Wednesday, February 28, 2007
Angelina's crusade
Angelina Jolie, in a Washington Post editorial,
supports the International Criminal Court and wants to see more trials of the killers in Darfur and their sponsors. She also wants us to act to prevent further slaughter.
"What the worst people in the world fear most is justice," she declares. "That's what we should deliver."
We should 'deliver' justice, she says, and her diction is well suited to her purpose, if not to reality. It is assertive and muscular, while still suggesting a measured and objective response. Yet her choice of metaphor reveals a grave flaw in her conception. Whether one delivers something, whether a package or a message, the object of the delivery has already been formed or shaped here, and one delivers it by sending it there. We may be right to pride ourselves on our system of justice, but that does not make it a portable entity.
Sure, the ICC should hold a trial when, by accident, luck or politics they actually find themselves in custody of a killer. But since they have no police force and spotty jurisdiction, such rare marvels cannot be offered as predictable consequences for international law-breaking. This is not unjust, but neither is it real justice. It is merely an occasional chance for retribution.
Real justice would require not just the accidental justice of the ICC, but also the creation of a domestic system of justice in Darfur, which would in turn require stability and the return of law. Jolie recognizes this when she calls for airstrikes, military intervention or sanctions. Of these, only military intervention could conceivably establish stability, and there is no reason to believe even it would. Jolie joins President Bush here in making plans to invade a country without a plan for the occupation.
What would tempt liberals like Jolie into urging another foolhardy military action? Only a mistaken belief that there can be a moral requirement to act in the absence of any practical means to do so.
Foreign policy should be guided not by moral compunction, but by pragmatic interests. Doing something is not preferable to doing nothing when we cannot think of anything useful to do. If we don’t know how to run Darfur—and we don’t—there is no moral reason to try.
Justice cannot simply be delivered, but must grow from the ground up. I feel sorry for the people of Darfur, but until someone shows me how we can help without the risk of making things worse, I will refuse any moral calls to action.
If contemplating this gives you moral pangs, I suggest reminding yourself that humility was once considered a moral virtue.
supports the International Criminal Court and wants to see more trials of the killers in Darfur and their sponsors. She also wants us to act to prevent further slaughter.
"What the worst people in the world fear most is justice," she declares. "That's what we should deliver."
We should 'deliver' justice, she says, and her diction is well suited to her purpose, if not to reality. It is assertive and muscular, while still suggesting a measured and objective response. Yet her choice of metaphor reveals a grave flaw in her conception. Whether one delivers something, whether a package or a message, the object of the delivery has already been formed or shaped here, and one delivers it by sending it there. We may be right to pride ourselves on our system of justice, but that does not make it a portable entity.
Sure, the ICC should hold a trial when, by accident, luck or politics they actually find themselves in custody of a killer. But since they have no police force and spotty jurisdiction, such rare marvels cannot be offered as predictable consequences for international law-breaking. This is not unjust, but neither is it real justice. It is merely an occasional chance for retribution.
Real justice would require not just the accidental justice of the ICC, but also the creation of a domestic system of justice in Darfur, which would in turn require stability and the return of law. Jolie recognizes this when she calls for airstrikes, military intervention or sanctions. Of these, only military intervention could conceivably establish stability, and there is no reason to believe even it would. Jolie joins President Bush here in making plans to invade a country without a plan for the occupation.
What would tempt liberals like Jolie into urging another foolhardy military action? Only a mistaken belief that there can be a moral requirement to act in the absence of any practical means to do so.
Foreign policy should be guided not by moral compunction, but by pragmatic interests. Doing something is not preferable to doing nothing when we cannot think of anything useful to do. If we don’t know how to run Darfur—and we don’t—there is no moral reason to try.
Justice cannot simply be delivered, but must grow from the ground up. I feel sorry for the people of Darfur, but until someone shows me how we can help without the risk of making things worse, I will refuse any moral calls to action.
If contemplating this gives you moral pangs, I suggest reminding yourself that humility was once considered a moral virtue.
Labels: Foreign policy, Morality
¶ 4:42 PM
