Tutkimuksessa tarkastellaan erästä Euroopan integraation vähemmän tutkittua ulottuvuutta: integraation vaikutuksia jälkikommunistisen yhteiskunnan kansalaisjärjestöihin. Liettualainen ympäristöjärjestösektori ja Ignalinan ydinvoimalan tapaus tarjoavat rajallisen, mutta samalla hyvin konkreettisen näkökulman kysymyksen tarkastelemiseksi. Tutkimus nojaa vuosina 2001-2003 kerätyn haastatteluaineiston laadulliseen analyysiin. Ignalinan ydinvoimalan tapauksen perusteella voidaan tulkita liettualaisten ympäristöjärjestöjen kohtaamia muutospaineita neuvostoajan lopulta aina Liettuan EU-jäsenyyteen saakka. Ignalinan ydinvoimalan ympärille keskittynyt liikehdintä oli yksi keskeisimmistä neuvostovallan vastaisen protestin välineistä 1980-luvun lopun Liettuassa. Ignalinan ydinvoimalasta muodostui tuolloin neuvostovallan poliittinen symboli; protestointi ydinvoimalaa vastaan oli samalla vastalause Moskovan sanelupolitiikalle ja vallitsevalle yhteiskunnalliselle järjestykselle. Ignalinan poliittinen symboliasema kuitenkin muuttui radikaalisti Liettuan itsenäisyysjulistuksen myötä: voimalasta muodostui niin taloudellisesti kuin poliittisestikin tärkeä kansallisen suvereniteetin osa. 1990-luvun lopulla ydinvoimalan poliittisen symboliaseman muutos sai yhä vahvemman ilmentymän EU:n esittäessä Ignalinan molempien reaktoreiden alasajoa ennen niiden lasketun käyttöiän umpeutumista. Eräät liettualaiset ympäristöjärjestöt toimivat aktiivisesti osana laajempia eurooppalaisia kansalaisjärjestöverkostoja vaatien itäisen Keski-Euroopan neuvostomallisten ydinvoimaloiden välitöntä sulkemista. Siten Ignalinan tapaus aiheuttaa monissa tapauksissa järjestöidentiteetin epävarmuutta: Yhtäältä ympäristöjärjestöidentiteetti vaatii kriittistä suhtautumista ydinvoimaan, erityisesti neuvostomallisiin RBMK-reaktoreihin. Toisaalta taas Ignalinan ydinvoimala koetaan Liettuan taloudellisen ja poliittisen omavaraisuuden takaajaksi. Ignalinan tapauksen ympärille rakentuva identiteettipoliittinen asetelma voidaan yksinkertaistaa tilanteeksi, jossa ympäristöjärjestöt hapuilevat kahden yhteensopimattoman toimintamallin välillä: järjestöt toivovat voivansa toteuttaa rooliaan ympäristöjärjestöinä, usein laajempien eurooppalaisten ympäristöjärjestöverkostojen mallin mukaisesti, mutta samalla kansallisen suvereniteettipolitiikan tuottamat mallit ovat vahvasti läsnä järjestöjen määrittäessä perusluonnettaan. Ignalinan tapauksen pohjalta tutkimuksessa tarkastellaan myös laajempia Euroopan integraatioon ja jälkikommunistiseen kansalaisjärjestötoimintaan liittyviä kehityskulkuja. Tutkimus tuo esiin, että Euroopan integraatio on luonut monitasoisen institutionaalisen järjestyksen, joka määrittää oman vaikutuspiirinsä säännöt. Euroopan integraatio on samalla ilmiö, joka toteutuu myös hyvin arkipäiväisissä asioissa se on läsnä monissa mikrotason käytännöissä vaikuttaen siis myös ympäristöjärjestöjen toimintaan. Samalla voidaan havaita, että politiikan muodot ja tyylit eivät synny tyhjiössä tai pelkästään rationaalisten valintojen tuloksena; historia, sen tuottamat tulkinnat sekä rutiineihin perustuvat säännönmukaisuudet ovat läsnä poliittisessa elämässä, niin kansalaisjärjestötoiminnassa kuin muussakin yhteiskunnallisessa aktivismissa, samoin kuin hallinnollisissa käytännöissä. ; The colourful, sometimes even dramatic, history of Lithuanian environmental non-governmental organisations (NGOs) makes them an interesting subject of political science research. During the past fifteen years the role of the Lithuanian environmental movement has changed quite radically. The environmental movement had a central political role at the time of the Lithuanian independence activism in the late 1980s, but the movement later lost its mobilising potential and was marginalised by the beginning of the 1990s. Since then the environmental NGOs have been strongly affected by the process of European integration. Environmental NGOs have served both as agents and indicators of the institutional change taking place in Lithuania. The dynamics of this change can be analysed through the case of Ignalina in the course of the past couple of decades the nuclear power plant of Ignalina in the north-east corner of Lithuania has been a reference point for a number of political discussions and processes. During the Lithuanian independence movement the nuclear power plant became a symbol of Soviet rule. As Ignalina was strongly associated with the hegemony of Moscow over Lithuania the plant occupied a central role in the fight towards national sovereignty. Independence activism took the form of environmental protests, especially in the early stages of the Lithuanian reform movement, and a large number of environmental organisations were established all over Lithuania. The political context provided an opportunity to address sensitive political questions through environmental activism. For instance, in September 1988 thousands of protesters formed a human chain the ring of life around the two units of Ignalina as a manifestation of Lithuanian national sovereignty and identity. The symbolic position of Ignalina changed radically after Lithuania s independence declaration in March 1990. As Moscow imposed an energy embargo on Lithuania it soon became clear that the country was dependent on its own sources of energy, of which the nuclear power plant of Ignalina was the most important one. Although Ignalina had only recently served as the symbol of Soviet oppression, the plant suddenly proved indispensable in the reconstruction of the nation and its material well-being. In 1995 the Lithuanian government tabled a EU membership application. Towards the end of the decade Ignalina was brought on the political agenda of the EU it soon became evident to Lithuanians that the closure of the nuclear power plant would be considered a de facto prerequisite for EU membership. As a result, the question of Ignalina was highly politicised the setting gave Ignalina a positions as the symbol of national sovereignty. There had been a radical shift in the political symbolism surrounding the plant. Meanwhile, the environmental NGOs faced a dilemma: Some of the environmental activists were closely linked to European anti-nuclear NGO networks and were strongly in favour of the decommissioning of Ignalina. However, many of the environmental NGOs also carried with them a long tradition of ethno-cultural thinking thus connecting the organisations closely to the notion of Lithuanian national sovereignty. Against this background it proved difficult for many organisations to define their role in view with the question of Ignalina what would be appropriate political action? As a result, there remained a great deal of indecisiveness and confusion among the environmental NGOs as to the decommissioning plans of Ignalina, and more generally as to the role of the environmental organisations in the Lithuanian society. The case of Ignalina provides a framework within which it is possible to analyse certain dimensions of national sovereignty in an integrating, post-Cold War Europe. The integration of Central and Eastern Europe into the EU has produced a situation in which many of the expectations attached to national sovereignty are being challenged. The research also brings forward a topic that has received only limited attention in the past, namely the effects of European integration on non-governmental organisations in Central and Eastern Europe. By focusing on a specific sector of Lithuanian NGO activity it is possible to analyse the dynamics of europeanisation on a very concrete level. The case of Ignalina suggests that the activists of Lithuanian environmental NGOs are forced to ponder the raison d être of their organisations in the face of different, often conflicting institutional pressures. The expectations drawn from fresh national sovereignty are not always compatible with the models of action produced by the European integration process. The case evidences a conflict between post-Communist nation-building and the institutional limitations brought about by EU membership. Simply put, the idea of national sovereignty on the one hand and European integration on the other offer environmental NGOs distinctive, often conflicting, models of appropriate political action. The models of action created by the institutional framework of the EU are not easily compatible with the norms typical of a newly independent state. This identity political conflict is especially pronounced whenever national and European norms are placed in direct opposition with each other. However, it should be noted that the national and European levels of politics cannot be completely distinguished from each other. It is interesting to notice how models of action drawn from the EU system often form the very basis of national or local political action. Therefore it can be stated that the separation between European and national models of appropriate action is not always feasible. It is possible to approach most political questions, including the encounter of Lithuanian environmental NGOs and the EU, from an institutional perspective. The theoretical framework of the study is based on new institutionalism , and the notion of logic of appropriateness is central to the study political institutions are analysed as collections of norms that define the rules of appropriate political action in different situations. In essence, politics is about appropriate action. The research seeks to explain the logic of appropriateness being followed by Lithuanian environmental NGOs. The research problem is approached through a set of questions: (1) How does the colourful history of the Lithuanian environmental movement affect the political characteristics of today s environmental NGOs? (2) What does the specific case of Ignalina tell us about the institutional contexts in which the Lithuanian environmental NGOs operate? (3) How to define the relationship between Lithuanian environmental NGOs and the politics of national sovereignty? (4) What is the relevance of the institutional framework of the EU to Lithuanian environmental NGOs? The study suggests that the rules of appropriateness change depending on the political context. At the same time, the conflicts produced by differing, overlapping institutional environments are reflected in the inner dynamics of political actors, resulting to indecisiveness and confusion. Since political action is first and foremost directed by the logic of appropriateness, the interpretations of political contexts are of central relevance. Therefore it is possible that a single object, such as a nuclear power plant, can be given a variety of interpretations in the realm of identity politics. The case of Ignalina evidences that symbolism and interpretation form the core of political life.
Cigarette consumption among people 15 years or older peaked in Switzerland in the early 1970's with 3,700 cigarettes per capita and per year, followed by a decline to 2,800 cigarettes per capita and per year in 1994. After a decline of the proportion of smokers from 37% in 1980 to 31% in 1992, this proportion has increased again to 33% in 1997. Women, particularly the young, and children and adolescents, have shown a continued increase in smoking prevalence, despite the focus of tobacco prevention efforts on children and adolescents. Every year, over 10,000 people die from tobacco use in Switzerland, about a sixth of all annual deaths in Switzerland, making smoking the leading preventable cause of death in Switzerland. This number is more than 20 times higher than the number of deaths caused by illegal drugs. The tobacco excise tax in Switzerland is the lowest in Western Europe. The laws governing tobacco products, their marketing and sales, are weak and have little practical effect on the tobacco industry. There is no meaningful protection of nonsmokers from the toxic chemicals in secondhand tobacco smoke, in public places or work places. A ten-country survey on people's experiences and attitudes concerning tobacco and smoking in 1989, commissioned by Philip Morris International, showed that Swiss people were aware of secondhand smoke's adverse effects on health, but only a minority favored government regulations for smoking in restaurants and workplaces. A first comprehensive 5-year tobacco prevention program, 1996 to 1999, issued by the Swiss Federal Office of Public Health lacked adequate financial resources, focus on specific interventions, cooperation between partners for tobacco prevention, and program coordination and management. It ignored the role of the tobacco industry. As a result of recent events in the US and WHO's active engagement of the tobacco industry, the draft five-year plan for tobacco prevention in Switzerland for 2001 to 2005 identifies the tobacco industry as a major obstacle to tobacco prevention. Until the recent merger of British American Tobacco (BAT) with Burrus-Rothmans in 1999, the single most important tobacco company in Switzerland was Philip Morris (PM), with a market share of close to 50% (and close to 25% for Marlboro alone). Since the merger, the tobacco market is dominated by PM and BAT, each with a market share of cigarette sales between 45% and 50%. As was the case in the US, in the early 1960's, the scientists in Swiss tobacco industry research laboratories (in this case, FTR (Fabriques de Tabac Réunies) / Philip Morris) accepted and discussed the dangerous effects of smoking on health in internal company communications. At that time, these scientists earnestly tried to find ways to reduce the carcinogenic effects of cigarettes through elimination of carcinogenic components. Contrary to privately expressed views, tobacco industry's public position in Switzerland was that there was ongoing controversy in the issue whether smoking caused diseases or not. The "controversy" was nurtured through regular media briefings and scientific meetings with carefully chosen scientists who would publicly support the industry's position, but without declaring their liaisons with the tobacco industry. Relationships with these industry "consultants" or "witnesses" were maintained through direct payments and indirectly through funding of their research. By late 1980's the tobacco industry had identified the decline of social acceptability of smoking in Europe as a major threat to its viability. This recognition led to the development of a comprehensive strategy to fight the secondhand smoke issue. "Courtesy and tolerance" and economic arguments were used to divert the public's and policy makers' attention from the health issue. The resulting strategies were often devised in consultation with executives of other Philip Morris subsidiaries and Philip Morris International headquarters in New York. Well aware of its low credibility with the public, journalists were given interviews and told not to mention the tobacco company's name in the newspaper article. Official publications, such as "Smoking and Mortality in Switzerland" by the Federal Office of Public Health, the report on the respiratory effects of secondhand smoke by the US Environmental Protection Agency, as well as original scientific publications, such as an article in the American Journal of Respiratory and Critical Care Medicine, dealing with secondhand smoke and respiratory symptoms in Switzerland (SAPALDIA study) written by a group of Swiss scientists, were massively attacked by the tobacco industry. The tobacco industry employed "consultants" and politicians with industry ties, who used standard industry arguments. One of the most active industry consultants in Switzerland was Peter Atteslander, a Swiss citizen and professor at the University of Augsburg in Germany. He wrote white papers for the tobacco industry and reported from meetings worldwide. Atteslander appeared to be the essence only member of the Switzerland-based "Arbeitsgruppe für Gesundheitsforschung (AGEF) ("Working Group on Health Research"), which published his work without disclosing the ties to the tobacco industry. To fight smoking restrictions in restaurants and hotels, the tobacco industry developed a strong ally in the hospitality association, the International HoReCa. The secretary general of International HoReCa at the time was Dr. Xavier Frei, also president of the SCRA (most likely the Swiss Café and Restaurant Association). The hospitality association made extensive use of tobacco industry resources and repeatedly printed tobacco industry positions in hospitality industry newsletters, without the members of International HoReCa or SCRA being informed about the close ties between their organization and the tobacco industry. The "accommodation program," a well-known tobacco industry strategy to preempt regulatory measures against smoking in restaurants and workplaces first developed in the United States, was used in Switzerland. The fact that even the logo was the same as the one used in the US is another illustration of tobacco industry's recycling of strategies and tactics worldwide. The shift of focus from the problem of secondhand smoke to one of indoor air quality in general was (and remains) a major strategy used by the tobacco industry worldwide to dilute the problem of secondhand smoke with other indoor air pollutants and ventilation of buildings. To this end, an indoor air quality control company with close ties to the tobacco industry, ACVA Atlantic Inc., USA, later renamed Healthy Buildings International, HBI, collected data which was used extensively by the tobacco industry to further their goal of downplaying the role of secondhand smoke as a major component of indoor air pollutant. Employees of HBI were sent to Switzerland to collect data on Swiss office buildings, and the data were used in the newsletters of HoReCa to support the accommodation program and against non-smoking regulations. HBI has been discredited in the US. The tobacco industry tried to influence smoking policy in airplanes through partial funding of IFAA's (International Flight Attendants Association) world congresses. This influence was established through close relationship with the president of the association, a common industry strategy in influencing organizations. When, in the wake of smoke-free flights in the US and other countries, Swissair finally introduced smoke-free flights, it was heavily criticized in newspaper articles by the Swiss "Smokers Club," and later the Swiss "Club of Tobacco Friends," whose president and founder is a former public relations official for the tobacco industry. The Swiss Cigarette Manufacturers Association successfully influenced smoking policy in railway trains through letters to the publishers of newspapers and direct lobbying toward cantonal authorities and the head of the national railways. Two referendums on tobacco and alcohol advertising bans in 1979 and 1993 were rejected by Swiss voters despite pre-referendum polls favoring advertising bans through a strong and lasting alliance of the tobacco industry with the advertising agencies and the print media. The tobacco industry successfully kept itself behind the scenes in order to avoid negative publicity while financing the anti-advertising ban campaigns and supplying the alliance against advertising bans with well-crafted arguments by tobacco industry public relations and law firms through the International Tobacco Information Center, INFOTAB. The tobacco industry and its allies used economic and political arguments, such as purported effects on employment, state tax revenues, and individual and corporate freedom to fight the advertising bans. Close relationships with officials and politicians were emphasized and maintained through regular meetings with the head of the political parties and briefings of the "tobacco caucus" in the parliament. This caucus gave the tobacco industry the means to stay well informed about the political agenda and to easily influence the political process in their favor. While Switzerland has some of the most progressive and innovative public health promotion programs, most public health advocates underestimate the power of, and driving forces behind, a tobacco industry, and only few of them have confronted the industry directly.
¨The actions taken by the Armed Forces are not a mere overthrow of a government but rather the final closing of a historical cycle and the opening of a new one in which respect for human rights is not only borne out by the rule of law and of international declarations, but is also the result of our profound and Christian belief in the preeminent dignity of man as a fundamental value.¨ (…) ¨It will be the objectives of the Armed Forces to restore the validity of the values of Christian morality, of national tradition and of the dignity to be an Argentinean; (…) a final solution to subversion in order to firmly found a reorganized Argentina on the values of Western and Christian civilization by eradicating, once and for all, the vices which afflict the nation. This immense task will require trust and sacrifice but has only one beneficiary the Argentinean people¨ (1). With these words the military junta addressed the Argentines after taking over the government through a coup d'état the 24th of March 1976. Already in this first official communication it is possible to find the strong messianic discourse where the armed forces were fulfilling their holy mission to protect the Christian-national identity of the country.For the first time in the history of Argentina catholic-nationalism, as a nationalist ideology, had an absolute control of the State and was backed by the entrepreneurship and by important sectors of the middle class.(2) The military junta, leaded by Jorge Rafael Videla, was the perfect embodiment of a permanent alliance between religion and fatherland. The armed forces were compelled, being the institution that gave birth to the nation, to fulfill a decisive role in the "holy mission" to morally regenerate the country. This would have allowed Argentina, and therefore all of the Western-Christian civilization, to not just vanquish communism but, also, all of its roots like liberalism, democracy and agnosticism. The military, alongside the Argentinean Catholic Church and its supporters, were convinced that the final battle of the "third world war" was taking place in Argentina. Generals Ramon Camps and Menéndez would even call the "Argentinean theater of operations" as third world war, where they thought the international subversive movements were playing a pivotal role (3). This extremely eschatological feeling was completely different from other similar Cold War scenarios in other developing countries. In Argentina the "final showdown against international communism" syndrome was exacerbated by this alliance between the sword and the cross that would fight communism in order to make a "healthy" society possible, which would lead the way to the regeneration of the "atheist infected" western world. This expectation was the pillar of messianic spirit that justified the extermination plan.But the Proceso de Reorganización Nacional (National Reorganization Process), as the military junta denominated the period that begun with the coup d'état, was more than an extermination plan; it aimed at a total "restoration" of society. The speech given by Lieutenant Jorge Eduardo Goleri at a book burning gathering in Córdoba in April 1976 clearly shows what the Junta was aiming for: "God's will requires that the military preserves the natural order manifest in the Western and Christian civilization to which Argentina is integral, but the East had organized a massive international conspiracy to subvert that civilization by restructuring society in accordance with the seditious and atheistic doctrine of communism. We are facing the imminent doom of our way of being Christian under the assault of subversion"(4).The Junta regarded itself as the creative agent of historical destiny(5). In their eschatological mindset they were analogous to the Messiah. They saw themselves as the mythological/biblical Hero that defended the most sacred/holy interests and appeared when a series of afflictions required his abilities of salvation. The Hero needed a nemesis in order to act and what better foe than international communism. But the latter was constructed in a Manichean, epical and apocalyptical manner. The myth of the Hero was opposite to the myth of a "Metaphysical Enemy". The former would engage in a Mythological/Holy War against an invisible but encompassing "Evil". Violent acts from left-wing guerrilla groups, which the Junta labeled as terrorism, perfectly ascribed that ontological description. Communism, with its terrorist offspring, was foreign, atheist and ideological. The military, then, had to combat it not just in the streets or countryside; but in the people's minds, and souls, as well. Guerrilla fighters were just the armed side; the roots of communism, meaning of terrorism and anti-Catholicism, were to be found in individuals that had ideas contrary to the Juntas' weltanschauung. They were ideas that opposed the catholic foundations of the nation and the society that it embodied.The Junta's adversary was an essentially ideological foe as General Videla stated to a British journalist: "A terrorist (read communist or atheist) is not just someone with a gun or a bomb, but also someone who spreads ideas which are contrary to Western and Christian civilization" and he continued, "…Subversion is all action that seeks the alteration or the destruction of the people's moral criteria and form of life, with the end of seizing power and imposing a new form based upon a different scale of values"(6). The guerrilla was not the most dangerous enemy; because in military terms it was already defeated before the Junta took power. The nemeses were communism, liberalism and democracy, ideologies that advocated an "Anti-Christian Revolution" that subverted the catholic foundations of the country(7). Accordingly, the subversive was guilty of the most serious crime against the Augustinian concept of "Common Good". In this latter sense, the battle against that invisible, but spiritual, Evil was a conflict inside each one of us. Like Massera said: "…the Third World War is not only fought in battlefields but, more importantly, in the believer's soul" (8). This Holy War mobilized the Junta as a "warrior-savior", as a modern crusader fighting for God and freedom from foreign atheist ideologies. This, in part, self-perceived holy mission strengthened the Junta's self-image as Christ's vicar, as crusading defender of Christianity and its Natural Order from the "pagan agents and antinational beings of the Antichrist"(9). Not surprisingly, the military profession was defined by Monsignor Bonamín as a profession of religiosity. Consequently, it is no wander that before the armed forces toppled Isabel Peron's government, they asked for the Catholic Church benediction the night before the coup(10). The Argentinean Catholic Church was as deeply as it could possibly be involved in this crusade. The Crusade's sanctification by the ChurchAfter Videla and Massera were blessed by the heads of the Argentinean Episcopate the night before the coup, Parana's Archbishop and military Bishop Adolfo Tortolo announced that the Catholic Church would positively cooperate with the new government (11). The Church was actively supporting and legitimizing the imminent armed forces' putsch. This probably did not surprise the future Junta's leaders. In December 1975, just three months before the coup d'état, Tortolo had called for the military to inaugurate a "purification process" and his subordinate Bonamín had stated, during the mass in front of future Junta leader General Viola, that Christ wanted the armed forces to be beyond their function in the future (12). The vicars of Christ on Earth were actually telling the military what were their Lord's orders. This symbiosis between the sword and the cross continued even after the first accusations of human rights violations against the Junta. On October 1976, Tortolo declared that he did not know of any evidence that proved that human rights were being violated or abused. In 1977 he went even further by affirming that the Church thought that the armed forces were acting accordingly to the special demands of the present juncture; meaning that the military was fulfilling its duty (13). The same with Bonamín's declarations regarding the role of the armed forces: "…it was written, it was in God's plan that Argentina did not have to lose its greatness and it was saved by its natural custodian: the army"; "…Providence has given the army the duty to govern, from the Presidency to the intervention in a trade union"; and finally "…the anti-guerrilla fight is a battle for the Republic of Argentina, for its integrity, but also for its altars (…) This fight is a fight in morality's defense, of men's dignity, ultimately a fight in God's defense (…) That is why I ask for the divine protection in this dirty war to which we are committed to." (14)The vast majority of the Argentinean Catholic Church favored and strongly supported the military junta's government and repression. Only four of the eighty-four clerical members of the Argentinean Episcopate publicly denounced the regime's repression (15). However, the Church was not just backing the Junta because it legitimized its sacred duty to defend the fatherland or because it identified itself in the Junta's messianic mission; but because Church also had to deal with its own internal enemies. The Argentinean Catholic Church was, perhaps, the most conservative Latin-American national Church. It was strongly in disagreement with the three most important progressive movements inside the Catholic Church: the Second Vatican Council, the Third World Priesthood Movement and the Latin-American Episcopal Council of Medellin. The Theological Liberation Movement that spread through Latin America during the 60s and 70s was extremely popular among young Argentineans. Several priests identified themselves with the Movement and tried to bring change to the Argentinean Church through their communal and pastoral actions among poor sectors. Additionally, several Montoneros' members were former catholic school's students that had radicalized, in part, because of their experience with the Theological Liberation Movement. The Catholic Church, then, supported, or did not protest too much against, the "internal cleansing" done by the military; like the killing of Father Mujica, Angelleli and four Palotines clerics among other cases (16).Lastly, the Catholic Church was involved in a much sinister way with the Junta's actions. The heads of the Argentinean Church knew about the repressive methods being used by the security and armed forces and chose not to condemn them. They considered them as necessary sacrifices for the Common Good. Nevertheless, several clerics went further by assisting and taking an active part in the implementation of torture and other repressive mechanisms used by the Junta. More than two hundred prelates participated in four different ways: offering confession/absolution to the victims before being executed or thrown into the sea; assisting the torturers by playing the "good cop" role; being themselves the torturers; and, by confessing and spiritually assisting the torturers and other victimizers (17). The priest Christian von Wernich is, maybe, one of the best examples of the fusion between the cross and the sword. Not only he assisted the torturers in their tasks, he even was involved in the kidnapping and torture of several desaparecidos and in the infiltration of exiled groups in New York (18). He, among others like Archbishop Plaza, Fathers Astigueta, Castillo and Perlanda López that also assisted torture sessions, justified the repressive methods, not considering them sins, by legitimizing their, and the military, behavior under the Augustinian and De Vitorian doctrines of "just war". The support of the Catholic Church for the fight against subversion and its blessing was a pivotal element in the implementation of the plan of extermination and its suppressive mechanisms. The repressive methods, chosen by the Junta, were not void themselves of a messianic and divine nature. Divine and Redemptory Violence The three main types of violent acts that reflected the Junta's Messianic crusade, which were an integral part of their repressive methods, were: torture, thevictim's throwing into the sea and the appropriation of the victims' children by families deemed proper by the military. These violent means, chosen by the perpetrators to perpetually annihilate the ideas that were subverting the Argentinean Catholic traditions, were constructed under the discourse of "love" in two different ways: firstly, the kind of love upheld by Thomas Aquinas where the authority could legitimately kill evil-doers when the formers were motivated by charity. The crusading Junta envisaged that the repressive methods it used had a transcendental value. That type of violence was constructive rather than destructive, insofar as it was able to eradicate evil in order to create good (19). Love was considered the reason for an act of violence, for a punishment that redeemed the sinner, disregarding whether the latter survived the penitence. General Ramón Camps, commenting of how the detention centers perfected the victims through torture, said: "It is love that prioritizes and legitimates the actions of soldiers. The use of force to put an end to violence does not imply hate since it is nothing other than the difficult search for the restoration of love. In the war we are fighting, love of social body that we want to protect is what comes first in all of our actions" (20). Massera and Videla also referred to the dictatorship's repression as an "act of love" or "work that began with love"(21). All these statements reflected how the just war's discourse of Christian charity was in their minds by giving love a pivotal place.Secondly, there was another, and more complex, kind of love in the Junta's Christian-inspired crusade, which contrasted with the former metaphysical type and appeared exclusively in the torture tables of the detention centers, and should be labeled as sexual love. The torture sessions were filled of sexual symbolisms and discourse. The eroticism present in the torments was the exteriorization of the torturer's sexual -religiously repressed- desires into the body -the sexual surrogate totem- of the tortured. Consequently, the act of torture symbolized the act of sex(22). Like Jacobo Timerman perfectly put it, the Junta's violence was the emotional and erotic expression of a militarized nation (23).An expression orchestrated by the use of the picana. The latter was the preferred torture instrument used by the torturers for many reasons. Historically, it was first used by the nationalists during Uriburu's dictatorship and it was extremely effective in administering the desired amount of pain. However, symbolically, thepicana represented, better than other torments, the rawest manifestation of the Junta's conception of power related to "love's twofold sense". Considering torture as a Christian act of love, the picana was the necessary instrument to get a confession from the torturer that would eventually get him redemption. But thepicana had to fill a "void space". According to the perpetrators the victims were atheists (then they were not Argentines), which meant that in order to get any kind of absolution they had to, somehow, recognize and accept the Word of Christ. The Word would fill the empty victims; but first the picana would have to fill them with the will to "repent" and "convert". Once the tortured had received several electric shocks, they would receive and recite the Word by being ordered by the torturers to deliver Catholic prayers (24). Through these confessions the Junta's self perceived role of being the vicars of Christ on Earth was realized every time. They had defeated the atheist enemy but, employing Christian charity, they also had won the battle for the subversives' souls. Redemption was offered to anyone, even the irrecoverable cases. Even if their bodies were deprived of life their souls were saved. One of the ways that the ones not redeemed during confession were granted spiritual salvation was by the purifying power of water. By throwing them into the sea alive they were bestowing them a new, or first, "baptism" (25). It was the perpetrators' holy mission to redeem the victims' souls in life or in death. The picana, when considering torture as a sexual act, was also a phallic symbol. The torturer would make use of the picana-phallus to inflict pain and, at the same time, through the victim's screams and spasms satisfy his own repressed sexual desires. The perpetrator would systematically use the picana-phallus in the erogenous parts of the body. The body of the tortured would then transform into the sexual object of the repressor's desires. A sinful object that had to be purified with repent or conversion but only after the torturer's sexual desire had been satisfied (26). Symbols of divine violence can be found in other examples of torture sessions during the Junta's dictatorship. The torturers would yell at the captives, and would also made them say, "Viva Cristo Rey" and would make them thank God for another day by make them recite prayers before sleep. The picana was sometimes referred as "giving holy communion" as well as water-boarding was named "baptism". Among the many names that the torture chambers were given by the perpetrators there were: "the confessionary" and "the altar" (27). The latter clearly reflects the idea of sacrifice embedded in the repressors' minds. Regarding the victims' religious creeds the torturers would make a distinction between the recoverable and irrecoverable cases. Among the former ones there would be victims that had a catholic background because they had gone to catholic schools or because they knew how to recite prayers (28). Nevertheless, being catholic was not synonym of survival. The irrecoverable Catholics would only have their souls saved, but not their lives. Amid the desaparecidos there were an important proportion of Jews. About 1% of the Argentine population was of Jewish origin, but 20% of desaparecidos shared the same religious background (29). The Junta believed in an international communist conspiracy that, like the Nazis before, was leaded by the Jewry. Being Jewish meant being a Bolshevik. Additionally, the Junta's Messianic trope further propelled the kidnapping and execution of the community that, according to them, was responsible for Christ's crucifixion (30). Lastly, the appropriation of the desaparecidos children by the military was, perhaps, the most sinister of the Messianic-inspired repressive acts done by the military., The kidnapped pregnant women that gave birth in captivity, after being tortured regardless of their condition, were deprived of their children. The newborns were appropriated by families that would rise according to Catholic tradition. Motivated by Christian charity and its doctrine, these children would avoid the atheism, Judaism or wrongly conceived Catholicism that their parents would have offered them. These newborns were, according to the Junta, truly "innocent" and deserved to have the chance to live a proper life in genuine catholic families. Concluding RemarksThe Messianic ideology during the dictatorship was present not only in the Junta's ideology, but also in its discourse and repressive methods. Even if not everything that happened during the military regime can be explained through the catholic-nationalist ideology, the latter provides the essential motivation for the government. It is difficult to imagine that the magnitude, and chosen methods, of the repression would have been the same without the Messianic trope. By comparing the level of Argentinean repression to other military regimes of the Southern Cone in the same period, the distinction is remarkable. Not only the repressive mechanisms used by the Argentinean dictatorship were distinct, and more sadist and cruel, than the Chilean, Uruguayan and Brazilian cases, but the amount of Argentina's desaparecidos dwarfs those cases.Additionally, the Argentinean Catholic Church was the only one to completely back the regime and its repressive methods. In Chile, for example, the heads of the Church were divided in supporting Pinochet. Ultimately, the majority of the Church would condemn the Chilean regime. Regarding the political leadership, there are no religious discourses that serve as justification for the regimes in the other Southern Cone's dictatorships. The military juntas of those countries never legitimized their governments or their respective coup d'états in God's will or the salvation of Christian-Western civilization. National security and the fear of communism were their justification. Even if the regimes were ideologically justified, these were never of a religious nature like in the Argentinean case. It is probably the catholic-nationalist ideology, matured in the 30s, augmented by the international communist conspiracy typical of the Cold War that prompted the Junta in Argentina to completely wipeout what they perceived as atheist and foreign elements in society. Without a Messianic military that was ready to fight a crusade in order to restore order to the nation and without the blessing and active support from the Church, the repression would not have had the size and the horror that it had. The armed forces were fighting what they thought was the last crusade of the 20th century against the atheist forces of communism. The "Third World War" was already happening to them. Winning it was more than strategic, it was a holy mission. (1) Excerpts from a radio announcement made by the Junta after taking control of the State. Cited in Loveman, David and Davies, M. Thomas; The Politics of Antipolitics: The Military in Latin America; University of Nebraska Press; Lincoln; 1978; pp. 177. (2) See Novaro, Marcos and Palermo, Vicente; La Dictadura Militar; Paidos; Buenos Aires; 2003. (3) See Clarin, June the 26th 1976. Cited in Novaro, Marcos and Palermo, Vicente; La Dictadura Militar; Paidos; Buenos Aires; 2003; pp. 93. (4) Cited in Frontalini, Daniel and Caiati, Maria C.; El mito de la guerra sucia; CELS; Buenos Aires; 1984; pp. 90. Note how the East is viewed as the geopolitical source of "evil" similar to the Nazis' fear of the East. (5) See Graziano, Frank; Divine Violence. Spectacle, Psychosexuality, & Radical Christianity in the Argentine "Dirty War"; Westview Press; Boulder; 1992; pp. 120.(6) See CONADEP; Nunca Más; Eudeba; Buenos Aires; 1984; pp. 342. (7) See Castro Castillo, Marcial; Fuerzas armadas: Ética y represión; Nuevo Orden; Buenos Aires; 1979; pp.120. (8) Massera, Emilio; El país que queremos; FEPA; Buenos Aires; 1981; pp. 44. This concept of an internal and spiritual struggle is common to all religious fanatic ideologies. For example the original significance of Jihad was that of the soul's struggle against temptation. The concept would later evolve to holy war. (9) As subversives were defined by Ramon Agosti. Cited in Verbitsky, Horacio; La última batalla de la tercera guerra mundial; Legasa; Buenos Aires; 1984; pp.16. (10) La Nación, March the 25th 1976; cited in Mignone, Emilio; Iglesia y Dictadura; Colihue; Buenos Aires; 1986; pp.25. (11) See Mignone, Emilio; Iglesia y Dictadura; Colihue; Buenos Aires; 1986; pp.25. Additionally, Tortolo was Videla's private confessor. (12) Ibid; pp. 25(13) Ibid; pp. 26-28. (14) Ibid; pp. 30-31. (15) See Novaro, Marcos and Palermo, Vicente; La Dictadura Militar; Paidos; Buenos Aires; 2003; pp. 99 (16) Ibid; pp. 97(17) See Mignone, Emilio; Iglesia y Dictadura; Colihue; Buenos Aires; 1986; and CONADEP;Nunca Más; Eudeba; Buenos Aires; 1984; pp. 342-360. (18) See Mignone, Emilio; Iglesia y Dictadura; Colihue; Buenos Aires; 1986pp.179-188. (19) Graziano, Frank; Divine Violence. Spectacle, Psychosexuality, & Radical Christianity in the Argentine "Dirty War"; Westview Press; Boulder; 1992; pp.152(20) See Camps, Ramón; Caso Timerman: punto final; Tribuna Abierta; Buenos Aires; 1982; pp. 21. (21) CONADEP; Nunca Más; Eudeba; Buenos Aires; 1984; pp. 348. Additionaly, it is interesting to notice how Carl Schimitt's political theology theory is translated into the Junta's discourse. In this sense, the Junta's actions would be a Schimittian case of politics not being able to be dettached from religion. This, in turn, would contradict several secularization theories. See, Schimitt, Carl, Political Theology: Four Chapters on the Concept of Sovereignity, Chicago Univertisty Press, Chica, 2006.(22) Interestingly, Saint Augustine described copulation in such a dreadful way that it seemed like an act of torture. See Foucault, Michel; Historia de la Sexualidad: Vol. 1, La voluntada del saber; Siglo XXI; Buenos Aires; 2008; pp. 37. (23) See Timerman Jacobo; Preso sin nombre, celda sin número; De la Flor; Buenos Aires; 2002; pp. 17. (24) See CONADEP; Nunca Más; Eudeba; Buenos Aires; 1984; pp. 347-360; and Graziano, Frank; Divine Violence. Spectacle, Psychosexuality, & Radical Christianity in the Argentine "Dirty War"; Westview Press; Boulder; 1992; pp. 166. (25) It is rather interesting to note that throwing victims alive into the sea or rivers was a common killing method used by other strongly catholic Messianic inspired authoritarian regimes or groups. The falangistas would throw communists, anarchists and socialists (and whoever they thought was not catholic enough) to the rivers during the Spanish Civil War. The Algerian French and later the OAS would throw FLN suspects to the Mediterranean during the Algerian War of Independence. Even in Argentina, during the 1930s, the nationalists were talking about pushing the communists into the sea. A more detailed research should be conducted on this issue. Probably the Spanish Inquisition's torture methods, involving boiled water or a pool where the suspected heretics would drown, clearly influenced all of these cases into using natural sources of water to purify their sacred lands from the nonbelievers. (26) For more on torture as a sexual act and the picana as phallus see Graziano, Frank; Divine Violence. Spectacle, Psychosexuality, & Radical Christianity in the Argentine "Dirty War"; Westview Press; Boulder; 1992; pp. 158-190. (27) CONADEP; Nunca Más; Eudeba; Buenos Aires; 1984; pp. 26-50. (28) Many tortured victims remember how the torturers were clearly surprised to see the formers wearing crosses after making them take out their clothes. In some of these cases the torturers would say to the victims that their life would be saved because they were Christians but had lost their way and it would be the repressors' task to show them the right path. (29) See Novaro, Marcos and Palermo, Vicente; La Dictadura Militar; Paidos; Buenos Aires; 2003; pp. 115. (30) During the trial of torturer known as Jorge "El Tigre" Acosta a witness remembered him saying, after killing a captive while torturing him, that he was happy that he had died because he was going to be freed but he did not want a Jew to walk freely in Argentina; all Jews were guilty because they had killed Christ. See Diario Perfil; "Juicio al Tigre Acosta por el asesinato de Hugo Tarnopolsky"; May the 12th 2007. *Estudiante de Doctorado, New School for Social Research, New YorkMaestría en Estudios Internacionales, Universidad Torcuato Di Tella, Buenos AiresÁrea de Especialización: Procesos de formación del Estado moderno, sociología de la guerra, terrorismo, genocidio, conflictos étnicos, nacionalismos y minorías.E-mail: guere469@newschool.edu
In May 2015, the IFC Corporate Governance Group called together 40 experts in the field and members of the IFC Corporate Governance Private Sector Advisory Group. These participants explored key changes in international corporate governance standards and codes of best practice in the wake of the recent global financial crisis and how these changes have helped draw corporate attention to sustainability issues. The group found that many issues that became evident regarding banks in the financial crisis, and led to changes in the governance of banks, also have flowed through into broader corporate governance developments. This publication arises from the issues and information from these discussions. Specifically, part A discusses developments from global or regional groups involved in corporate governance. Part B addresses developments in corporate governance practice, and part C looks at developments in corporate governance codes and standards.
Myanmar's financial system is undergoing a rapid transformation. A history of economic isolation has left Myanmar with small and underdeveloped financial institutions and very low access to financial services. Since 2011, however, demands on the financial system have grown exponentially with increased trade and investment, growing household income, and expanding government operations. While recent reforms have stimulated financial sector growth, much more needs to be done to establish a competitive and vibrant financial sector that can meet the needs of Myanmar's expanding economy, boost incomes, and reduce poverty particularly among those living in rural areas. Increasing access to financial services is critical to achieving shared prosperity in Myanmar.
Strengthening the rule of law is widely regarded among traditional donors, multilateral institutions, and a growing number of middle income and fragile states as a necessary precondition for sustainable peace, poverty alleviation, and development. Crime and violence deter investment and lower employment, undermine social institutions, and divert resources through direct and indirect costs, all of which hinder development. It is likely to disproportionately affect poor and marginalized populations by limiting access to basic services. The formal criminal justice system is seen in many environments as failing to deliver justice. Most states experiencing fragility do not have the capacity to effectively prevent crime, enforce laws, or peacefully resolve disputes across the whole of their territories. There is another powerful deterrent for communities to seek redress through state criminal justice institutions: they are frequently a primary instrument for the government and elites to maintain power and control through the perpetration of injustice. The informal system, however, is alone insufficient to handle the pressing justice requirements of fragile states, not least for preventing and responding to inter-communal conflict, to serious organized and cross-border crime, and to public corruption and other 'white collar' crime.
Transcript of an oral history interview with Angus Macaulay, conducted by Sarah Yahm on 5 May 2015, as part of the Norwich Voices oral history project of the Sullivan Museum and History Center. Angus Macaulay graduated from Norwich University in 1966. His interview focuses on his military service in Korea and Vietnam after graduation as well as his later career at McGraw-Hill, INC. Magazine, and Magazine Services, Inc. ; Angus Macaulay, NU 1966, Oral History Interview May 5, 2015 Interviewed by Sarah Yahm AM It happened in our division when I was there. SY Really? AM I want you to ask me about - most of the guys who went to Vietnam they were gone for a year I was gone for almost two years And I think a question you might want to - that may come up would be what I - the perception of change I felt had happened in the US when I came home SY You know I was going to ask you about that And keep in mind this is casual and so if there's something you want me to ask just tell me We'll just - and you know just be like "Something I've been thinking about." AM Now what do you do? Would you transcribe this eventually? SY I have an assistant who transcribes it. AM Don't you have software that transcribes it? SY It doesn't work because there's so much that's in context and so the software misses AM Ah! SY - that and they botch words and they don't do grammar AM Will I ever see a copy of it? SY Yeah so the way it works is that so we do this recording I get back to Norwich the backlog could be a couple of months AM Oh don't worry about it SY - because transcribing takes a long time Clark gets to work on transcribing it Then what you get in the mail is a copy of the transcript and a CD of the interview You review the transcript make sure things are accurate Did you know Bill Bonk? AM Oh yeah SY Yeah well he AM Bill's a good friend of mine. SY Bill still needs - if you talk to him tell him to send me back my transcript Anyway so you know I sent - I interviewed Bill I sent him his transcript We talked for hours; it was an amazing interview And but you know there are some things like I you know I try to figure out all the place names correctly but there are some you know Vietnam-era military acronyms that I might mess up etc. AM Oh okay don't worry no don't worry about it SY - so he goes through and but he - so then he has to read through it and he has to you know make sure everything is correct and then he sends it Or also there are some things he told me that might be classified that he might want out of the record So you have the opportunity at that point to AM No I don't think I have any (laughs) SY He had a couple of secret missions I think he'll be fine with keeping them in But he might want to go through and think about that right? So then - or for instance somebody on tape said something mean about her mother-in-law and she's going to want to cut that out when I send her her transcript back right? Because this is going to be available on the website right? So the idea is you get it you look through it you make sure that there's nothing - or I interviewed an Iranian woman who describes how she left Iran illegally She's going to need to edit that out so that when she tries to go back to Iran for a visit she's not going to have issues leaving. AM Now how many people from our era have you interviewed? SY Let's see I have a bunch on the list to interview (repeats herself louder) I have a bunch on the list to interview AM From class of '66? SY Yeah there's - there - because of that recent Vietnam issue that came out of the Norwich Record? AM Right. SY A couple of people came out of the woodwork. AM Right. SY But I think Bill Bonk might be one of the - yeah and other people who were in Vietnam AM Bill was in my class Bill's a pretty good friend of mine yeah. SY He's great He's great A great storyteller. AM Yeah. SY So then I have a bunch of other people who've been in Vietnam but were either behind you or ahead of you right by a couple of years So yeah So that's the way it works AM Okay SY - is we have a conversation you get it back you get to look at it and then you sign off on it And then you know eventually they'll be a searchable archive So the idea is that if a student is interested in you know in Vietnam they'll go they'll type in "Vietnam" and then all of the transcripts will come up And if they're interested in a particular thing about Vietnam they can search for those particular words or things. AM Okay. SY And they'll have this - this sample set right of Norwich graduates and they'll be able to sort of you know ascertain certain things about US foreign policy in the 20th century I mean the idea is that this will be a research tool. AM Oh okay. SY Yeah So that's - that's essentially that's the way it works. AM Go. SY All right So here we are I'm interviewing Angus Macaulay It is May 5th - AM Are we on? SY Yeah I'm on And I'll just cut out that first part where we were chatting It's May 5th - correct? Yeah and we're at his house in Maine and we're going to begin interviewing I need to check levels AM Okay SY So if you could just I don't know tell me what you ate for breakfast today AM Well this is about - how is that level? Does that level work for you? SY Yeah it's pretty good If we can get just a little closer - AM A little closer Does that level work for you? SY Yeah that's good AM All right SY Let me actually check one thing I need to make sure - I need to know which - yep okay that is number one Okay AM Okay. SY So we're just going to start out a little bit with your early life So where were you born? AM Was born in New York Actually I was born in White Plains New York but I was raised in Chappaqua New York which is just about 35 miles north of New York City and born in 1942 SY And when you were a kid did you have any idea of what you wanted to be when you grew up? AM Well as we were talking earlier I had a you know a couple of things in my life One was I had done a lot of artwork as a kid and I had several members of my family that had served in the military So those were sort of the two options that I was looking at both military and art And I applied to Norwich I also applied to a couple of art schools several art schools in fact And my father who had been an artist early in his life really thought that it would be better for me to get a four-year education And I - so I applied to Norwich I got in and that's where I went That was really the only- that was the only I think there were a couple of other schools I applied and got into but it was the only one that I was really interested in SY And had you gone up and visited beforehand? AM Yeah I think I did Yeah as a matter of fact I think I did SY Do you remember what your impression of it was? AM No I really can't remember at this time I mean I - obviously I - the impressions are all with - when you - I can't remember the highway Route 7 is that the one that comes up from the south? Or Route 9 or whatever it is? Route 9 So I always remember coming back to school The - you sort of see the lights of the school and it did look a little - a little cool particularly in the wintertime So that was my impression But it was always a very pretty campus so SY And something I actually always ask in these interviews with people who have ended up going to war is did you play war as a kid? AM Did I play war as a kid? I think anybody who was raised - born during the war and raised during - in the 50s of course we played war I mean we take a look at what was - take a look at what was playing on the movie houses Every time they ever show the movie Sands of Iwo Jima the Marine Corps goes up so yeah we all did SY Yeah AM So SY OK so - so then you get to Norwich and some people find rook week easy some people find rook week to be quite a shock How did you deal with that first moment of- AM I think I probably adapted easier than most simply because I had gone away to prep school and I had lived away from home And when I put them all - string out years away from home I probably had six six and a half seven years as a boarding student away from my - both my parents were professionals My mother was a writer my dad was an art director/consultant So I was comfortable with living away from home I'd also had an uncle and a cousin that'd gone to West Point so they kind of clued me in to what to expect in other words don't attract too much attention to yourself and get real small for your first year and stay out of trouble So I don't think I was overly shocked by what I found I think there were a lot of people in my class that were and obviously it didn't work out for them and they left The turnover in my class was exceptionally high I believe we had - we started with something like 440 and we wound up graduating about 240 So there was a culture unfortunately up there of breaking you And I think that if you're in that kind of a situation you allow yourself to bend and not break SY Do you remember any moments where you were like what the hell did I get into? AM No SY Yeah AM No SY And do you remember - AM Be sure to speak up because - SY Oh I'm sorry! AM Yeah SY Yeah so you don't remember moments of doubt? AM No SY And do you remember were there moments of - were you frightened? AM No SY Were there parts of being a rook that you enjoyed? AM That I enjoyed? I think I enjoyed the idea of being in a group and I think it's still - this is - I think it's fairly true today I noticed that at Norwich there still is a great deal of bonding within each class And I was in K Company and I - it's funny because every once in a while I'll run into somebody who was in K Company when we were freshman And I was in other companies at Norwich in subsequent years and they would always bring back that we were in K Company together So there was a great bonding as a freshman So if you want to say did I enjoy that? Yeah I enjoyed that I enjoyed the idea of bonding I come out of a prep school - a coeducational prep school I came out of a very liberal prep school I had three girls four girls in my class who went to Bennington I mean you want to talk about you know complete opposites We had kids who went to Reed out in Oregon For me to go to Norwich they all thought I was nuts But - and actually I think I felt closer to the guys I was at Norwich with than I did with the kids I was in prep school with although my politics are probably more tuned you know skew more liberal than 90% of my class In fact they probably still do today SY Yeah I'm guessing just from having talked to members of your class and having talked to you Yeah So and that's actually something that I was thinking about in the drive up You're a year you're a year younger than my parents I know they were in college when you were in college and had very different experiences For them they were you know getting actively involved in the protest culture that was going on around them So at Norwich you were sort of insulated from the 60s that was emerging around you Were you sort of aware of the - did you feel alienated from the larger context of youth culture in the US? Was that something you thought about when you were there? AM I think that - I think quite frankly I'm not sure I agree with you First of all the culture of the 60s the counterculture of the 60s which you're talking about is something that happened - SY It's a little later AM That happened a little later That happened in 1968 '69 I think we were very much aware of what was going on in the civil rights movement And I - one of the things that - perhaps one of my most vivid memories is when I was 15 years old I went by myself on a bus ride from New York to Tucson Arizona which took me through Georgia Alabama Mississippi and Louisiana And I was by myself and I saw all of the segregation that was going on in the South And my parents were both very very liberal and they warned me about being very careful about what I said That said it also - my selection at Norwich had a great deal to do with why I did not apply to either VMI or The Citadel both of which I probably would have gotten into but I had some real issues with - the whole issue with segregation And it's interesting because at Norwich we were really insulated - we were insulated from that inasmuch as there were no African-Americans in our class And I remember there was a kid - there were a couple of kids - one Brooks who is now on the Board - I think he's on the Board of Trustees He was a year be- couple of years behind me And then there was a guy by the name of Harvey But there were only two or three African-Americans in our class at Norwich when I was there so it was predominantly a very white school It was also a very blue collar school SY Can you talk about that? AM Hmm? SY Can you talk about that? AM Sure I mean I you know I - yeah it was very blue collar One of my classmates Jake Sartz used to say "It's a blue collar military school." A lot of these kids you know I was - I had a sort of biz- I was bizarre A I was a prep school kid - there weren't a lot of prep school kids there Both of my parents were college educated My grandparents were college educ- my grandfather had a PhD in romance languages So I was with guys that - you know we had one classmate of mine who remains one of my favorite people and his father was a garbage collector and he put his child through Norwich and put another kid through college I think that's the great - that's who we are as a society or who we should be as a society Unfortunately I don't think that's where we're going now I think we've gotten to the point now where college education is so prohibitively expensive that it's going to be impossible for a lot of kids who deserve an education aren't going to get them Now all of this said my roommate my senior year - his father was a doctor His sister was at Marymount down in New York and she went on to Georgetown and got her doctorate in microbiology So - and Barry had also been through prep school So there were - there were some of us that had you know whose parents were well educated Roger Bloomfield - his father had gone through the merchant - what was that state? - New York State Maritime Academy and his mother had gone to Skidmore so it's not - and he was from Wellesley so it's not just saying I was alone Predominantly most of these kids were first generation college edu- these were the first kids in the you know to go to college and it was terrific SY Yeah So you were Senior Buck which means to some degree - could you talk about that? AM Yeah I was a Senior - I was a private for my freshman year for my first half of my sophomore year I was promoted to Corporal for my second semester and I was a Senior Buck my junior - a Junior Buck and a Senior Buck I was also involved with - in those days we did a lot of you know we had all these big weekends like Junior Week and Regimental Ball Weekend and all that stuff I did all the decorating for all those things I mean you go back and look at my stuff underneath my thing I was involved in the Outing Club I was involved in Hilly Chilly- do you know what Hilly Chilly is? Mountain and cold weather training I was on the Rescue Team and that was certainly - all of the guys on the Rescue Team - I think I was the only private on the Rescue Team I'm not s- it just wasn't all that important All that rank was - it would have been nice but it wasn't critical I mean we were all going to be Second Lieutenants when we graduated so quite frankly I you know and as I said to you at lunch I thought I saw a lot - as much bad leadership as I saw good leadership I saw some guys up there that - Roger Bloomfield was one Terry Van Meter was another - Terry Van Meter loved the military I mean this guy you know morning noon and night he loved the military but he never foisted it on anyone else He did his job and whatnot On the flip side there were some guys up there that were just - who were colonels and majors and they were - to them it was - it was really political and they were jerks And by the way these are the guys that don't come back to reunions and these the guys that don't give any money to the school I'm sure SY Yeah so you said earlier that you were sort of able to separate the bullshit from what you felt was meaningful So I guess what did you find meaningful and what did you kind of think was bullshit? How did you - AM I thought the Honor Code was the most meaningful thing I got out of the school In fact I wrote to Rich Schneider after reading the book - there's a wonderful book called The Nightingale's Song and it is about John McCain James Webb John Poindexter and Bud McFarlane They were all naval academy graduates they all lived under the honor code You know the story of McCain in Vietnam you know the st- I don't know if you know much about Jim Webb but Jim Webb was a Navy Cross recipient These guys were honorable men Poindexter and McFarlane and Oliver North all got involved with you know with this thing with Iran-Contra and cover-ups and whatnot and it's all about the honor And that's what the book is about and I wrote to Rich Schneider and I said that should be required reading that if you don't have personal honor you don't have nothing SY So do you remember moments when the Honor Code was applied? (phone rings) When you ah let's pause for a moment - AM Don't worry about it SY I don't know I've interviewed other people who had ethical struggles They just - AM I did SY Could you talk about those? AM Yeah I'll tell you a funny story We had a professor that every year would - I was - I can't even remember the course - and - but he would always publish - he always asked three questions on his final exam or five questions whatever it was out of 10 questions or 20 questions And there was always the same 20 questions and he always selected five of them And somebody had figured it out and so what I did was I figured out what 20 questions were and knew what the 20 answers to 20 questions were And I passed the course and all of a sudden I said "Was that an ethical issue?" And so I went to John [Molano?] who was I mean this sounds stupid believe me it sounds - I mean I think how stupid it is I went to Molano who was the Head of the Honor Committee I said "Joe you know I may the heck I may have committed an honor code violation." And I explained it to Joe and Joe said "Get lost That's Mickey Mouse." There were yeah there were honor code violations you know that I saw up there I don't - I don't remember there wasn't any -a lot of stealing I mean it just - it worked Is that what you're asking? SY Yeah moments like that - or how you internalized it It sounds like you resonated with it right away? How was it taught I guess is my question? AM How did you what? SY How was it taught? AM Well (laughs) honestly it's real simple A cadet does not lie steal cheat or condone people who do I mean (laughs) it's not much more to it than that Now you might have a booklet that explains all the legal ramifications but that's the - it's almost like an article in the Constitution it's real simple language - SY And you bought into it right away? It resonated with you? AM I think you buy into it because quite frankly if you don't have it you got to live with yourself And there are things we all - I wrote in that book that I gave you that you did for my 25th reunion about PTSD Did you remember to - did you read what I wrote about it? That there may be instances of PTSD that were caused by people who did things that they weren't particularly proud of Now I'm not sure I haven't modified that a bit to be more empathetic and understanding of what PTSD is I think everybody suffered from it at some degree But I think there were people that if you did watch that documentary on My Lai I was struck - there were two people who were involved one person who feels no responsibility for it and another one who feels a great deal of responsibility for it And I think PTSD has - there is - there were cases of situa- I don't know how people could live with themselves if they committed the kinds of offenses that were committed in Vietnam SY So I mean a big - right I mean when you're looking at something like My Lai or when you're looking at something like Abu Ghraib right? It requires being able to not follow orders right sometimes? AM I had an instance when I first got to Vietnam where I had a platoon and I was assigned to work with an infantry company And we had taken a prisoner - actually we had two of them and both of them were badly wounded they may have been patched up - well one of them excuse me one of them was badly wounded the other one was just tied up He was tied with his hands behind his back And they brought them out to where we were They flew them out by helicopter and we were going to go search for the weapons because the guy was going to take us to where his weapons were And he - one of them was so badly wounded he was on a stretcher and they were actually putting what do you call it some fluids into him or they actually had a bottle up there and the whole trail But the other guy he took these guy- he took the infantry men over to this spider trap - these are tunnels - and he said "It's down - my weapons are down there." And one of the guys went down there and it was booby trapped with spik- with Punji sticks Do you know what they are Punji sticks? They're sharpened bamboo sticks And they pulled him out The guy was messed up badly and everybody was trying to help this guy get him out of the hole and the prisoner broke loose and ran away And fortunately somebody - it took them about a half an hour but they did find him And they brought him back and one of the Vietnamese interpreters started to really beat him up badly to try and get information from him And at one point they dragged him over to one of our armored personnel carriers and said "OK let's roll over - let's roll over him with it." And at that point I said "OK pal that's about as far as I'm going to go." I mean I - you know I was brand new and that's no excuse and this guy was obviously a captain and I was a lieutenant but at that point I saw this thing was going to go across the edge that I wasn't ready to go I think there were a lot of people that were forced into those kinds of situations throughout Vietnam And I'm not going to kid you if you think that any one of us were easy on POWs you're dreaming It was just a very very difficult time particularly when you lost people That gives no excuse to what happened at My Lai because that was his excuse was "I lost a lot of people." Well goddammit I lost a lot of people but I didn't kill people to even the score and what - how are you evening the score? That one I don't get And how do you do it by evening the score with men women and children - or with women and children? I mean that is even further afield so Does that answer your question? SY Yeah what do you think enabled you to stand up to that captain in that moment? (repeats herself louder) What do you think enabled you to stand up to that captain in that moment? AM I don't think it was a big deal I mean I just said "It ain't gonna happen sir." And that didn't happen I mean it just wasn't going to happen I was not going to put one of my vehicles or one of my kids in a position where he had to make you know where he had to be part of that SY In terms of what I've been reading about Vietnam and PTSD I think part of what happened to a lot of enlisted men was that they didn't have officers who were taking care of them right? So the fact that you were thinking about what that would do to the men in your platoon protected them and so there was still a moral universe that they were functioning within Does that make sense? AM Well I think it makes sense I - there's a film out called Platoon I don't know if you've ever seen it but if you haven't seen it I really suggest you do And in the film the platoon sergeant Sergeant Barnes literally was pushing a platoon leader a young lieutenant around you know so you're not going to do this you're not going to do that Quite frankly I had the good fortune of having served for a year in K- almost a year in Korea I'd been a company commander in Korea and I had more sergeants rep- I had you know piles of sergeants reporting to me and other officers So at that point nobody was going to talk - no non-commissioned officer was going to talk to me and no enlisted officer - no enlisted man- was going to talk to me By the same token I had a wonderful medic who worked for me who used to remind me that we all put our pants on the same way every morning one leg at a time And quite frankly it was a tough enough situation that I didn't - you didn't have to spend a lot of time saluting and whatever I must say that in - I was really quite honored of the fact that I was always shown the greatest respect The main guys were very good to me Maybe the best reward I got was I got a wonderful gold watch mailed to me by my unit after I left I don't know how the guys got those gold watches from their unit We got you know other stuff But you know when I got that that's always been a prize possession SY What do you think made you a good leader? (repeats herself louder) What do you think made you a good leader? AM I don't know that I was a good leader I just (laughs) - I was a - you know I - that's tough to say what is a good leader and what's a bad leader? I think it - it's a matter of - well there's a thing that they try and - they used to try and talk about it The most important thing to start with is the mission I mean you got a job to do And then the second most important thing is to take care of your people And then the third thing to worry about is to take care of yourself Unfortunately I used to put it this way Vietnam was full of a lot of guys who were interested in their career There were not a lot of professionals We were talking about Fran Brennan who was the Class of 1964 Fran was a consummate professional I went down and spent a day with Fran He was a company commander He had A Company- first of the 6th Infantry You could just see the way he carried himself from the way he acted around his people that this was a guy they absolutely loved and respected So you know what do I think makes a great leader? Guys like Fran Brennan they're great leaders and what you try to do is you know you try and think how would Fran Brennan have operated? I had a comp- troop commander a company commander in Korea named [Daryl Blaylock?] and he was the same kind of guy He'd been an all-American at Alabama played football career army officer - and it was just the way he treated people If you treat people with respect you know and make them p- not make them part of the decision process because it isn't a democracy You always have to remember at best it's an enlightened despotism That you just treat people with respect make them part of the process let them know what's going on try not to be too terribly - show any you know too terrible - fear because quite frankly when things start happening quickly as it did a number of times after a while you try not to show it if you can But by the way anybody who tells you you weren't scared is either a fool or crazy or doesn't know what they're talking about SY Yeah Let's go back a little bit Did you commission right after you graduated? AM Right SY You did? AM Yeah SY Yeah And you went to Korea? AM Well first I went down to Fort Knox and I spent - went down to the Armor Officers Basic course at Fort Knox And I had volunteered for Vietnam at Norwich SY Really? And did you know what was going on over there? AM Oh yeah But I - this is part of who I am I mean to be honest is that I kind of sensed what was going - I sensed the importance of what was going on I'm not sure I sens- understood exactly what was going on The Battle of Ia Drang Valley happened the month my senior year November my senior year 1965 and I volunteered not only for Vietnam but I volunteered for the First Calvary Division I'm not sure well first of all I said how the hell can you be in the army and not be where it's happening? What I didn't realize and I came to realize very quickly is that it was the defining moment of my generation I have classmates of mine who and God Bl- I love them dearly and they went to Germany and/or you know they went to Fort Polk Louisiana or Fort Benning and spent two years and got out and did nothing I mean they did their service and they're honorable veterans and they probably would have been superb guys in Vietnam but they weren't there And there was a big difference between being there and not being there So I went to Fort Knox and then when I got to Fort Knox they told me that I had to spend a year at Fort Knox before going to Vietnam but I was going They said "You're going." And I said "Well what am I going to do?" And they said "Well you're going to be an OCS TAC officer You're going to run like Officer Candidates like at Norwich." And I went I hated that stuff I hate all that nonsense of shining your shoes and running around and taking people and bossing and all that stuff And I said "I would really would rather be with troops I want to be with real troops." And so I went to see my company commander and I said "Is there a way I can find some troop duty?" And the guy said "Well not unless you're willing to go to Korea." And I said "Fine I'll go to Korea for a year." And he says "You're crazy." And I went "Yeah but I'm single and I got you know." You see when you're that single I mean you have no other responsibilities and so I got on the phone on - it was funny because there was another guy I grew up with from Pleasantville New York - actually Jimmy [Skiff?] - and Jim said "Gee that's a great idea." He wan- he was going to Vietnam too We had the same timetable And so Jim sat down and wrote a letter to somebody in the Pentagon and I sat down and somebody gave me a phone number and I called the guy - called this guy He said "You crazy?" I said "Yeah." He said "Fine I'll cut your orders this afternoon." You know and Jim had to wait four weeks to get an answer (laughs) So I went to Korea and I got to Korea And they were going to send me to a tank outfit and I went "No I'd rather go to a cav outfit." And they said "Well we got a tank outfit open we need somebody in it - cav outfit." I said "I really rather go to a cav unit." And so I went to attend cav and you know I spent almost nine months there SY What were you doing in Korea and what was your impression of Korea? AM Well you have to realize I still think Korea is even today the most dangerous place in the world We were working - the cav squadron which is a battalion was operating with the 7th Division I started out basically in staff headquarters but they immediately moved me over to B Troop And I was the First Platoon Leader of B Troop and also the Executive Officer because the guy only had - it was the Captain and myself And there were - because Vietnam you got to realize there was such a shortage of officers that it was just him and me And one day he walked in I guess this was around - I put it in my notes but it was in the spring of 1967 he came in and he said - I think I'd been in there three months three and a half months - and he said "Well I got good news and good news." I said "What's that?" He said "The good news is I'm going home early and I'm leaving in two weeks." I said "Great What's the other good news?" He says "You're the new troop commander." So what - Second Lieutenant is normally slotted for platoon and the idea that I'm running now a company and I was doing it by myself with a bunch of sergeants And these guys were terrific I mean these guys really took me under their wing and they taught me a lot of good stuff And so I did that for a year and then finally I started getting in platoon leaders - all of whom by the way had come out of OCS and all of them you know I was at that point I was older than most of these guys I was 24 25 - 24 And these guys were 18 - well no not 18 they were about 19 and 20 years old One or - one of them - two of them had two years of college but they had quit college They were very much like William Calley He was a product of you know he'd spent a year in college and gotten thrown out and. And you know OCS at one time was really one of the really premier ways of commissioning guys During Vietnam I saw a bunch of guys come out of OCS - some of them I thought were terrific and some of them I thought were just bozos because they just - and it wasn't their fault It was - they were just so young So anyway I ran the company for - until September We were basically doing everything from working - doing some work up on the DMZ Basically we were just an occupation force doing a lot of stuff out in the field a lot of training out in the field which was really great for me because by the time I got to Vietnam I was familiar with working with vehicles I was familiar with working with people I was working with - familiar with working with maps with radios and all this stuff Whereas if I had stayed at Fort Knox I would have never gotten that kind of experience Fast forward when I show up in Vietnam I said "Oh I'm up on my way to the 1st Calvary." They said "Well they've changed your orders You're going now to F Troop 17th Cav part of the 196th Light Infantry." Now two things went through my mind First of all I had been at Fort Devens when the 196th was there and they were a complete bozo outfit They were really - couldn't find their way out of a paper bag And the worst of them was this F Troop So I had a real problem and I got up there and of course they'd been in Vietnam for over a year By that time it had all of this all of the badness knocked out of them They were very very good; they were very seasoned When I got to the unit the troop commander opened my 2-0-1 file they looked at my 2-0-1 file and they said "You have more command time than I do." He said "Do you mind commanding a platoon again?" And I said "Why? I'm - I was just promoted to First Lieutenant not to Captain of the whatever-you-want-me-to-do." So I was a platoon leader for four months and then became Executive Officer just when the Tet Offensive broke out SY When you think about Vietnam do you have sense memories of Vietnam? Smells sounds? AM I don't think there's a day - there's a day that doesn't go by that I don't think about it SY How do you think about it? How does it come to you? AM That's hard to say I mean it just you know different things You know just yeah I mean your mind always sort of lies - I mean for years I couldn't go to sleep at night before without drifting back to it Now it's a lot easier I've remained very close to the people In fact this morning I wrote to - oh probably we're going to have a reunion down in Florida in October and one of the guys who actually had been a driver for me - he and I are coordinating Another guy who had been a driver for me - radio operator you know we're just trying to put it all together so you know I for some reason I will always think about it I mean it just - it comes back so I mean you have to realize that the intensity of those situations particularly the ones when there was some where people were either getting hurt or you were hurting people or you want to call it combat or whatever It's all slow motion I don't know when you talked to other people whether they've said the same thing that you - it - I can - the first big firefight I got into I felt like after you know it seemed like hours Of course I looked at my watch and we'd only been going at it for a half an hour and I felt like I'd been there for four hours or five hours So you're - this - it becomes very intense and the memories and the images become very very vivid in your mind SY Yeah Did you react to battle or combat the way you thought you would beforehand? AM Well as I say in my - in some of the stuff I've left you I mean I - yeah I guess I did No I - that's a hard question to answer I mean I don't know how the hell I thought I was going to react SY How did you react? AM Well I - we - one of the guys because we were a mobile outfit you ask me how could someone have taken pictures? Well because we had mobility and so guys could carry cameras One guy actually had a tape recorder during the middle of a firefight and I remember listening to that tape And it was a major firefight I mean it lasted all day And I think the thing that shocked me the most about that tape was the fact that I sounded reasonably cool on the radio I mean I kept hearing myself and saying "My God you know I was terrified" and I was! And I was listening to the tape and yet the person talking on the radio was not displaying - does that make any sense to you? SY It makes a lot of sense to me that you managed to sort of perform your role AM Well yeah you know - I - yes but don't overstate (laughs) my heroism because believe me it was just - I think it's also part of that if you want to call it the Norwich training or West Point training or VMI or any one of those when you come out of that there's a lot of that stuff that you - it becomes second nature to you to react to and you do it out of understanding that there are procedures that you're going to have to follow And it's very funny because I remember that we used to have this thing called Mars Stations and Mars Stations were these telephone setups where you could call the United States And I'd been overseas at that point probably 15 months and I hadn't spoken to my parents and - it's not like today with a cell phone - and so somebody set up a phone call and when you get on the radio - when you get on the phone you're actually talking on a radio that you know the guy briefing you said "Look it's just like radio procedure" you know you talk and then you say "Over." You know you use all the formality of radio procedure Well hell I get on the phone I was so excited I forgot radio procedure On the other hand my mother who had never talked on a radio in her life had been briefed similar and she was doing everything correctly So yeah I don't know SY Do you still have your letters? Does anybody have the letters you wrote? AM Yeah I have them upstairs and actually I didn't send them to you when they did that issue Yeah I have them SY Would - are you - is there any part - you want to donate them or are they too private? AM There's some things in there It's funny you should say that because when I - when that whole thing came up and they were looking for letters and I was going to send them in and I had found them and it was when I was a company commander And it was a letter I found And by the way ask me about the second letter because I want to talk about the second letter that I got Well no maybe a third one I went and read that letter and it was sort of not chatty it was sort of telling them what was going on This had to have been in the spring of '6-summer of '68 And I remember reading in a line or a paragraph about the fact that one of my people had been charged with rape which was unusual for our unit And what really shocked me today is I can't remember exactly what happened SY I suspect there was so much going on that was so awful all the time that that one just disappeared AM Well you know it's very funny - well before I get to the second letter I'll mention another one We had a - we were operating out of a - at one point in the summer of 1968 they took my company they put us out on a base camp out in the middle of nowhere in the Quế Sơn Valley a place called LZ Colt And by the way there are photographs in that CD that I'm going to give you has pictures of LZ Colt SY I'm wondering if we should look through some of this stuff because it might trigger your memories - AM No I know those photographs pretty well We were out there and we used to send guys home three days before - you came out of the field three days before your turn to rotate You know you went - or two days whatever the deal was And we sent the guy back - we sent this kid back to LZ Baldy which was our forward operating area And he was going to get on a truck and he was going to ride in a truck from LZ Baldy about 40 miles - 40 kilometers south to Chu Lai - and he was going to go through the medical thing and clear all his stuff and then fly home That is the last day That's your date you know that's it you're home and it's a cakewalk at that point He's riding in this truck and coming in the opposite direction is a tank And the guy who's riding on the tank wanted to know how f- asks the tank driver "How fast will this thing really go?" And there's an accident and this kid is killed who's on his way home - the last day! That was whatever that date is and you can look it up was the day that Martin Luther King was shot Is that '68? I think it was '68 SY It was '68 AM Yeah it was either Ja- it was either King or Kennedy I can't remember which It was Kennedy I think It was Kennedy SY Right - AM Bobby Kennedy SY - because they were in rapid succession AM And because I had been a big Kennedy pa- fan somebody radioed me and said "Bobby Kennedy has been shot." It was Bob Kennedy And on the heels of that I heard this other news and I just - I remember my reaction was I could really give a shit about Bobby Kennedy at this point The idea that this poor kid had gone through all of this and then died was ridiculous I mean it was just terrible The other one the other letter and I have the letter It was from a parent of a kid we lost and it was right after I became troop commander And the parents were writing me a letter consoling me for the loss of their own son because quote as I recall the words "they knew the kid had been well-led blah blah blah blah." And the problem is is now if we had been talking about my platoon I could remember every kid in my platoon At that point I had a company I had three platoons I remember the kid's name but I couldn't picture his face And here these parents were writing this incredible letter to me and I couldn't remember the kid's face SY Oh! AM So that's you know these are the you know I don't know And there were so many of these you know you lose one the first - last day in Vietnam We had a kid who was killed - I became troop commander when the troop commander just - I became troop commander twice but the second time which for the longest period I took over when the troop commander's vehicle hit a mine and it was made up of white phosphorous Do you know what white phosphorous is? It burned the whole thing burned the entire crew up And he got blown free and he got out and quite frankly it's too bad he got out He should have been killed because quite frankly he had put these people in a position where they should not have been You don't cross a bridge in a vehicle You know that there's going to be a mine at the end of that bridge You go find another way It's the only - but anyway I went back and looked at the vehicle The vehicle was up on its end and everything had fallen down inside And I went back and I purposely went in to look at one of the bodies because the kid had just joined the unit and nobody knew who he was And I always felt that I - I felt an obligation to see this kid if only to remember him because nobody else would And in fact he was so new to the unit that they would not allow me to positively identify him I think you had to be in the unit for seven days or six days or something like that before anybody could give you a positive ID So he was obviously shipped home and done by dental records or something like that So it was you know that was you know there was always that first day there was that last day there was the letter I mean you get these sort of bizarre things that happen to you so there SY Did you have to write letters home - AM Oh yeah SY - when a kid in your unit died? Do you remember that process? AM Yeah and that was strange because I as I said I became troop commander twice The second time- and again it's in that recollections that I wrote- my troop commander went on R&R and he went on R&R the day the Tet Offensive broke out And that in itself would have been OK except we didn't know how serious it was so he went home And he was gone - usually those R&Rs were about a week and he was gone for close to two weeks maybe even a little longer And of course part of the Tet Offensive was they were out planting mines and booby traps all over the place In the first vehicle we lost we had 13 guys on board and all of them were killed Now four of them were part of my troop and nine of them were from the infantry So somebody else had to write those other nine letters but I had to write those four letters But the last guy killed in the whole that two-week period happened to be a guy who was probably my best friend He was a buck sergeant who had been in my platoon And his name was Ron Adams just a terrific guy This was his - he had been in Vietnam with another unit had been sent to us He had had prior service He had been in - I think he had been in the Air Force or Navy I guess - married had a child And I actually got to I mean we were close enough that I knew about his wife and his children and all so And so I sat down and I wrote - I went beyond the quote "standard letter" because I thought that that's what they would want to hear from me because obviously I assumed that they knew that we were pretty good friends Then the letter got bounced back - you can't write that You have to use the form Now in 1997 I posted something about Ron on the virtual wall And I guess I left my email because the next thing I know I got an email from his niece and the next thing I know I got an email from Ron's sister And then Ron's sister called me and asked - she was coming up to Boston - we were living in Boston at the time - and so she would she asked if she could come out and see me I said "Absolutely." So we spent the whole day together talking about her brother And what was sad about it - it was she said you know when he was wounded or when he was killed he was first listed as MIA And she said "The impression we always had is that he had been missing and you all had left him." And I said "Well no nothing but - his vehicle blew up is what happened" and he and another fellow - a kid by the name of Lester Smart Mack Smart Maxwell Smart from Get Smart - remember that movie? Well that's why his nickname was Mack And I said "No no he was killed and you know we put him together and sent him back." And she said "We were always under the impression that you had left him." And I said "Well again that was not true." So. SY I wish you'd been able to send that letter AM Huh? SY I wish you'd been able to send that first letter AM Well you know listen I - you know I write better today than I did then (laughs) I prob- no I you know listen I must say that one thing that supposedly Lyndon Johnson did - are you aware that he signed every letter? SY I wasn't. AM Yeah SY That's interesting AM The way it worked from what I understood is that when someone was lost it would go - the company commander would write a letter and then the battalion commander brigade division And I think it went down to MACP [mortuary affairs collection point] and Westmoreland would sign the letter and then a letter went home But then the whole package went to the White House and he signed it Now I don't know if that's true or not but that was what I was under the impression is the way it operated But the President's letter started and yours was on the bottom But yeah I wrote - that was difficult On the other side I got a letter from one of my - I'll just say one of my company commanders - I won't identify which one But I got - because we were a separate battalion - company we had no battalion I got - somebody walked in my office one day we were back in the rear he said "Lieutenant we have a letter for the chaplain." I said "Well I suppose I'm the chaplain too." And I opened it up and it was from some woman who was obviously an extra-marital girlfriend of the Captain and she was wondering why he hadn't written (laughs) I knew he was married so I - I just - I put that one in the circular file I didn't want to touch that one so my experience of being a chaplain was very short-lived SY Very brief so the guy who you said was your best friend he was a sergeant? AM Yeah SY So was that - I somehow thought because he was technically enlisted because he was an NCO - (repeats herself louder) because he was an NCO - AM Right SY - and you were a commissioned officer would that be considered fraternizing? How did those boundaries work? AM Well I you know I don't think - that - you got to re- I mean think about that question Think about it - no it doesn't - no all that stuff go- that is f- that maybe works in the rear some place But it doesn't work in the real world when somebody is shooting at you or you're out on an operation Now I had a - there was a - I have had - I had one young guy - night we were working an operation and we were working at night and we were loggered up - "loggered up" is like we were hunkered into a position and we had a - we were being infiltrated And I was very cautious about opening fire at night primarily because tracer rounds will give you away And I was telling the guys that "Look these people were coming in so close that we can use hand grenades And the reality is is that hand grenades will leave no telltale where they came from So I want you to toss a grenade out there and scare them away." Quite frankly I didn't want to get into a firefight at that point because it all - it's too confusing but there was an American - we were on one side of a river and there was an American unit on the other side of the river And what I was terrified and actually did happen was we - two American units wound up shooting at each other And that kind of stuff happened But anyway during the course of this sort of very quiet radio talk going back and forth between myself and the sergeant the guy kept saying that he was going to open up fire and I said finally I said "Goddammit I'm the lieutenant and today I get to be the troop commander Now tomorrow if I'm dead and you are the troop commander you can make that decision." And you know but I didn't have to do that kind of stuff a lot That you know that didn't - SY There was no standing on ceremony AM No It really wasn't I will tell you I think probably one of the more amusing - we were out in the valley and there were 30 ve- we had 30-plus vehicles - and it was raining it was lousy and it had been a very uneventful trip And you have to understand everybody is plugged in Everybody has a radio set on everybody's got a microphone the whole thing So you got 30+ vehicles four men - at least four guys per vehicle so you got 120 radios operating Now my - our call - my call sign was Fox - well my call sign had been Fox 6 but my nickname became Fox So they whenever they were talking they would talk Lieutenant Fox and what have you regardless of what our real call sign was So we're crossing this very very shallow river and it was very muddy and one of the vehicles - and we were tired I mean we'd been out for da- several days and we wanted to get back into base camp I was wet I was tired everybody else was wet everybody else was tired everybody else was fed up to here And I remember all of a sudden I got a radio call I would track behind the first platoon - First A vehicle zone and on my vehicle and then there would be 16 vehicles behind me Is that right? And then essentially well essentially I said 24 there'd be two in the head if I was taking 26 out I guess And one of the vehicles behind me threw his track In other words the whole thing came on - off the tracks Does that make sense to you? OK "threw a track." And I got off on a God- because the guy had taken too sharp a turn And I got on a Goddammit! I went on a blue streak of four letter words and I stood up on my vehicle I was looking back at this guy and I'm going on and on and I hear this voice say "Fuck you Fox!" And I looked around and every eyeball in the unit was looking at me And all of a sudden I realized they were absolutely right They were just as tired they were just as wet they were just as pissed off and all I could do was laugh So I mean does that explain to you the relationship? I mean I'm going to need - I wrote an email this morning - the four guys I'm going to - the three guys I'm trying to get together - we're going to be down and - all of them were sergeants One of them lost both legs and his arm you know and we - we don't call each other lieutenant we don't call each other sergeant It's Angus it's Chris it's Jim it's Tom Tom is an interesting guy Tom is a Catholic priest and if Tom says "All those words that you used on the radio I finally learned what they meant when I got to the seminary" because they swore just as bad as you did So I don't know SY I think that story actually answers the question I asked about you as a leader right? That's a moment of you being a good leader It's a moment of you having a sense of humor about yourself It's a moment of you being able to take criticism and feedback right and respond accordingly? AM I don't know you know I think that - you - I - that's a tough one I mean I can't make any judgments about myself as a leader That's you know if you want to know who I was as a leader then call Chris [Wunzer?] up And call Jimmy [Sherslee?] up Talk to those guys That's one of the things that I think that's interesting is that these were kids who - Chris had gone to North Texas State played football Lee [Guava?] had gone to the University of Wisconsin one of the smaller University of Wisconsin Jim Sherslee actually went in the Army because the judge said "Either you go in the Army or you're going two years in the slammer." SY That was how my dad's best friend ended up going to Vietnam Yeah. AM Tom [Trippenere?] I think was always destined for the priesthood But these kids it's incredible because they all were either drafted - most of them were drafted you know they all took on the responsibilities of being young leaders And believe me being a squad leader or a section leader - or scout section leader - with two vehicles you're responsible for eight guys You know every couple of days you're going to be the first guy on the truck and if you want to look at some pictures at what happens to a truck when they hit a mine it takes a lot of guts a lot of courage So again yeah I mean I think that standing on about the ceremony of rank - but they always treated me with you know proper deference always called me "Sir" or "LT"- does that sort of. SY Yeah Was there any such thing as a standard day in Vietnam - AM No SY - or was it different every day? AM No and what there is is by the way there's no Saturdays off either no Sundays off I mean you're working seven days a week You're working 24 hours SY And are you just in sort of a heightened state of anxiety all the time? AM Yeah I'll tell you what I've tried to describe this over the years as saying - have you ever been in an automobile accident? SY Yes AM You know that funny feeling just before you hit? SY It's that feeling where you're like "Oh I might be about to die How do I feel about that?" AM Well it might not even be that It might be just so much as you know that you're going to crunch the fender and is that - SY Inevitability? AM Yeah Now that's what Vietnam was like You just ride around with that little feeling in your gut all the time SY That's a good description yeah AM Yes so I mean and by the way when you heighten your anxiety to that level that's why everything is so vivid People say "Well how the hell could you remember that?" Very simple You're walking around - if you lived your life that way every day 24/7 first of all you'd probably go mad but - and that's why you get people high I imagine you wind up with you know a certain amount of battle fatigue or what have you whatever they call it so SY Yeah Did you have nightmares when you were there? Or did you have nightmares when you came home? AM No SY No? AM No I remember going on R&R and I went up to R&R to camp - I went up to Camp Zama in Japan - was it Camp Zama? I guess it was Camp Zama in Japan and - because I knew a girl up in Tokyo that I had met on R&R - I had met between tours She was an American She was going to the American School - university in Tokyo And I thought there might be something there but there really wasn't And I you know it's - I was pretty much involved with a gal in the States but this girl was very very nice and I just thought I wanted to go back and spend some time with her But I remember getting to Camp Zama and that first night - all the enlisted guys were going to Japan They all took them over to barracks and whatnot And the officers of which there weren't very many of us took us to an officer's BOQ Bachelor Officer Quarters I got a private room and a shower and all that stuff And I remember having to - first of all I couldn't go to sleep because it was so quiet And then I remember actually pulling all my stuff and sleeping on the floor because I was so used to sleeping on the floor of an APC And on the next night I gave in and went to sleep like a regular person SY Like a regular guy So what are the incidents that you've written up? Are they particular incidents? AM Well the only one I really I mean I had written a long article about a helicopter pilot who I thought had done some extraordinary things on Thanksgiving Day in 1967 which was probably the biggest firefight I was ever in SY Do you want to tell that story? AM Hmm? SY Do you want to tell that story? AM Well it's all there I mean I - it - when I say yeah I mean when I say tell a story I was a platoon leader who - we were - we weren't supposed to be there and I didn't even know this other operation was going on And all of a sudden I got a radio call to move about four -three or four kilometers south that our second platoon was - had been amb- partly ambushed and I didn't even know they were part of a major task force And I got down there and they had been ambushed There were two I think it was two companies of Americans plus our - one of our platoons and four tanks And we had run into - and the size of the unit I'm never been - never quite sure but from what I understand it was a couple of companies of North Vietnamese And they took out the platoon leader's tank which took the task force commander and knocked him off the vehicle The vehicle ran over his arm this Major - I've gotten to know the guy very very well His name is [Gill Dorlan?] So all of a sudden I basically you better move down there and help out And so I blithefully charged in there not having a bloody idea what's going on And when we pull in there all these vehicles were sort of limp and getting shot at and there's this big wooden line on a hill and it was just very very messy And so the article I wrote about or what I had written in that article was a helicopter pilot that came in to drop off some infantry support and wound up and not through his own fault but wound up literally landing in a crossfire between us and the North Vietnamese And rather than just taking off dropping the troops he let his helicopter down and acted as a screen so the troops could come back to our line and he was just getting pasted and finally he took off and he was just you know kicking out smoke and all that stuff and went back And I - I've always thought that was probably one of the most heroic things I've ever seen because it was done on purpose I mean clearly he was trying to keep these kids from getting shot up And then the whole operation lasted I guess three or four days And so the next part of the operation was for us to assault the hill and that again is written in all the reflections that I've written about But what I - a couple of things as I was re-reading that again this morning the things I remember most were one the - when we got the orders to move and you asked me about - SY Ethics? AM No natural leadership and also - there also comes a point in time when you wind up being led because everybody's on a radio and so they heard we were moving out and going up that hill and everybody just started moving I didn't have to tell anybody to move They just started moving I always wondered to myself whether - did I really have the courage to give the order to move? And the next thing I know we're trying to - we're going up this hill That's the first thing I remember most about So I was as led as much up that hill as anybody else The second thing I remember most was it was a struggle getting up that hill because these guys were very - these North Vietnamese were dug in in bunkers and whatnot We had to take them out And then when we got to the top we took a round - an RPG round - on the side of our vehicle that hit our vehicle and did not go off It was a dud It would have killed everybody in our vehicle had it gone off And that's real pucker time when something like that happens where you all of a sudden realize you were that close SY And can you think about that afterwards or do you have to not think about it because it'll make you crazy? AM I don't think I thought about it I mean yeah you think about it I mean I th- I'll tell you what you think about it after - there is a photograph - we'll look at the photographs later but there is a photograph where you can actually see the scar on the side of the vehicle SY So you think about it later the next day AM You think about it later I mean one of the things that I - it's not in that piece is how dry my mouth was I mean it was just - for some reason I don't know why we didn't have more water with us because normally we carried - each vehicle carried five gallons of water But for some reason we didn't have a lot of water I remember that was something and I remember my mouth just tasted like it was cotton on the inside The other thing that happened was - once we cleared - got to the top of the hill and cleared that and we sort of in another - and brought some infantry in with us and they got beaten up very badly We started taking fire from behind us and all of a sudden there was that you know that moment go through your mind that "My God we're surrounded" because they were behind us they were ahead of us and all that stuff And that was pretty scary but also we had so much firepower they weren't going to take us out I mean it was just - it was sort of like a Mexican standoff a lot of shooting And again things out of my notes - I remember a couple of times thinking if everybody would just stop shooting for a few minutes so I could collect my thoughts we'd be probably far better off and I could make more rational decisions (laughs) Yeah I mean and then you know and then of course the thing went on for a couple of days And another recollection I put in there is that we were calling in - there was another village that we're getting a lot of fire from and we called - we were calling in some artillery on it And we were far enough away that I thought you could stand up and observe it until I felt a hunk of shrapnel go by my face and I could feel literally the wind when it went sailing by my head which meant if my head had been two inches three inches left or right I would have been killed And that really scared the hell out of me and I remember going back and getting inside my track and hiding That was - it was a hell of a way to spend Thanksgiving I must say And actually also in my recollections at one point a helicopter - we had been screaming for - we had been screaming for re-supply of ammunition because we'd been shooting all morning and our firing discipline was awful In other words we weren't controlling how much we were shooting and I wasn't paying much attention to it I figured "Hell Uncle Sam's running this thing and my God it's a bottomless pit Look at the Defense Department budget." And so when we started running low on ammunition I called for re-supply And this helicopter came in and it's all dusty and the crap is all flying all over the place our guys are kicking this stuff off and running over- and it was somebody's Thanksgiving dinner It wasn't ours and I don't even know who ate it because I didn't eat any of it But we didn't get any ammunition Now there is a story - a friend of mine told me it was back at brigade headquarters - I got on the radio and I said "Look I need ammunition." And he said "But when you asked for that re-supply and that screwed up" he said "you got on the radio" and he said "you used a string of four-letter words about the incompetence of people." And at that point General [Geddes?] who was Division Commander walked into brigade headquarters and there I - and this was on a loudspeaker- I was. And Geddes is supposed to have said "Somebody better get that young lieutenant some ammunition because I think he's pissed off enough to come back and shoot you guys" or words to that effect Now I don't know whether that yarn is true I'd like to believe it is SY It's a good story AM It's a good story SY I like that story So I've read about when I read - I think this might have even been on some of letters I read from Norwich alumni - I don't remember about superstitions good luck charms especially when people were "short." Right? That's the phrase when you're about to go home? Things you did to try and guarantee your safety Did you have any of those? AM No SY No? AM I will tell you that - you got to realize I'm there - I was overseas at this point for almost - over 20 months at this point That was longer than anybody and I - albeit eight of it had been in Korea And I was terrified And I was terrified that I was going to get hurt And you know it's a very - I've always felt very guilty about that because I'm now responsible for these 195 kids and I'm worried about my own personal safety and that started to bo- that did bother me We were down - we were down at a place called - we were down at LZ Ross and it was on this road that took - went into the Quế Sơn Valley And I have to say that road had more destroyed vehicles and junk on it - you could shake a stick - had probably more road - there was more damage on that road than any place in Vietnam There probably were more but it was damn near And we had been down there and we were coming back and it was the day before my ro- my turning over the troop to the new guy and he was a Captain And we rode past A Company of the 2nd or the 1st I remember that - and this old Captain was running it this great old guy he was like in his 30s and I you know I mean he was an old guy and he was in his 30s (laughs) and he had this terrible limp from one of his wounds And we went through the gate and I went "It's over man!" I got out and you know as long as I don't get hit in a car accident or shot down in a helicopter I'm cool I'm golden I'm home And we get in and we dismounted and all of a sudden a radio call comes in saying that there was a unit had started taking fire and that we were the new reaction force And I remember climbing up on my vehicle and this Captain who was going to replace me Jim Owens started to follow me And I looked at him I said "Jim would you please stay here because if I fuck up now I don't want anybody to see it." And we started to head out the gate and all of a sudden they called us back and I didn't have to go But I have to tell you that - all of a sudden it got scary Now I'm going to - I told you this and I'm going to tell you what I did next which was really stupid Get down to Chu Lai and I bump into two guys I knew One of them was a Captain - Air Force Captain - and the other one was an Army Captain And the three of us went out and got rip roaring drunk and the Air Force Captain said "I got to go make a flight in a -" what do you call it a f- he was a forward air controller in an O-2 these little tiny bird dog airplanes He says "You want to go for a ride?" I got in the airplane we went off we flew out and I said "You know we're getting awfully close to Laos." And we were and he was supposed to be making a weather flight All I know is that was the stupidest thing I could have possibly done We landed - this was maybe two days after I had turned over the troops - and my Executive Officer is standing there and he's got two bags on there I said "What are you doing?" He says "I just got you a two-day drop That's your plane you're going home." And I got on my airplane and I went home SY Do you remember the moment you turned over your command? Do you remember saying goodbye to people? AM Well actually that flag right up there is the troop guidon and I stole it And I stole it because dammit I felt I'd earned it and I figured they could find another one My Uncle Sam has this sort of bottomless pit called the defense budget and I figured hell if they can build this F-35 they can find another flag Yeah I turned the company over to this guy named Jim Owens who was a National Guard officer and he was a good guy wound up losing his leg And I remember turning the troop over to him and it was a very formal ceremony You know a brigade commander was there and the flags were passed and all that stuff And these guys starting passing out the front gate I mean literally mounted up on it right back to the field And I cried like a baby SY And what were you thinking while you were crying? AM That how much I loved those guys and how much I wished I could stay But that's a very lethal place SY Simultaneously you wished you could stay and wanted to run like hell at the same time AM Yeah You know it's very funny because I had a difficult time when I came home - SY Yeah let's talk about that AM - because I realized I was pretty - when you say I was a good leader I don't know if I was a good leader but I was good at my job And I knew what I was doing And probably the biggest thing that was wrong with that whole war was the fact that it took them a year to find a - somebody who really understood his job and all of a sudden they bring in this guy nice guy but they had to teach him that job all over again SY Right And so everybody was rotating out as soon as they got seasoned AM Yeah I mean once you understood - I mean we would have gotten out of Vietnam if somebody had said "OK we're going to send a half a million Americans to Vietnam and the only people that are - the only people that get to come home are the wounded and the dead And we're just going to keep sending replacements so anyway so those of you guys who were there you'd better win this damn thing" because that's basically the way the North Vietnamese were operating I mean these guys you know that's the thing we all seem to forget is that they were good soldiers They were hard tough soldiers and these guys A were fighting for all the values that we purportedly were fighting for and the reality is that they didn't get to go home They fought until they were either dead wounded or you know They certainly didn't go home on R&R and they didn't have you know Coca Cola they didn't have television they didn't have all that nonsense We brought too much creature comforts to it all I remember going down to Chu Lai on a stand down - we used to pull units out took them down and basically cleaned guys up because after you've been out on the field for a while they pick up all sorts of garbage And you want to get them a little life of sanity you see SY We're talking like lice fungus like all - AM Well we would take them down to the Chu Lai beach and we used to rotate a platoon down at a time And you know we'd get down there and we'd get them some steak and we'd you know beer and take them to the beach and all that stuff And there were - I guess they went to the village and played around with the girls I suppose SY I was going to say they picked up some other things too AM Yeah that's true too But I remember riding along the bunker line at Chu Lai and riding by a bunker - and I was - and when I was down in Chu Lai I actually put on my little lieutenant bar and all that stuff pretended to be an officer And I remember riding by the bunker line at night and all of a sudden I saw what looked like I thought a television screen And I stopped the guy backed up - we backed up my Jeep and drove over to the bunker And these guys were in there watching television and they were watching and laughing And I'm saying to myself "This is insanity You got kids out there -" and that by the way is the other issue And I don't know any of the other guys you talked to about - you talked to Bill Bonk - Bill was on a very [012352] (inaudible) aviation outfit and you really couldn't make a lot of mistakes in his business because not only were you getting shot at but you also had to fly an airplane We didn't have the drug problem and that's something you haven't asked about The drug problem - I imagine it went on I know that I caught one guy with - a buck sergeant early on with a guy in my platoon actually - I caught him with a - SY A joint? AM - like a baggie full of five joints He was changing a track and he was looking for a cigarette And he says "Lieutenant would you reach in my pocket and get a cigarette?" Well I reached in and grabbed a pack but I felt something else I pulled it out I looked at it and I just dropped it in the mud and stepped on it and handed him his cigarettes But I don't recall drugs being a big problem - SY So there was no heroin in your unit? AM No no But - the marijuana - but we did have situations where people would bring it up that "So-and-so is smoking dope." And this is how I handled it We had a mortar section and a mortar section is - do you know what a mortar is? SY Uh-huh AM OK We had a mortar section and we had three mortars And I guess we had maybe 10 guys and it was in our big base camp And we couldn't - we didn't carry those mortars out to the field They were too heavy and they were a pain in the neck and carried off too much ammunition shot it off too fast and a lot - too many problems associated with mortars So we just left them in and we left the crews there and we left a lot of illumination And their job was that if base camp got hit they would you know the parachute flares the illumination also So I stole an idea from a movie and it was a wonderful probably the best leadership movie I've ever seen called Twelve O'clock High where the commander of the aviation unit has - takes all the bad guys in the unit and puts them in one bomber He calls it the - what the hell did he call it? I can't remember what he called it - it'll come to me But he put all the bad eggs in one basket So I made - so I took anybody I caught smoking dope I put them down in the mortar pits All you had to do was drop rounds and pop illumination And I would tell guys you're going to you know you're going down to purgatory and you're going down there and if you go home with heroin habits that's your problem but I'm not going to have you in the field Now was it a big problem? No and only because most of the guys didn't want to go to the field with a doper SY Right What about race in your unit? That's the other thing - AM Race? SY - we haven't talked about yeah AM That's an interesting question and I'll answer it two ways One is when guys - it was called the Leper Colony I would call them the Leper Colony that's what it was I had a platoon leader who was from Tennessee and he was a real Southerner and named Larry [Beetle?] - nice guy And Larry came to me at one point and he said "You know when you get a replacement in if you say well I need a rifleman." Who needs a rifleman? "Second Platoon needs a rifleman." So I just sent him Well Larry came to me one day and he said "Well you know I know you don't think about this but I'm the only white guy in the unit in my platoon." And all of a sudden I went whoah! And I started looking around and sure enough most of the Second Platoon - I think there were maybe one or two guys - the platoon sergeant was white - actually it was platoon leader was a Cherokee Indian and all of a sudden I saw that there was a potential problem So I just quietly started moving people around The other racial issue that came up was recently I was out in - two years ago or a year and a half ago? - two years ago I was down in Washington at a reunion and I was with one of our guys named Bill [Fong?] Bill was Chinese And I said to Bill because of my family association with the 442nd we got talking about Japanese-Americans in the Second World War with the 4-4-2 and I said "How as an Asian did you feel with all the dehumanizing that we do very well in the United States when we want to get angry at an enemy -" By the way it's common practice by everybody so it's not just an American trait OK? And he said you know - I said "How did you deal with that? I mean you're out in the field with some guy who's calling - using all those pejorative terms? How do you deal with that?" And Bill said "Lieutenant you got to remember you know they're all stupid people in the world." SY It still must have been hard AM Yeah so you don't. He said "Ninety percent of the time I was dealt with as an American and not as the fact that I was Chinese-American." And he said "Ten percent of the time they're stupid." SY Do you think there is a way to fight a war without that type of deh- (repeats herself louder) Do you think there is a way to fight a war without that type of dehumanization of the enemy? AM No I wish there were It's interesting because we've allowed it - it's become more apparent in this current situation with the Islamic war than it certainly was with Vietnam I mean I you know you got to realize like in Korea they had all the different - that all worked in Korea too Slope dank you know - SY Gook? AM Gook - the whole thing It's funny is that whenever they - and Charlie and of course whenever we got screwed badly and someone would say Charles' name it was a sign of respect - we would call him Charles - Charles has been up to his hole But this whole thing with the situation in Islamic thing I hear people talk and I go I cannot believe they talk the way they do And somebody wrote to me recently - an ultra-conservative person - who said "Well we all do it." No we all don't do it I'm afraid that's no that you just don't do that You don't - and he gave me all the lists of words that people use And I said no we don't use those words - you may use them but don't try and paint me with your brush SY Yeah Have you ever been tempted to go back to Vietnam - AM No SY - to visit? No? Interesting AM Not really It - I mean it's -have you seen pictures of the place? It's absolutely gorgeous SY I have yeah AM But no no I mean I've seen it I will say that I do go back to Korea and that - I've been back to Korea three times not up to where I was But I've been to Seoul three times and I mean the difference between Seoul - when I saw Seoul in 1968 I think the highest building in Seoul was eight stories Now it's - have you ever been to Seoul? SY No but I have a close - a couple of close friends who are living there AM I mean it's a very cosmopolitan city SY It is yeah I have to run to the bathroom So let's take a little break and then - and I'm also aware that you're probably getting tired - (audio break) AM Coming home? SY I was going to ask you about coming home Let me turn this back on AM Has this been basically what you wanted? SY This is great This is exactly what I want So let's talk about coming home and let's also talk about how the anti-war movement has been building up while you were in Vietnam So is this something that you hear - AM Are we on? SY Yeah we're on Is this something that you sort of had been hearing about in Vietnam? Or is it something you have time to think about? Is it something you - AM No We have time to think about that nonsense I think this anti-war movement - I think your generation is as fascinated with the anti-war movement as my generation was fascinated with - my mother - counterculture movement of the 1920s In other words if you weren't there doing the Charleston you really don't know how to do the Charleston My impression of the anti-war movement and don't make - don't mistake what I'm saying It was terribly important and it made a great - it made an enormous impact on this country I think it had some negative impact one of which was that the first thing Nixon did was get rid of the draft And he created a quote "all volunteer army" which in my mind means that we now have a very right-wing professional military which is too closely tied to the defense industry OK? When you look at 70% of the general officers who retired going to work for a defense contractor that seriously worries me especially when you get into this whole notion of honor and ethics And some general standing up and saying "I'm pitching you to buy an F-35 fighter but oh by the way I wouldn't consult you if I didn't think it was something we needed that was the best in the world because after all I did go to West Point where duty-honor-country means everything." That's bullshit If you're paying a guy $200000 a year to sell airplanes he's working for the $200000 - not for some ethics OK? That said you have to remember that the anti-war movement whether it was the University of Wisconsin or Princeton or Harvard or Kent State - they were a small fraction of the generation Most of these people people like my wife were trying to make a living they're trying to get through school they're trying to get on with their lives Now I have a number of friends of mine who were in the anti-war movement One of my closest friends who I lost contact with and I've never been able to re-connect went to Harvard married a girl whose father was a general in the Army they became - he became very heavily involved in the anti-war movement and it cost him his marriage because when he got his notice he went to Canada and she stayed My partner at a Magazine Services in New York was in Chicago throwing rocks and he was on a rock band And we have a picture that we used to send out to clients which had a picture of me in Vietnam and it has a picture of him in his rock band and it said "Magazine Services We can do it the easy way or the hard way." So the reality is I use- I have - I think a lot of these people in the anti-war movement including Jane Fonda they paid an enormous price with their families and with their friends I sat at dinner one time with a client and there were two people running down - not running the war down but they were sort of discussing the war and finally the more senior president of this ad agency piped up and said "How you know how can you talk this way in front of Angus?" And what I found out later is his son had deserted and gone to Canada and this guy was a veteran So here was a situation where a family had been just torn apart So the anti-war movement - and my feeling about Jane Fonda - everybody always gets upset about Jane is she wrote in her book and I have no reason not to believe her that the moment she sat down at that anti-aircraft gun she knew she'd made a mistake that she was being used Do I think that it changed her views on the war? No - Tom Hayden her husband - very heavily involved in the anti-war movement At Inc Magazine one of my closest friends was Bo [Browingham?] who was one of the leaders of the anti-war movement at Princeton And when Bo and I went to China together everybody said "Boy wait till those two guys get talking." It turns out we - Bo and I have been very very good friends I think Bo's argument and my argument -that people sat on the sidelines and did nothing They took no position and they allowed by the way Richard Nixon to carry that war on for another four and a half years all of which we conveniently forget SY Yeah So what was it like to come back home? What was it like to re-introduce you to- AM It's funny I'm glad you asked that There are two - I'll give you some three things that happened One was I was lucky and that - well I'll tell you the whole trip I got into- I got separated I was still in uniform obviously traveling on boarders And I came down - went down to see my sister in Phoenix from Fort McChord Air Force base up in Washington And I remember an airline stewardess being very solicitous in taking care of me and all that stuff and she was saying something to the effect of you know I said "Geez you don't have to do that you don't have to -" giving me free drinks and all this stuff She said "Believe me they're going to treat you like trash." And I remember on the trip being a layover in Chicago and there was this - I had this feeling by being in uniform that I was - that I had - that I was - there was something wrong with me that I was almost like the plague Now the nice thing was is that when I got home my parents were there with my brothers and my s- all the - the whole family all the signs and all that stuff - "Welcome Home" blah blah blah So I had a very nice welcome home from my family Now my mother and father - my mother is I think I told you was a writer and my father was an art director/business consultant - and my parents were very - my mother was so n- she was so fearful of the military that she wouldn't even come to my graduation at Norwich She didn't come SY Fearful in what way? AM Hmm? SY Fearful in what way? AM She had a brother - she had lost someone in the First World War her brother had fought with the 442nd in Italy in the Second World War I mean she'd seen what the war had done And so when I was graduating and I kind of pretty well knew where I was going and she just said "I can't handle it." She did not want to come to graduation I mean you're looking at my class they were all in uniform everybody was going into the Army She knew what the deal was So we got home and my parents used to have these wonderful dinners My parents had a very formal dining room It's a big house in Chappaqua And so we all sat around the table and I was still in uniform and my mother had built this - she was a fabulous cook and she said "Well tell me what do they all think of Premier Kỳ?" It was at that point - and because my parents were very active pro-political people - and my father didn't like the question because there had been a demonstration in Central Park a couple of months a couple of weeks before he said where literally people were carrying the flag of the country that was trying to kill your son You know literally he was upset about the question and all The way I framed it back to my mother was saying "Look What people don't really quite understand about that is that the average South Vietnamese person doesn't even know who he is." If a local dai uy who's a local Captain - is a thief they like to say "If you're working for the people they might be sympathetic to the government." But it's you know all politics is local whether it's here or there And to realize is what you don't understand is you live in an electronic age where you can worry about what your Congressman in Washington is doing They're worrying about what their local alderman is doing in their town And most Americans didn't quite understand that What I came to find out came to realize as I started to get around the country what was going on was less of the anti-war movement- but the anti-war movement was also morphing into the Black Panther movement SY I got to change batteries but keep talking We still got a little bit of juice AM Do you have some juice in there? SY I got another battery AM Oh you got another battery? Well let's just change your battery SY All right here we go Give me 30 seconds and we're recording again AM OK The other thing that was going on in this country as much as the anti-war movement was beginning to resonate in - throughout the country the civil rights movement had morphed into something more violent and that was the Black Panther movement And one of the - and I remember telling my mom and dad that - because my mother and father I mean we - I got to tell you the other one with my mother too About 20 or 30 days into being home and by this time my sisters and - my brothers and what all they're all gone home back to their own homes but they were - they asked me what changes have you seen? And I said - because I was going into the city every day - I was interviewing for jobs and I said "I smell racial violence." And I said this country is very very close to exploding into - I said there is so much racial tension in this country I could just feel it It was completely different the way it was from what I recall when I left almost two years ago And it was more certainly than what I was feeling in Vietnam Interestingly in Vietnam nobody really - in those situations you shouldn't really be worrying about skin pigment at that point You're worrying about whether you can trust the person on either side of you But that was the first thing that was so - that really struck me was how much tension there was in this country racially Because you asked this racial question about Vietnam - I'm saying it was - it was just as tense here but I don't think people because when you're something around something day in and day out you may not necessarily see it SY Yeah you can't smell it any more AM Yeah The other thing that happened that day coming home is my parents had this you know this large home And I guess to keep my mother busy she went through everything I owned And you got to realize I'd been away at school most of my life and so she'd taken all my school team pictures and stuff like that had them all framed And she had this room done in red white and blue and all this And pennants and all this stuff and I - I went upstairs when my mom and dad said "Well I want you to go and see your room." So we went upstairs to my room my mother was still downstairs My father got into the room with me and I looked around this room and you got to realize what I - the responsibility I'd just had and I looked at her I said who does she think I am? This is not - I'm not Leave It To Beaver And that's what a mother sees her child A mother never really sees her child as an adult I don't think And my father turned to me and said "Your mother put a lot of work in this Live with it for 30 days and then make sure you get yourself out of here." And it was good advice and he was right The other thing that struck me I went to work in the training program at McGraw-Hill And I was work- I was assigned to work on a weekly magazine and I - my job was to basically go call on all the cat-and-dog little classified accounts And it was all terribly disorganized and so I remember them handing me this box full of 3x5 cards and I was supposed to file them by category and then in each category alphabetically And I'm sitting there at my desk saying to myself - now this is what I did become an officer again I said are you kidding me man? I had clerks that did this stuff for me in the Army Yeah you're going from writing letters to people's parents to doing this kind of crap? Well this went on for a while and I - the resentment in me really started to build because there was a lot of other chicken shit jobs that they had me doing And one day I went down if you know New York - do you know New York at all? SY Oh yes I grew up in - AM New York City Charlie Brown's you know Charlie Brown's at Grand Central Station? It was a great saloon in Grand - SY Oh I've walked passed it but yeah AM Anyway I went down to Charlie Brown's one Friday - I went Thursday afternoon for lunch And I went down there with this other guy in the McGraw-Hill training program who was a former Marine officer And I was terribly upset Now he had never been overseas He had just done his time and gotten out And we started drinking and I had more - too much to drink And he finally said "Well you know if you're really pissed off go tell your boss." And that was the worst advice I could have gotten because I did it And I went in and I told my boss that this was a chicken shit assignment and I said I'm out of here And I was seriously at that point - and I had been thinking about actually going back into the service at that point I was so - I thought that what was going on in the real world was so unimportant And what happened was I came in to work the next day terrible hangover and sitting in my boss's office was the Vice President of Marketing for the company and "Come on and sit down." I sat down and he said "I understand we had a little bit of an incident yesterday." And I said yeah and he said "We really don't want to lose you." And I said well and he said "But you've also pissed some people off." And he said "Now this means I got to hide you I've got an assignment in Dallas and I've got an assignment in Chicago Which one do you want?" And I said "I've never been to Dallas." So I went to Dallas I met my wife and the rest is history SY Really? AM Yeah SY And how did you meet her? AM Blind date SY In Dallas? Is she from Dallas? AM South Dakota I met her on September 6th and we were married on December 20th SY That's fast When it works it works AM I was - I think it's fast We've been married almost 45 years SY Yeah? AM Yeah SY Yeah Had you considered staying in the Army? AM Yeah I mean I did and part of the reason I went to Norwich was primarily because I probably thought very seriously about it SY But were you fed up by the end of your tour? AM I think what - I'd thought about this I think probably in some respects doing two tours was a good idea because the first tour got me really ready for the second tour far bett- I was better prepared for my Vietnam tour than 90% of the lieutenants I met because most of these guys you know were doing something other than what they would be doing in Vietnam And I at least got a chance to get some hands-on experience On the back side of that - on the flip side of it was I also stayed too long I was there too long because when I came home I was mentally exhausted SY How did that manifest itself? AM I guess I just didn't want the responsibility any more I didn't want to worry about other people And it's interesting you should say that because when I was - you asked me at lunch about "Oh you resigned from McGraw-Hill and.?" Yeah and what it was why I resigned from McGraw-Hill was I mean there were a lot of reasons I talked about market share and whatnot but when I was managing a sales staff - and I was managing a sales staff of 17 people - behind Business Week I think we were the second or third largest magazine in the company It was a big magazine It was a big deal And if you covered an ad agency and I covered the client - it was what they called split credit on billings and all this stuff and I used to get these absolute chicken shit memos from sales reps worrying about whether they got 10% of the credit or 15% of the credit on a million dollar deal In other words they were so caught up in all of the little minutiae that when I resigned and when I was asked why are you quitting? Well I think Inc is a better opportunity and it's a growing opportunity but I'm also tired of all the bullshit I'm tired of being responsible for whether Johnny so-and-so gets a $500 commission check or whether he gets a $700 commission check on a guy who's making $85000 a year - and this by the way was 30 years ago Why don't you worry about going from $85000 to $105000 rather than worrying about $750? And that was the difference at Inc At Inc. it was you know you made your own - you pack your own parachute and you made your own bonus and interestingly enough financially I made out like a bandit I mean I made more money doing this working for somebody other than McGraw-Hill Yeah I would have gotten a gold watch and they used to give out a neat tie when you worked - had been there for 25 years But hell you can go to Brooks Brothers you can get one of those for 50 bucks SY Right yeah And you don't seem like you were a company man for either the military or McGraw-Hill You didn't want to be a company man AM Well yeah but you also have to respect company Now - I - you know I look at a guy like - Fran Brennan was a - Fran Brennan was the quintessential company guy I don't think there's anybody in the military that I could find that I would respect more than Fran Brennan because Fran Brennan was the kind of guy that led from the front A guy I spoke about a few minutes ago Gill Dorlan you know they handed him the Distinguished Service Cross which right behind the Medal of Honor is the second highest award they give out you know He also I mean he was the youngest Major in his class from West Point He quit too you know he tossed it out but he was a consummate professional You understand what I'm saying? The difference between being a professional and being a career guy SY I do AM You do SY I do understand that AM I know you do I know you do SY Yeah but yeah I think it's an important distinction AM The other thing and interestingly enough one of the things that McGraw-Hill had that it lost - and it lost about the time I was leaving was McGraw-Hill had a very serious mentoring system Albeit these guys started out as ad sales guys there were some very very bright guys At one point McGraw-Hill was made up primarily of Ivy Leaguers I mean you have the - well the McGraw family they were all Princeton people but there were a lot of Dartmouth guys a lot of Yale guys whatnot And it's funny because the guy I worked for in Dallas he was a petroleum engineer and you know I always sat with him He taught me how to really listen and learn about a client's business The guy I worked for in Cleveland the guy who ran the Cleveland office taught me about how to think strategically The guy I worked with in Chicago - I wasn't particularly crazy about him as a human being but he was one of the best public speakers I've ever been around so he really showed me a lot about standup presenting skills And the guy I worked for in New York taught me a lot about the minutiae of working inside of a large corporation And McGraw-Hill was very very good on all these mentoring steps and quite frankly I always felt a responsibility that when I had my own sales staff and I hired people that I treated them and taught them all that I could possibly teach them as sort of payback to what had been invested in me And I think that's gone today I don't think people in your generation - no one cares about anybody but [015526] (inaudible) I worry about me and they don't worry about whether you're making a contribution to somebody's career. SY I think that's true I think that culture is dead AM Well one of the other things that's gone too by the way - when I went through the McGraw-Hill training program and when you read my thing it sounds like I was only in it for 6 months Actually you're a probationary employee I think for 18 months Now that was their formal training program And we used to come back every quarter all the trainees They would recruit 15 trainees a year They would interview maybe 300 people And I was an experiment where they hired five Vietnam veterans and then they hired five guys out of industry and five guys out of grad school And they put you into this class SY Ooo! What was that like? AM Oh it was terrific and I will say the Vietnam guys did better than everybody else We were all much older we weren't older mentally - physically we were older mentally We were far more mature But we all did very very well in our careers SY And was it nice to have four other men who sort of knew what you'd just gone through? AM Well yeah they were all different experience One guy had been an F-105 pilot another guy had been a medic another guy had run Swift boats like John Kerry and another guy had been a navigator on a I think it was on a B-52 So we were all sort of varied experiences of the war None of them really common The guys we hired out of industry one of them is still one of my closest friends Andy [Gandon?] He was a bench chemist and worked for BF Goodrich and they hired him on Modern Plastics magazine And Andy said something very interesting He was up here last year He said "The reason why" he says "I think you did better than most of us is that we learned how to do our jobs and then we just kept doing that same job for 30 years You kept changing the job You kept changing the parameters of the job." SY Yeah you got bored AM Yeah that's right I get bored very easily And so if you don't change - if you can't change the game change the rules SY Yeah So something I asked Bill Bonk and he had some good answers about it that I want to make sure to ask you is so you know Norwich was founded on this idea of the citizen - (repeats herself louder) Norwich was founded on this idea of the citizen-soldier AM Yeah SY Is that something that you relate to? Is that something that - AM Oh absolutely I - and I think it's something this country has lost No that's not fair We haven't lost it We've lost it in the regular Army and the Marines and the Navy and the Air Force And interestingly enough the Air Force the Navy and the Marine Corps were always voluntary services The Army was always subject to draft And by the way so was the Marine Corps During the Vietnam War the Marines actually drafted A lot of people don't know that but they did And they also did in the Second World War I think when we took away the draft we took a piece out of that citizen-soldier equation One of my favorite photographs from World War II are two guys in the Navy And they're both on bunks And one's an officer the other one's an enlisted man The officer is reading a comic book and the enlisted man is reading Tolstoy I don't sense that you have a lot of guys reading Tolstoy who are enlisted any more I think you need - I think that if we had a draft - had we had a draft we would have been very reluctant to invade Iraq. SY So you're saying if a draft works correctly it's a corrective - AM Absolutely SY - to sort of hawkish or cowboy foreign policy AM Absolutely Absolutely SY That's interesting AM Well I mean the reality is is that if all of a sudden - I'm talking about a fair draft I'm not talking about six deferments But if all of a sudden Senator so-and-so's son was at risk or more importantly the son of his largest donor was at risk - my brother said something very interesting to - of a guy who owned our company and he actually had Inc Magazine He also had owned Sail Magazine where my brother worked My brother is a Marine fighter pilot And neither Don nor I are hawks We're both politically are pretty much on the same wavelength And one night they were all hunkered up and they were drinking and the guy who owned the magazine was talking about how he managed to get out of the draft and everybody was laughing at his stories And my brother just said "I'm just curious" and the guy looked at him and said "What are you curious about?" He said "Well somebody had to take your place Do you think he survived?" If we had a true citizen-soldiery that we keep talking about it would have been - it would be based on a fair and equitable draft Now on the other side of it one of the things that people like Ford and Sullivan who had a tremendous influence on it and for whom I have a great respect - he and there's a guy by the name of Vuono and General Meyer- these guys were Chiefs of Staff of the Army When they were put into this situation of creating an all-volunteer army they built a model which depended upon the National Guard Now what you haven't asked is and you wouldn't know to I got called back twice SY Did you really? AM Oh yeah to work with the National Guard And I have to tell you that was a joke and an experience I mean to the point where it was almost insulting how bad they were But I was also in a meeting where - with a battalion of the Louisiana National Guard with the battalion commander - this is 1971 the war is still going on - and I'm quote an "advisory" with several other former officers from Vietnam And this battalion commander announces to the battalion "I know why you're all National Guard You're here to avoid the war in Vietnam." And I think he used the word "illegal" war in Vietnam or "immoral" war And everybody - the guys who'd been in Vietnam we all looked at each other saying what the hell is going on? Now we've gone from that - then I was with the New York National Guard and these guys were a bunch of stockbrokers And you know one guy asked me "Say Lieutenant can I have your Jeep? I need to go in town to call." I'm going wait a second you know We didn't get a chance in Vietnam to say hey listen hold on to the war I got to go make a phone call I got to call my broker I will say the National Guard has done a superb job You know they picked up the slack But yeah I think Norwich has an important role playing that I think unfortunately it may be losing it There's so many of these kids now who are going to Norwich with the idea they're going to make a career of the military I don't think in my class there were that many I think there were oh I think there were probably 12 or 15 guys in my class who wound up staying in the military that spent their whole career in the military. SY Yeah I think that is I think that is different I think there is a new more career (crosstalk inaudible) [020343] - AM We had a lot of colonels in my class both lieutenant colonels and a couple of full colonels I mean let's see Johnny [Otis?] Bill [Bell?] there was one or two others that were full colonels in my class SY So I'm flagging a little bit One last question I think is important because most people don't know about long-term health repercussions of Vietnam Could you talk about that? About the long-term health effects - even though you weren't wounded - the long-term health effects of having survived? AM Well I think that - well I think that yeah I have - I have maybe 40% of my hearing I have arthritis which is directly attributed to Vietnam And I've had two hip replacements I think the other thing that we - we lose sight of the fact you know there's always - in every unit there's always a wise ass no they're dozens of wise asses believe me and they're very smart kids And that's what I always loved about American GIs is they are always very very funny and they're smart They have a language of their own They just - there's a - Hemingway wrote a wonderful book during the Second World War about the language and how the language of the GIs and their humor is just incredible But it's also very black very dark And I remember we had lost a kid and we were waiting to evacuate his remains and this wise ass said something to the effect "Well that cost us another quarter of a million dollars." And I went you know and of course at that point I was you know kind of upset and I said "What do you mean?" And he said "Well look at it this way Lieutenant He's married he had a child and he started going through all the benefits." And he said "By the time we're through"- now this is 1968 "that's going to cost the United States government another quarter of a million dollars." Now fast forward to your 2015 and we look at - now I go to the VA hospitals on a pre- at least a couple of times a year and you walk in and you take a look at these broken up bodies and you realize that every time you send a kid out there and he comes back with a leg missing or an arm missing it's going to cost the United States taxpayers And I hate to put it in those kind of cold-blooded terms but I don't think we even think about those kinds of things By the way I will say that despite all the bad press about the VA I think the VA has done a pretty good job at least here in Maine I also know - I talked to my cardiologist who went to Harvard Medical School and I asked him what he thought of the VA and he said that when he was going to Harvard he used to go over to the VA And he said "You walk down the VA and you would see world-class doctors from Harvard Medical School Boston College Medical School." We're going to be on Friday with some friends of ours whose daughter was a cancer - is now a cancer research specialist All of her training came through the VA So I understand the sort of wonderful political footballs that get tossed out there about the VA and how bad it is or how incompetent it is or what a waste it is But you want to think about our system by comparison to the Russian system Imagine what happened in the Soviet Union when it collapsed in 1990 about the time the millions -I don't mean the hundreds of thousands but the millions of Soviet soldiers that went through the Second World War with what they had to do what do you think they got out of the deal? Or think about the VA system that must be going on in a place like Vietnam? It's not - yeah we have problems but by comparison - SY I think it also depends on who you are when you access the system I interviewed a Norwich alumni who - alum who served in Iraq and Afghanistan and had some head injuries and PTSD And he had a lot of trouble accessing resources because I think the VA is better with broken bones and concrete things than they are with psychological types of injuries He had a hard time getting resources AM Be careful be careful Let me tell you - it's funny you should - let's - that's a good question to ask but before you make that - come to that conclusion think about this Who do you think the hearing people in the world are? SY The best what? AM Hearing SY I don't know AM VA Why? How come? They got more of it Who do you think got the best burn research in the world? SY Right I mean it's a huge organization yeah AM OK in other words I would say the VA is probably doing a better job with PTSD and I don't know than the Defense Department is doing with IEDs The reality is is that and I will - before you leave I'll show you some photographs of what it looks like when an armored personnel carrier hits a 2000-pound bomb SY Actually let's look at those photographs now Maybe we can look at them while we're on tape? AM Here I can put up - put this on you want to leave this one? SY Yeah Let's leave it on because - AM Yeah we'll do this I got it right here SY Yeah Great AM But what I'm saying what I'm saying is that for - what's his name? - our friend Donald Rumsfeld to start talking about well you go to war with the army that you got - now let me see if I can find it That'll make it easier for you to. You know Donald Rumsfeld wants to say we go to war with the army that you got yeah well we had - this is what an armored personnel carrier looks like after it's been hit SY Hmm AM That's a hole in the ground SY Wow where is this? AM This is in the Quế Sơn Valley SY And do you remember the particular hit? AM Thirteen people were on that vehicle SY That's the story you were telling me about the 13 people - AM Thirteen people SY - including the close friend of yours AM Uh no he was killed later on he was killed about oh four or five days later Now there were 13 boys on that But that's my point is that the IED mine problem was there in 1968 and all of a sudden we had to go out and create new vehicles I don't know what they call them now but you know there's a whole new family of vehicles we had to create when we were crea- after going through this kind of nonsense did we think that IEDs and mines were going to go away? SY Yeah I don't know. AM No it's a very effective weapon That happens to be a mine that we dug up That's a small anti-personnel mine Those are Punji sticks SY Yeah we talked about those And what beach is that - do you know? AM Yeah this was taken out west of LZ Baldy and this actually was taken during a what - this became a firefight actually And you can see we just landed infantry And the sand out there was just like it was like flour SY It looks like snow AM It does look like snow And this is the helicopters coming in SY Do you remember that guy? AM Huh? SY Do you remember that guy? AM Yeah that's Sergeant [Pattengill?] That's Sergeant Patty He became a sergeant major terrific guy And that guy became a Catholic priest SY That's the guy who became a priest? AM Yep And that guy became a - went back to college and became a computer programmer He's got a masters degree in information systems and is a software developer has his own software firm And then this is the last day I was in - that's the whole unit lined up SY To say goodbye to you? AM Yep And then we were - this guy became an attorney This fellow right here is a South Vietnamese He actually had been a Vietcong He pulled us out of a minefield and I am awarding him the Bronze Star SY Really? Right here you're awarding him the Bronze Star That's what you're doing right in this picture? AM Yeah And I don't remember that guy And then that's me SY Yeah Same mustache! AM Huh? SY It looked like you with the mustache in the picture AM Yeah SY He has that same mustache AM This is a - SY Let's talk about that painting AM Well the painting - you know the story behind it? It's now in the Vietnam Veterans Museum in Chicago And I had always wanted to do a painting on Vietnam And what I appreciate most about the painting was a couple of things one is I actually went to Chicago and actually saw it hanging in the museum And I have to tell you maybe the biggest trip in the world for any painter is to actually go to a real museum and this is a - this is not a bunch of guys a bunch of old hippies - this is a real museum I mean it's spectacular It was a great facility then it's now even more spectacular So it was a big deal to see it The second thing is that there were two things I wanted to paint I wanted to paint one like this so these guys sort of hanging out You can see there C-ration cans and he's sleeping these two guys are reading a newspaper there's some beer cans one guy is on watch - because 90% 95% of Vietnam was all about boredom And I don't think enough people talk about that It's very very very boring because you're - and then of course the other 5% is stark terror Anyway when I sent this Chicago paint- painting to Chicago I went out to see it I was up on the third floor and one of the curators came up to me She said "Is this your painting?" I said yeah And she said "I want you to know we bring groups in here And the children love this painting This one always gets -" And I said "Really?" I said "How is that? Why is that?" And she said "Because all the other ones are violent and this one isn't." The other painting I wanted to do and I started it and I never finished it is you can see all these rice paddies in these dikes People were - these were all built by hand OK they were all - you've seen pictures of rice paddy docks? And it always - and you can see what happens when you run your tread over the dikes is it - actually it smashes those And I wanted to do a painting of the track going through the rice paddies and the malt spilling out and losing their water and all that stuff And I was going to call the thing "Collateral Damage" because we don't really think about how much damage we created just in the - to their - to the local agrarian environment SY Yeah So why didn't you finish it? Did you get stuck? AM Yeah I mean a lot of times you don't finish paintings I mean sometimes I work - I mean this one if I had to do it again I'd do it again And I - SY Was there - you - so what about this image felt so important to you? Because you usually paint from photographs and this isn't from a photograph AM No This is from memory SY So you remember this moment? Or is it a combination? AM Not particularly I created a moment I created a moment and of course I know the vehicle well enough that I can paint the vehicle in my sleep SY Yeah Are there other moments in Vietnam - images - that you want to put on the canvas? AM Yeah there is one I don't think I've got a photo- I used to have a photograph of it And I - whenever I thought about Vietnam it was - I can't find it - that we were up on a top of a hill and I remember staring down - in fact we were on top of that hill right there And I was staring down when I took the photograph a machine gun And I remember just - I remember the image of staring down that machine gun and it just has always stayed with me SY And what was on the other side? What did you see? AM Hmm? SY What did you see? You're staring through a machine gun? AM Well I was just staring behind a machine gun And I remember taking a photograph of it I'm just looking at an open field but that image just somehow always resonated with me SY Is it the contrast of sort of the beautiful open field and looking down a machine gun? AM Perhaps I mean I - you know it's tough to read what goes through your mind I mean you know it's funny I talked about coming - going to Vietnam - coming to V-coming home Going to Vietnam was interesting too because most of the guys they all like Bill Bonk and people like that they all would go to McChord Air Force base and they would get on a transport and they'd fly you know there would be a bus that would pick them up at I guess they were going to Tân Sơn Nhất? And you know they were all you know so they just. Not me I had to go to Japan see I was coming out of Japan So I went and picked up my orders and I was on Air Vietnam not on military flight I was just on a bigger civilian flight The government paid for it And I remember I get on this airplane and it was all these businessmen and they were all in their blue you know blue bla- you know blue pin-striped grey flannel suits or whatever they wore They all looked like a bunch of commuters going some place and here I am in uniform and I'm going to war SY Right you felt like you were - AM And we're all going to the same place SY You felt like you were in Metro North but instead you were - AM Yeah I mean I felt like I was on a commuter line and then I remember we landed We didn't land at Tân Sơn we landed at Saigon Airport which was whatever the big airport was We didn't land at a military airport We landed at a civilian airport which is like you know landing at Westchester County Airport So I get out and it was funny because all these guys you know scurry to get out and I said "I'm going to be here for a year So I'm just going to take my time." And I remember clearing the hatch and walking across the runway and thinking "Well I haven't been shot yet So far so good." And then there was a reception desk for it just said "incoming military personnel" and so I walked over and I handed the guy my orders And he said "Well we'll take you over to Long Bình" and - which is the replacement center And I said fine So they put me on this bus with a couple of other guys and I noticed that there was wire on all the windows and I realized that's so that they don't throw hand grenades into the bus - these people are serious And of course then I got over to Long Bình and I remember going into the officers' club and sitting next to a guy who had gone to Harvard It turned out he'd gone to Harvard He was going home And I said "Really?" He said "Yeah." And he said "Where you going?" I said "Oh I'm going up north." And he said "Well how do you feel?" And I said "Well I think I can handle most of it but God I hate snakes I really hate snakes." The guy said "Don't worry about it." He says "I've been here a year I haven't seen a snake I've been in the bush most of the year." He said "I have not seen a stinking snake." I'm going to tell you I saw every snake this guy never saw I must have seen dozens of snakes - God I hate them I really hate snakes (laughs) OK really it's almost like - what was that thing? Indiana Jones and all he hated is snakes live sa- (laughs) SY Here are your snakes yeah yeah AM But - and so it was that - my welcome to Vietnam was kind of you know it was really like landing in a commuter flight and it was you know going into war SY How surreal AM So it was kind of interesting SY It was a very surreal moment Whew! AM Anything else? SY I'm losing steam AM All right SY I got a drive ahead of me AM OK SY Do you have any last thoughts? This was wonderful AM No I you know I think - don't mistake what you might perceive as my liberal - being fairly liberal as a criticism of the job I think people did I think the kids who certainly in the military it's very very tough job And I - the experience has been important to me because I know I have a - who knows but I have an idea of how difficult their job is I don't have any idea how difficult the job is today but I sense how difficult the job is and I have nothing more but the utmost respect for them It's a very very tough challenging life By the way one of the best honors that I've gotten is there was a book - I think I've told - maybe I didn't tell you There's a book written about our unit and my name came up a couple of times And about three years ago four years ago the unit had morphed up to a full squadron full battalion and they were going to Iraq And so they called me and asked me if I would come out and speak to their young officers about the pressure of leading as a junior officer And I have to tell you that was a tremendous honor to be asked to - I flew to Alaska and I visited with these guys And then they asked me to stay that Saturday night to speak to the entire group at their regimental mess And I started talking about how important that unit was to me personally and quite frankly how much I wish I was going with them I remember when the first Iraq war broke out and when those kids crossed that burn that - breaking into Kuwait and I'm not a drinker I mean I did when I was younger but I don't drink normally I have a glass of wine at night I guess so I guess I am a drinker now But then I really just did not drink at all And I remember my wife was not home and they were describing them going through that burn and I went over and opened a bottle of wine and drank the whole bottle of wine because I had this sense of understanding - or at least I think I understood what they were going to be going through And I just - it just - I wanted to be numb I didn't want to imagine what these poor kids were going to go through And it's how I feel today I'm so terrified about this whole thing with Iran getting - spinning out of control And not because it makes any sense but for political expedience It's nuts It really is I don't know Any other questions? SY I don't think so I don't think so When you say - when you talk about wanting to go to war with them - I guess I do have another question - is it because you feel like you want to be supporting them through what they're going to struggle through? Is it because you miss the camaraderie? Is it because you miss that sense of purpose? Is it because you feel a sense of duty? What is it exactly? AM Oh I think it's a combination of all of that You know these were the best friends I ever had I mean I - it's funny my father said to me when I gra- when I went to Norwich he said that these would be the best friends you'll ever have And in part he's cor-he was right But it's interesting it took me four years to form a bond that it took me only a year to form with a lot of these kids in Vietnam I'll also say something else about Norwich which I think is important to be said And I don't think having not gone to Norwich you can't understand this and I'm not even sure the civilian students at Norwich can understand it My older brother went to Georgetown and when I moved back to New England he lived in Marblehead And so I would get him out to a hockey game or a Norwich hockey game or what have you And then at one point I took him up to Norwich - and he's a very bright I mean very very smart guy And I remember him you know looking around at Norwich and finally sort of saying he said "You know I've always sort of envied the relationship you had with both the school and with your classmates." He said "So much so that I finally went back to Georgetown for my class reunion and realized how much I hated the place." You - I don't think kids understand how close the relationships are Does that come through still? SY Yes that does come through still Without a doubt that comes through still. AM Yeah and I think you see this by the way at the service academies and that's the only place - you may see it at a small Catholic school like you know where the Jesuits are running it you know like a place like - is it Holy Cross? SY It is Holy Cross AM Is it Holy Cross Jesuit? SY Holy Cross Jesuit yeah AM But if you go to a Jesuit school perhaps you might see it But certainly at Annapolis and Norwich VMI - they have this same - I mean I can remember my brother's best friend in the Marine Corps was a VMI guy When he heard I went to Norwich "How come he's not going to VMI?" "Well you know" my brother said "they're all the same quite frankly." (laughs) So OK? Anything else? SY I think we've covered you know most of the known universe in this interview We talked about a lot AM Are we off now? SY Let me turn - END OF AUDIO FILE
Rosa Ricci Summary of the PHD Dissertation: Religious Nonconformity and cultural Dynamics: The Case of the Dutch Collegiants There is ample reason to engage in research around the Collegiants, a minority religious movement in the Netherlands of the 17th century. An exploration of this topic can be interesting not only for a contribution to the history of Religion but also to understand the development of some central concept in the early modernity. Prominent, in this research, is the question that initially stirred my personal interest in the Collegiantism; i.e. to define and understand the religious and cultural background that represents the practical field of confrontation of Baruch Spinoza\''s philosophy. This historiographical question had the purpose of highlighting the relationship between Spinoza and the religious movements of his time in order to fully understand the public to whom he addressed his texts. Collegiants, however, constitute an interesting field of research not only for the study of Spinoza, but widely to understand the cultural and social dynamic of the Dutch Golden Age, a backdrop against which emerged a new idea of religion. This dissertation is not exploring a curiosity or an inconsistent exception in the history of the 17th century, but rather the centrality of a group that was influenced by and largely influenced its Dutch social, political and religious context. One of the major problems in capturing the significance of the Collegiants arises from the difficulty in defining this movement, which chose never to formulate a confession of faith and consciously refused to be classified within a specific Church, sect, or congregation. The name, Collegiants, was not the consequence of an active choice but a label that arose, together with that of Rijnsburgers, in the polemic pamphlets of the epoch. The difficulties to define such elusive religious group make, however, the Collegiants a fascinating field of research. In this dissertation the Collegaints are termed a "movement" in order to emphasize their explicit lacks of norms or model and to highlight the continual change and redefinition of their religious identity. This process can be properly defined using Deleuze\''s concept of becoming minorities: Les minorités et les majorités ne se distinguent pas par le nombre. Une minorité peut être plus nombreuse qu\''une majorité. Ce qui définit la majorité, c\''est un modèle auquel il faut être conforme [.] Tandis qu\''une minorité n\''a pas de modèle, c\''est un devenir, un processus [.] Quand une minorité se crée des modèles, c\''est parce qu\''elle veut devenir majoritaire, et c\''est sans doute inévitable pour sa survie ou son salut. This definition can help us to see both the positive and the productive side of the Collegiant movement, even thought it defined itself negatively in order to protest against the institutional Church and normative religion. The Collegiants were involved in this process of "devenir minoritaire" in a highly conscious way. They decided willfully to avoid strict affiliation to Churches or congregations and criticized explicitly the necessity of an identitarian definition. It can hardly be denied, indeed, that the religious reflection of the Collegiants was characterized by the conscientious refusal to construct a model or a norm to which they could refer. In this dissertation the term "minority" will therefore be used, always in reference to this concept, without drawing too much stress to the effective number of the Collegiants\'' members. This question appear, indeed, misleading because it does not take into account the position that Collegiants\'' member occupied in the economic, political and intellectual life of the United Provinces. It is the case of a group which, indeed, demonstrated in several occasions its deep influence in the Dutch religious life. Collegiants\'' continuous efforts towards de-institutionalization and their aspiration to an egalitarian and democratic religious life have to be conceived as an invitation to their coeval confessions, to undertake the way of evolving minorities renouncing whichever exclusivity and authority. The articulation of the Collegiants\'' proposal can be appreciated by studying the different lines of thought that emerged clearly from their texts. Most of Collegiants\'' publications were polemical or written to answer specific accusations. Within the enormous number of sources that can be included in Collegiants\'' works emerge a limited number of arguments. The question of religious organization, tolerance, freedom of speech and the epistemological approach in reading the Scriptures; these arguments can be taken as guidelines to understanding and defining the nature of the movement. These sources present arguments and concepts that we can take to be the Collegiants\'' stance on religious life and belief. Some arguments, however, emerged with particularly force because of the sanction of the Church orthodoxy. Tolerance, free-prophecy and egalitarian and anti-authoritarian tendencies were sensitive points to which the Church or Congregations reacted with particularly vehemence, sensing a threat to their institutional power. The Chapter 5 of this dissertation are dedicated to the enumeration of these arguments. Each chapter presents a specific theoretical core and question. However the chapters are not self-conclusive because the various problematics encountered in the study of Collegiants overlap each other in continuous cross-reference and this gives rise to a kaleidoscopic effect. The concepts debated in this dissertation can be fully understood only in relation to each other, as they emerge to construct a semantic constellation useful to their contextualization. Each chapter, furthermore, comes to focus on one or more texts that are considered exemplary or representative of a particular tendency in the Collegiants´history. This methodology wants to underline how the constant redefinition of the Collegiants\'' identity is always a matter of personal as well as collective choice, of internal debate and external polemic. An emphasis on the intentionality of Collegiants\'' behaviour is particularly important in understanding which specific choice they made to contrast the authoritarian and exclusive vision of the religious life. These choices are well reflected in the use of a specific vocabulary and in the emergence of specific concepts that can be considered as key guideline to identifying some stable points in the shifting nature of the Collegiants. The first chapter of this dissertation delineates an initial general history of the movement together with the ground on which the Collegiants built their vision of belief: the question about Church organization. The chapter refers directly to the practical organization of the Collegiant movement, an egalitarian and anti-charismatic religious life which involved considerations of power and identity. This specific position, with its high level of nonexclusivity and anticharismatic consciousness, makes Collegiants movement an exception in the pluralist world of 17th century Holland and marked their difference to the constellation of Dutch reformation. Although some Collegiants\'' demeanor mirrored the progressive individualization of cults and beliefs, they accorded central importance to the community, the context in which their religious ideal of confrontation and discussion was realized. The first attempt to write an exhaustive history of the rise and development of the Rijnsburgers was made by a Remonstrant preacher, Paschier de Fijne. He was the first opponent of the Collegiants; his book, Kort, waerachtigh, en getrouw Varhael van het eerste Begin en Opkomen van de Nieuwe Sekte der Propheten ofte Rynsburgers in het dorp Warmont anno 1619 en 1620 (Brief, truthful, and faithful history of the beginning and origin of the new sect of the Prophet of Rijnsburg in the village of Warmont), published anonymously in 1671 by his son, expresses his critical position vis à vis the Rijnsburgers. Besides representing the first opposition to the Collegiants, this work constitutes an important source because the author attended the first Collegiant\'' assembly (the Rijnsburgers\'' vergadering). In particular it describes the way in which this first meeting took place. For the first complete history of the Collegiant movement, however, we have to wait until 1775 when the Histoire der Rijnburgsche Vergadering (History of Rijnsburg\''s assembly), written by the Collegiant Elias van Nijmegen, appeared in Rotterdam. Both these sources are key instruments for reconstructing and understanding how Collegiants organized their assemblies, and how they achieved an acharismatic meeting, through debate and free-exegesis. These testimonies, which embrace a whole century, have, however, the demerit of representing the Collegiant\'' vergadering (assembly) as an eccentric but defined ritual. What emerges, on the other hand, from Collegiants internal debate is that the conduct of the meeting supper, the organization of religious life, the definition of free-exegesis and the limitation of free speech were all subject to constant argument and discussion inside the movement. These concerns emerge in a fragmentary way in the manifold sources that discuss the nature of free-prophecy, tolerance and ecclesiology. In the polemic with Bredenburg, the Bredenburgse twisten, the debate about tolerance involved the discussion of women's role in the vergadering and the reflections on free-prophecy indirectly interrogate the charismatic nature of the organization. Another important characteristic of the Collegiant\'' movement, delineate in the first chapter, is the autonomous and independent development of the single collegia. City autonomy and the different religious and social contexts in which the Rijnsburger vergadering took root led to large-scale differentiation. The capacity of Collegiants to survive for more than a century with their refusal of normativity and authoritarian organization was substantially due to the penetration of the Collegiants\'' arguments into the different confessions. This deep influence, in particular in the Mennonite and Remonstrant communities, defined the nature of the Collegiants, especially in some cities, as a stream inside institutionalized Churches. Because the collegia were open to all Christians, without limitation, even including Socinians and Catholics, most of the participants were also members of structured Churches, congregations or sects. In Amsterdam this phenomenon was particularly evident and the penetration of Collegiants\'' argument in the Flemish community through Galenus Abrahamsz led to one of the most important schisms in the Mennonite history in the United Provinces. In other cities such as Leiden or Haarlem, the existence of cultural circles and other forms of nonreligious association constituted the basis for the spread of Collegiantism. It was only in Rijnsburg, the village in which the movement first emerged, that a common house was built, after 1640, to host the twice yearly Collegiant national vergadering. The practical organization of the Collegiants, as has been stated, represents the foundation on which noncharismatic ecclesiology and anticonfessional ideals were constructed. With the historical background of the first chapter it is then possible to discuss the main religious and political tendencies inside the movement. The second chapter of this dissertation, following the issue of religious organization discussed in the first chapter, deals with the principles of free-prophecy, Biblical exegesis, and Collegiants ecclesiology. The central concept examined in this chapter is nonconformity analysed in its historical development of England and the Netherlands. This chapter suggests that nonconformity as religious phenomenon was an elaboration and transformation of the anti-confessional and anti-clerical thought that emerged in the 16th century with the radical Reformation. The inception of nonconformity in the Netherlands is indicated by the transformation of the debate about Nicodemism, following Coornhert\''s defense of religious dissimulation and indifferentism. Nicodemism was indeed considered, in the early 16th century, as necessary behavior to avoid pointless martyrdom and persecution, utilized especially by the crypto-reformed in Catholic countries such as Italy and Spain. The diffusion of this conduct among Catholics in reformed countries but, principally, the diffusion and justification of Nicodemism in the United Provinces, where inquisitorial control and confessional repression presented a relative risk after the revolt against Spain, testify of the new meaning that this behaviour took on in the late 16th century. Nicodemism, as Coornhert\''s position shows, became the justification of anticonfessionalism as conscious behaviour, with the possibility of openly criticizing rituals and ceremonies as for achieving salvation. In this chapter particular attention is paid to the consciousness and the open dimension of this behavior. The neglect of dissimulation and the necessity of making public personal religious sentiments, is one of the basic elements in the change between Nicodemism and nonconformity. The nonconformists acquired the anticonfessional and anticlerical content of Nicodemism, but added a principal characteristic: the veridiction. The veridiction represents the necessity of telling the truth about personal belief and religious conscience, but also institutes the core of reality in the conformity between internal belief and external behavior. These elements were present in both English and Dutch nonconformity, which developed, however, into different and sometimes opposite ecclesiology. In the English case, external nonconformity to the dominant Church and the necessity of openly showing belief led to a demand for exclusivity and a process of individualization rooted in the juridical meaning of nonconformity. Despite the turning of the debate around the necessity of free-conscience, the understanding of nonconformity as a refusal of secular world and the attempt of Baxter to disconnect the debate around nonconformity to a juridical question, the English debate never developed into a criticism of the Church\''s organization or in the necessity of a democratization of the religious life, which was, on the contrary, dominant among the Collegiants. The central text in the history of Collegiantism and in the Dutch definition of nonconformity is Galenus Abrahamsz and David Spruyt\''s XIX Artikelen. This text was conceived, from the very beginning, as a collective discussion about the nature and the sense of a religious community in the absence of Holy Gifts. Collegiants give to the term nonconformity a specific meaning which designates the absence of conformity to the first apostolic Church and the end of the extraordinaries gifts of the Holy Spirit. This radical statement caused a reaction among the orthodox members of the Mennonites and Quakers, which see in the absence of Holy inspiration a complete secularization of the religious community. Nonconformity assumed therefore for the Collegiants a double meaning: on one side it was an elaboration of anticonfessional criticism through the statement of the absence of holy influence on the religious life, on another side it represented a deep criticism of priestly authority conceived as a secularized power acting as constraint of consciences. The absence of Holy Gifts was, for the Collegiants, the demonstration that no Church or Congregation could pretend to be the true or original one. The reaction of Dutch orthodoxy appears, indeed, completely justified, because Collegiants\'' religious nonconformity presents itself not only as conscious antiauthoritarian criticism but also as a statement of the full secularization of the Church. Nonconformity was, for Abrahamsz and Spruyt, not only an unavoidable state, but also a necessary behavior to unmask the inauthentic religious life. This position represented the core of Collegiants\'' practice, the reason for their continuous redefinition and, on the same level, for their refusal of any type of identification. The recognition of the secularized status of common religious life arose among the Collegiants accompanied by an ample debate about free-prophecy and Bible exegesis, stressing the possibility of an individual form of salvation. A central role, in this direction, was played by reflection on the veridiction as a form of conformity between the inward conscience and the external behavior. Although there emerged from the sources a controversial statement about how to approach and read the Scriptures, through the free-prophecy the Collegiants organized a form of collective exegesis that had its principal aim to avoid charismatic and authoritarian leadership but also to realize a form of community close to the first apostolic Church. The communitarian discussion also involved a debate on salvation, which had no more to be tied to the simple membership in a confession but developed as an articulated discussion on the significance of the ethical and religious life. A good Christian had to reinterpret and bring alive the first teaching of the Gospel, which can be summarized as love for others and in the propagation of tolerance as ethical and interpersonal behavior. Collegiants\'' reflections on religious life, organization of communities, and their continuous effort to maintain equal relations in the absence of charismatic gifts in the Church institution, never turn to consideration of society or political forms. This absence was even more significant in a cultural and social context in which theological questions involved directly or indirectly political questions. In the same period, furthermore, Hobbes\'' reflections on jusnaturalism challenge for the first time the divine legitimacy of political power, establishing the basis of a new vision of the political community. Collegiants understood religious community as deprived from any form of divine inspiration and conceived it as a human association, nevertheless they never outline a political parallelism to this situation. The most evident reason of this absence is probably the lack of a strong monarchy in the 17th century United Provinces. However the relationship between secular and religious ideology did not fail and was well summarized by the situation after the Synod of Dordrecht, which created a rupture in Dutch society with the consequent convergence of the religious position with the political one. The intervention of Grotius in favor of the Arminian party testified to a clear identification between theological opposition to predestination (which meant a challenge to Calvinist orthodoxy) and antimonarchical opinion. This fracture remained invisible in Collegiants sources that debated the secularization of Churches and consider religious congregations as human institutions, but never tried to define the legitimacy of political institutions. It is possible, however, to find in the history of the Collegiants one significant exception: Cornelius Plockhoy\''s attempt to promote a religious-social project in the Dutch colonies of Delaware . Plockhoy\''s work illuminates the relationship and the fruitful parallels that it is possible to make between the United Provinces and England, especially during the time of the Cromwellian Commonwealth. Plockhoy\''s most significant works were written, indeed, in England, some years before the fail of Cromwell, and testify to a particular social and political engagement in the construction and definition of a community with a religious basis. It is interesting to note that only after the English experience did Plockhoy returned to Holland, following the end of the Commonwealth, to propose a similar project to the city of Amsterdam. This chapter suggests an analysis of his English and Dutch sources, stressing the differences and the modifications to his proposal. The importance of this author lies in the possibility of deducing from his position a possible Collegiant\'' thinking on politics and social organization. This contribution is certainly not descriptive of Collegiantism as a whole but represents the only explicit trace of the modification of Rijnsburger\''s religious reflections on the secular field. The description of Plockhoy\''s community in many respects echoes a certain irenicism sourced form the reading of Rosicrucian text; however it reflets and refers principally to his Collegiant experience . Although Plockhoy\''s account of the community project is never exclusively religious, the confessional element appears as prominently in both his Dutch and English projects. His religious and political project emerge clearly from his letters to Cromwell: it is essentially devoted to resolving the problem of religious conflict and the disturbance of social peace. It is, indeed, clear that Plockhoy\''s aim was not that of describing an ideal society or forming a separate community in order to conserve a purist religious ideal, but to propose a paradigmatic alternative to the religious turmoil and the social injustices of his time. The relation between political and religious arguments in Plockhoy\''s solution to religious turmoil highlights the interconnection between religious tolerance and colonial criticism, social injustice and authoritarianism. Plockhoy\''s meticulous pedagogic description of his project, his underlining of the necessity of economic independence for women and the possibility of them participating in collective work are expressions of an outlook that includes an aware judgment of his contemporary society. The last part of this chapter is dedicated to criticizes two approaches dominant in the literature about Plockhoy: one is the description of his project as a classical form of Utopia the other one is the reading of the Delaware religious community interpreted as a triumph of the work ethic. The third chapter of this dissertation deals with the tolerance, a fundamental and central concept to understand the nature of the Collegiants. It is our intention to show how during the 17th century there emerged in the Netherlands, in the religious context, a new concept of tolerance inspired by Castellio\''s works. The publication and translation, in the first half of the 17th century, of some of Castellio\''s work testify to the major interest that the French author had in the United Provinces, especially for the oppositors to the intolerant and orthodox Calvinist tradition. For the Collegiants, Castellio represented a predecessor in the struggle for religious peace. His work against the persecution of the heretics, supported by Biblical argumentation, represented a constant source of inspiration for the partisan of religious toleration. As suggested by Voogt , Castellio\''s deconstruction of the concept of heresy, as it was used by the Calvinist orthodoxy, in order to redefined it to signify a person who acts and believes differently from the mainstream, represented Collegiants\'' basis to rethink the concepts of rationality and truth. The peculiarity of the Dutch concept of vedraagzaamheid (tolerance), in opposition to how tolerance was defined and discussed in the European mainstream debate, was certainly due to the elements of reciprocity and mutuality that this particular form of tolerance included. In the 17th century, tolerance (especially religious tolerance) was used to label negative behavior, to identify indifferentism or libertinism, intolerance was, on the contrary, a sign of unity, integrity, and orthodoxy. Furthermore, arguments for religious intolerance were justified by the biblical example of the Mosaic theocracy, while religious tolerance represented the interests of the emerging mercantile elite, which supported the Republican experiment and advocated cities\'' autonomy. Tolerance became, in the 17th century, a concept contested because of its pejorative meaning; the progressive introduction of the pro-tolerance position, in order to contrast with this negative predominant vision, supported the idea that tolerance was not a menace to the integrity and peace of the Dutch Republic but the principal reason for its prosperity. The concept of tolerance became, afterwards, the battle-field on which the best juridical, economical and political form of the United Provinces was decided. The penetration of this debate about tolerance and intolerance in the Collegiants movement was adapted into an anticonfessional and irenic orientation focusing on religious and social peace. The defense of an unlimited and mutual tolerance represented, for the Collegiants, a proposal of pacification in the pluralistic dimension of the Dutch religious life, which was perceived, by their coeval, as a source of division and instability. The practice of nonexclusive tolerance and the extensive reception of different confessions inside the movement was a pragmatic attempt to find a solution to the problematic turbulence inside the Doopsgezinden and more generally to the religious disputations in the United Provinces. The central figure investigating the conduct and the limits of this debate inside the Collegiants was Jan Bredenburg. This chapter will, indeed, analyze the trouble arising from Bredenburg\''s position on tolerance and his extensive use of Spinozist concepts and language. This debate about the extension and the limits of tolerance involved, indirectly and directly, a discussion regarding religious organization, freedom of speech, and charismatic authority. In his works, Bredenburg, with his continuous redefinition of the discussion about tolerance, shows all the ambiguity and ambivalence of this term. Unlimited and mutual tolerance finds its limits in the continuous exigence of a normative delimitation of it, in the distinction of necessary and unnecessary dogma, but also, in a trivial way, in the impossibility of tolerating the intolerant. In the case of the Collegiants the adversaries of the unlimited and mutual tolerance undermined Collegiants\'' nonexclusivism with their proposals to identify with a confession of faith. Pressures in the direction of identification and exclusivism were, however, only a part of the tolerance problem. With the "Bredenburgse Twisten" (Bredenburg controversy) the limits and the ambiguities of the concept of tolerance and the limits of the penetration of Spinoza\''s philosophy in Collegiant\'' movement become clear. These limits concerned especially the necessity and priority of contrasting skeptical and atheist tendencies in the field of belief. The final chapter of this dissertation is dedicated to a question that underlines the problems of anticonfessionalism, tolerance, and secularization. The question asked in this conclusive part regards the possibility to trace the emergence of rational argument in Collegiants understanding of the divinity. To answer this question it was necessary to make some preliminary remarks about the diffusion and vernacularization of Descartes\'' and Spinoza\''s philosophies in the 17th century Netherlands. Short descriptions of the two most influential systems of thought of the epoch are two methodological steps useful in understanding not only the degree of penetration of these philosophies into Collegiants but also the nature and meaning of the concept of rationality at that time. The definition of the relationship with the divinity, after the XIX Arikelen\''s statement of the unholy Church, is represented, in the history of the Collegiant movement, by a precise moment: the discussion and dispute between the Rijnsburgers and the Quaker missionaries in the United Provinces. The debate with the Quakers assumes a specific meaning not only because it shows the proximity and similarity between the two religious movements but also because it testifies to the emergence of a central concept: the light. Central text to determine the nature of this relationship and to define the meaning that for the Collegiants had the concept of light, is Balling´s Het licht op den Kandelaar (The Light on the Candlestick). Balling\''s answer to Quakers represents a penetration of Spinozist language into the definition of religion as knowledge of God but also a singular affinity and fascination for the Quakers\'' concept of light. The question of contact with the divinity appears in the text as an individual experience, not mediated by any human instrument via language or the empirical experience. The approach to God is certainly described as an epistemological progression but the perfect comprehension of God is defined with the vocabulary of the affections rather than as full rational understanding. This text is certainly highly controversial and the continuous shift between philosophical and Quakers\'' language make its interpretation problematic. Het licht op den Kandelaar reflects Collegiants\'' position as a sum of philosophical argumentation, mysticism, and the irreconcilable reference to God as an infinite and unknowable creature. What emerges with force in the analysis of this source is the impossibility of understanding Balling\''s description of the relationship with God as purely rational. Balling, however, stresses the possibility of the constant perfectionism of human knowledge and self-emancipation and, furthermore, proposes new terms for religious thought. What he calls the "true religion" is described as ethical behavior constructed with the combination of tolerance, equal participation in the religious life, and the refusal to countenance formal conformism to Church institutions. Collegiants\'' acceptance of a Church without God does not necessary involve a pure absence of divine work, on the contrary, the proximity to God is progressively researched in an interior sphere which involve a process of knowledge. The legitimacy of the "Truth" is, then, given no more by the transcendental gift of the divinity but in the accordance of personal conviction and ethical behavior, the religion is, indeed, redefined according to these terms. True religion is, for Balling, a continuous inquiry into the natural and internal principle that each individual possesses in order to achieve full comprehension of God\''s word. This statement testify not only of a new conception of the Religion but also reaffirm the minoritaire core of Collegiants´nature; religion, in their understanding, is not more matter of concord, unity, orthodoxy but source of knowledge, problematization and continuous questioning about its own identity. Nonconformity and cultural dynamics: some preliminary remarks Before starting the presentation of the Collegiants\'' argument about tolerance, Church organization, and rationalism, to fully understand some choices and the approach of this dissertation, and to comprehend how Collegiants sources have been read, some methodological remarks are necessaries about the emergence and development of the historical phenomenon called nonconformity and how was it received and transformed in 17th century Holland. Nonconformity is, as will be shown, one of the central concepts developed by the Collegiants to justify their antiauthoritarianism and anticonfessionalism. The concept appears more interesting if we look at the number of meanings and social phenomena that it includes. It first developed in England in the juridical context and was named in the later 17th century as a defined religious movement that opposed the Act of Uniformity. In the English sources it is possible to retrace the history of this concept, demonstrating how the significance and arguments regarding nonconformity changed in one hundred years. Not far from England, in the United Provinces, the evolution of the concept of nonconformity follows another route, giving rise to radically different signification. Proposing a comparative study, between England and the United Provinces, of the development and semantic elaboration of the concept of nonconformity, is useful not only to understand the different expression of religious dissidence but also to detect cultural and social change in the approach to religion. Beyond the obvious differences between the two Countries, the different political, social and cultural history it is still possible and fruitful to compare how the concept of nonconformity developed in England and Netherlands because of the numerous contact between the Collegiants and the English religious dissident groups and because of the particular redefinition that the concept of nonconformity assumed in the United Provinces. The differentiation of English nonconformity (which dominates the European semantic field with direct and specific connotations of particular events with particular actors) from Dutch nonconformity, explains how historical agents using or interpreting a concept in a particular way can change its semantic connotation. The category of nonconformity, because of its shift from a juridical field to a social-religious one, indicates a semantic enrichment and a conceptual dynamic that can prove a sensible point to investigate structural changes. These case studies possess the necessary characteristics to be approached with the methodology developed by Koselleck and the Cambridge History of Ideas, because "society and language insofar belong among the meta-historical givens without which no narrative and no history are thinkable. For this reason, social historical and conceptual historical theories, hypotheses and methods are related to all merely possible regions of the science of history" . It is our intention to pay particular attention to the analysis of the sources and to their contextualization with the aim of constructing a map of nonconformity\''s semantic change via its arguments in pamphlets and polemical texts of the 17th century. It is our intention to investigate, through the study of the emergence of this concept, the tendencies of secularization, the development of arguments regarding religious indifferentism, and the renounciation of a religious life normalized by concrete institutions, rituals, and ceremonies. A semantic study of how the concept of nonconformity emerges, how it is filled with new meaning, and which new and old concepts intervene to define the religious and political field, is essential to explain and understand the Collegiants\'' mentality in 17th century Holland, to determine how they think, and in which ways they influence the cultural and social dynamic in a specific context. The production of new meaning and the continuous nomination of a cognitive world influence, in their turn, the production and development of new instruments of thinking. To understand the shift, the dynamics, and the changes in the cultural field, a rhetorical and semantic analysis is necessary. The arena of investigation is, however, limited to the religious sphere and the sources analyzed are, in a large majority, polemical pamphlets, which means that the question about the correlation between the emergence of a new concept and change in the mentality refers principally to the change in the perception of religion as a dogmatic and doctrinaire system. The concept of nonconformity is surrounded by many other concepts, which partly explain its nature and constitute its semantic field. In this dissertation we focus on different concepts (tolerance, anticonfessionalism, Utopia, mysticism, and millenarianism) because nonconformity emerges, from the analysis of different pamphlets and sources, as correlated with them. Dutch nonconformity involves, for example, a necessary reflection on Church form, the organization of religious life, exclusivism vs. non-exclusivism and a certain vision of the future that actualizes itself as Utopia or millenarian impulse. This constellation of concepts, which characterizes itself for semantic differentiation but also for their strict interrelation, is also useful in explaining the nature of a radical and dissident movement like the Collegiants and in understanding how the religion, understood as belief experience, was fulfilled by new themes, concepts, and meanings. Furthermore, to investigate this conceptual connection and contextualize the emergence and use of determined religious vocabulary, it is useful to understand the nature and presence, in the Dutch religious field, of the phenomenon of secularization especially in its particularly form which goes under the name of "rationalization of the world". The central question asked in this dissertation is, finally, not how it is possible to construct a category of nonconformity as an analytical concept that helps in understanding religious phenomena, but what is nonconformity and which kind of religious phenomenon it describes, how it has been used and with which consequences. The question regards how it is possible to detect structural change in the mentality while investigating conceptual change or emergence of a new concept. The cultural dynamic is, in this dissertation, understood as a semantic and cognitive phenomenon of mutual influence between emergence or nomination of new concepts and events historically determined. The History of Concepts approach privileges, as has been shown, the semantic field and text analysis for detecting changes in the mentality and in the social-cultural sphere. One more reason to find in this approach a fruitful method for understanding the Collegiants\'' universe is the particular interest that they reserved for the language. The Collegiants stressed the importance of the spread of vernacular Dutch with the compilation of grammars, dictionaries, and lexica . In 1654 the Collegiant Luidewijk Meijer published the Nederlandsche Woorden-Schat, with a new edition in 1658. The Woorden-Schat was a Latin-Dutch and French-Dutch dictionary and a guide to principal terms in Nederduitsche (Low Dutch), with particular attention paid to the basterdtwoorden (Bastard Words) and the konstwoorden beghrijpt (cultural and artistic concepts). Some Collegiants in Rotterdam, as well as in Amsterdam, were active participants in a cultural project that worked on the definition and elaboration of the Dutch language in poesy, theater, and literature. Rafael Camphuysen and Johachim Oudaan were appreciated poets and, in 1669, Luidewijk Meijer and Johannes Bouwmeester founded a cultural academy with the name Nil Volentibus Arduum (Nothing is arduous for the willing). Around the same time Adriaan Koerbagh published Een Bloemhof (A flower garden), a theological dictionary edited according to controversial philological criteria, with the explicit aim of explaining the origin of superstition and unmasking the authority of theologians\'' obscure and adulterated language . In 1706 William Sewel, a Flemish converted to Quakerism, wrote the Compendius Guide to the Low-Dutch Language, a Dutch grammar for English speakers. These sources and the presence in Collegiants\'' texts of a continuous debate about the language, testify to great awareness in their choice of terms and words. Collegiants often use italics to emphasize special concepts, or to introduce a neologism or Latin calque. In addition, they refer several times to their efforts to introduce a correct and transparent use of the language. The Collegiants were surprisingly familiar with the crystallizing power in a certain employment of discourse and language; they explicitly challenged the predominance of scholastic and theologian's terms, which substitute the direct and immediate experience of the religion with an intricate and abstract speculation on transcendence and divinity. Dutch grammar and dictionaries, work with the vernacular language in poetic or literary texts, and philological research on the origin of words, testify to a Collegiant Dutch language undertaking, an engagé project anything but neutral to democratize the discussion about religious matters and to guarantee egalitarian participation by both cultivated and uncultivated people. This effort is well represented by an emblematic figure in the Collegiants\'' sources; the founder of this religious movement, Van de Kodde, is several times described as a cultivated peasant able to speak French, Latin, Greek, in the same way the Philosopherenden Boer (Philosophizing peasant), described by Stol in 1676, extols the superiority of a simple peasant\'' reasonable pragmatism in comparison to the Cartesian\''s method and the Quaker\''s rhetoric. This was the essence of the Collegiants\'' anticonfessionalism and antiauthoritarianism, a campain with both Utopian and rational implications, aiming at a possible rethinking of religious experience outside normative structures.
Die Inhalte der verlinkten Blogs und Blog Beiträge unterliegen in vielen Fällen keiner redaktionellen Kontrolle.
Warnung zur Verfügbarkeit
Eine dauerhafte Verfügbarkeit ist nicht garantiert und liegt vollumfänglich in den Händen der Blogbetreiber:innen. Bitte erstellen Sie sich selbständig eine Kopie falls Sie einen Blog Beitrag zitieren möchten.
Cass Sunstein has a lovely New York Times essay that tries to give us back the word "Liberal." I hope it works. "Liberal" from "Libertas" means, at bottom, freedom. In the 19th century, "liberals" were devoted to personal, economic, and increasing social freedom from government restraint. "Conservatives" wanted to maintain aristocratic privileges, and government interventions in the traditional way of doing things. The debate was not so obvious. Conservatives defended their view of aristocratic power in a noblesse-oblige concern for little people that the unfettered free market might leave behind, in a way quite reminiscent of today's elites who think they should run the government in the name of the downtrodden (or "nudge" them, if I can poke a little fun at Sunstein's earlier work). But by the 1970s, the labels had flipped. "Liberals" were advocates of big-state interventionism, in a big tent that included communists and marxists. It became a synonym of "left." "Conservatives" became a strange alliance of free market economics and social conservatism. The word "classical liberal" or "libertarian" started to be used to refer to heirs of the enlightenment "liberal" tradition, broadly emphasizing individual liberty and limited rule of law government in both economic and social spheres. But broadly, "liberal" came to mean more government intervention and Democrat, while "conservative" came to mean less state intervention and Republican, at least in rhetoric. But a new force has come to the fore. The heirs of the far-left marxists and communists are now, .. what shall we call them.. perhaps "censorious totalitarian progressives." Sunstein calls them "post liberals." The old alliance between center-left and far left is tearing apart, and Oct 7 was a wake up call for many who had skated over the division. Largely, then, I read Sunstein's article as a declaration of divorce. They are not us, they are not "liberals." And many of you who call yourselves "conservatives," "free marketers" or even "libertarians" should join us to fight the forces of illiberalism left and right, even if by now you probably completely gave up on the New York Times and read the Free Press instead. Rhetoric: Sunstein is brilliantly misleading. He writes what liberalism "is" or what liberals "believe," as if the word were already defined his way. It is not, and the second part of this post quotes another NYT essay with a quite different conception of "liberal." This is an essay about what liberal should mean. I salute that. It's interesting that Sunstein wants to rescue the traditional meaning of "liberal," rather than shade words in current use. "Classical liberal," is mostly the same thing, but currently shades a bit more free market than he'd like. "Neoliberal" is an insult but really describes most of his views. People have turned insults around to proud self-identifiers before. "Libertarian," probably has less room for the state and conservativism than Sunstein, and most people confuse "libertarian" with "anarchist." It's interesting he never mentions the word. Well, let's rescue "liberal." Here are some excerpts of Sunstein's 37 theses. I reorganized into topics. What is "liberalism"? 1. Liberals believe in six things: freedom, human rights, pluralism, security, the rule of law and democracy....6. The rule of law is central to liberalism. ...It calls for law that is prospective, allowing people to plan, rather than retroactive, defeating people's expectations. It requires conformity between law on the books and law in the world. It calls for rights to a hearing (due process of law)....Liberalism requires law evenly applied, not "show me the man, and I'll find the crime." It requires a legal system in which each of us is not guilty of "Three Felonies a Day," unprotected unless we are trouble to those in power. 10. Liberals believe that freedom of speech is essential to self-government....11. Liberals connect their opposition to censorship to their commitment to free and fair elections, which cannot exist if people are unable to speak as they wish. ...They agree with ... "the principle of free thought — not free thought for those who agree with us but freedom for the thought that we hate." It's freedom, individual dignity, equality before the law and the state. Economics On economic matters, "liberalism" starts with the basic values of the laissez-faire tradition, because the right to transact freely is one of the most basic freedoms there is:15. Liberals prize free markets, insisting that they provide an important means by which people exercise their agency. Liberals abhor monopolies, public or private, on the ground that they are highly likely to compromise freedom and reduce economic growth. At the same time, liberals know that unregulated markets can fail, such as when workers or consumers lack information or when consumption of energy produces environmental harm.On the latter point, Sunstein later acknowledges room for a variety of opinion on just how effective government remedies are for such "failures" of "unregulated markets." I'm a free marketer not because markets are perfect but because governments are usually worse. A point we can respectfully debate with fact and logic.16. Liberals believe in the right to private property. But nothing in liberalism forbids a progressive income tax or is inconsistent with large-scale redistribution from rich to poor. Liberals can and do disagree about the progressive income tax and on whether and when redistribution is a good idea. Many liberals admire Lyndon Johnson's Great Society; many liberals do not.I endorse this as well, which you may find surprising. Economics really has nothing to say about non-distorting transfers. Economists can only point out incentives, and disincentives. Redistribution tends to come with bad incentives. "Liberals" can and do argue about how bad the disincentives are, and if the purported benefits of redistribution are worth it. Cass allows liberals (formerly "conservatives") who "do not" admire extensive federal government social programs, because of their disincentives. Me.17. Many liberals are enthusiastic about the contemporary administrative state; many liberals reject itI also agree. I'm one of those who largely rejects it, but it's a matter of degree on disincentives, government competence, and the severity of the problems being addressed. "Liberals" can productively debate this matter of degree. Liberalism is a framework for debate, not an answer to these economic questions. Integrating ConservativismIntegrating "conservative" into "liberal" is one of Sunstein's charms, and I agree. He is also trying to find a common ground in the "center," that tussles gently on the size of government while respecting America's founding enlightenment values, and unites many across the current partisan divide. 2...Those who consider themselves to be leftists may or may not qualify as liberals. You can be, at once, a liberal, as understood here, and a conservative; you can be a leftist and illiberal. 22. A liberal might think that Ronald Reagan was a great president and that Franklin Delano Roosevelt was an abomination; a liberal might think that Roosevelt was a great president and that Reagan was an abomination. "Conserativism" properly means conserving many of the traditions of our society, rather than burning it down once a generation striving for utopia, and having it dissolve into tyranny. Sunstein's "liberalism" is conservative 24. Liberals favor and recognize the need for a robust civil society, including a wide range of private associations that may include people who do not embrace liberalism. They believe in the importance of social norms, including norms of civility, considerateness, charity and self-restraint. They do not want to censor any antiliberals or postliberals, even though some antiliberals or postliberals would not return the favor. On this count, they turn the other cheek. Liberals have antiliberal and postliberal friends.26. .. if people want the government to act in illiberal ways — by, for example, censoring speech, violating the rights of religious believers, preventing certain people from voting, entrenching racial inequality, taking private property without just compensation, mandating a particular kind of prayer in schools or endorsing a particular set of religious convictions — liberals will stand in opposition.The latter includes, finally, a bit of trends on the right that "liberals" do not approve of, and they don't. 28. Some people (mostly on the right) think that liberals oppose traditions or treat traditions cavalierly and that liberalism should be rejected for that reason. In their view, liberals are disrespectful of traditions and want to destroy them. Nothing could be further from the truth. Consider just a few inherited ideals, norms and concepts that liberals have defended, often successfully, in the face of focused attack for decades: republican self-government; checks and balances; freedom of speech; freedom of religion; freedom from unreasonable searches and seizures; due process of law; equal protection; private property.29. Liberals do not think it adequate to say that an ideal has been in place for a long time. As Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr. put it: "It is revolting to have no better reason for a rule of law than that so it was laid down in the time of Henry IV. It is still more revolting if the grounds upon which it was laid down have vanished long since and the rule simply persists from blind imitation of the past." Still, liberals agree that if an ideal has been with us for a long time, there might be a lot to say in its favor.A lover of freedom can also admire rule of law, tradition, and custom. Why do we have private property? A illiberal, like many college students fresh to the world, might start from basic philosophical principles, and state that all of the earth's bounty should be shared equally, and head out to the ramparts to seize power. As a philosophical principle, it can sound reasonable. But our society and its laws, traditions, and customs, has thousands of years of experience built up. A village had common fields. People over-grazed them. Putting up fences and allocating rights led to a more prosperous village. The tradition of property rights, and their quite detailed specification and limitation that evolved in our common law, responding to this experience, along with well-educated citizens' conception of right and virtue, the moral sense of property right that they learn from their forebears, can summarize thousands of years of history, without us needing to remember each case. This thought is what led me in the past to characterize myself as an empirical, conservative, rule-of-law, constitutional and pax-Americana (save that one for later) libertarian, back when the word "liberal" meant something else. But, as Holmes points out, a vibrant society must see that some of this laws and traditions are wrong, or ineffective, and thoughtfully reform them. Property rights once extended to people, after all. Most of all, the 1970s "liberal" but now "illiberal" view has been that government defines the purpose and meaning of life and society, be it religious purity, socialist utopia, or now the vanguard of the elite ruling on behalf of the pyramid of intersectional victimization. The role of the government is to mold society to that quest. "Conservatives" have thought that the purpose of life and society is defined by individuals, families, churches, communities, scholars, arts, culture, private institutions of civil society, via lively reasoned debate; society can accommodate great variety in these views, and the government's purpose is just to enforce simple rules, and keep the debate peaceful, not to define and lead us to the promised land. I read Sunstein, correctly, to restore the word "liberal" to this later view, though it had largely drifted to the former. Who isn't liberal? The progressive leftWho isn't a "liberal," to Sunstein? If you've been around university campuses lately, you know how much today's "progressives" ("post-liberals") have turned politics into a tribal, warlike affair. This is who Sunstein is really unhappy with, and to whom this essay is a declaration of divorce: 5. ...liberals ... do not like tribalism. ... They are uncomfortable with discussions that start, "I am an X, and you are a Y,"... Skeptical of identity politics, liberals insist that each of us has many different identities and that it is usually best to focus on the merits of issues, not on one or another identity.I would add, liberals evaluate arguments by logic and evidence, not who makes the argument. Liberals accept an enlightenment idea that anything true can be discovered and understood by anyone. Truth is not just listening to "lived experience." 18. Liberals abhor the idea that life or politics is a conflict between friends and enemies.23. Liberals think that those on the left are illiberal if they are not (for example) committed to freedom of speech and viewpoint diversity. They do not like the idea of orthodoxy, including on university campuses or social media platforms. Ad of course, 30. Liberals like laughter. They are anti-anti-laughter.Old joke from my graduate school days: "How many Berkeley marxist progressives does it take to screw in a light bulb?" Answer: "I don't think that kind of humor is appropriate." ****In case you think everyone agrees on this new definition of "liberal," the essay has a link below it to another one by Pamela Paul, "Progressives aren't liberal." Paul's essay also covers some of the history of how the word was used, but in the end uses it in a quite different way from Sunstein. In the 1960s and 70s, the left proudly used the word in self-description. In the 1980s, Ronald Reagan, who often prefaced [liberal] with a damning "tax and spend," may have been the most effective of bashers. ...Newt Gingrich's political organization GOPAC sent out a memo, "Language: A Key Mechanism of Control," urging fellow Republicans to use the word as a slur.It worked. Even Democrats began avoiding the dread label. In a presidential primary debate in 2007, Hillary Clinton called herself instead a "modern progressive." She avoided the term "liberal" again in 2016.I think Clinton was trying to position herself to the right of what "liberal" had become by 2016. "Progressive" has come to mean something else. But I may be wrong. Never Trump conservatives tout their bona fides as liberals in the classical, 19th century sense of the word, in part to distinguish themselves from hard-right Trumpists. Others use "liberal" and "progressive" interchangeably, even as what progressivism means in practice today is often anything but liberal — or even progressive, for that matter.In the last sentence she is right. Sunstein is not, as he appears, describing a word as it is widely used today, but a word as it is slowly becoming used, and as he would like it to be used. liberal values, many of them products of the Enlightenment, include individual liberty, freedom of speech, scientific inquiry, separation of church and state, due process, racial equality, women's rights, human rights and democracy.Here you start to think she's got the same basic big tent as Sunstein. But not so -- this essay is testament to the enduring sense of the "liberal" word as describing the big-government left, just please not quite so insane as the campus progressives: Unlike "classical liberals" (i.e., usually conservatives), liberals do not see government as the problem, but rather as a means to help the people it serves. Liberals fiercely defend Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, Obamacare, the Voting Rights Act and the National Labor Relations Act. They believe government has a duty to regulate commerce for the benefit of its citizens. They tend to be suspicious of large corporations and their tendency to thwart the interests of workers and consumers.Sunstein had room for disagreement on these "fierce" defenses, or at least room for reasoned argument rather than profession of essential belief before you can enter the debate. "Tout their bona fides" above also does not have quite the reach-across-the aisle non partisan flair of Sunstein's essay. I don't think Paul welcomes never-Trump classical liberals in her tent. For Paul, the divorce between "liberal" and "progressive" is real, as for many other "liberals" since the October 7 wake up: Whereas liberals hold to a vision of racial integration, progressives have increasingly supported forms of racial distinction and separation, and demanded equity in outcome rather than equality of opportunity. Whereas most liberals want to advance equality between the sexes, many progressives seem fixated on reframing gender stereotypes as "gender identity" and denying sex differences wherever they confer rights or protections expressly for women. And whereas liberals tend to aspire toward a universalist ideal, in which diverse people come together across shared interests, progressives seem increasingly wedded to an identitarian approach that emphasizes tribalism over the attainment of common ground.It is progressives — not liberals — who argue that "speech is violence" and that words cause harm. These values are the driving force behind progressive efforts to shut down public discourse, disrupt speeches, tear down posters, censor students and deplatform those with whom they disagree.Divisions became sharper after the Oct. 7 Hamas attack, when many progressives did not just express support for the Palestinian cause but, in some cases, even defended the attacks as a response to colonialism, and opposed retaliation as a form of genocide. This brings us to the most troubling characteristic of contemporary progressivism. Whereas liberals tend to pride themselves on acceptance, many progressives have applied various purity tests to others on the left, and according to one recent study on the schism between progressives and liberals, are more likely than liberals to apply public censure to divergent views. This intolerance manifests as a professed preference for avoiding others with different values, a stance entirely antithetical to liberal values.Yes. But no Republicans, please. Unlike Sunstein, Paul's "Liberalism" remains unabashedly partisan. I hope Sunstein's version of the word prevails. In any case, it is nice to see the division between the Woodstock Liberals, previously fellow travelers, from the extreme progressive left, and it is nice to see this word drift back to where it belongs. This is an optimistic post for the future of our country. Happy Thanksgiving. Update: I just ran across Tyler Cowen's Classical Liberals vs. The New Right. Excellent. And I forgot to plug my own "Understanding the Left," which I still think is a great essay though nobody seems to have read it.
Die Inhalte der verlinkten Blogs und Blog Beiträge unterliegen in vielen Fällen keiner redaktionellen Kontrolle.
Warnung zur Verfügbarkeit
Eine dauerhafte Verfügbarkeit ist nicht garantiert und liegt vollumfänglich in den Händen der Blogbetreiber:innen. Bitte erstellen Sie sich selbständig eine Kopie falls Sie einen Blog Beitrag zitieren möchten.
The most unsettling book I have ever read is "The 2020 Commission Report on the North Korean Attacks Against the United States," by Jeffrey Lewis. As the title suggests, it's an alternative history in which the diplomacy between Donald Trump and Kim Jong Un goes terribly wrong. While Lewis criticizes Trump and Kim's style of governing, the story is not about a mad king destroying the world. Instead, it demonstrates how governments concerned with their own interests and survival can misread each other's signals and accidentally escalate beyond the point of no return.A new book, "Nuclear War: A Scenario" by Annie Jacobsen, promises to provide the same kind of realistic, unsettling scenario. Based on dozens of interviews with former officials, Jacobsen plots out minute by minute and second by second how a nuclear exchange would happen. She illuminates — at least as far as her sources are legally allowed to — the processes that govern American and Russian nuclear command and control. The reader learns what alarms would go off in which control rooms, what orders would have to be spoken to which officials, and which keys would have to be turned in which silos during an apocalypse. It is supposed to worry the readers.The book falls short of that goal. It treats nuclear war as an incomprehensible horror, rather than something human beings plan to do to each other for human reasons, and focuses on the most unlikely scenarios. For all the action-movie details about nuclear weapons being deployed, Jacobsen fails to explain how or why a nuclear war might start. In other words, she treats nuclear annihilation like an asteroid strike or a bear attack, something that is scary to picture but fundamentally impossible to predict or stop. So why should the reader worry about it in day-to-day life?"With time, after a nuclear war, all present-day knowledge will be gone. Including the knowledge that the enemy was not North Korea, Russia, America, China, Iran, or anyone else vilified as a nation or a group," Jacobsen concludes. "It was the nuclear weapons that were the enemy of us all. All along." Perhaps that's a call to abolish nuclear weapons. If so, Jacobsen doesn't provide any reason to believe that might happen.And by juxtaposing the murderous insanity of nuclear war with the sleek efficiency of the institutions designed to fight one, Jacobsen might have hoped to jar her readers. Instead, the book comes off as a demented combination of anti-war pamphlet and U.S. military recruitment ad. ("The function of NATO is to further democratic values and peacefully resolve disputes," comes right after a graphic description of everyone in Washington burning to death.) The only real coherent point it makes is how little time world leaders have to deliberate and react to a nuclear launch—which is certainly an important problem.But again, Jacobsen does not explain why they might be faced with such a problem. "Nuclear War" focuses on a "Bolt out of the Blue" scenario, the U.S. military's term for a complete surprise attack. Although that kind of attack might be "what everyone in DC fears the most," according to a former assistant secretary of defense who speaks to Jacobsen, it is the least likely fear to come true. As Jacobsen herself admits, an unprovoked nuclear first strike would be "national suicide" for any country that launches it. What kind of a madman would do that?Her answer is Kim, the North Korean ruler. "In this scenario, we don't know why the North Korean leader chose to launch a Bolt out of the Blue attack against America, but paranoia almost most certainly played a role," Jacobsen asserts. She throws out a theory about Kim feeling slighted by satellite photos of North Korea at night. To show how Kim fits the bill of a "nihilistic madman," the book cites examples of how oppressive the North Korean system is. Oppressive, however, doesn't mean suicidal. If Kim lives lavishly while his citizens starve, shouldn't he want to keep that arrangement going?Jacobsen misrepresents the purpose of the North Korean nuclear program by glossing over its history. The Clinton administration, she writes, tried to convince North Korea "to abandon the [nuclear] program in exchange for economic benefits. The result was nil." In reality, North Korea did agree to the deal, which broke down a decade later. Believing that North Korea was about to collapse, the Clinton administration implemented it only halfheartedly. North Korea, of course, shirked its own obligations in return, provoking the Bush administration to tear up the deal completely.The supervillain theory of geopolitics, in which America's enemies are plotting to destroy the world for fun, doesn't make sense. China, Russia, and North Korea all oppose the U.S.-led world order due to their specific national interests. For all of those countries, nuclear weapons are the ultimate life insurance policy. The real danger posed by North Korea lies in the Kim dynasty's rational fears; they know that they are quite vulnerable to both internal and external enemies, so their threat calculus likely leaves little room for error.The "2020 Commission Report," on the other hand, lays out the kind of crisis that might push things over the edge. After a North Korean radar crew mistakes a malfunctioning South Korean airliner for a hostile bomber, fighting breaks out on the peninsula. The Trump administration believes that, through threatening bluster, it can force North Korea to stand down and restore calm. Instead, the threats convince Kim that a regime change war has already begun, and that he must show strength to force the United States to back off. That scenario — a series of "normal" mistakes adding up to an extreme outcome — makes more sense to worry about than an unlikely bolt out of the blue.Strangely enough, Jacobsen also describes American policy as irrationally genocidal. She quotes John Rubel, a former U.S. defense official who sat through the secret unveiling of the Single Integrated Operational Plan, the 1960 plan for a "general nuclear war." Years later, a guilt-stricken Rubel compared himself and the generals in the planning room to the Nazis who plotted the Holocaust, according to Jacobsen. After all, the Single Integrated Operational Plan called for the murder of hundreds of millions of civilians, many of them random bystanders in third countries, not counting the Americans who would be obliterated in retaliation.Daniel Ellsberg, another defense planner from the 1960s, had a similar reaction when he read the death estimates. "This piece of paper should not exist," he remembered thinking in "The Doomsday Machine," his 2017 memoir. "It should never have existed. Not in America. Not anywhere, ever. It depicted evil beyond any human project ever. There should be nothing on earth, nothing real, that it referred to." Ellsberg, who died in 2023 and whose parents were Jewish, called it a scheme for "a hundred Holocausts.""The Doomsday Machine," however, goes beyond his immediate reaction to explain why such evil does exist in the world. In the 1930s and 1940s, military planners around the world had come to accept that "strategic bombing," the destruction of enemy cities from a distance, would be the best way to end wars quickly. When the atomic bomb was created, the U.S. military simply thought of it as a more efficient version of the firebombs it was already dropping on German and Japanese cities. For a couple decades after World War II, planners continued to believe in the possibility of a "damage-limiting" nuclear strike, of wiping out the enemy's weapons in order to save cities at home. After many close brushes with nuclear war, world leaders slowly developed the understanding that nuclear weapons were a completely different kind of weapon. And these close brushes, for the most part, were not random or irrational events. Incidents like the 1962 Cuban missile crisis were the result of politics, when one superpower pressed its advantage too hard and set off its rival's survival instinct. Even a 1983 false alarm in Moscow that Jacobsen mentions, the closest thing to a real-life bolt out of the blue scenario, came amid rising U.S.-Soviet military tensions in Europe.The knowledge that mass murder can be a product of normal human motivations is depressing. Yet it's also a relief. Nuclear war is not an inhuman force like an asteroid or a bear. It is a political problem with political solutions. There are many steps that world powers can take — even short of abolishing nuclear weapons — to reduce the risks, by communicating and respecting each other's existential fears. Ellsberg, for example, called on the United States and Russia to at least deactivate the weapons designed for a first strike and take forces off of hair-trigger alert.The enemy is not, as Jacobsen writes, any specific vilified nation. But it is not the nuclear weapons, inanimate objects sitting in silos, either. The problem is us. Nuclear weapons, like every other nasty implement of war, are a means to a human end.
Die Inhalte der verlinkten Blogs und Blog Beiträge unterliegen in vielen Fällen keiner redaktionellen Kontrolle.
Warnung zur Verfügbarkeit
Eine dauerhafte Verfügbarkeit ist nicht garantiert und liegt vollumfänglich in den Händen der Blogbetreiber:innen. Bitte erstellen Sie sich selbständig eine Kopie falls Sie einen Blog Beitrag zitieren möchten.
Earlier this month, Democratic Texas congressman Henry Cuellar was indicted by the U.S. Department of Justice on charges of "bribery, unlawful foreign influence, and money laundering." The accusations revolve around a set of deals in which Cuellar allegedly accepted money from a state-owned Azerbaijani oil company and a Mexican bank in exchange for an agreement to push U.S. foreign policy in their favor.As concerning as this may be, it's not even the first such indictment against a sitting member of Congress this year. In March, Sen. Bob Menendez (D-N.J.) received a superseding indictment which expands further upon earlier accusations that the former Senate Foreign Relations Committee chairman took bribes to advocate on behalf of the Egyptian and Qatari governments. These cases make it clear that foreign bribery, in which representatives of one country pay money to manipulate the representatives of another, is still a serious problem in the United States. As the world's most powerful and interventionist nation, no other government has more influence over the rest of the world's affairs — influence which can be bought. The recent charges against Rep. Cuellar and Sen. Mendendez show how significant of a problem bribery and undue influence has been for the U.S. congress, while also drawing attention to the ongoing efforts to prevent this corruption from continuing.Bribes offered in exchange for political favors are nothing new in Congress. The first congressional bribery investigation on record took place in 1854, when a lobbyist attempted to bribe members of Congress into extending the patent for the Colt revolver handgun. The question of bribery across borders, however, did not receive much attention in Congress until fairly recently. Concerns about foreign bribery emerged most forcefully in the mid-1970s as a result of the Watergate investigation and the Church Committee, which investigated abuses by U.S. intelligence agencies. These investigations identified slush funds run by large companies that could be used for illegal political donations and undisclosed foreign payments, including several U.S.-based corporations with overseas operations. In the words of then-committee chairman Sen. Frank Church (D-Ida.), the Church Committee was "concerned with the foreign policy consequences of these payments by U.S.-based multinational corporations… It is no longer sufficient to simply sigh and say that is the way business is done. It is time to treat the issue for what it is: a serious foreign policy problem."There are two types of foreign bribery: attempts by foreign figures to bribe U.S. officials, and attempts by U.S. figures to bribe foreign officials. The Church Committee began by looking into the latter, focusing on political contributions that U.S.-based oil and defense companies had made abroad. What they found was shocking: oil companies were funding politicians in South Korea and Italy; Northrop was paying off a Saudi general; and Lockheed spent millions on bribes to foreign officials in Japan, the Netherlands, Indonesia, and more. Lockheed even sought to claim tax deductions for its bribes, a practice which was legal until 1975.These and other revelations caused major scandals abroad. Congress was rattled by the way that some countries reacted to the corruption, including the Peruvian government's expropriation of assets belonging to a corrupt U.S. oil company. Combined with the American public's disgust towards the corruption of the Watergate scandal, conditions were ripe for serious reform. In 1977, the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (FCPA) was signed into law, making it illegal for U.S. citizens to bribe foreign officials. Until this rule was turned into a treaty 20 years later, the U.S. was alone in the world in adopting this form of anti-corruption policy.For much of the U.S.'s history, political corruption was both common and partially normalized, explained away as a necessity to achieve political and business goals. When a corrupt middleman helping U.S. weapons companies make deals in Saudi Arabia explained his role to Pentagon officials in 1973, one official present described the activities as "an inexpensive economic aid program." It was the fallout from Watergate and the Church Committee that turned bribery into a proper taboo. This sharp cultural change caught some off guard: one key Lockheed executive who was ejected from the company due to the bribery scandal complained that "all of a sudden, there's a different set of standards… I looked at these payments as necessary to sell a product. I never felt I was doing anything wrong." The public's attention next turned to the flip side of foreign bribery: foreign representatives paying off U.S. officials. While the FCPA criminalized foreign bribery committed by U.S. citizens, it did not fully criminalize foreign bribery aimed at U.S. citizens. New investigations into bribes directed at members of the U.S. congress helped to demonstrate the scale of this issue.In the "Koreagate" scandal of the late 1970s, a well-connected South Korean businessman offered bribes to U.S. members of Congress in exchange for favorable treatment of the nation's dictatorship. Many lawmakers were implicated, and one was sent to jail. Congress launched investigations into alleged bribery campaigns by Iranian and South African officials in 1979 and 1980, respectively, but ultimately found "no evidence of intentional misconduct." Little did they know that something much larger was brewing beneath the surface.In 1980, NBC News revealed that the Federal Bureau of Investigation had conducted a large-scale sting operation against corrupt politicians. "Abscam," short for "Arab scam," involved FBI agents posing as the agents of a wealthy Middle Eastern sheikh and offering bribes to seven members of Congress, all of whom were eventually convicted. This investigation, controversial for the use of tactics which many might consider entrapment, formed the basis of the 2013 comedy film "American Hustle."Abscam was the last major entry in this burst of investigations, but new scandals continued to emerge over the years. After congressman Jay Kim (R-Cal.) narrowly won his 1992 reelection campaign, it was revealed that more than a third of his campaign contributions were illegal, including money with its origins in South Korea and Taiwan. Five years later, Rep. Corrine Brown (D-Fla.) pressured Turkemenistan's ambassador to the U.S. on behalf of a Florida-based company seeking a natural gas deal with the country; the same company had previously paid for her trips overseas. She also was accused of accepting a car from a Malian businessman as a gift for her daughter.The next large scandal came in the form of congressman William J. Jefferson (D-La.), who was convicted of a litany of crimes in 2009. Jefferson accepted large bribes from U.S. companies in exchange for promoting their business interests across western Africa. He was finally caught after accepting a $100,000 cash bribe from a woman who instructed him to pass it on to the vice president of Nigeria. What he didn't know was that the woman was an FBI asset wearing a wire; the Bureau raided his Capitol Hill apartment days later.These issues have continued into the 2020s, even before the bombshell indictments of Rep. Cuellar and Sen. Menendez. In 2022, congressman Jeff Fortenberry (R-Neb.) was convicted of lying to the FBI about illegal campaign money which originated from a Nigerian billionaire. His conviction was later reversed on technical grounds, but new charges were filed against him earlier this month.Recent efforts have helped to strengthen U.S. laws against foreign bribery. President Biden signed the Foreign Extortion Prevention Act into law late last year, making it illegal for foreign officials to demand or accept bribes from U.S. citizens. This reform directly addresses the "demand side" of the bribery issue which the FCPA left untouched. In addition, the Securities and Exchange Commission has stepped up its enforcement of the FCPA ever since creating a "specialized unit" to enforce the law in 2010. However, there is more that can be done to strengthen the law. For example, Congress could repeal the 1988 amendment to the law which creates an exception for "facilitating or expediting payments."Other reforms can help in fighting corruption. Congressional ethics committees need to be strengthened in order to identify and address ethics violations more quickly. Stronger enforcement of the Foreign Agents Registration Act could make it harder for middlemen acting as agents of foreign governments to hide in the shadows.Members of Congress must also have a zero tolerance policy for their colleagues who are caught engaging in foreign bribery. Senator Menendez has already faced calls for resignation from the majority of senators from his own party; although he gave up his leadership role on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, he continues to cling to office. Rep. Cuellar, on the other hand, has faced little opposition from his Democratic colleagues so far.Finally, these scandals should lead Washington to reconsider U.S. foreign policy more generally. The United States frequently intervenes in the affairs of other nations, even in contexts where it makes little sense. Members of Congress can use this global reach to line their own pockets; simultaneously, this same power makes them prime targets for foreign interests who wish to manipulate the way that the United States interacts with the rest of the world. A foreign policy that turns away from coercive interventionism while still encouraging international cooperation would provide fewer opportunities for foreign bribery to occur in the first place.U.S. foreign policy should be dictated by the interests of the American people, not the personal financial interests of politicians, wealthy businessmen, and foreign governments. The cases of Rep. Cuellar and Sen. Menendez are only the most recent in a substantial history of such behavior. To fix U.S. foreign policy, we need to clean up Congress and put an end to foreign bribery.
Die Inhalte der verlinkten Blogs und Blog Beiträge unterliegen in vielen Fällen keiner redaktionellen Kontrolle.
Warnung zur Verfügbarkeit
Eine dauerhafte Verfügbarkeit ist nicht garantiert und liegt vollumfänglich in den Händen der Blogbetreiber:innen. Bitte erstellen Sie sich selbständig eine Kopie falls Sie einen Blog Beitrag zitieren möchten.
Today marks a solemn anniversary in Brazil: 60 years ago, the Brazilian military seized power from the government of João Goulart, marking the start of over two decades of military rule. Brazil's 2014 Truth Commission report is the country's only formal investigation into this period of dictatorial rule. The commission's 2,000-page report revealed some grisly details of the dictatorship's human rights abuses, identified over 400 individuals killed by the military, and shed light on Brazil's role in destabilizing other Latin American countries.To assist with the Truth Commission, then-Vice President Joe Biden hand-delivered declassified State Department records to former Brazilian President Dilma Rousseff — who herself had been imprisoned and tortured by the military regime. The records offered details about the dictatorship and Washington's enabling of abuses, including a cable from former Ambassador to Brazil William Rountree arguing that condemning the regime's human rights "excesses" would be "counterproductive." Biden's delivery of the declassified records was symbolic, since the U.S. had supported the coup. The U.S. solidified its support for the putschists the year prior, drew up plans for a U.S. invasion if deemed necessary, and sent a naval task force to Brazil to support the military plotters. In the end, direct U.S. involvement wasn't needed — Goulart fled to Uruguay by April 4. The coup was carried out by Brazil's generals, but Washington celebrated it as a victory for its interests nonetheless. On the one hand, U.S. support for the coup laid bare the hypocrisy of America's supposed commitment to sovereignty and democracy. Gone was the Kennedy administration's promise to reject a "Pax Americana enforced on the world by American weapons of war." The Cold War logic of siding with anti-communist dictators for the purpose of defeating the Soviet Union prevailed. Washington may have lost China, but it won Brazil — or so the thinking went. However, even the most cynical arguments for aligning with undemocratic regimes for a strategic purpose often failed to bear fruit, given that many of these regimes departed from U.S. policy on key issues. Many historians of the U.S.-Brazil relationship contend that during this period their ties at times more closely resembled rivals rather than close partners. Rubens Ricupero, a former diplomat and minister of finance of Brazil, writes that, "Little by little, doubts turn[ed] into disappointment, and this le[d] to gradual disengagement in relation to the regime they had helped to create."When it first took power, Brazil's military dictatorship closely followed Washington's lead. Goulart was out, as was his "Independent Foreign Policy," a non-alignment stance that emphasized self-determination, decolonization, and non-intervention, devised by the ousted president's predecessor, Janio Quadros. In line with Washington's desires, the dictatorship, which rotated through five different military general-presidents between 1964 and 1985, broke off relations with Cuba and even assisted the U.S. in its occupation of the Dominican Republic in 1965.Washington also saw Brazil as a key ideological partner in destabilizing leftist regimes across Latin America. As one Brazilian general put it, the United States wanted Brazil "to do the dirty work." And it did. Most prominently, the Brazilian regime played a critical role in the overthrow of the democratically-elected government of Salvador Allende in Chile,. even secretly bringing members of the Chilean military to Brazil to discuss the potential coup. Brazil under the generals also participated in Operation Condor, the secret cooperation of right-wing military dictatorships in much of Latin America to assassinate, or "disappear" perceived leftists and other dissidents during the 1970s.Over time, the Brazilian regime's alignment with the U.S. waned and tensions bubbled up. Dr. Luiz Alberto Moniz Bandeira writes in his book "Brazil-United States: An Emerging Rivalry," that "automatic alignment with State Department guidelines could no longer continue for long, as it no longer effectively corresponded to the national interests of a developing country that aspired to become a power." Despite the fact that the U.S. wanted the benefits of outsourcing its dirty work, it was not willing to accept the consequences that came with greater military autonomy for Brazil. Dr. Eduardo Svartman, a political science professor at the Federal University of Rio Grande do Sul, told Responsible Statecraft that one early issue that emerged was over Brazil's request for F-5 fighter jets."In the eyes of American politicians, if the great threat in Latin America was communist insurgents, there was no point to sell or transfer modern supersonic fighter jets to Latin American countries when helicopters would do the job much better," Svartman said. The Brazilian government disagreed, believing it was important to have a modern military in order to project power in South America. The generals accordingly grew more reliant on Europe, buying several Mirage fighter aircrafts from France. They eventually pushed the F-5 sale through several years later, but it was an early lesson that the U.S. may not be their most reliable partner. Though the U.S. remained an important supplier of critical components for Brazil's burgeoning national arms industry, Brazil's supply of U.S.-made arms imports decreased from 92% to 14% of its total arsenal over the course of the dictatorship. The U.S. also grew frustrated with Brazil's move towards positions associated with the non-aligned movement. Though Brazil was never a full member of the movement, in the early 1970s, it supported the decolonization of the Lusophone countries in Africa, emphasized non-intervention, and recognized the MPLA in Angola. Elements of the Independent Brazilian Foreign Policy had returned. Perhaps the biggest source of tension between the U.S. and Brazil was over the development of a nuclear program. Brazil refused to join the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, arguing that nuclear technology was vital for its development. After the U.S. suspended the supply of enriched uranium for Brazil's research reactors, the regime turned to West Germany and negotiated a major nuclear agreement in 1975.In an internal report, the CIA claimed that Brazil's nuclear ambitions posed a "fundamental challenge" to U.S.-Brazil relations. Without informing the Brazilians, newly-elected Vice President Walter Mondale tried to lobby the German government to cancel the agreement. Washington also grew frustrated with the generals' authoritarianism and human rights abuses. The regime passed a series of "institutional acts" — the first of which came just days after the coup — that gave them sweeping powers, including suspending the rights of opposition leaders and power to declare a recess in Congress. Ricupero writes that "with each new attack on the legal order or violation of rights, the embassy in Rio de Janeiro was forced into dialectical contortions to calm the State Department's unrest." Pressure on rising authoritarianism and the nuclear issue came to a head during the Carter administration, which applied human rights as a criteria for military assistance more directly. After the Carter State Department criticized Brazil for its human rights abuses in 1977, the Brazilian government retaliated by suspending the Joint Military Commission between the U.S. and Brazil, its Naval Mission, and a long-standing bilateral military accord. According to Washington's then-ambassador to Brasilia, Robert Sayre, "U.S.-Brazil relations just went to pieces."Despite a brief rapprochement with the election of Ronald Reagan as president in 1980, Brazil became critical of Washington's revival of more interventionist policies under his administration. Washington's decision to side with Britain against neighboring Argentina during the Falklands/Malvinas War in 1982 confirmed Brazilian suspicions that the U.S. was not a reliable partner. For the first time ever, "the hypothesis of war with the United States became an object of study in the Armed Forces," writes Bandeira.Brazil also opposed the so-called Reagan Doctrine, which sought to overthrow leftist governments in Central America and southern Africa. The U.S. had become not just a distant partner but something altogether new: an emerging rival. Many of these disputes between the two countries remained well into the period of democratization that began in 1985. There is a lot that is still unknown about this chapter in Brazil's history, and the U.S.' relationship to the military regime. Peter Kornbluh, a senior analyst at the National Security Archive who also served as the liaison between the U.S. and Brazilian governments for the Truth Commission, estimates there are still thousands of records that remain classified, including many sensitive records from the CIA and the Department of Defense. "[T]he degree to which the United States is sitting on documentation about repression in Brazil is the degree to which the United States is not assisting Brazilian society in reminding itself about the horrors of what happened behind closed doors in secret detention centers," Kornbluh told Responsible Statecraft.To start, President Biden could honor a request from 16 Brazilian civil society organizations to declassify these records. The groups' appeal states that declassification would "provide valuable information about human rights violations committed during the Brazilian dictatorship and clarify the degree of the United States' involvement in or knowledge of these events. This act of transparency would also strengthen the foundations of the U.S.-America relationship, fostering trust and collaboration on important issues such as human rights, democracy, and regional stability." The Luiz Inácio "Lula" da SiIva government is unlikely to formally request these documents from Biden himself. In an effort to appease leaders of the Brazilian Armed Forces who still hold the 21-year dictatorship in high regard, Lula controversially canceled all formal demonstrations of the 60th anniversary. But even without an official commemoration, millions of Brazilians from Manaus in the Amazon to Florianopolis in the far south are organizing demonstrations to send a message of "dictatorship never again."
Die Inhalte der verlinkten Blogs und Blog Beiträge unterliegen in vielen Fällen keiner redaktionellen Kontrolle.
Warnung zur Verfügbarkeit
Eine dauerhafte Verfügbarkeit ist nicht garantiert und liegt vollumfänglich in den Händen der Blogbetreiber:innen. Bitte erstellen Sie sich selbständig eine Kopie falls Sie einen Blog Beitrag zitieren möchten.
For the Arab Gulf kingdoms, the Horn of Africa is a strategic perimeter. They want to minimize political threats — some are hostile to Islamists, all want to suppress democracy movements. Anticipating a post-carbon and food insecure world, the Gulf States want to possess rich farmlands. Each has its own vision of African client states that will do their bidding. This is a recipe for proxy wars, state fragmentation and autocracy in northeast Africa.For the Horn of Africa, today's crises are existential. War, dictatorship and famine are causing state collapse. The African Union is compromised, its peace and security system unravelling. The United Nations is retreating from peacemaking, increasingly reduced to a bare-bones humanitarian provider.The dangers were illuminated by the surprise New Year's Day deal between Abiy Ahmed, prime minister of Ethiopia, and Muse Bihi, president of the self-declared Republic of Somaliland, a breakaway region of northwest Somalia. Ethiopia has been renowned for careful diplomacy, including championing the inviolability of existing boundaries. After fighting wars with Somalia in the 1960s and '70s, Ethiopia had learned to be circumspect and consultative in its dealings with Mogadishu.Last week, Ethiopia upended that tradition. It promised to recognize Somaliland as an independent sovereign state, in return for Somaliland leasing it a 12-mile stretch of land, including a seaport, that will allow Ethiopia to establish a naval base. This in turn unleashed strong words from Somalia — which had not been informed ahead of time. The AU called for Ethiopia to treat Somalia with respect. Fears of new conflicts were stirred. Unsaid in public is that the UAE is widely suspected to be the patron of the deal.For the United States, crises in the Horn of Africa are a sidebar to the ongoing Israel-Gaza war and the confrontation with Iran. Gunboat diplomacy in the Red Sea — the warships deployed under Operation Prosperity Guardian to protect shipping from attacks from the Houthis in Yemen — is the priority.The narrow strip of water carries 12 percent of world seaborne trade. For sailors, the Red Sea is "a sea on the way to somewhere else," its shores at best an inconvenience, at worst a security threat.There's a global consensus on keeping the shipping lanes open. If the Red Sea shuts down — as happened following the 1967 Arab-Israeli war— the knock-on effects on trade between Europe and Asia would be economically severe. The EU-run Operation Atalanta runs an anti-piracy flotilla involving warships from 13 European nations, (including the UK, which provided the flagship until Brexit), working with ships from Ukraine, India, Korea and Colombia.After a few years the flotilla commanders concluded that the solution to piracy lay onshore, in the form of diplomacy to resolve Somalia's conflicts and economic assistance to provide livelihoods to impoverished fishermen. That was a step in the right direction.Saudi Arabia chairs a Red Sea Forum that includes eight littoral states (all except Israel), to tackle piracy, smuggling and marine resources — not political issues.Six years ago, Thabo Mbeki, the former president of South Africa who chairs the African Union High-Level Implementation Panel for the Horn of Africa, introduced the term "Red Sea Arena." The idea was to create a diplomatic forum that would include not just the littoral states, but all the other countries with vital interests in the Red Sea and Gulf of Aden or with political and commercial links across the narrow strip of water.The former AU Commissioner for Peace and Security, Ramtane Lamamra explained: "The Red Sea has historically been a bridge rather than a divide, with the peoples on the two shores sharing culture, trade, and social relations." Egypt has millennia-old interests in the Nile Valley and both shores of the Red Sea. Ethiopia has a vital interest in access to the sea. The UAE, Qatar, Oman, and Turkey all have historic or current interests.Regional and global power struggles are played out in the Red Sea Arena. Seven nations including the U.S., China, Turkey and the UAE have naval bases there. Others, including Iran and Russia, have warships in the vicinity and are actively seeking bases. The port of Eilat in the Gulf of Aqaba is Israel's strategic back door, as the Houthi attacks on shipping have dramatically shown.The plan for a standing conference of Red Sea Arena states built on proposals contained in the World Peace Foundation report to the AU, "African Politics, African Peace" — for which Mbeki and veteran UN diplomat Lakhdar Brahimi co-authored the preface. The idea was that Middle Eastern states should sign on to the principles of the AU's peace and security architecture and establish joint mechanisms for cooperation.The AU failed to act on these proposals. Nor were they raised at the UN Security Council.Instead, Arabian Gulf states are increasingly assertive in the Horn, and they're bringing an aggressive form of transactional politics, including funding proxies to fight wars. The U.S. — whose security umbrella sheltered the Red Sea for decades — seems uninterested.Saudi Arabia has long seen the African shore of the Red Sea as part of its security perimeter. Qatar and Turkey sought influence in Sudan and Somalia, especially among the Islamists. Israel has discreetly sought a determining role in the region.But the key actor is the UAE. A small, rich state, it uses proxies to project power, and supports separatists in disregard of international norms. Abu Dhabi's clients include key players in Libya and Chad, and it is positioning itself as kingmaker in the Horn. The UAE supports and arms Ethiopia. It already controls many ports in the region — including, it is suspected, the proposed Ethiopian port and naval base in the land leased from Somaliland. But Abu Dhabi has yet to clarify its strategic goals for the Red Sea and the Horn of Africa.The UAE has long had a free pass in Washington. Only recently has the U.S. begun to criticize Abu Dhabi's adventurism in Sudan, calling out its arming of the murderous Rapid Support Forces there.The last decade has been a rollercoaster of hope and horror for the peoples of the Red Sea Arena. Popular uprisings in Yemen, Ethiopia and Sudan all descended into lethal brews of autocracy, war, atrocity, and famine, with local conflicts escalating into proxy wars. Guided by the short-term imperative of staying in power — and by the ambitions of cash-rich foreign sponsors — today's leaders are too often short-sighted and transactional.Under UN and AU guidance, a raft of peace agreements was crafted to serve as the threshold for democracy. Today a peace pact, such as the threadbare "Permanent Cessation of Hostilities" that ended Ethiopia's war in Tigray, may be no more than a truce. The principle of the primacy of politics — that served Africa's peace agenda well — has come to mean short-term transactionalism rather than a commitment to democracy, good governance, and inclusivity.A key African norm was "sovereignty as responsibility," developed by the Sudanese/South Sudanese lawyer and diplomat Francis Deng. Today we have its antithesis, decried as "neo-sovereigntism" by the Cameroonian philosopher Achille Mbembe.Today's regression means that Eritrean President Isaias Afewerki is being rehabilitated. For 30 years, Isaias has ruled an iron fist, with no constitution let alone political parties or an open media, hoping that the tide of global liberalism would recede. He looks to be proven correct.Sudanese General Mohamed Hamdan Dagolo, known as "Hemedti," commander of the Rapid Support Forces, the insurgent paramilitaries notorious for their human rights abuses, is touring Africa in a Royal Jet airplane (an Emirati airline). He arrived in Addis Ababa last week where he met Prime Minister Abiy. Extending protocol to Emirati-backed disrupters is the new normal in the region.To the extent that it functions at all, the AU is becoming the face of illiberal multilateralism, veering away from its founding principles. The UN's practice of deferring to its regional partners leaves it eviscerated. The InterGovernmental Authority on Development — the eight-member northeast African bloc — is now deeply divided and approaching paralysis.With the Horn of Africa and Yemen slipping far down the priority list in Western foreign ministries, America and Europe are sending mid-ranking diplomats into the snake pit, woefully under-armed for the perils they encounter. Too easily intimidated by swaggering local despots, perhaps swayed by zombie "Pan Africanist" slogans that challenge their right to talk about human rights, they have left their countries irrelevant in the face of ruthless Gulf power-broking.Recent developments could not have been anticipated in detail. But American diplomats saw the broader challenge some years ago. In 2020, a bipartisan "senior study group" on the Red Sea convened by the United States Institute of Peace, prioritized a broad diplomatic strategy for the Red Sea Arena. The USIP report warned that conflicts in the region could threaten U.S. national security and proposed a high-level envoy with a broad mandate.The Biden administration quickly appointed a special envoy for the Horn of Africa, but the Africa Bureau at the State Department soon downgraded the position. The cost of this strategic neglect is becoming clear today.There's still a chance for a diplomatic forum that promotes collective security. Washington has lost its best opportunities to take a lead — any U.S. initiative today will arouse deep suspicions among others. Middle Eastern powers don't, as a rule, propose collective action, and the Gulf states are divided. The Europeans will follow, not lead.The onus of leadership then falls on Africa and on the United Nations. Acting together, they can create a consensus that brings on board America, Europe, China, and Russia in a forum framed by the agenda of a stable and cooperative Red Sea Arena.
