Registered user login:

Interview: Samantha Power

Sholto Byrnes

Published 06 March 2008

NS interview with the self-proclaimed "humanitarian hawk" who - until her resignation for calling Hillary Clinton a monster this week - was part of Barack Obama's team

Not that long ago Samantha Power was trudging through the winter wastes of New Hampshire with Bill Clinton's former national security adviser, Anthony Lake, canvassing door- to-door and phoning potential supporters in what she calls a "very mom-and-poppy operation". "Almost by definition there was a sort of expectation that he was going to lose," she says of Barack Obama, whom this Pulitzer Prize-winning Harvard professor advises on foreign policy. "Going into Iowa he was down 25 points. So anybody who joined his team was, for the most part, prepared to lose for something, or someone, they believed in."

A group of idealists battling through New England blizzards in support of an inspirational but surely doomed candidate: it sounds like Josh, Leo and Toby doing their best for Jed Bartlet in The West Wing, which is where Bartlet, of course, ends up. "We're not there yet, baby," laughs Power. "It's pretty unglamorous, all cheeseburgers and Cheetos so far."

Not there - but nearly. We meet in London, the day before the Texas and Ohio primaries, which could signal the end of Hillary Clinton's candidacy. "Fuck!" she shouts. "I'm here, I'm in the wrong place." If she sounds relaxed, humorous, it's because she's clearly confident. Plans have already been made for Clinton's withdrawal. "If he does well," she says, "one of the questions will be how to integrate the Clinton people. Because we want to maximise our technical expertise and be welcoming." Not all will be greeted with open arms, however: veterans of Bill's administrations, yes; others Power dismisses in pretty uncomplimentary terms. "We don't want to end up in a lowest-common-denominator operation, which is what, I think, actually, really hurt her." Twenty-five people on every call when setting policy, she explains, and too many people ready to caution "No, you can't say that".

Power, 37, is part of a group of five senior foreign policy advisers to Obama. As a columnist for Time magazine (which named her one of the 100 most influential scientists and thinkers in 2004), author of an award-winning book on genocide, as well as reporting the war from the Balkans in the Nineties, she is perhaps the most media-prominent. Certainly, people assume that what she says is what Obama believes. The circumstances of their meeting suggest an immediate connection: he called her out of the blue to ask about her genocide book, after which they had a lengthy lunch and she decided to take leave from Harvard there and then, in 2005. "There's no one else I would even consider moving into a hotel room for," she jokes. This Irish-born, self-proclaimed "humanitarian hawk" has the senator's ear, all right.

The key to what she - and Obama - thinks is to be found in her new book, a biography of Sergio Vieira de Mello, the UN special envoy to Iraq, who died when the organisation's building in Baghdad was bombed in 2003.

"I gave a talk in California last week all about Sergio and the guidance he could give us for our time," she says. She mentions talking to dictators; promoting the concept of "dignity", possibly over democratisation and human rights; freedom from fear; humility about the world's complexity, but still rising to its challenges. "A number of people came up to me afterwards and said, 'Wow, that's the Obama doctrine,' and I was like, 'Oh my god, it is.'"

Her book gives an insight into the workings of the UN since the 1970s, not least because Vieira de Mello managed to get himself sent to nearly every flashpoint from Beirut in 1982 to East Timor in 1999 and, last, Iraq. More than that, though, it is a guide to Obama, for Power makes ceaseless comparisons between the two. Obama, she writes in her acknowledgements, is "the person whose rigour and compassion bear the closest resemblance to Sergio's that I have ever seen".

In the world

Over coffee at the Waldorf Hilton, she continues: "What unites them is that they both spent a lot of time in broken places. They both have these gargantuan intellects that enabled them to hold very complex thoughts, but also this amazing charisma that let them market whatever they ended up with in terms of policy judgements. Both of them understood that by being in the world, whether that's Indonesia or Kenya or inner-city Chicago, there's a great deal more proximity to pain than most politicians have. I haven't ever written a 500-page book about anyone else, and I haven't ever quit my job at Harvard to go and work for anybody else."

Like Vieira de Mello, Obama is "comfortable crossing boundaries". They also have in common a willingness to talk to dictators; and here Obama needs to be careful. When the former Yugoslavia was disintegrating, Vieira de Mello was so obsequious to the Serb leaders Slobodan Milosevic and Radovan Karadzic that he was nicknamed "Serbio".

"In his relationship with evil, he almost got a little seduced," she admits. The way to do it, according to Power, is "to be in the room with the bad guys but not to check your principles in at the door". Obama would engage with Iran's President Ahmadinejad. He would sit down with North Korea and Syria. Is there anyone he wouldn't talk to? "Not among elected heads of state. He won't talk to Hamas, but he would talk to Abbas."

This seems inconsistent with America's talk of spreading democracy - after all, Hamas is a democratically elected government, and Mahmoud Abbas's party, Fatah, lost the last popular vote. "Well, Abbas is the head of state, so he's going to talk to heads of state." Don't you have to trust to the democratic process? Not necessarily, seems to be the answer, as Power cites US dealings with Algeria, where Washington remained silent when the army stepped in after an Islamic party won the 1991 elections, and Egypt, where full democracy remains as elusive as the Sphinx. "You know, there is a long tradition in the US of, um, promoting elections up to the point that you get an outcome you don't like. Look at Latin America in the Cold War." Take Salvador Allende, the Marxist elected as president of Chile in 1970 and overthrown in a CIA-backed coup three years later. "We were trying to figure out if we could promote that election, but we certainly didn't love the outcome. We played a role in assassinating an elected leader."

The odd fib

Power's demeanour is so different by this point that I don't believe she's convinced by what she's saying. Dissembling does not come at all easily to her, and if she is to be part of an Obama White House she will have to learn to deliver the odd fib more persuasively. I think she agrees with her friend Sergio (they didn't know each other well, but she has a biographer's affection for him) that you should talk to anyone, literally anyone, so that you leave open the possibility of improving relations; and if that ultimately fails, at least you have the measure of your enemy. "Obama has talked a lot about the importance of moving away from electocracy," she says, trying to move on to more comfortable territory, and suggesting that the way people actually live is more important than the "reification of elections".

"In terms of how radical the shift will be, I think it's very hard. There's going to be a huge foreign service and civil service that he will inherit, senators and congressmen who have already been elected. So I think he is one guy, trying to steer this ship of cacophonous agendas into a new place."

In other words, promising to shut Guantanamo Bay, ban extraordinary rendition and pull troops out of Iraq within 18 months is fine. So is striking at al-Qaeda positions in Pakistan without the government's consent, an Obama line widely thought of as a gaffe when he delivered it last August.

"There will be situations where the priority is self-defence," she says, indicating that a preference for multilateralism only goes so far. "President Obama, like every other leader on earth, is still going to be looking out for national and economic interests. States don't cease to be states overnight just because they get a great visionary as their new president." But it is politically impossible for Obama to talk to Hamas, even if he wants to. She can't say that, though, especially when vicious internet smears are making lurid allegations about his "Muslim past".

In Nevada, Power was recently asked if it was true that Obama's father had died when a suicide bomber chained 300lb of explosives to him (he actually died in a car crash in Nairobi in 1982). "Emails like that get blasted through the country. It's nonsense, just pure nonsense, but it circulates around Democratic voters." Others have suggested that Obama was educated in a madrasa and is advised by anti-Semites - a reference partly to Power, who has been fiercely attacked by bloggers objecting to her questioning the US's axiomatic support for Israel on security matters. "So much of it is about: 'Is he going to be good for the Jews?'"

The next president, says Power, is going to have to "do a lot of rehabilitation" on this issue. "All we talk about is 'Islamic terrorism'. If the two words are associated for long enough it's obviously going to have an effect on how people think about Muslims. But I think Obama's going to do wonders for closing those chasms. Even just opening up a conversation is going to get us some of the way. And it's not insignificant that he spent time in a Muslim country, that he is half Kenyan - a lot of barriers have been bust through."

Ultimately, Power thinks that these smear tactics can be overcome, but only by constant battle. We talk about the Swiftboat veterans who besmirched John Kerry's distinguished Vietnam record (he was decorated for bravery and won three Purple Hearts for being wounded in the line of duty) in 2004. "That lost him the election. There's no question. Nobody benefited more from that than George Bush, but nobody could ever tie him or Karl Rove to it. So you're dealing with these Deep Throats running around meeting people under oak trees in the capital. It's 'Would you do this for us, because we don't want to be degraded by this kind of slander? But we would love the slander to happen.'" That's what's been going on, she thinks. Fast rebuttal is the answer. "The lesson we got was that the only thing worse than John Kerry being Swiftboated was his being slow to respond. God love him, he must have thought that having got shrapnel in his ass out there bought him some credibility. It didn't."

Tough love

More grist to the mill of those who wish to tar Obama with any association that could hurt him was provided on 3 March when a long-time supporter, Tony Rezko, went on trial for corruption charges in Chicago. Question marks already hung over Rezko's head when Obama involved himself in a property deal with his old associate. Although there was no suggestion of impropriety on Obama's part, he has since called the decision "bone-headed", and the Clinton campaign was not slow to raise the spectre of dirt, if not actually throw it.

Why did Obama have anything to do with Rezko? "We've talked about Rezko as a phenomenon in politics," says Power, "but I've never said to him, 'Why did you do this dumb thing?' I'm all for tough love, but that just doesn't seem constructive." It's difficult to keep an eye on all the sources of financial donations, she says, adding evenly: "I don't think it's a good idea for the Clintons to get into a competition over who's got the most unsavoury donations, you know what I mean?"

Refreshingly unsmoothed by politics, Power - and, by extension, Obama - is advocating a nuanced form of foreign policy that takes "the world as it is" but seeks its betterment. It is a pragmatism informed by principle, as well as a certain briskness. At one point, discussing the UN, I say "not to criticise Ban Ki-moon" and Power butts in: "Oh go ahead, please do." She opens her hands wide at the UN secretary general's name. "Is that all there is?" she asks. "Can we afford to do without a global figure, a global leader?"

Sergio Vieira de Mello is sadly no longer available to fill such a role. But Samantha Power knows a man who is.

"Chasing the Flame: Sergio Vieira de Mello and the Fight to Save the World" is published by Allen Lane, the Penguin Press

Power: the CV

1970 Born in Dublin

1979 Emigrates to the US with her mother

1988 Studies history at Yale University

1989 Tiananmen Square protests: decides not to be a sports writer

1993 War reporter in the former Yugoslavia

1995 Harvard Law School

1998 Founder executive director of the Carr Centre for Human Rights Policy at Harvard

2003 A Problem from Hell: America and the Age of Genocide wins Pulitzer Prize

2004 One of Time's top 100 thinkers

2005 Adviser to Barack Obama

2007 Anna Lindh Professor of Practice of Global Leadership and Public Policy, Harvard

Research by

Alyssa McDonald

Post this article to

28 comments from readers

gnuneo
06 March 2008 at 11:50

so... the US can ignore other countries sovereignty at will, but it will be more humanitarian about it?

gee, i haven't heard THAT one before.

still, overall it sounds good, especially compared to what we are getting from the current incumbent. I do wonder how much influence she will have once he (if he) is elected however?

time will tell.

Beavis
07 March 2008 at 09:26

Samantha Power is a sell-out. She's awful. She's betrayed her own ideals and those who she aligned with in the past. She's truly gone to the dark side. Very sad.

beachbob
07 March 2008 at 16:49

Well, it appears that she really is afraid of MONSTERS!

winneb
07 March 2008 at 17:34

Interesting...yesterday I didn't know who she was...today it looks like she's become a monster herself.

Douglas Chalmers
07 March 2008 at 18:37

"...the 37-year-old Harvard professor is one of Barack Obama's closest advisers..."

WAS, you mean, uhh...... Samantha Power has resigned from the Obama campaign! http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/

And re Obama to keep troops in Iraq....

Quoting Obama: “ We will need to keep some forces ....in Iraq AND in the region to strike at Al Qaeda.....”

Interview with Samantha Power http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bvzyq0Og6SA&feature =related

redharry
07 March 2008 at 19:08

Obama is well rid of this warmonger and phony humanitarian. Watch her defend the genocidal sanctions against Iraq.

from

http://www.democracynow.org/2008/2/22/samantha_power_v_jerem...

JEREMY SCAHILL: ...where is the label of genocide for the US policy toward Iraq? It was Bill Clinton who initiated the longest sustained bombing campaign since Vietnam against Iraq under the guise of humanitarian intervention in the north and south of that country, the sanctions killing hundreds of thousands of people. I mean, we have had one of the greatest mass slaughters in history, in modern history, in Iraq, going from 1990 to the present, and yet everyone talks about this as though it’s not genocide, as though it’s not part of that bigger picture.

....

JEREMY SCAHILL: But is that genocide, according to you?

SAMANTHA POWER: No, but we can talk about that. I don’t think the Clinton administration set out to deliberately destroy the Iraqi people as such.

JEREMY SCAHILL: Oh, I totally disagree. But what Madeleine Albright said, it was worth the price, the hundreds of thousands of Iraqi victims of US policy.

ewurster@mailsnare.net
07 March 2008 at 19:50

I took Samantha Power's class last year. She's a brilliant and dedicated humanitarian who happens to have made a mistake in the last week in choosing her words. It's an unfortunate situation, but I still think that she'd be an invaluable addition to an Obama cabinet.

Janine
07 March 2008 at 23:06

In my opinion Hillary Clinton is acting like a monster, and I also believe that it's probable more than 50 percent of my country (the USA) agrees with her!

I'm very sad that this valuable person has stepped down for saying an opinion a lot of people agree with!

TishiJo
08 March 2008 at 00:01

Samantha Power made a slip of the tongue in stating what we all know, that Hillary Clinton's horrible behavior in this campaign has shocked America. And when Samantha apologized, Hillary in true monster fashion, demanded she be fired. Senator Obama did not fire her, this incredible, amazing, gifted woman resigned.

Clinton's behavior should be fair warning to all Americans, this is how she will abuse her power, if she is elected, dishonest policy's, threats, provoked anger, divisiveness, and chaos. In order to win the election in Ohio, she has already started a false rumor that created a national incident with Canada against her. Just a glimpse of how she will lead on foreign relations.

noa
08 March 2008 at 01:04

about her calling Hillary a monster, after reading this interview, all I can say is it takes one to know one.

meadjenn
08 March 2008 at 04:50

Let's stop with terming Hillary Clinton's campaign rhetoric as "horrible behavior" that "shocked America." Please. Up to now the campaign has been, by historic standards, civil and intelligent on both Democratic sides. People like Power are the reason for this, and it is a loss to us all that a frank aside -- clearly stated as off the record, by the way, and about which we have no context -- has felled a tremendous thinker.

The worst part though is that the Obama campaign so quickly accepted her resignation -- an indication that perhaps he really isn't so interested in taking a new path.

chris
08 March 2008 at 06:36

What is "electocracy" and what's wrong with it in Power's opinion? Is Power proposing a new kind populism with fascist overtones? A wise dictator as in Plato's Republic? Please,someone, explain this!

Cybertiger
08 March 2008 at 08:05

The fat lady has sung. I believe Madeleine Albright was the lead singer at the first Monsters Ball. The Lady is certainly a hard act to beat ... but I feel sure Hillary will have ago at the next big Democratic gig.

Bucky
08 March 2008 at 09:45

I used to believe in and support Obama but as this race progresses, I am seeing more and more that Obama is really like all the other mainstream politicians he denounces, and this recent example is no exception. I do not remember a single incident where even the dirty politics of Bush, Reagan, Gingrich, you-name-it, ever approached calling a rival candidate a "monster". This is beyond low and very disgraceful, especially in light of Obama's pledge of clean politics and "politics of hope". This seems like the mud-slinging, dirty politics of old.

redharry
08 March 2008 at 12:58

Power is a warmonger and a supporter of American imperialism under the guise of humanitarianism. She has a very selective opposition to genocide.

he Cruise Missile Left (part 5):

Samantha Power And The Genocide Gambit

by Edward S. Herman

http://www.zmag.org/content/showarticle.cfm?ItemID=5538

http://www.zmag.org/content/showarticle.cfm?ItemID=13626

Richard Holbrooke, Samantha Power, and the “Worthy-Genocide” Establishment

(Kafka Era Studies Number 5)

by Edward S. Herman

March 24, 2007

http://www.zmag.org/content/showarticle.cfm?ItemID=12404

Laura
08 March 2008 at 14:04

Samantha Power is a smart woman who had a moment of frustration. I relate to how she feels. I know longer care about this election if Clinton wins the nomination. I won't vote. Obama is the person who made me pay attention to politics, the issues and Clinton with her disgraceful husband makes me ill.

Yani
08 March 2008 at 16:09

How many more foreign policy disasters (we can go as far back as the Kennedy/Johnson administrations for a fine selection of those!) before we understand that being 'smart' is not enough, especiailly and emphatically when that intelligence doesn't encompass the notion that one must accept the unpalatable outcomes of democratic elections?

Professor Power has written and spoken eloquently about foreign policy in relation to humanitarian crises. Her apparent acceptance of the 'long tradition' exemplified by the murder of Salvador Allende--which she cites in the interview--is unworthy of her. Perhaps she was quoted out of context. Her unguarded, off-the--cuff remarks appear to make her a liability as a spokesperson for the Obama campaign. I do hope she remains an informal advisor.

carming
09 March 2008 at 09:51

How dare she compare Obama to Sergio Vieira de Mello? SVM was a great humanitarian with massive experience in the world's most dangerous places. Living in Indonesia, or Kenya or the US hardly equates. Obama has many good qualities but experience of the world is the least among them. Give him another 15 or 20 years and then let's talk again about such a comparison.

Carl Jones
09 March 2008 at 11:32

Oh...Obama`s so sweet, he`s willing to nuke Pakistan so Amerikas will feel safer.LOL There are ONLY three possible senarios. Hilary wins the Dem ticket and Obama slips away for another 4 years. Obama wins the Dem ticket, and then gets shot, or Hilary wins are Obama becomes VP.

To be frank, its more likely that another terror attack will take place and the election will be cancelled as per Homeland (Fatherland) Security Laws.LOL My money`s on Bush for a third term.LOL

Cybertiger
09 March 2008 at 15:55

"My money`s on Bush for a third term.LOL"

I'm with you on this one Jonesy - but larfing even louder than you at the silly Amerikans.

Yehoshua Ya'acov
10 March 2008 at 01:26

Shalom Samantha

As the author of Humanomics, that is a classic of several thousand pages, in progress, and as its author, this is perhaps why I’m its endogenously defined agent of CHANGE, referenced in ‘the subject’ of this email, as above.

Also I’m the leader of the largest Jewish Community in the world, namely North America, as this is where I come from; and as the authentic leader of the Jews I must by our tradition come from ‘the Rov’ which is the majority largest community and also the leader must either be known in the community or confirmed to be, the one who is “the closet to God.” And this too is why I’m Barack’s Jerusaelm Rebbe… enough said.

NOW I’m writing the Trilogy Humanomics, and this leaves no time for the campaign for man’s soul, already begun in Jerusalem, in particular and Israel and the world in general, that is now spreading to the rest of the world, while it will suffice to say, the CHANGE that’s now proceeding, comes first from God, ONLY when His servant leads himself and others, by example, the rest is commentary on the CONTENT of this process.

Yehoshua Ya’acov is 65, that’s me, was Michael F. O’Donnell, BEFORE leaving America, AFTER refusing to participate in its nihilistic politics and thus I was able to avoid the past 22 years of accelerated, national decline.

What I believe you uniquely have the intellectual capital to comprehend, is the CHANGE, that’s now proceeding globally. That change, is the COLLAPSE of the ‘local reality’ I confirmed empirically beginning in 1991 and subsequently CONFIRMED logically in events and with the requisite macro analysis, synthesis and postulate of Humanomics NEW first principle logics, in cognitive behavioral and economic science(s). Next defining what was man’s EXILE, from God and from man’s authentic self, as the generic global problem of mankind, that was specifically by name “giving, to receive,” that COLLAPSED, and why and by further defining what replaces it.

It’s now REPLACED by the “Receiving, to give,” and this is Humanomics NEW central organizing principle, that is as well comprised of economics NEW first principle that is “the Integration of Labor-sm.” And I’m the didactic scientist, who is the author of this original and unique NEW social science and its ‘enabling technologies,’ who’s international CONTENT, is Humanomics that is now recognized, as the NEW East West ‘convergence model,’ essential for man to deconstruct, deprogram and restore the many broken nations, communities, families and lives of the hundreds of millions, who’s lives have been devastated by the COLLAPSE of communism, nations from war and regional conflicts and most probably we’ll next see the COLLAPSE of capitalism, as we all deconstruct ‘ground zero’ and deprogram man’s mind of exile.

These are things Barack needs to know and NOT only learn, he must as well comprehend this NEW emergent world reality, as its leader. And even though no one has ever heard of me, when the campaign begins, as above referenced, overnight the world will NOT only know who I am, it will Bless God’s work and His servant’s, as here in Jerusalem we comprehend, there is no God Muslim God, and no Jewish God, there is no Christian God, herein we all learn we all have ONLY, the ONE GOD OF MAN, and all mankind, WHO IS THE GOD of Israel and the GOD of the COSMOS. And we also comprehend, that Israel’s nation state is NOT Zionist, as defined in the Torah, and the murder of eight boys learning Torah, reveals and confirms its “meta narrative” which Heaven brought to compel our end of the DENIAL of the end of exile, for reasons beyond this writing.

Briefly, this is the campaign for the soul(s) of man and mankind, NOW begun, and it’s NOT a political campaign, as it’s the one that defines man’s authentic identity and the CONTENT and capacity he has and must use to INHABIT this identity, as the foundation man’s individual self realization and ultimate empowerment, as we learn the actual meaning of “we are the ones we waited for,” who we have NOT as yet “INHABITED,” particularly in relation to what God has declared and brought, that is NOW blocked, by man’s DENIAL of the end of exile, which brings us to what has to be done NOW and that is first, to end this DENIAL, and the short answer is, more of “yes we can.”

These are the fundamental rudiments of man and mankind’s redemption and this is the composite subject, of the Humanomics Trilogy, and so “come, and see.” As McCain is coming to Jerusalem, next week, for the Blessing of the Jewish people, which the politicians will bestow without the authority to do so and so he will NOT receive Yehoshua’s Blessing. And so what you need to do, NOW, is get Obama to come to Jerusalem, with you and I’ll brief and Bless him and his campaign, and you’ll both learn what… “eye hath not seen, nor ear hath heard.” That is NOW changing our world, much for the better.” And with His Blessing(s), he’ll win.

And although I believe he’ll win the election in its absence, with Yehoshua’s Blessing, it’s better that he have this Blessing, than to NOT have it, for reasons that will in time become more clear, as event and information will subsequently confirm certain collateral matters, still hidden. Why, have you not answered my earlier email to the Harvard email address?

Shalom,

Yehoshua Ya’acov

Morgan097
10 March 2008 at 07:48

1) If Mr Ya'acov claims to be "leader of the largest Jewish Community [sic] in the world, namely North America," does he also consider himself to be the rightful Emperor of France?

2) With the arrival upon the U.S. national political stage of unqualified Obamas and Powers (with their devalued affirmative action Harvard diplomas), is it any wonder that Jihadists and their Trotskyist fellow travellers share such confidence in the imminent self-destruction of western civilization?

gnuneo
10 March 2008 at 15:32

Yehoshua Ya'acov : very interesting, but did you actually reread it before posting it? It has huge gaps running through its logical - well, actually there more gaps than logic, and if you really are the 'ultimate jew' then that great Nation has fallen far from grace indeed. OR - it is intentional, but what gain would it be to recruit people who cannot see the inconsistencies and enormous grammatical errors, for whatever purpose you are attempting to gain followers for?

so either you are almost incoherent normally, or else this is a wind-up.

either way, without rejecting any particular part it, i'm afraid your post was a pile of shit.

no offence intended, naturally.

writeon
10 March 2008 at 21:26

Whilst Obama has captured the imagination of millions of ordinary Americans he hasn't yet proved himself to the elite that actually owns and controls the country. All three candidates seem to be rapidly moving to the right at the moment. Hope and change are being replaced by experience and toughness and national security concerns. Even though the American people seem tired of war, the ruling elite are not, what they are tired of is 'unintelligent' war! It's less a question of changing imperial strategy, rather a matter of tactics and most importantly presentation on the world scene. I kind think Obama may prove to be closer to America's version of Tony Blair than Martin Luther King. I hope I'm proved wrong, but unfortunately I no longer believe in saviours anymore.

colorado
11 March 2008 at 23:50

With all due respect, redharry, you and Mr. Scahill need a brush-up on the definition (legal or otherwise) of genocide: it all boils down to intent--the intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such. Thus, while Clinton's actions might be war crimes (because of their incredible civilian toll), it is not genocide unless he INTENDED to wipe out Iraqis.

Not every war crime is--or ought to be argued to be--genocide, redharry. The impulse to label everything genocide erodes the power of the term, and the efficacy of applying it to actual cases, like Rwanda and Darfur.

writeon
12 March 2008 at 08:40

Colorado,

I believe the question of what constitutes genocide is complex, and your correct that the continual use of the word is being eroding it meaning and power. Yet the 'defence' of intent is very problematic too.

It is possible to commit genocide or war crimes without 'intending' to, modern warfare is so incredibly destructive and modern weapons so powerful that using them against cities inevitably leads to massive civilian casuralites. The defence that one didn't specifically intend, desired or wanted to kill so many civilians is hardly relevant, clearly one knew that ones actions and the weapons used were going to result in civilian deaths on a huge scale. I would argue that results are more important than intentions in this context.

The White House legal department has used the same legal logic to get around the problem of using torture against terror suspects and prisoners. Simply put, that torture isn't really torture, if the goon carrying out the torture doesn't intend to inflict pain for the sake of inflicting pain, but only because it's necessary to gain vital, life-saving information, somehow the torturer has become morally neutral and the blame for the torture is shifted from the torturer onto the victim, who could just tell us what we want to know and save us the unpleasantness of being 'forced' to torture him!

One can also argue that the deaths of over 500,000 Iraqi children during the siege of Iraq, way before the invasion, constituted genocide. If we are responsible for the deaths of around 10% of Iraq's population, somewhere around 2.5 million people, due to the siege, the invasion, and the occupation, then I believe this arguably is more than a 'mere' war crime given the scale of the deaths and is a form of genocide.

taghioff.info
13 March 2008 at 09:44

But where does willful negligence fit into this definition of genocide?

If you know that mass death is likely to be one consequence of your actions, albeit not the main aim, and you have the means to minimise or avoid such deaths, but do not take it up, then surely you cannot say that the deaths are "unintentional."

I also think that with something like mass death or genocide, the moral onus should very much be on those that bring about the deaths to demonstrate that they did absolutely every thing to avoid them. And if that implies a broader definition of genocide, then so be it.

I think the risks of mass-death outweigh the risks of libel, and I think we are in an age where we are close to complicit with the potential genocide of the poor. If we stand by and let food supplies collapse in the tropics, then Iraq will look like a picnic in comparison. If we choose not to act, then that strikes me as so close to genocide that "intention" looks like a formalistic fig-leaf.

Colonel Blimp
17 March 2008 at 17:44

Life has been a tragedy for the young lady ever since she left Hart to Hart.

Post your comment

Please note: you will need to login or register before your comment is displayed on the website

We want to encourage people to comment on our content and to exchange views with other readers and hope this will be done on a courteous basis. However, if you encounter posts which are offensive please let us know by emailing comments@newstatesman.co.uk and we will take swift action where necessary.

About the writer

Sholto Byrnes is a contributing editor of the New Statesman and the jazz critic of the Independent. Previously he was diary editor, chief interviewer and senior feature writer at both Independent titles. He is a judge for this year's Paul Hamlyn Foundation awards for composers.

Read More

Vote!

Was Cliff Richard robbed?

Designed by Wilson Fletcher