Tuesday, November 21, 2006
مناظره احمد رضا طاهر و پروفسور نوام چامسکی
مقاله ای (انگلیسی) تحت عنوان: "حاکمیت جهانی: چه حکومتی شایسته آن است؟" توسط احمد رضا طاهری در ژورنال علوم انسانی آکادمیک بلوچ به چاپ رسید. این مقاله تا حدودی دیدی انتقادی بر کار تحقیقی پروفسور نوام چامسکی بنام: "کشورهای روگ" یا (کشورهایی که قانون بین الملل را زیر پا میگذارند)، است...
متن پایین پاسخ انتقادی پروفسور نوام چامسکی، استاد دانشگاه هارواد، به احمد رضا طاهری (طی ایی میلی) برای احمد رضا طاهری ارسال شده است، به این شرح:
This is an answer from Professor Noam Chomsky to Ahmad Reza Taheri, who has recently written an article based on “Rogue States,” a work conducted by Professor Noam Chomsky of Harvard University. The Article written by Ahmad Reza Taheri is: Global Sovereignty: Who deserves it?
Thanks for sending me the interesting article. The fundamental premise is Hobbesian in inspiration: that the world needs "an experienced global sovereign to look after and monitor other states so that would not allow other rogue states to commit whatsoever against her will and repeat the mistakes in which she herself had committed in the past."
I don't agree. The fundamental premise is, in my opinion, groundless. There are far better forms of social and political organization, domestically and internationally: the forms that were proposed and partially developed in the early post-war system, for example, torn to shreds primarily by the world's most powerful state, which, you argue (on premises that I think are untenable), should be the global sovereign.
On your assumption, if Nazi Germany had won the second world war, then we should support its claim to rule the world. It was by far the technologically most advanced power, was the center of the sciences, the arts, philosophy, the peak of western civilization, and having the won the war it would be the only choice to be the global sovereign. And the domestic analogue of your Hobbesian principle is that we should pick the most powerful and experienced person and make him dictator, so that he can guarantee order and ensure that his past crimes not be repeated. Perhaps the leading Mafia don, or a Hitler or a Stalin.
I do not really see much point to discussing the possibility that the Taliban, or Iraq, or Iran, or in fact any other state in the existing world or the world as it is likely to evolve as far as we can predict, might conceivably be a global sovereign. That abstracts much too far from reality, in my opinion.
Incidentally, you ignore quite a lot that is highly relevant. On the hideous crimes of Saddam, for example, you overlook the fact that they were quite consciously abetted by the United States, which precisely did want to murder people -- on both sides in fact. I also incidentally think your argument on intention is flawed, for reasons I have discussed in print. If we walk down the street knowing that we will crush ants, we do not intend to kill them, but we do not care because we regard them as less than human. The same is true when we carry out actions that are sure to kill many civilians, but who cares? Bombing slums in Panama for example (while sending in elite units on dangerous missions, some being killed, to pick up wanted targets in rich communities), or destroying half the pharmaceutical supplies in Sudan, knowing that tens of thousands will probably die (as they did), but who cares -- merely to take some of the minor footnotes to the crimes of the "experienced global sovereign." That raises a general moral issue: which stance is more grotesque, killing people intentionally (as when the US supplied its friend Saddam with armaments, including means to develop WMD), or killing them because we do not even regard them as human (the entire history of aspiring "global sovereigns," your candidate being the leading recent example). You regard intentional killing as worse than killing because we regard the victims as sub-human. That is dubious, to say the least.
I wish I had time to discuss this further, but I am afraid I do not. I spend many hours a day responding to questions and queries, and much as I'd like to, cannot become involved in lengthy discussions.
Noam Chomsky
مقاله ای (انگلیسی) تحت عنوان: "حاکمیت جهانی: چه حکومتی شایسته آن است؟" توسط احمد رضا طاهری در ژورنال علوم انسانی آکادمیک بلوچ به چاپ رسید. این مقاله تا حدودی دیدی انتقادی بر کار تحقیقی پروفسور نوام چامسکی بنام: "کشورهای روگ" یا (کشورهایی که قانون بین الملل را زیر پا میگذارند)، است...
متن پایین پاسخ انتقادی پروفسور نوام چامسکی، استاد دانشگاه هارواد، به احمد رضا طاهری (طی ایی میلی) برای احمد رضا طاهری ارسال شده است، به این شرح:
This is an answer from Professor Noam Chomsky to Ahmad Reza Taheri, who has recently written an article based on “Rogue States,” a work conducted by Professor Noam Chomsky of Harvard University. The Article written by Ahmad Reza Taheri is: Global Sovereignty: Who deserves it?
Thanks for sending me the interesting article. The fundamental premise is Hobbesian in inspiration: that the world needs "an experienced global sovereign to look after and monitor other states so that would not allow other rogue states to commit whatsoever against her will and repeat the mistakes in which she herself had committed in the past."
I don't agree. The fundamental premise is, in my opinion, groundless. There are far better forms of social and political organization, domestically and internationally: the forms that were proposed and partially developed in the early post-war system, for example, torn to shreds primarily by the world's most powerful state, which, you argue (on premises that I think are untenable), should be the global sovereign.
On your assumption, if Nazi Germany had won the second world war, then we should support its claim to rule the world. It was by far the technologically most advanced power, was the center of the sciences, the arts, philosophy, the peak of western civilization, and having the won the war it would be the only choice to be the global sovereign. And the domestic analogue of your Hobbesian principle is that we should pick the most powerful and experienced person and make him dictator, so that he can guarantee order and ensure that his past crimes not be repeated. Perhaps the leading Mafia don, or a Hitler or a Stalin.
I do not really see much point to discussing the possibility that the Taliban, or Iraq, or Iran, or in fact any other state in the existing world or the world as it is likely to evolve as far as we can predict, might conceivably be a global sovereign. That abstracts much too far from reality, in my opinion.
Incidentally, you ignore quite a lot that is highly relevant. On the hideous crimes of Saddam, for example, you overlook the fact that they were quite consciously abetted by the United States, which precisely did want to murder people -- on both sides in fact. I also incidentally think your argument on intention is flawed, for reasons I have discussed in print. If we walk down the street knowing that we will crush ants, we do not intend to kill them, but we do not care because we regard them as less than human. The same is true when we carry out actions that are sure to kill many civilians, but who cares? Bombing slums in Panama for example (while sending in elite units on dangerous missions, some being killed, to pick up wanted targets in rich communities), or destroying half the pharmaceutical supplies in Sudan, knowing that tens of thousands will probably die (as they did), but who cares -- merely to take some of the minor footnotes to the crimes of the "experienced global sovereign." That raises a general moral issue: which stance is more grotesque, killing people intentionally (as when the US supplied its friend Saddam with armaments, including means to develop WMD), or killing them because we do not even regard them as human (the entire history of aspiring "global sovereigns," your candidate being the leading recent example). You regard intentional killing as worse than killing because we regard the victims as sub-human. That is dubious, to say the least.
I wish I had time to discuss this further, but I am afraid I do not. I spend many hours a day responding to questions and queries, and much as I'd like to, cannot become involved in lengthy discussions.
Noam Chomsky
# posted by baloch : 7:12 AM
