Principally directed towards all involved in the weapons investment debate:
Originally, I was not very inclined to engage this debate, though I find it exceptionally compelling. This is partly because I think all those involved, on both sides of the issue, have brought legitimate arguments, some of which have been very persuasive. As a matter of fact, I do not think either side can claim a complete victory in this debate—but, then again, I find this tends to be the result in most debates (whether this is because the issues involved, and the world we live in, are enormously complex, or because I am inherently indecisive and therefore tend to gravitate towards the center in most circumstances, I have yet to determine). I would love to stake out a moderated position that both sides could be satisfied with, but upon reflection—and I admit I am not in any way an expert in these matters, so such reflection is likely to be inadequate—I have decided this proves to be well beyond my knowledge and capabilities.
Still, I am especially inclined towards international politics—with all luck, I’ll make that my concentration when I declare for a Government major next Spring—and so I cannot stay away, even if I find my thoughts inadequate.
First, to Kevin Young, I would like to respond to his challenge in his Wespeak, published April 17th: the first Persian Gulf War (August 2nd, 1990 through February 28th, 1991), when the United States participated n a multinational coalition to expel an aggressive Iraqi army from Kuwait—is an example of American military might being used in a defensive, non-imperialist fashion, post-1898 (Spanish-American War, a very good time to start, though a claim might be made for the Mexican War, 1846-48, as a starting point for expansionist American aggression). You asked for one, and—as a student of history—I had to oblige.
That aside, I suppose I should quit my posturing and engage the debate. I suppose certain concessions must first be made: yes, weapons kill people, even when used defensively. And yes, the U.S. government has—by-and-large—seems to have a questionable definition of defense, without even addressing some of the deeper issues (whether it is really meant to be defense, whether there exists an over-represented military interest omnipresent in American politics, an inherent aggressive strain to American foreign policy, and so on and so forth).
Nonetheless, I do maintain that it seems a little odd that, in order to protest the American government—which is, ultimately, the central culprit in these policies, and these wars, and this imperialism, and any other socially irresponsible practice central to this debate, exempting Wesleyan’s participation one way or the other—we should simply cease to invest in weapons in any capacity. I just do not think that is an effective way to make this protest, and I do think some protest is merited. Weapons, after all, are not necessarily offensive.
Perhaps the moderate solution that most sides would find acceptable would be for Wesleyan to invest only in weapons that exist for strictly defensive purposes—which, of course, opens an entirely new can of worms; what makes a weapon defensive? Offensive? Political scientists have asked these questions for decades, although I do not think this is a practical solution. I just do not think it is economically feasible, nor even a potential option considering how Wesleyan manages its investments and what, if anything, it can choose to invest in.
Does this therefore mean Wesleyan should not invest in weapons at all? Not necessarily, although it is an attractive option. I still do not think that addresses the core issue, and I also do not think that, although realities can be restraining, we should not abandon something just because we cannot reach an ideal conclusion.
This is not meant to be a defeatist outlook, and I do not recommend simply submitting to these circumstances without taking some measure to change or eliminate them. I do think that, before simply deciding that investing in these weapons producers is socially irresponsible, all alternative possibilities—including but not limited to protesting those in a position not just how these specific weapons will be used, but how the United
States conducts itself in the international arena—in order to produce some truly broad, all-encompassing changes.
I admit that I fancy myself a bit of a pacifist—though I submit to Just
War Theory—who’d rather believe that the use of military conflict on the international stage has become an obsolete foreign policy tool. It’s not, but I think we should all aspire to make it so. However, as I have already maintained, I do not think that ceasing to invest in weapons—in any capacity—is an effective way to. Perhaps it is because I am not a perfectionist, or a true pacifist, or because I my conclusion has been stained by reasoning through the wrong glass.
Still, I am loathe to think this conclusion is in any way delusional—or an example of social irresponsibility on my part. I accept the limits of my reasoning, and I admit that maintaining the status quo vis-à-vis this investment might very well be the wrong course of action. So, to anyone who has taken the time to read this, I’m sorry that, in the end, my only useful advice regarding this issue might be: conclude what you will. As long as it is carefully reasoned, at least.
Leave a Reply