Widmerpool.

he Florida Myth: Spinning tales about 2000 to boost black turnout. (Tuesday, September 28)

Yes, the political urban legend that black voters in Florida were harassed and intimidated on Election Day four years ago is making a comeback. Only yesterday Jimmy Carter, fresh from blessing Hugo Chavez’s dubious victory in Venezuela, moaned that in 2000 “several thousand ballots of African Americans were thrown out on technicalities” in Florida, and that this year more black than (Republican) Hispanic felons are being disqualified to vote–as if all felons weren’t supposed to be barred, regardless of race.

Democrats and their acolytes are raising this myth from the dead to scare up black turnout and lay the groundwork for challenges in court if John Kerry loses. So, before Dan Rather concludes this is another scoop, let’s all remember the fraud that didn’t happen in 2000. In June 2001, following a six-month investigation that included subpoenas of Florida state officials from Governor Jeb Bush on down, the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights issued a report that found no evidence of voter intimidation, no evidence of voter harassment, and no evidence of intentional or systematic disenfranchisement of black voters.

Headed by a fiercely partisan Democrat, Mary Frances Berry, the Commission was very critical of Florida election officials (many of whom were Democrats). For example, “Potential voters confronted inexperienced poll workers, antiquated machinery, inaccessible polling locations, and other barriers to being able to exercise their right to vote.” But the report found no basis for the contention that officials conspired to disenfranchise voters.

The Justice Department’s Civil Rights Division conducted a separate investigation of these charges and also came up empty. In a May 2002 letter to Democratic Senator Pat Leahy of Vermont, who at the time headed the Judiciary Committee, Assistant Attorney General Ralph Boyd wrote, “The Civil Rights Division found no credible evidence in our investigations that Floridians were intentionally denied their right to vote during the November 2000 election.”

Peter Kirsanow, a Republican member of the Civil Rights Commission, told us in an interview that “the press has tried to spin what happened in Florida into something sinister. But there’s a disconnect between what was actually found [in these various investigations] and how it’s been portrayed.” Senator Corzine’s letter references the New York Times, where heavy-breathing columnists are trying to link a routine investigation of voter fraud in an Orlando mayoral election with a statewide effort by Governor Jeb Bush to intimidate blacks into staying home in November. Elsewhere, the NAACP and People for the American Way have issued a report claiming that “intimidation” led to racially motivated voter disenfranchisement in Florida. These and other left-wing groups are planning to dispatch 5,000 lawyers nationwide on Election Day in the name of “voter protection,” presumably to prevent a “repeat” of something that didn’t happen the first time.

Another prong of the attack on the legitimacy of the Florida outcome, at least as it pertains to the notion the black voters were intentionally disenfranchised, is the number of black voters whose ballots were spoiled. The Civil Rights Commission concluded that blacks were more likely to spoil their votes than whites by a factor of 10 to 1. Other investigations put that ratio closer to 3 to 1. In any case, the numbers are educated guesses extrapolated from sample precincts because ballots don’t record the race of the voter. But the idea that racial animus rather than all-around incompetence produced higher spoilage rates for blacks, or accounted for their misplacement on the infamously inaccurate “felon purge list,” is fanciful at best. In Florida, as in many other states, the manner in which elections are conducted, including all of the essentials of the voting process, is determined at the county level. Which leaves the “stolen election” crowd with these inconvenient facts: In 24 of the 25 Florida counties with the highest ballot spoilage rate, the county supervisor was a Democrat. In the 25th county, the supervisor was an Independent. And as for the “felon purge list,” the Miami Herald found that whites were twice as likely to be incorrectly placed on the list as blacks.