Monday, April 5, 2010
It's a rabbit that Stephen Walt just can't help chasing. Walt is blogging about his favorite obsession: On "dual loyalty". Leave it to Walt to try to give intellectualized cover to the 'neo-Lindberghian' dual-loyalty accusation against Dennis Ross. He starts out fairly enough, warning against the dangers and the baggage of such accusations, but he ends up just unable to help himself in giving the OK for it, and twisting, twisting, to get permission by simply calling things by a different name. He doesn't want to do it, but finds a way anyhow:
...But what about getting directly involved as a government official, and in issue-areas where important interests are at stake? Instead of invoking phrases like "dual loyalty," a rhetoric that immediately invokes connotations of betrayal (or even treason), I suggest we frame the issue as one of potential conflicts of interest. Simply put, is it in the best interest of the United States as a whole to place U.S. policy on key issues in the hands of people whose even-handedness is not beyond question, and especially when there is evidence that they feel a strong personal attachment to a foreign country with whom the United States may have important disagreements?
In many walks of life, we routinely expect people to recuse themselves from issues in which their own interests or attachments might affect their judgment. Judges and jurors are excused from cases where they have clear ties to one of the contending parties. University faculty and administrators are often expected to divulge relationships (including outside consulting) that might affect their objectivity or probity. We would also regard it as inappropriate if a financial advisor recommended investing in a company owned by a family member, and all the more so if they failed to divulge the connection. Why? Because there is a conflict of interest...
A conflict of interest in the policy realm, where we're not talking about financial or family ties, simply means someone whose views are known, or who once worked for a group and who may carry those views with them. So what? Walt is, as usual, just bent out of shape that the people who carry his views into the policy realm aren't in the ascendancy.
As Walter Russell Mead has pointed out, the "AIPAC view" is more widely promulgated among policy makers (at least, those who make the final decisions) because those views are popular ones with the best arguments behind them, not because the game is rigged. If Dennis Ross seems to consider Benjamin Netanyahu's "coalition concerns" seriously, it's not because he's on Netanyahu's payroll, it's because if you want to be serious about achieving something then you too should understand and value highly that dynamic. Ross has an important argument to make and it needs to be considered on the merits it deserves.
If we had former CAIR lobbyists, or Council for the National Interest employees in serious policy making positions we would be concerned, but it would be over their mindset and interpretation of events, not simply that they had some prior history they carried with them. Everyone has a history, everyone has some ties. It's the substance that counts.
The first commenter, in two comments, has Walt pegged pretty well:
Simply put, is it in the best interest of the United States as a whole to place U.S. policy on key issues in the hands of people whose even-handedness is not beyond question, and especially when there is evidence that they feel a strong personal attachment to a foreign country with whom the United States may have important disagreements?
And so it begins.
Relatedly, I'm sure I won't be the only one to note that this is at odds with Steve's unqualified defense of Chas Freeman and his full-throated attack on those voicing the exact same concerns he does here.
Ironically, in his attacks on Freeman's critics, Steve uses insinuations of dual loyalties to impugn the critics' motives.
And:
But when an individual's own activities or statements give independent evidence of strong attachment to a particular foreign country, is it a good idea to give them an influential role in shaping U.S. policy towards that country?
Conversely, if an individual's own activities or statements give independent evidence of a strong antipathy towards a particular country, is it a good idea to give them an influential role in shaping U.S policy towards that country?
Clearly I am referring to our blog host here. It is one thing to write the book he did, another to present a one-sided/biased history of the continuing Arab-Israeli conflict[1], and yet another to gratuitously bash Israel in order to meet his blogging obligations. With the latter I am referring to his trolling anti-Zionist websites like Mondoweiss and bringing over items that have nothing to do with foreign policy or "the Lobby", but simply because they paint Israel in a bad light. While the others can be explained away, it is this last which gives real, independent evidence of Steve's antipathy towards Israel.
I tend to suspect Steve does not see it this way. That his attachments/antipathies reflect what is really in the best interests of the US, unlike all those other guys whose attachments/antipathies are causing them to fool themselves about what is best for the US.
[1] Steve has drawn heavily, if not solely, on the so-called New Historians, while discounting other historians' contradictory findings that don't comport with the narrative he wants to portray.
I'm very interested in what or whose interests are supposedly in jeopardy here.
Also it's interesting to me that W/M claimed that "the lobby" stifles debate, whereas here we have an American Jew accused of dual loyalty from none other than a person "within the administration" and also, alas, here we see Walt himself prominently displayed on FP.
So, apparently "debate" on Israel not only hasn't been "stifled", it's open, thriving and also bearing an unmistakable tinge of prejudice.
I challenge anybody to read the comment thread attached to that article and detect the antisemitic comments therein.
Further - of all the American groups who are accused of not being in whoever's best interest, notice we don't see much press at all about Irish Americans who supported the IRA, Cubans, Mexican and other Latin-Americans - indeed - why don't we see charges of "dual loyalty" being aimed at Colombians? After all Colombia supplies us with a great many drugs.
So? Why aren't Colombian-Americans who doubtless have affection for their ancestral homeland and probably also relatives there accused of "dual loyalty" or not being in "America's interests" because they don't turn their backs on Colombia and her people?
Now personally I say, Thank G*d these other groups aren't being attacked like Jews and other supporters of Israel because that is just flat out unAmerican. We haven't been doing the dual loyalty thing since, thank goodness, the evil dark days of McCarthy.
After all this is the Melting Pot is it not? We aren't all alike, we all have roots and we all have "interests."
So - why is it Jews and Israel whose "interests" are somehow upsetting ol' Walt and his friends and which theoretically aren't American or "in America's interests?"
This piece, about Turkey, Armenia and Israel and of course, the American/Armenia lobby, is directly on point:
http://hurryupharry.org/2010/04/05/turkey-israel-and-the-armenians/
Sophia,
So - why is it Jews and Israel whose "interests" are somehow upsetting ol' Walt and his friends and which theoretically aren't American or "in America's interests?"
Do you really have to ask?
But seeing that you do then maybe as an answer one could suggest that W&Co., are antisemites or if not then they are trying to cover up something by dragging a red herring across the landscape.
I think they're dragging red herrings around too.
And no, I don't have to ask. My question is rhetorical.
I do think though that simply stating the obvious isn't an effective counterargument. So think of one.
Simply claiming that this stuff is antisemitic, which obviously I think it is, unfortunately is easily deflected by stating, "We aren't antisemitic, we are just criticizing Israel, and claiming it is antisemitic to criticize Israel is proof of a conspiracy (by "the lobby" of course) to silence criticism of Israel."
Not only is this circular reasoning it masks a number of facts.
First, it completely ignores the fact that everybody especially Israelis criticizes Israel all the time, which isn't at all the same thing as singling out Israel as a unique target.
But secondly - and this is really sinister - what's happened here is that the claims about Israel not being "in America's interests" combined with the claim that a "lobby" with its echoes of conspiracy exists to create support for Israel against American interests must inevitably target American supporters of Israel.
At worst they will stand accused of disloyalty or even treason.
When a public servant of impeccable reputation, such as Dennis Ross, is singled out as he has been and accused of "dual loyalty" this is beyond "criticism of Israel."
But, that is the obvious thrust of the whole W/M argument.
So, in the posted piece, Walt tried to change the "dual loyalty" angle to the "interests" angle to try to get off the hook.
I can't believe he didn't realize that this would happen - that individual American Jews, Jewish groups or other supporters of Israel would end up being targets and accused of de facto disloyalty to the US.
Maybe W/M are just stupid.
Sophia,
the claims about Israel not being "in America's interests" combined with the claim that a "lobby" with its echoes of conspiracy exists to create support for Israel against American interests
Get walt&co to specify America's specific interests and qualify them in terms of reality as opposed to just swallowing some vague accusations.