Rachael Sotos

Sexing-up the Weltbeamter

Goethe once wished that all good people were poets. In this way seemingly prosaic deeds worthy of praise might appear attractive, glamorous, even sexy. A poetry of the good would counter the demonic appeal of danger, transgression and perhaps, of evil. Though lacking in poetic capacity, I do however possess a kind of faith in two parts: on the one hand that the best hope for world peace lies in the development of international institutions such as the United Nations, and, on the other, that there is meaning in politicallyconscious cultural intervention, in the stories we tell, in our modes of artistic engagement, etc. Samantha Powers recent biography of the late Sergio Vieira de Mello, the United Nation High Commis sioner on Human Rights likely headed for the position of Secretary General, before he was killed in Iraq in August 2003, is a case in point.1 If ever there was a man with the claim to exemplify the impossible, to make the seemingly mundane tasks of the international bureaucrat sexy, it was certainly Sergio. As Power recounts the assessment of a journalist colleague in 1994, Hes like a cross between James Bond and Bobby Kennedy.2 Given the Obama Administrations respectful posture toward international institutions, e.g. the affirmation of nuclear non-proliferation treaties and the essential role of international supervision, there is some room for optimism regarding the role international institutions may play in the future press for peace. But those who put their faith in international institutions must keep in mind that since the end of the Cold War we have seen travesties in Bosnia, Rwanda, Sudan, Congo and Iraq. The Security Council is perhaps not as divided as it has been, but it is far from clear that the UNalthough it is the only truly global political forum will successfully confront the transnational challenges confronting peaceful coexistence: poverty, over-population, global warming, disease, geopolitical insecurity. With the gravity of our situation in mind, I would like to consider Sergio, man of peace, in conversation with another sexy international superstar: Slavoj Zizek. Zizek, the Elvis of cultural theory, is sexy in a different sense than Sergio. This is not simply because Zizek is a philosopher and Sergio a Weltbeamter. Zizek, we recall, once ran for president of Slovenia. Sergio was himself a philosopher, a graduate of the Sorbonne, who, while working full time for the UN, not only completed his masters, but two doctorates. The difference between Zizek and Sergio is that Sergio represents the quintessence of the sexiness of an international civil servant, while Zizek embodies has the sexiness of radical theory, the particular eros characteristic of an orthodox Lacanian Stalinist. This epithet (Zizeks own) is of course comical, for Zizek does not shy away from appearing ridiculous, precisely because he wants to challenge our dearest assumptions, including our commitments to peace, to democracy, to tolerance and to an anti-totalitarian politics. As Zizek explains in a relatively recent interview, while he does not advocate the horrors of the past, he questions the commitment to peace itself: hence his fascination with Lenin: What I like in Lenin is precisely what scares people about himthe ruthless will to discard all prejudices. Why not violence? Horrible as it may sound, I think it's a useful antidote to all the aseptic, frustrating, politically correct pacifism. 3 If I had the poetic genius of a Plato, I might attempt to construct a dialogue between Sergio and Zizek: two sexy beasts debating peace, violence, revolution, and the prospects of achieving peace through the difficult, incremental labor of developing international institutions. In fact, I entertain a fantasy that for all their differences, they would have adored each other. They certainly would have much to discuss. At first approach we might imagine a harmonious conversation as Sergio, a former Marxist whose radical credentials were validated in May 1968, in Paris, would agree with many of the arguments of Zizeks provocative 2008 book, On Violence; He would certainly affirm that systemic violence is everywhere, albeit often hidden from the view of the privileged.4 Indeed Sergio himself often argued that much of what we do in the realm of humanitarian intervention simply puts a happy face on global capitalism, and may even be counterproductive. But while we can imagine Sergio and Zizek enjoying each others company, a nd finding concord on a variety of topicsfrom the horrors of bureaucracy to the shortcomings of political correctnessSergio, a man who devoted himself to the onerous task of strengthening and legitimizing international institutions, presents a challenge to Zizek. Thus, I imagine, at the end of their dialogue, Zizek, perhaps a bit tipsy, is compelled to agree that Sergio exemplifies his own (Zizeks) best thought. To anticipate the prose that follows: In In Defense of Lost Causes, a work appearing simultaneously with On Violence, Zizek affirms his faith in the proletariat and the possibility of violent revolution. He offers an untimely if not simply improbable series of reevaluations: of Stalin, Mao, but also Foucaults flirtation with

Rachael Sotos
the Iranian Revolution and Heideggers Naziism. In the latter two cases, Zizek does not censure the intellectuals romance with totalitarianism, but rather is troubled by the failure to really think through genuine alternatives to modern liberal democracy. 5 In the following I will counter several of the key arguments from On Violence and In Defense of Lost Causes with the sexy Sergio, masterfully eulogized by Samantha Power. Without succumbing to Zizeks provocative claims, but taking his often illuminating arguments to heart, we find that Sergio too is worthy of a defense. The UN is not quite a lost cause such as those Zizek chooses to think through, but it is certainly not so firmly established that it does not require passionate advocates to ensure its viability. Unfortunately, without the poetic genius of a Plato, I will limit my discussion of Zizek and Sergio to three topics essential to the project of sexing up the international civil servant: the relation between theory and practice, democracy and, finally, ethics. Theory and Practice Perhaps the question of the relation between theory and practice does not appear at first blush to pertain to sexiness, but in fact ones passion for theory and the manner in which one engages it (or fails to) is of the utmost political importance. Zizek, attuned to this truth no less than were Socrates and Plato, is intent to offer romantic advice. But perhaps, you, dear reader, are like me, wary of taking romantic advice from a Lacanian; whatever the claims, woman does not exist, there is no sexual relation, we must give up the desire for the desire of the other mean, they do not seem to bode well for romance. Zizek however, we may be sure, is a great romantic, and is quite intent to advise the contemporary left on its true commitments. In both Violence and In Defense of Lost Causes he explains that while it might seem safer to fall in love with those who advocate only non-violent, peaceful approaches in politics, or those who retreat into some kind of post-modern relativism, the safer approach is the cowardly approach. Although we do not want to blindly repeat the horrors of the past, Zizek insists that we must acknowledge that it is difficult to have a Revolution without some Terror. Moreover, when we consider violence in historically, many times we find it justified, as Benjamin has taught us so beautifully with the angel of history and the notion of divine violence, violence ultimately judged apart from the traditional standards of good and evil. Above all, Zizek argues, we should not allow ourselves to be tricked by what the common sense of enlightened conservative liberalism allows, the so -called third way that identifies global capitalism with a happy face as the only political option. I will not attempt attempt to refute the horrors Zizek rightly identifies in contemporary global capitalism, nor do I take issue with his acute analyses of moral hypocrisy. Yet, I am not willing to give up my common sense or put my allegiance in with the new dictatorship of the proletariat. Still, Zizek, ever the romantic, offers some worthwhile advice. Above all Zizek affirms passion: first we must be lovers with faith in our causes, a faith strong enough to counter even skepticism grounded in empirical reality. Here Zizek celebrates the functionary of state socialism who has faith in socialism, even as he is confronted with the corruption of existing socialism. 6 Zizek celebrates John Brown as the only American in the nineteenth century radically committed to racial equality.7 Even the abolitionists, we recall, typically accepted the fact of racial inferiority. But Zizek also celebrates Anne Frank, who in the face of the Nazi horror, proclaimed a faith in the essential goodness of humankind. Zizeks second point of advice is just as important. Not only an advocate of passion, he is charmingly, a bit old-fashioned. For Zizek merely hooking up is not an option in matters of theory and practice. He does not want friends with benefits, but a love relation over the long-term. And here communication is of the utmost importance, indeed we must understand the relationship between theory and practice dialectically, with an engaged, open relation to truth. In In Defense of Lost Causes he claims that only Marxism and psychoanalysis meet these qualifications: [They are] struggling theories, not only theories about struggle, but theories which are themselves engaged in a struggle; their histories do not consist in an accumulation of neutral knowledge, for they are marked by schisms, heresies, expulsionstheory is not just the conceptual grounding of practice, it simultaneously accounts for why practice is ultimately doomed to failure.8 Zizek is surely right to affirm both Marxism and psychoanalysis as ongoing theoretical frameworks which passionately and continually, dialectically engage the question of practice. But Sergio and his long career as a Weltbeamter are no less exemplary for those wishing to think through the relation between the theory and practice in open and engaged terms. First we must affirm Sergios love for the

Rachael Sotos
UN according to Zizeks first criterion: passion. Although he joined the organization rather by chance in 1969, when he was still a Marxist radical, he truly fell in love. He not only was famous for reciting UN ideals with near-romantic reverence, as Power reports, but he proved his allegiance by traveling anywhere, at any time, often at great cost to his family life. 9 Indeed, until the last years of his life, it seems the UN was the only thing to which he was faithful; he offset his seeming priggishness about UN principles by flamboyantly playing up his love of women.10 Still, it would be wrong to think Sergios fidelity a blind loyalty, a thoughtless application of rules. He became famous for a rather ruthless brand of pragmatism and the ability to bend the system to his will. To give one vivid example of Sergios necessarily dialectical approach to theory and practice: when he was charged with repatriating Cambodian refugees in 1991, he found the official maps provided to him neither matched the actual geography of Cambodia, nor took account of the deathly landmines pocketing nearly every square meter.11 Taking to heart Zizeks criterion of theory at its most radical as the theory of failed practice, we must acknowledge that few have endured the harsh reality of theory foiled in practice as did Sergio. Among all of his work in war-torn regions around the world, from Bangladesh, Sudan, Cyprus, Mozambique, Lebanon, Cambodia, Bosnia, Rwanda, Congo, Kosovo, East Timor and Iraq, he had few lasting or unquestioned successes. Success certainly in numerous humanitarian achievements, and political successes in East Timor and Cambodia, but humiliation for the UN peacekeepers who stepped aside when the Israelis went into the Lebanon in 1983, humiliation in the nineties in Bosnia, when Sergio himself spent much wasted effort wooing Milosevic and Karadivic (a time when, as Bernard Henri-Levy puts it, the UN was passing out sandwiches at the gates of Auschwitz), and of course the disaster and humiliation when Sergio failed to convince Paul Bremer to keep the Iraqi army intact and to give the Iraqis authority over their own constitution, events which led him to describe himself as a Victorian parlor maid, seduced and discarded.12 But if wisdom comes through suffering, Sergio is a candidate for tragic edification indeed. Let us recall that throughout the diverse incarnations of Sergios career, arranging food deliveries, organizing refugee returns, negotiating with warlords, he was continually engaged with the question of truth and the problematic application of theory. As Power recounts in detail, Sergio was continually questioning the United Nations itself, pondering the application of principles, suffering with the questions of when impartiality fails and military action proves necessary, when humanitarian aid is counterproductive, how to balance the abstract principle of human rights against humanitarian concerns. Let us not forget his two major scholarly works: the first, The Role of Philosophy in Contemporary Society (1974), explored the prospects of dialogue and intersubjectivity through a Marxist-Hegelian lens. The second, his 1985 Civitatas Maximus, articulates his conception of a utopian egalitarian society and, among other things, offers a meditation on the prospects of Kants notion of Perpetual Peace. One of the most memorable points in Powers biography is her depiction of Sergio reading Kants moral philosophy in his few leisure moments while negotiating with the Khmer Rouge.13 It is an unexpected picture of a Weltbeamter perhaps, but it certainly speaks to the notion of engaged truth which Zizek advises. Moreover, when we reflect on the tenuous condition of international institutions presently, we find we should pause before we dismiss the patient labor of a man like Sergio, passionate about his the cause, but no less a man of reflection. As Sergio himself expressed it in an essay entitled The Worlds Conscience: the UN Facing the Irrational in History, the transition from the ideal to the real is often extremely long, hard, costly and cruel. 14 Democracy To repeat: for all their differences, Sergio and Zizek agree on much. Zizek thinks radically, but strategically. He is a skeptic, but not absolutely opposed to international institutions. He did not oppose Natos action against the Milosevic, and he has spoken favorably for the ICC, the International Criminal Court. Still, Zizek never lends his critical acumen to the project of developing and strengthening international institutions. Rather, Zizeks particular brand of Lacanian political theory is emphatically directed against the passion of the Weltbeamter. In the terms of the present discussion, Zizek insists that democracy is not sexy. Or: to speak Lacanian, there is no jouissance in democracy. In an illuminating argument, Zizek, drawing on Claude Leforts discussion of Lacan and democracy, claims that because democracy is by definition procedural and formal, it does not in and of itself sustain ideological commitment.15 For Zizek, the (alleged) absence of jouissance has two profound structural implications. First it means that the much bemoaned enervation of the left is not due to any deficit of democratic participation, but is simply a feature of modern liberal democracy: democracy is ultimately a project of

Rachael Sotos
administration, not of ideological commitment. It is for this reason, Zizek asserts, that all leftist attempts to imbue the notion of a united Europe with political passion (such as the Habermas-Derrida initiative in the summer of 2003) fail to gain momentum. And secondly, fundamentalist reactions within democracy are likewise structural necessities: Fundamentalism is not an accidental feature of the modern state, rather its necessary complement, all the more vicious the larger and more abstract the state becomes: the fundamentalist attachment to jouissance is the obverse, the fantasmatic supplement to democracy itself.16 On this ground, Zizek asserts that we should re-invigorate our ideological commitment apart from the vacuity of democratic procedure, investing our hope and faith in the dictatorship of the proletariat. I do not intend to offer a highly spirited defense of the contemporary institutions of liberal democracy. A wise man once noted that the word democracy is the second most prostituted word in the English language. But Zizeks cynical insistence that democracy is unsexy must be corrected. Thankfully Sergio and the UN come to the rescue. First, we might fix our mind on Sergio the man of action, the man who abhorred bureaucratic responsibilities, preferring almost always to be in the field. Secondly, we may call to mind Habermas more prosaic notion of constitutional patriotism, noting that Se rgio was not only famous for near-romantic reverence, regarding UN ideals, but specifically his affirmation of the egalitarian nature of these UN ideals. Sergio, by all accounts had what Montesquieu deemed the premier virtue of democracy, a love of equality, that is, in his life-practice he did not live merely by formally equality, but he treated people equally. Sergio did not manifest the radicality of a John Brown of course, but there are innumerable anecdotes in his biography which speak to the fact that throughout his life he demonstrated an unusual respect and report with all those he engaged, from cafeteria workers at the UN to drivers in the field, in countries all over the world. Notably part of his adherence to UN ideals was the rigor with which he adhered to the UN principles of staffing, always selecting a multinational team reflecting the principles of excellence and global representation rather than his own political agenda. Political appointees at the UN, by contrast, notoriously reject this aspect of the UN egalitarian ethos, viewing such commitment to multi-national staffing as romantic. But to understand truly understand the way in which the life of Sergio refutes Zizeks claim that there is no jouissance in democracy, we have to call to mind how his colleagues experienced him: It was Sergio who seemingly miraculously made one feel safe and confident in the most dangerous places. It was Sergios unflappability that allowed him to woo the most resistant on the most unappealing missions. As Samantha Power reports, his colleagues felt as if he were the UN itself embodied. As one official put it reflecting on the ill-fated UN resolution that sent a humanitarian mission to Iraq in 2003, At the end of the day everyone was hoping that 1483, with all of its absurdities [e.g. recognizing the legitimacy of the US occupation], would be salvaged by Sergio himselfthat was the whole plan: Sergio will fix it. 17 Ethics Finally, let us consider our sexy Weltbeamter in relation to contemporary ethical theory. Zizek, a Lacanian, is intent to dissuade us from the most predominant academic approaches to political ethics: including both the fascination with unfathomable otherness, alterity, as we have with Levinas and Derrida; and the trust in dialogue, recognition and universal reason or reasonableness, as we have with Kant and the Habermasians. For Zizek, as for Lacan and others, ethics should be based on a hard-headed recognition of the inhuman core in human beings, not on the human in humanity itself. The other, Zizek warns us, is an other, a frightening thing, frightening in the same way that our own unconscious is frightening. Zizeks maxim is: fear thy neighbor as thyself. He ridicules the nave ethical consciousness which is continually surprised that the very same people who commi t acts of violence toward their enemies can display warm humanity and gentle care toward for the members of their own group . The fact is, he claims, we do not wish to have much to do with this other, we tolerate him or her, but only at a distance; the neighbor is a traumatic intruder, someone whose different way of life (or rather, way of jouissance materialized in its social practices and rituals) disturbs us, throws the balance of our way of life off the rails: when it comes too close, this can give rise to an aggressive reaction aimed at getting rid of this disturbance.18 In Zizeks realistic view, the lack of identification with universal humanity is no accident, but a feature of our linguistic being. All too simply put, for Lacanians language (and by implication culture and ethics) divide us; Language itself is violence; and more communication means first and foremost more conflict. As is no doubt obvious, the implications for politics and the pursuit of peace are significant. Again and again, Zizek ridicules the multicultural quest for tolerance and recognition, attempts which he thinks often misguidedly put their hope in overcoming the demonization/dehumanization

Rachael Sotos
of the Other. Likewise, in many places he scorns the advocates of dialogue. Ridiculous to Zizek are the words of an advocate of dialogue in the Middle East who says: An enemy is someone whose story you have not heard.19 For better or worse Sergio makes for a fascinating contrast, for perhaps he more than any other person in the twentieth century, stretched the limits of the procedure of dialogue. While he never gave up his faith in the potential transformation of the dialogical encounter, we might recall that it was Sergio who, having spent so much time buttering up evil-doers, joked that his autobiography might be called My Friends the War Criminals. This was, as I have hinted, for better and worse. It is lovely to envision Sergio reading Kant while wooing the Khmer Rouge, for he did successfully repatriate the Cambodian refugees. It is less delightful to picture him enduring the diatribes of Karadzic and shopping for gifts for Milosevic, for there is no doubt that the UN commitment to impartiality in the early nineties was ill-fated. Nevertheless, while Sergio may have at times in his career overly-accommodated those in power in pursuit of UN ends, he was never completely nave. He never gave up on the ideals of dialogue and open engagement because at the minimum it is politically wiser. As he himself put it after having met Mukta al Sadr in Iraq in 2003, the last thing we should do is ostracize him; its always useful to have an enfant terrible if you can control him.20 Given this simple political imperative we should pause before we embrace a Lacanian ethics grounded only in the inhuman core of the other. In seeking peace we should pause at least with the very human virtues Sergio exhibited. He was, as is reported countless times, a seducer, one who made both his friends and his enemies feel recognized and loved. As Carina Perelli, the head of the UN electoral assistance division, expresses it in Spanish, Sergio was an encantador de serpientes, a mesmerizing charmer of even the most poisonous snakes.21 Significantly, he not only possessed a remarkable talent for languages (he was one of the UNs greatest linguists), he had a remarkable imaginative capacity in relation to others. According to Cambodian Prince Norodom Sihanouk, Sergio did not simply learn the words of a language: he gave the impression that he understood ones world view.22 It is such talent, which, we might surmise, pace Zizeks psychoanalytic wariness, actually enters the unconscious of the other. With such talent the Weltbeamter is both sexy and essential to peace.

Samantha Power, Chasing the Flame: Sergio Vieira de Mello and the Fight to Save the World (Penguin: New York, 2008). 2 Ibid.4. 3 I am a fighting atheist,interview with Slavoj Zizek, interview with Doug Henwood Zizek, introduction by Charlie Bertsch, in Bad Subjects, Issue #59 Crusing, February 2002. Retrieved on April 18, 2009; http://bad.eserver.org/issues/2002/59/zizek.html 4 Slavoj Zizek, On Violence (Picador: New York, 2008). 5 In Defense of Lost Causes, 107. 6 Ibid., 31. 7 Ibid., 173. 8 Ibid., 3. 3 9 Chasing the Flame 10 Ibid. 11 Ibid. 12 Ibid.,422. 13 Ibid., . 14 Ibid., 518. 15 In Defence of Lost Causes, 173. 16 Ibid.,101. 17 Chasing the Flame, 392. 18 On Violence, 59. 19 In Defense of Lost Causes, 11. 20 Chasing the Flame, 448. 21 Ibid., 404 22 Ibid..