Responsibility and truth.

Hinkson, John

The dramatic declaration by the United States in 2003 that the threat of Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD) could justify preemptive strikes against sovereign nations marked a break in the history of nation-states. In the view of the Bush administration WMDs meant, in short, that relations between nations would no longer be structured around the mutual recognition of sovereignty. The aftermath of this declaration is now history, starkly represented in the agony of the people of Iraq and the Middle East.

Whether pre-emptive strikes can ever be justified is a weighty matter. As acknowledged by Kofi Annan, contemplating such strikes is not necessarily mere opportunism. The implications of WMDs for humanity overwhelm national borders. Nevertheless, pre-emption cuts deeply into the basic assumptions of all previous approaches to world order. It requires special standards of truth, supported by an authority that is free from the domination of any particular super-state.

It is now clear that the pre-emptive strike against Iraq did not meet any such standard. The spectacle of the leaders of the West generating their justifications for war in a frenzy of activity, constructing a smokescreen of 'reliable' intelligence, was embarrassing for all but the most devoted believers in the American Way. The orchestrated circulation of reports of WMDs in Iraq was built on the flimsy evidence of emigres and pushed towards the foregone conclusions of those in power. These machinations were said to justify the war. They 'justified' a preemptive strike that was so interwoven with deep cultural division that it may well yet trigger World War III.

Some states and some significant individuals insisted on a more measured approach to the threat of WMDs. At an individual level it is sufficient to mention former and present weapons inspectors and occasional intelligence officers whose considered judgements were swept aside and whose reputations were undermined in order to confirm an imminent threat. And those individuals who spoke out were complemented by others who quietly made it known that the intelligence community was at least divided on the presence of WMDs in Iraq.

While the significance of individuals who put the truth before their own career prospects can hardly be understated, only strong and independent social institutions will ensure that the truth will be valued in times of social crisis. The countervailing power of a respected institution is needed to modify and caution any opportunist political manoeuvre. It is in this setting that the most worrying developments in the emergence of global society are to be found.

We are no longer surprised when those who take truth seriously in the intelligence community find themselves isolated and under pressure. The attitude of realpolitik adopted by advisers in accepting the terms set by government of what they are allowed to say, is a subset of a broader process: the undermining of the integrity of the public service. The processes of re-structuring that followed the neo-liberal takeover broke up the public service as a relatively independent institution with its own principles of deliberation and truth-telling. Indeed its de-stabilization became a working principle of global society. With a somewhat different agenda, the media became preoccupied with celebrity and immediacy at the expense of professional journalism, overwhelming the reflective and educative role they once took more seriously. Those sections of the media which have not relinquished an independent, reflective approach are increasingly embattled.

That these are aspects of an institutional revolution that strike at the heart of the Western tradition is conclusively confirmed in the re-structuring of academic institutions, for many centuries the background support for the intelligence service, the public service generally, and media institutions. Here a shift of focus towards the production and protection of intellectual capital--placing the 'university' at the centre of what global society means--has undermined the ethic of the free circulation of ideas, as instrumental value comes substantially to substitute for interpretation. Predominantly responsible for the production of WMDs, as one aspect of the techno-scientific revolution, the university now in large part relinquishes its long-held traditions of social and cultural evaluation.

It is tempting to see the crisis of the West today in terms of the 'stupidity' of some political judgements. But that same irrationality is prompted by the pursuit of policies which can in no way be justified by acceptable standards of truth. This is a cultural crisis whereby the West has lost its institutional capacity to judge what is true and therefore to evaluate its practice. To do so again, to find a path past the present blind alley, we must find the resources to rebuild those institutions that once allowed for the critical assessment of policy.