|
 |
 |
|
A Communitarian Letter #10
…a reminder that you have been invited to…
The Rights and Responsibilities of Immigrants and their New Homelands Brussels: April 26, 2006
Organized by The Diversity Within Unity Project at The George Washington University, in cooperation with the Centre for European Policy Studies (CEPS) and the Representation of Baden-Württemberg to the EU
The day-long meeting will feature dialogue on the merits and challenges of the Diversity Within Unity (DWU) approach. DWU aims to change the contours of the immigration debate by positing an alternative to strict assimilation and unbounded multiculturalism. The meeting will be divided into several sessions, each of which will have one or two dialogue starters. Most of the time, however, will be dedicated to give and take among the participants, whose number will be limited to ensure ample opportunity for dialogue. We are delighted to report that our dialogue starters include:
The Rt. Hon. Tony McNulty, MP, Minister of State for immigration and citizenship, United Kingdom David Willets, MP, United Kingdom Dr. Peter Altmaier, Parliamentary State Secretary at the Federal Ministry of the Interior, Germany Rikke Hvilshøj, Minister for Refugee, Immigration, and Integration affairs, Denmark If you have not yet registered for the conference, please do so! Email Kristen Bell, Diversity Within Project Coordinator, at kbell05@gwu.edu for a registration form. If you have already registered – thank you! We look forward to meeting you in April. To learn more about the DWU position or to endorse it, please read the platform (in English, German, Italian, or Spanish) at http://www.gwu.edu/~ccps/diversity_within_unity.html.
Recent Diversity Within Unity Platform Endorsers:
Martin O. Heisler – College Park, Maryland Carlos Closa Montero – Madrid, Spain Christine Pagnoulle – Liege, Belgium Marina Luksic Hacin – Ljubljana, Slovenia Jure Gombac - Ljubljana, Slovenia Luciano Scagliotti – Torino, Italy H. Detlef Luhrsen – Munich, Germany Gyorgy Bence – Budapest, Hungary Doina Balahur – Iasi, Romania To read the text of our Diversity Within Unity Platform and to see a list of previous endorsers, please visit: http://www.gwu.edu/~ccps/diversity_within_unity.html
A Faustian Bargain?The Bush Administration’s struggle to get the Europeans to agree to refer Iran to the Security Council for imposition of economic sanctions is a fool’s errand. Instead it should offer Iran a bargain: No Nukes, No (American-induced) regime change. There is surprisingly little to be lost in such a deal, and obviously much to be gained. Even if the Europeans finally yield to US pressure, Russia has already indicated that it will oppose sanctions. It is keen to maintain its role as a major supplier for Iran’s nuclear program, hoping to help build more reactors, a major source of revenue for Russia’s depleted industry. China is supporting Iran because it serves as a major source of energy, very high on China’s priority list. And if the Council would nevertheless impose economic sanctions, Iran would laugh all the way to the bank as the higher oil prices bring in a gusher of cash and smuggling in the Middle East is wide spread. Instead, the U.S. should offer to cease its efforts to undermine the Mullah regime in Iran and to sign a non-aggression treaty in exchange for Iran opening itself up to rigorous inspections of its nuclear facilities to ensure that their use is limited to civilian purposes. This is essential as few governments are going to bargain with anybody in good faith if the other party seeks to put them out of business. At first it may seem that such a deal in effect endorses the continuation of gross violations of human rights and Iran’s theocratic government. Indeed when Libya gave up its nuclear ambitions, human rights advocates were aghast when sanctions against it were lifted. However, as abhorrent as the deal initially sounds, the devil may well feel cheated when he realizes what the bargain truly entails. The main benefits are all too obvious. An Iran armed with nuclear weapons could slip some to terrorists, use nuclear-armed missiles to hit major U.S. allies (especially Israel and Saudi Arabia), push around its neighbors with impunity, and embolden many other nations that are now sitting on the fence as to whether they too should go nuclear. Much less apparent is why we are in fact not bargaining away our soul or even “merely” our commitment to human rights. That’s because there is very little that the U.S. can actually do to engineer a regime change in Iran in the first place. And the desired changes are already coming about as a result of internal developments, which are likely to unfold more quickly if the U.S. and its allies will stop trying to rush them along. I was a guest of the reformers in Iran. I left with little doubt in my mind, and the same holds for many other observers, that if the U.S. were to attack Iran the reformers would fight for their country. Funneling funds and sending CIA agents to help the reformers merely delegitimizes them. However, if left to their own devices, the reformers will gradually win a regime change. They already have won the hearts and minds of the overwhelming majority of the population, especially the large, younger generation. True, recently the reformers have been politically weakened, but most students of Iran agree that the reformers will engender a regime change in the longer run. Why would the Mullahs accept such a bargain? From their viewpoint Iran is encircled by American forces based in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Pakistan. Furthermore, they are faced with continued saber rattling through the public exploration of military options by the Bush Administration, the sale of conventional bunker busters by the U.S. to Israel, American research into the viability of nuclear-armed bunker busters, as well as increased surveillance of Iran’s territory. What the Mullahs fear are Tomahawk missiles and long-range bombers, which may not hit all of Iran’s nuclear sites but could devastate its industrial base and infrastructure. Hence, they might well find a non-aggression treaty quite attractive. Especially if it is accompanied by other measures, such as a draw down of American troops in Iraq. Note that a non-aggression treaty means that the U.S. and its allies shall forego promoting human rights through peaceful means. Next, the same deal should be offered to North Korea, which has repeatedly asked for a non-aggression treaty with the U.S. Here too, indicating our willingness to leave regime changes to the Koreans, and limiting our goals to deproliferation, is a bargain well forth offering.
More Activist Journalists?
The news that a New York Times reporter dramatically changed the life of the subject of his reporting has triggered a valuable ethical debate within journalism. The main questions that have been raised are whether this intervention was fair to the subject and whether it damaged the ability of the press to discharge its primary duty—to serve as an objective source of information. I instead will focus on other societal benefits of such activist journalism. As a communitarian, I am concerned with the factors that help enhance (or undermine) the moral and social foundations of our local, national, and international communities. First, for those unfamiliar with the case, the bare facts, the way an objective reporter would lay them out. New York Times reporter Kurt Eichenwald was working on a story on the large number of children and teenagers who have attached webcams to their computers and made online broadcasts of themselves stripping, masturbating, and having intercourse. They were enticed to do so by fee-paying pedophiles and by entrepreneurs who sell their pictures to many others. The scope of this industry is sizable: Eichenwald found one online portal alone listing 585 for-pay webcam sites created by teenagers. Eichenwald convinced one of these teens, a boy named Justin Berry who went from an abused 13-year-old to a 19-year-old internet pornography magnate, to turn himself in to the police. An attorney Berry made contact with through the Times secured him immunity from prosecution in exchange for cooperating with authorities. This led to the closure of a number of online portals for webcam child pornography, the seizure of records of Berry’s customers, and the arrest of several of his associates and clients, many of whom were actively abusing children. By the time Berry obtained immunity, he had turned 18. He allowed Eichenwald to use his name and his story, which provided the Times’ coverage with a stronger sense of validity and a dramatic conclusion. The Times also helped Berry relocate when he felt threatened by a former abuser and provided him with emotional support. Various Times editors were consulted throughout the process about the deviations from what many consider to be the reporting gold standard: to be a fly on the wall, not rearranging the facts the reporter is covering, let alone becoming part of the story. The editors and reporter recognized that there was a downside to whichever direction they chose to proceed in. They ultimately ruled in favor of the activist approach. This decision and the reasons for it were disclosed in revealing details both in the original story and in a nuanced AP essay by the Times public editor, Byron Calame. The issues involved were debated in several op-eds and blogs, including an exchange between Eichenwald and his critic in the online magazine Slate. My focus here is on the societal consequences of this kind of journalism. In my youth, I served as a reporter for several months, and was told that I did not know diddlysquat about the world around me, so I enrolled in a college course on sociology and got sucked in. My training as a sociologist and my communitarian values provide the lenses through which I see the case at hand. For one, some critics question whether Berry was indeed competent to give consent to allow the Times to reveal his true name, and to surrender to the authorities. This is a difficult matter to judge without having Mr. Berry on the couch, or at least interviewing him at length. However, sociological studies show that the notion that most of us are rational, autonomous agents who, if given the facts, can provide reasonable consent, is to a large extent an illusion. From what we know, it seems that the Times bent over backwards to make it clear to Mr. Berry that he did not have to provide his name and could withdraw the permission to disclose it at any time, and that he was repeatedly alerted to the downside of proceeding the way he did. Above all, even if Mr. Berry was to some extent influenced by his new mentors, so are all our decisions. And judging by the results, as we know them so far, Berry turning himself in and being given a second chance to start an upright life without penalty for his crimes has considerable merits. What he gained or lost by disclosing his name is a different question. It may not have added much to Berry's rehabilitation, but it did provide the story with authenticity, which is often missing in an age in which readers have grown suspicious about stories based on unnamed sources that include composite villains and heroes. A main test for the moral basis for the newspaper’s position comes next: will the Times stay with Berry and continue to aid in his rehabilitation? Or will it treat him as the police often treat snitches and the C.I.A. turncoats—after they are milked dry, these sorry souls are cast aside? The Times is not obligated to stay with Mr. Berry for the rest of his life, but as I see it, the paper should help him work out the personal consequences of the story the Times published. A legitimate question has been raised about the societal consequences of the Berry story—by wondering about its effects on the ability of journalists to carry out their number one public mission. In the Slate exchange, media critic Jack Shafer's concern was that this type of activist reporting would hinder the media from doing its job. He worries that from now on all those engaged in illegal acts will either expect reporters to help them find lawyers and immunity deals, or—treat them as cops who may blow the whistle at any point. To this, Eichenwald responded: What were our choices? Printing a story that said "these kids are being assaulted, a source says, and video documentation backs him up. . .” hardly seems feasible. We could have done nothing, and just waited to disclose it all when we published; by that point, at least one of these kids could have been dead…Of course, we could have reported these crimes to the government ourselves—but I thought that crossed a line from reporter to witness. Plus, there were source confidentiality issues in play at that point—how do I reveal this, without revealing the source? These are legitimate considerations, and it is to the credit of the Times and the profession that these matters are thoroughly examined. Indeed, it sometimes seems that the whole report was worthwhile if it did nothing but create a case study for classes in media ethics. Returning, though, to the question of societal consequences, if the media is hampered from discharging its fourth-estate duties, society will indeed be ill served. I doubt that such an incident of activist journalism will have anything like the suggested effect, however, if more and more reporters act as Eichenwald did, journalists may have a harder time getting information. The need to work harder to ferret out information may well be compensated by major societal gains. There can be little doubt that because the Times published a particularly powerful story, a large number of parents—who had no idea what was happening in their teens’ rooms—have been alerted. Had the story been less personal and less dramatic, had it been composed of statistics about child pornography and some anecdotes about anonymous individuals, it would not have had nearly the same effect. And the fact that Berry has extricated himself from the sordid world of child pornography may well encourage others to try to do the same. The same holds for public authorities. There is a world of difference between a report that a certain kind of crime, say drug dealing, is common among teenagers (even if it includes personal stories about these teens) and a detailed report about a specific person who cannot be ignored because he stands by, willing to cooperate with the authorities. It is in this sense that activist journalism, of the kind Eichenwald engaged in, is not that different from sting operations set up by members of the media, rather than merely reporting about those operations the police set up. The final consideration for me is the social context. If we lived in a world in which communities were strong and moral fabric well-woven, where most people “behaved” most of the time, and public authorities carried out their duties in a judicious, yet effective manner, then there would be little need for activist journalism. However, it goes without saying that we do not live in this world. Hence, if as a result of the Times’ story, ten more similar interventions take place, we would all be the better for it. I am not deluding myself that this is the end of child pornography as we have known it. Pedophiles will find new ways. However, this report is a major setback for those who perpetuate this heinous abuse. As I see it, the scope of the societal benefits should greatly affect our assessment of the correctness of Eichenwald’s actions. One wonders if his story deserves to be considered not just for a Pulitzer, but also for some sort of ethics prize. Likewise, does the New York Times, which has made significant and highly-publicized errors of judgment in recent years, deserve praise not only for getting this one right, but for the delicate care with which it proceeded? Communitarian Essay ContestThe Communitarian Network invites you to participate in an essay contest on communitarian thinking! The essay contest has been re-opened beginning April 1, 2006. Submissions will be accepted until June 30, 2006, and the winners will be announced shortly thereafter. There will be no further extensions.
Feedback from “A Communitarian Letter #9”
Michael Maccoby writes:
Amitai Etzioni's "Leaving Race Behind" is an excellent analysis with
Harry A. Shamir from Plymouth, MA writes: The statement that the conflict is not between religions nor civilizations, rather between the culture of the West and the radical orthodoxy of the extreme fringes of Islam is patently incorrect. The confrontation is between future seers and past seekers. Between those afraid of, or haters of, the future as made clear by the path the West is on, and the ones whose power base lies with those more comfortable with changeless constancy. Here in the US, it is called Conservatism or even Libertarianism, vs Liberalism. It was violent over race relations. Is still violent over gay and abortion questions, and will be violent over any future question that will upset an old "apple cart" of any fruit. However, in the US the violence is not as embedded in social norms as in Arab Islam. To ask that Arab Islam convert to a less violent form, and open itself up for discourse and evolution, is to ask whole generations of ulama of many age groups to commit virtual and often physical suicide. They won't. Period! Here and there there are some singular voices calling for Islamic evolution, Islamic Reformation. If it will come, it will take at least 4 to 6 generations for the movement to express itself as real. In the meantime expect ever more mounds of corpses. This is NOT pessimism, merely realism. Moreover, I predict it will be an external, not internal, parameter that will move this society to a new level. It can be a world pandemic hitting the less organized Islamic nations worse than others, or climate changes affecting the third world worse because the "first" will be too busy licking its own wounds, or oil depletion, or internecine warfare making Somalia and Lebanon seem like children’s games. Question: are some cultures simply incapable of people's self rule, forever destined to the 'big man" system? If so - can even a Reformation change them?
We would love to hear from our readers. Please send emails to comnet@gwu.edu. You might also wish to visit our website at www.communitariannetwork.org.
Sincerely, Amitai Etzioni Byron Calame, “Doing Good and Telling a Good Story: A Delicate Balance.” The New York Times (1/15/2006) p.A12 Jack Shafer and Kurt Eichenwald, “The New York Times Legal Aid Society.” Slate.com (12/19/2005) http://www.slate.com/id/2132702/ |
|
The Communitarian Network |