|
|
|
| A Larger View |
|
A Bi-Monthly Newsletter of the Inner Outer Partnership |
| Volume VII Edition 6 |
November/December |
2002 |
War With Iraq:
The Issue of Harmlessness
As the possibility of war with Iraq acquires new dimensions, those
who oppose it ask whether or not it is a just war. The concept arises from
the principles of jus ad bellum developed over many centuries of
philosophical and religious discussions. In more recent times
international law and the hard lessons of past wars have lent weight to
these arguments. Among other criteria, such as the intention to restore
peace and justice rather than engage in vengeance, the concept of a just
war allows war only as a last resort.
The Bush Administration, apparently seizing upon this line of
reasoning, argues that war with Iraq is not only just but a last resort.
Iraq, it explains, is a country which possesses chemical, biological and
nuclear warfare capabilities, is led by a "murderous tyrant" who seeks to do
harm to the United States and its allies, and is a nation that can
therefore be deemed evil.
However wise the concept of a just war may be, it is possible that
applying it in this instance, does not provide the arguments that will
enable us to better gauge the merits or demerits of a possible war and
decide for ourselves where we stand on the issue, for if we are to engage
in war, then each of us would have to determine where we stand. Could not
the concept of harmlessness serve us any better? As a spiritual principle,
harmlessness dates back thousands of years. Although today it is mainly
associated with Eastern
religions, it is also rooted in the spirituality of the West, albeit often
using other words or phrases.
In many ways war is never harmless. People on both sides will die thus
loosing the opportunity to learn and grow from the experiences of living.
From a spiritual perspective, it is this opportunity that is assumed to be
one of the reasons for our corporeal lives. But beyond the obvious
arguments there may be other issues. Doubtless each of us will have our
own, but here are a few to consider:
- Is it harmless to mistake political and perhaps personal motives for
moral ones?
- Is it harmless to use the economics of oil as a political tool?
- Is it harmless to set a precedent and engage in a preemptive strike of
such magnitude?
- Is it harmless to act unilaterally in a world that is increasingly
multi-national and interdependent?
- Is it harmless to be so convinced of one's own rightness as to label
those who do not agree as unpatriotic or wrong, or evil?
- Is it harmless to deflect resources and priorities? War is expensive. Is
it right to increase the national debt and no doubt cut beneficial and
necessary programs?
- Is it harmless to distort facts or conveniently omit them to justify
one's perception of need?
It may often be done, but may not enable us to
clearly discern the harmlessness of a given issue. Sometimes the omission
or distortion touch on major points. Here are three examples: The CIA
early in October wrote a letter to the Senate Intelligence Committee
explaining that the danger was not imminent; several foreign policy think
tanks and analysts are exploring alternatives including what they have
called coercive inspections; the consequences of war on the U.S. presence
and stature in the world, on its economy as well as on world economy are
almost dismissed from the discussion.
Given an adversary such as Iraq, answering the issue of harmlessness
with a yes or a no may not be helpful in ascertaining the potential harm.
If we ask, would that war be harmless, our answer in the abstract may be
an easy no. However, when details are factored in, some of the objections
tend to loose their sharpness. What we are left with is a more subtle and
difficult question to answer, what would create the least harm? While
each of us ought to work out for ourselves which alternative is more
harmful, and while there shall be differences in our individual responses,
we ought to agree that war with Iraq is far more likely to be more
harmful than harmless.
Children In The Middle
According to a report from Amnesty International documenting the toll the Intifada uprising has taken on the children of the region, 250
Palestinian children and 72 Israeli children were killed in the two-year
period from September 2000 to last August . Criticizing both sides, the
report said that "children have been targeted in an unprecedented manner."
"The patterns of killings..." it continues "show how the right to life
of Palestinian and Israeli children has been repeatedly violated as a
result of the systematic failure of the Israeli authorities, Palestinian
armed groups and the Palestinian Authority to comply with... international
human rights and humanitarian law."
While Israeli spokespeople deny any wanton disregard toward
children, the report accuses Israel of being guilty of "unlawful and
excessive use of lethal force," though that is banned by international law.
"It is not clear what instructions, if any have been given to IDF soldiers
about the targeting of children", the report said, adding that the much
higher number of Palestinian children killed suggests that the Israeli
military "have consistently breached international standards regulating the
use of force and firearms."
Amnesty International was equally severe in how it viewed the
Palestinians especially those from radical groups who have engaged in
suicide bombings against Israeli children. Of those children killed 70%
have died in suicide bombings, eleven alone in one of the bombings.
The conflict in the Middle East is so embedded in blame and blaming
the other party that a report pointing at something as precious to all as
children is a necessary dose of reality. It may not stop the violence, but
it may make people think. It may not be enough but it sets a pattern
whereby both sides can take responsibility for the consequences of their
hatreds. Perchance they will see the self-destruction wrought by the depth
of their enmity.
Copyright Extension
Looking for the Right Arguments
Will Congress or the Courts have the last word on Copyright law?
The Constitution gives Congress the power to give authors, inventors and
other creative people, the right to their work "for a limited time". The
intended meaning of this phrase is what underlies the current case,
recently argued before the Supreme Court.
The role of Congress began in 1790 when it gave authors and inventors a 14-year monopoly. After that living authors and inventors could seek a
14-year extension. Movies and other mass media invented in the twentieth
century spurred Congress to extend the terms of the copyrights law a
number of times. Then in 1998 with little debate Congress passed the
Sonny Bono Copyright Term Extension Act which added 20 years to a
copyright. If the Court declares the Act unconstitutional in the decision
it will render by next June, many songs, books, movies and the like
created during the 1920s would come into the public domain. This would mean
that no royalty will need to be paid on those properties. As it is royalties, sometimes rather steep, are paid to the copyright holder each
time one is used.
Given the nature of the creative properties which would no longer be
copyrighted, many have filed briefs arguing that the law should be left
untouched: The Motion Picture Association of America, The Songwriters Guild
of America, the Recording Artists Coalition, The Directors Guild of
America, ASCAP, BMI and several others. To them, as the owners of many of
these properties, millions of dollars are at stake.
On the other side are individuals like a church choir director who
would like to be able to use certain music from the 1920s without having to
pay a fee, or Eric Eldred, who filed the lawsuit now before the Court, who
scans into his web site books like the Scarlet Letter. Also on the side
asking for the removal of the 20-year extension are a number of small
companies such as production or Internet concerns.
Perhaps the Court must decide on the constitutionality of the extension
law, but that does not get to the bottom of the issue. The underlying
issue does not appear to be constitutionality but profits. And if that is
so, we ought to be aware that we are quantifying in dollars and cents
things that have a value which is not necessarily quantifiable. As we allow
a legal decision to be based primarily on monetary value to occur, we can't
help but corrode the whole of our values, the very values necessary for
us to discern what is important and what is not.
A Country About To Go Under?
Instead of being a scientific fact requiring our attention, global warming is still debated by those whose political agenda might call for a
shift of their priorities. The result, primarily in the United States, is
a lax attitude which has not helped the problem. Now comes two rather
blatant incidents which ought to be pause for thought for those who still
doubt the environment is harmed by the emissions leading to global
warming.
The first is the tiny island nation of Tuvalu in the Pacific Ocean. Its
highest point is 16 feet over sea level and the rising sea levels
attributed to global warming are threatening to wash away the island, and
along with it the nation.
The second is an avalanche in Northern Russia last September burying a
village under 3 million tons of ice and mud when a glacier collapsed. The
collapse is said to be a sign of the many changes underway in the region,
and scientists say also throughout the world, brought by global warming.
The disaster left at least 9 dead and more than a 100 missing.
Now that lives have been lost and that the scenario is so sadly
unfolding, isn't it time for those of us who understand to do all we can to
ensure that the planet is safeguarded for future generations? Ought we not
marshal facts to impress upon decision makers of all levels that if we
don't act to reverse or alter what causes global warming, who will?
Web Site of Interest: www. house.gov/kucinich/action/peace.htm
A Department of Peace?
In July 2001 Rep Dennis Kucinich of Ohio introduced HR 2459 to create a
cabinet level department of peace. The department would not only address
domestic issues such as child abuse but international conflicts and attempt
to find non violent solutions. In addition the bill called for an office of
peace education whereby a peace curriculum would be taught in schools.
All that was of course before 9/11 and the war on terrorism. Though eclipsed by events those very events highlight the need for a department of
peace and make the idea even more crucial than when it was introduced . If
we believe this then we ought to lend our support, and our voice lest the
bill be forgotten.
To Ponder On
"If we have no peace, it is because we have forgotten
that we belong to each other."
Mother Teresa
|
|
