A Word from London

 

Herbert London

      Herbert London is John M. Olin Professor of Humanities at N.Y.U., President of the Hudson Institute, author of Decade of Denial, published by Lexington Books, and publisher of American Outlook. He can be reached at: www.herblondon.org.

Amnesty International Redux

When Amnesty International used the word “gulag” to describe the prison camp at Guantanamo Bay a fusillade of criticism followed. President Bush called the accusation “absurd,” the product of people who “hate America.” Vice President Cheney said he was “offended” by the use of the term. And Defense Secretary Rumsfeld called the comparison “reprehensible.”

One might assume that with this critique Amnesty International would be chastened, would apologize and would go about its business noting that the use of “gulag” was a slip of the tongue, a mere rhetorical flourish.

However, on June 3 Kate Gilmore, the organization’s executive deputy secretary general, said the word was selected “deliberately.” Moreover, she indicated the administration’s response was “typical of a government on the defensive “and, unmoved by the reaction, drew parallels between the United States’ prison camps and those in the Soviet Union, Libya and Iran.

Ms. Gilmore also noted that “gulag” was not meant as a literal description of Guantanamo but was “emblematic of the sense of injustice and lack of due process surrounding the prison.” She called on Congress for a full-scale investigation into human rights abuses and the breach of the Geneva Convention.

Amnesty International has been working on human rights violations of terrorists for more than two years. It was a predictable course of action to place the United States at the forefront of its annual report, she noted.

Since the United States has detention centers elsewhere in its efforts to thwart terrorist activity (e.g. Afghanistan, Egypt, Uzbekistan) Amnesty International glibly refers to “the archipelago of centers,” an obvious reference to the Soviet gulag. A New York Times editorial called the use of the expression “apt.”

What is not apt is the effort to overlook the obvious. It is not apt to confuse the conditions in Stalinist totalitarianism with the United States.

The alleged terrorists held in Guantanamo are not there because of traffic violations. They are a danger to the United States and are being held because of the security threat they represent. Many of those who were released were soon found on the battlefield in Iraq and elsewhere.

It is also the case that terrorists are not soldiers representing a nation. Therefore the Geneva Convention does not apply to them. Try as the civil libertarians will, those held at Guantanamo do not fall into any conventional definition of military enemies. They are fanatics intent on destruction and this administration has an obligation to consider the security of America first and foremost, even if it means holding these people in detention centers until the threat has abated.

Perhaps the most absurd charge is equating these centers with the gulag. As Solzhenitsyn argued, millions died on the Russian tundra. Dissidents were tortured and starved, reduced to animalistic impulses in their desire for warmth and food. Even if the conditions at Guantanamo are not ideal, they certainly cannot be compared to the gulag.

It might well be asked where was Amnesty International in Stalin’s Soviet Union? When did Pravda print editorials denouncing the atrocities in the camps? When could the dissidents speak openly in their criticism of the horror?

What the use of inflammatory rhetoric suggests is that the “blame America” crowd is alive and well and residing at Amnesty International. Instead of expressing shock at beheadings conducted by terrorists, the soi disant champions of human rights point to violations at detention centers.

I, for one, am glad that Ms. Gilmore has been given so much attention and that she adamantly defends her position. For one thing it demonstrates that freedom to challenge our government is possible and, second, it displays in unvarnished form, the inability of some critics to distinguish between genuine persecution and reasonable steps to prevent terror on our soil and against our troops abroad.

The American Association of University Professors and Academic Freedom

The AAUP (The American Association of University Professors) has as its motto “Academic Freedom for a Free Society.” While this motto rings with patriotic overtones, its application is often questionable.

Early this year the AAUP issued a statement supporting University of Colorado professor Ward Churchill, a tenured professor in the ethnic studies department. Churchill, as almost everyone knows, called the victims of the 2001 terrorist attack on the World Trade Center “little Eichmans”--a comparison to the infamous Nazi who organized the concentration camps where millions of Jews were murdered.

This remark touched off an understandable firestorm. But the AAUP defended Churchill’s right to his opinion. In fact, the professorial organization criticized the critics for their “inflammatory statements that . . . interfere in the decisions of the academic community.”

However, it is worth noting that the AAUP 1940 “Statement of Principles on Academic Freedom and Tenure” sets out to describe and prescribe the nature of this freedom. This statement includes a brief for free speech outside the classroom, but it notes that professors should express opinions inside the classroom only on those matters in which they have scholarly competence.

Moreover, “extraneous material unrelated to their areas of expertise” does not fall within the protective umbrella of academic freedom.

It would seem that in the Ward Churchill case the AAUP has been hoist by its own petard. Clearly Churchill is free to express his opinions outside the classroom, however odious they may be. And just as clearly he is not protected by academic freedom when he expresses these same opinions in the classroom. He has neither the scholarship to back up such claims, nor is this opinion consistent with his university appointment in ethnic studies. It is one thing to vouchsafe free speech to Churchill’s rants, but quite another matter to suggest they are protected by academic freedom.

It is instructive that the AAUP General Secretary, Roger Bowen, has adopted a latitudinarian approach to academic freedom that is inconsistent with the organization’s principles. When Jeremy Travis, the president at John Jay College of Criminal Justice in New York, decided not to offer a contract to Susan Rosenberg, a former member of the violent Weather Underground, Bowen charged the president with “political persecution.” Travis, of course, noted that Rosenberg has been indicted for committing a 1981 armed robbery of $1.6 million from a Brinks truck in which three people were killed. He noted as well that AAUP principles indicate that criminal activity is a valid reason for dismissal or, in this case, not offering a contract.

It is increasingly obvious that the AAUP has become politicized. The once pristine organization designed to protect academic freedom, has veered into the fever swamps of left wing advocacy. Cary Nelson, for example, second vice president of the association, argues that the AAUP should be “following the example of the activist group Move On.org.” He explains: “We need to send e-mail to members to involve them in petition signing and letter writing campaigns.” I wonder how John Dewey, founder of the AAUP, would have responded to this campaign.

Of course Dr. Bowen and his claque deny any left wing bias in higher education. But the “rose colored glasses defense” is increasingly challenged by the rush of events. Ward Churchill is merely the thin edge of the political wedge. It is noteworthy that even Castro’s brutal repression of academic dissent was insufficient to raise AAUP censure.

In the “new age” academic freedom is defended selectively. Despite claims of nonpartisanship, the organization designed to protect faculty members from political blacklisting and government intrusiveness has a political agenda of its own. Interestingly that agenda often puts the AAUP in the position of repudiating the very principles it was organized to defend. This isn’t the first, and it probably won’t be the last, association that has lost touch with its own principles, but as someone associated with the Academy for four decades sees it, this isn’t a pretty picture.

The Arab National Congress Speaks

Recently (April 6-9, 2005) the Arab National Congress (ANC), a Pan Arab, nongovernmental organization with membership of over 600 people including former prime ministers, party chairmen and government officials, met in Algiers to issue a Statement To The Arab Nation.

The importance of this “Statement” lies in the positions and attitudes reflected by the Arab intellectual elite on such issues as the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, United States involvement in Iraq, and democratic reform in the Middle East.

During this four day conclave the ANC reaffirmed its belief that “the U.S.-Zionist project targeting the Arab Nation is the main source of threats and risks to it.” Moreover, it also maintains that

. . . no bargaining should take place with those targeting us, and that resistance and continued struggle, with all means available, are the only path to overcome these dangers.

Furthermore, it contends “that reform should be freed from over-imposed U.S. views aiming at penetrating Arab societies under the cover of democratic reform.” On the Palestinian question, on which much emphasis was given, the ANC argued that “the Zionist state” is a “colonial project of resettlement, organically linked to global colonialism and exploitation . . . ” As such the conflict, as the ANC sees it, is “a conflict of existence, not a conflict of borders.” (my italics)

Hence, this conflict is regarded as a war of national liberation with resistance and steadfastness the keys to success. In fact, the words “all the Palestinian territory” and “right of return for all Palestinian refugees” make it patently clear that nothing less than the elimination of Israel is acceptable. “So-called initiatives for reconciliation” are rejected as demeaning to the national rights of the Palestinian people.

The ANC maintains the conviction that President Sharon’s failure at suppressing the Palestinian Intifada forced him into this unilateral withdrawal plan. Therefore armed struggle must be continued against the Israeli people and there must be condemnation of all efforts to list Hamas, Jihad and the National Liberation Front of Palestine as terrorist organizations. Warning is enjoined for any effort at a permanent truce with the Zionist enemy.

While one could argue that the ANC is comprised of radical elements in the Arab world, the listing of prominent names at the back of its report offers the hypothesis that radicalism or a commitment to armed struggle and martyrdom permeates Arab intellectual elites.

This report also demonstrates that Palestinian overtures for peace are merely part and parcel of moments to regroup for the armed struggle ahead. After all, steadfastness is a tactical advantage as the ANC sees it.

If the ultimate goal is “all the territory,” this is merely a euphemism for driving Israel out of existence. It is time for the left in the United States and Israel to recognize this reality. There is nothing to negotiate when your enemies are intent on destroying you. It seems to me that President Sharon is right to say he will withdraw from indefensible lines and build a fence to shield the Israeli people from attack. Perhaps in time the Arab world will come to recognize Israel, but based on the ANC report, that time is not now.

Palestinian leader Abu Mazen unquestionably says the right things about a peaceful settlement, but the question of what he can do or is willing to do remains unanswered. If Hamas is seen as a force for national liberation, even as it targets women and children for murder, all the verbal assurances are meaningless.

The day the ANC says it can live with Israel as a neighbor, recognizes her right to exist and denounces terrorism is a day for genuine rejoicing. But there isn’t the slightest hint at this recent conference that such an accommodation can be reached. Tocsin is in the air and the Arab mindset is beset with a vision of total victory.

For the ANC, Arab renaissance doesn’t come from economic development and cultural vitality, but from explosives worn around the waist of a prospective martyr. To say this is inconsistent with Western liberalism is to state the obvious. What is not so obvious, however, is whether Israel and the United States have the will to oppose this relentless and nihilistic force.

The ANC in unadorned language set out its goals for the future. Now it is time for the West to repudiate those goals as forthrightly and clearly as it can noting that terror will not result in conciliation, that force will lead to retaliation and that a posture of non-negotiation will manifest itself in misery for the people the ANC presumably wishes to serve.

European Union’s Fiscal Irresponsibility

There are fissures in the European experiment with union that are starting to reveal themselves as gaping cracks that go beyond the French vote against the E.U. Constitution. At the March meeting of the European Council Mr. Schroeder, the German Chancellor, proposed that control over budget deficits should revert back to national capitals. Although this proposal was rejected by other members of the Eurozone, Germany’s long-run commitment to both European monetary union and political integration, made Schroeder’s stance nothing short of astonishing.

One interpretation of this flip-flop is that German political leaders did not grasp the necessity for central monitoring of budget deficits with a single currency and the surrender of fiscal sovereignty. The Stability and Growth Pact (SGP) designed to keep Eurozone members’ public finances in check is dead as a door nail. Alas, there is the risk (read: probability) that the Eurozone deficit/GDP ratio--which has already moved up from one percent to three percent since 2000--will soon be four or five percent.

Since GDP was the only way to maintain fundamental fiscal prudence and address the free rider problem, the Eurozone is now living on credit or more accurately borrowed time. What is in store for the European Union is a rise in steady-state debt/GDP ratio and higher debt interest costs. What this means, of course, is either taxes must rise--a tough political choice--or expenditures must be cut--an even tougher political option.

If GDP is no longer a brake on deficits and Schroeder is calling for a return of fiscal authority to national capitals, it is fair to say the union could be effectively dismantled. That may explain why Mr. Juncker, prime minister of Luxembourg, said he “would have none of it.” As he noted, “[Schroeder] is not in charge of the European economies.”

This exchange is filled with irony. It was the Germans, after all, who demanded a deficit limit of 3 percent of GDP in the Maastricht Accord. According to the rules, deficits above this number would have to be agreed on by a qualified majority of the European Council. But why would any nation constrain its freedom of maneuver in this way? (A question Schroeder is now asking.)

Moreover, this isn’t the only problem facing the European Council. It was recently discovered that different nations have different accounting standards in their state sectors and enforce these standards with varying degrees of rigor. By subtle reclassification or even concealment of spending, some countries claim to be meeting deficit limits when in fact they are not. The European Commission found egregious flaws in the numbers submitted by Portugal and Greece and has become suspicious of Italian statistics as well. Without enforcement power, however, there is little the Commission can do.

Clearly if European nations have similar ratios of public expenditure to GDP, the high deficit nations have lower taxes than the others and, in a sense, are cheating or, at least, violating the rules. As a consequence, these nations will act as free riders relying on the solvency of other member states.

Romani Prodi, head of the E.U., denounced the GDP as “stupid.” Indeed, it is stupid if nations do not abide by the standard. But as debt accumulates, debt holders’ claims on the national purse eat into spending on other fronts, e.g., health care investments in education. Nothing is to be gained by fiscal laxity and Europe’s political leaders are deluding themselves and their constituents if they engineer a larger Eurozone budget deficit than presently exists.

Unfortunately European leaders show no sign of recognizing the inescapable logic of fiscal prudence. They want their cake and to eat it too. What they will soon find, of course, is there isn’t much cake to consume.

The United Kingdom’s abstention from the Eurozone has preserved a degree of fiscal sanity not easily found on the continent. Unless the Eurozone leaders are able to place controls on debt creation in the next few years, England--whether ruled by Labor or the Tories--is not a likely candidate for the E.U. More significantly, the E.U. may find that those cracks in its foundation lead to a collapse that destroys the entire experiment with union.

Rewriting History as Progressive

Little Red, a Greenwich Village school with a pure left wing pedigree, recently called on alumni members to engage in a school sponsored “conversation.” In order to prompt a response the administration brought attention to two former graduates. One of these grads is Robert Meeropol, class of ‘65 and a person described as a “distinguished alumnus.”

Mr. Meeropol is described in the invitation as “the founder” of the Rosenberg Fund for children and currently serves as its Executive Director.

The RFC provides for the educational and emotional needs of both targeted activist youth and children in this country whose parents have been harassed, injured, jailed, lost jobs or died in the course of their progressive activities.

Robert received undergraduate and graduate degrees in Anthropology from the University of Michigan and graduated from law school in 1985. For the past thirty years he has been a progressive activist, author and speaker.

What the sanitized language in the invitation conceals is truly extraordinary. Meeropol is the child of Ethel and Julies Rosenberg, two Communists executed for espionage. Despite the evidence provided by the Venona papers, Meeropol insists on the innocence of his parents, an understandable reaction but one based largely on sentiment.

His work in behalf of “targeted activist youth … whose parents have been harassed, injured, jailed, lost jobs or died in the course of their progressive activities” is ostensibly research that would exonerate his parents. Perhaps the most controversial word in this brief bio is “progressive.” Is it progressive to engage in espionage for an avowed enemy of the United States?

While a son’s appreciation of his parents--however venal their actions--is easily rationalized, at some point historical realities intrude. Ronald Radosh’s history of the Rosenbergs demonstrates beyond any reasonable doubt that they were guilty of crimes against the United States. This biography was written before the damaging revelations in the Venona papers.

It is noteworthy that Radosh was also a graduate of the Little Red School and for a time embraced its left wing orthodoxy. Is it merely coincidental that he was not one of the graduates profiled for this alumni reunion?

It is instructive that treasonous activity that took the form of selling secrets about the atom bomb to the Soviet Union should now be called progressive. In the cauldron of Orwellian revision the left can justify any action as long as it has a distinct antiestablishment flavor.

What makes this invitation truly egregious is that a school offers cover for criminal actions. I am aware of the radical claim “no enemies on the left,” but I find it hard to believe that criticism of the United States could be transmogrified into reflexive anti-Americanism.

Keep in mind that the Progressive Movement in American history had reformist impulses, but it was deeply nationalistic. Similarly, Franklin Roosevelt, arguably the most progressive president of the 20th century, was, despite the allegations of many conservatives, patriotic.

Now “progressive” has been shifted to the outer reaches of left wing opinion. Since “Communist” and “socialist” have been discredited by historical events, “progressive” has been preempted as a catch-all phrase for radical anti-American actions.

The student demonstrators who can be found chanting anti-Bush slogans in Union Square Park in behalf of Ramsey Clark’s ANSWER are described as progressives. The blame America opinion makers who concentrate on national flaws and never concede national achievement are adopted by media panjandrums as the new progressives.

What makes them progressive is solely an antipathy to American history and national policies. The utopias they believe in from Cuba to Nicaragua reveal their feet of clay in time, but the United States is that old standby, there to be criticized without the benefit of any doubt.

Is it surprising that Meeropol is being profiled at Little Red? No, not really; he comes out of a “proud tradition” that lacks balance, perspective and honesty. The shadows of the past spread darkness on closed minds and unfortunately many of our schools seal illumination in their classrooms. Unsurprisingly what emerges years later is an alumni event jaundiced by the sanitizing of history.     *

“We do not admire a man of timid peace.” –Theodore Roosevelt