2003 Yearbook and Annual Report
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
CARNEGIE COUNCIL ON ETHICS AND INTERNATIONAL AFFAIRS 2003 YEARBOOK AND ANNUAL REPORT SPECIAL SECTION WITH ESSAYS, BOOK REVIEW SUMMARIES, CLASSROOM TOOLS, & MORE Contents YEARBOOK 1 Letter from the President 2 The Carnegie Council Covers the New War 6 The Carnegie Council Reviews Core Themes 10 The Carnegie Council is thinking about . BOOKS 14 The Carnegie Council is thinking about . FILMS 16 The Carnegie Council is thinking about . CLASSROOM TOOLS 18 The Carnegie Council is thinking about . PEOPLE ANNUAL REPORT 21 Frequently Asked Questions 22 Activities 26 Contributors 28 Fellows 29 Officers, Trustees, & Staff 30 Financial Summary 31 Publications 32 Membership Letter from the President he Carnegie Council is a place of learning – a home for study and reflec- tion on issues of war, peace, and social justice. Part think tank, part class- T room, and part publisher, the Council generates resources for opinion makers, policy makers, community leaders, educators, students, and concerned citizens. How do we accomplish this mission? Our tools are varied. They include Merrill House public affairs programs, scholarly and reference publications, a mid-career fellows pro- gram, a resource-rich Web site, and faculty development programs at colleges and uni- versities worldwide. To capture the essence of the past program year, we have created a “yearbook” featur- ing essays on the main ideas raised at recent Council meetings and in our print and online publications. The lead essay, which was previously published as a supplement to our <inprint> newsletter, focuses on the three main ethical questions raised by the war on terror. The essay that follows highlights other core issues of Council concern: global justice, social rec- onciliation, human rights, and environmental politics. In addition to communicating the year’s main ideas, the yearbook aims to convey a sense of what it has been like at Merrill House during the past year – the almost daily dis- cussions of new and influential works in the field of ethics and international affairs as well as interactions with people who care about the same issues we do. Thus you will also find sections summarizing the books, lectures, and even films that captured our attention, along with the main points that arose in a series of conversations between Council staff and leading educators. Finally, the yearbook profiles a number of the people who imparted their creative ener- gy to Council projects, permitting us to produce some of the year’s best work. They, too, richly deserve a place in a yearbook showcasing the latest thinking in the field of ethics and international affairs. The latter half of this publication contains organizational and financial information, including the list of those who gave generously during the past year to support our oper- ations. I look forward to hearing your comments on the new yearbook-cum-annual report format. The Carnegie Council will be ninety years old in 2004. There is nothing like a major anniversary to lend a sense of perspective to an organization. Given that we were founded with a mission to pursue world peace – only to be plunged into the bloodiest century in human history, marked by two world wars – our educational mission is today more impor- tant than ever. Conflict, the use of force, the pursuit of human rights, the problem of global inequality – these issues define our times and are at the heart of the Carnegie Council’s work. We urge you to join us in commemorating the occasion. In particular, we would appre- ciate your input as we look forward to the next ten years and envision the direction the Council will take as take as it approaches its centennial. Joel H. Rosenthal President, Carnegie Council 2003 Yearbook and Annual Report 1 THE CARNEGIE COUNCIL Covers the New War HE MOST DISTINGUISHING FEATURE OF argued that the “rules have changed since the the “new war" on terrorism is the attacks of September 11th, as the circumstances T moral framework in which it has under which we defined the lawful use of force no been cast. Following the terrorist attacks of 9/11, the longer exist.” Given its overwhelming military Bush administration abandoned its rhetoric of might, the United States is unlikely to be engaged in arch-realism – emphasizing core national interests conventional warfare with another nation state. over humanitarian concerns – for one of robust Rather, it must face a new class of enemy consisting moralism. Confronting terrorism and its support- of non-state actors who flout the traditional con- ing “axis of evil" is now the central organizing prin- ventions of war by targeting civilians – and who are ciple of American foreign policy, setting the stage threatening to use nuclear, chemical, and biological for military campaigns first in Afghanistan and then weapons. in Iraq.Yet the approach raises inevitable questions. And if asymmetrical warfare is one rationale This essay presents the three main questions that driving the argument for new rules, another is the have emerged from the pages of the Carnegie nature of modern weaponry. The new generation of Council’s <inprint> newsletter since its launch in high-tech weapons – as exemplified by the drone, September of 2001 – on the very eve of the new war an unmanned aircraft with a remarkably precise – and also summarizes the range of opinions voiced camera and data transmission capability, now out- at the Council’s public forums during that time. fitted with guided missiles – makes possible preci- sion attacks at low cost in terms of lives lost and col- Does a new war necessarily mean new lateral damage. From this perspective, some argued rules? that a military campaign on Iraq would be more humane than another ten years of economic sanc- Last September the Bush administration presented tions. onservative commentator William Kristol discussed his a National Security Strategy document declaring a For all of the discussion of evolving legal norms ew book, The War over doctrine of pre-emptive, or “preventive,” military and rules, attention inevitably circled back to the aq, at a 3/5/03 Merrill ouse Program. action. The doctrine is based on the premise that primary question on everyone’s mind in the spring the old approach to security is no longer acceptable of 2003: has the taboo truly been lifted on preven- – in the age of terrorism and weapons of mass tive war? As Carnegie Council fellow Scott destruction, the risk of inaction is greater than the Silverstone pointed out at a recent Council meet- risk of action. ing, it remains unclear the extent to which “the logic <inprint> carried this story in one of its first issues, of preventive war has trumped the ethical limits excerpting a speech by former Chairman of the that seem to have prevented the United States from Joint Chiefs Henry Shelton to an audience con- engaging in this particular form of war in the past.” vened by the Council at Georgetown University a The tragic events of September 11, along with new few weeks after September 11. General Shelton technological capabilities, may have precipitated a 2 Carnegie Council on Ethics and International Affairs The logic of preventive war has trumped the ethical limits that seem to have prevented the United CARNEGIE COUNCIL FELLOW “ States from engaging in this particular form of war in the past.” SCOTT SILVERSTONE shift in the moral climate for the use of force; but paign to disarm and liberate Iraq, the Bush admin- we cannot yet be sure whether that climate change istration crossed two thresholds, one strategic and is permanent. the other diplomatic. Strategically, the administra- tion delivered on its promise to act in self-defense Is the strategy of forging a “coalition of absent an actual – or even imminent – armed the willing” morally sound? attack, against threats from weapons of mass destruction. Diplomatically, the United States Appearing at the Council several months before demonstrated its willingness to act outside of the September 11, former national security advisor Tony UN Security Council and in the face of considerable Former NATO commander Lake described a nightmare scenario whereby a gov- opposition. Some saw this as courageous leadership, Wesley Clark critiqued the ernment or group of non-state actors attacks the others as short sighted. strategy behind the war on terror, at this year’s United States without even claiming responsibility. We heard both sides of the debate at the Morgenthal Memorial “This would put the president of the United States Council’s Merrill House Programs. Leading con- Lecture. in an extremely difficult position, because if he were servative thinkers William Kristol and Robert to respond without proof, the United States would Kagan argued that the time had come for the United rightly be blasted at the UN Security Council, States to embrace its unipolar status, whether or not General Assembly, and in our own newspapers. On its allies agreed. European countries are in any event the other hand, if you’re pretty sure they did it and unlikely to support U.S. military actions given that everybody knows it but because you can’t prove it, they are now in a “post-militaristic” phase, mistak- and you don’t respond, then you have lost.” enly believing that diplomacy alone can solve the President Bush faced a variation on this night- problems posed by dictators like Saddam Hussein. mare immediately after September 11. He wanted But support for a unilateral-if-necessary approach to deliver an unambiguous message: nothing justi- to waging war also came from the liberal corner, with fies terrorism, period. At the same time, however, it Michael Walzer and Peter Maass pointing out that was unclear to whom and by what means America calling on the UN has become an excuse for inaction: should deliver this message as it had not been “As the Afghan campaign showed, the United States attacked by another nation-state, and it was for doesn’t need other countries if there is a job to do.” some time unclear who its attackers had been.