From: Sam Norton (elizaphanian@kohath.wanadoo.co.uk)
Date: Tue Dec 14 2004 - 14:41:03 GMT
Hi Mark,
We had been talking about system wide threats, which veered onto the question of what terrorism was,
and I said:
Why don't we run with the definition that Kofi Annan's 'great and good' came up with a week or two
ago: "any action intended to kill or seriously harm civilians or non-combatants, with the purpose of
intimidating a population or compelling action by a government or international organisation"?
And I then amplified it by saying:
So if, for example, it could be shown that the USG was intending to frighten the Iraqi civilian
population into accepting democracy, and were deliberately targeting civilians with their weaponry
to that end, then they would be guilty of terrorism.
msh then said:
This IS an example of Platteral Shift. We were talking about coming to grips with an understanding
of terrorism in the sense of your hypotheitical Al-Queda threat to the US. My point was that, if
9/11 can be called a terrorist attack, then so can the US mining of Nicaragua's harbors, as well as
embargos that cut off medical supplies and food, blowing up airplanes and autos and buildings in
attempts to kill political enemies, etc.But you've shifted us away from attacks during peace time to
actions during war. All war actions are attempts to compel certain government actions, such as
surrender. The UN definition limits "terrorism" to peace time attacks.
Sam now says:
I wasn't intending to make a Platteral shift, and I'm not clear how I have. In particular, I don't
see that I've "shifted us away from attacks during peace time to actions during war". Are you
reading the word 'non-combatant' as making the definition exclude 'peace' situations? If so, I think
that's a mistake. I think the people drawing up the definition were deliberately trying to get a
definition that would avoid having to rely on the pronouncements of war or peace, so that, for
example, both suicide bombing of Israeli cafes and bulldozing of Palestinian houses would count.
I don't disagree that, eg, the mining of Nicaraguan harbours counts as a terrorist act.
Now, we've been touching on an important argument in several places, which I think needs to be
brought out and made explicit.
MSH said:
My claim is that the USG-UKG values the lives of innocents less than the lives of it's combatants,
at least when the innocents are strangers unfortunate enough to be living in a foreign country the
USG -UKG wants to invade.
sam:
I'm not persuaded of that point.
msh says:
I know. But you should be. Consider it just from the Christian angle alone.
Sam now says:
We need to distinguish three issues here, which have got blurred -
1. the killing of civilians as a result of pursuing a legitimate military target;
2. the killing of civilians as a result of pursuing illegitimate military targets (to terrorise the
population); and
3. the lower valuation of civilians as compared to the valuation of 'home' soldiers.
I think that 1. is inevitable (to be regretted and minimised wherever possible, but unavoidable); 2.
is evil; and 3. is profoundly problematic. So when I said 'I'm not persuaded of that point', what I
am not persuaded of is that US/UK actions in Iraq fall under 2. rather than 1. Which I'm sure we'll
pursue further.
However, the point you make under 3. is a very good and strong one, that I need to think about
further. As I said in an earlier post "there is something dishonourable about sitting in absolute
safety and pressing buttons, whilst human beings are being blown apart as a result." I would want to
make a further distinction though - a classic one from the just war tradition - between the 'jus ad
bello' and the 'jus in bello'; in other words, the evaluation of the overall 'cause' of military
action, and the evaluation of the actions and deeds carried out to further that cause. (So a cause
can be just but fought for unjustly, or vice versa. Or both each way of course). Point 3. relates to
jus in bello and is logically distinct from the overall justice of the cause.
Now, another point:
sam:
I don't think it possible (or perhaps even desirable) that this sort of preference [preferring one's
own family to someone else's] be removed. I will always value my family more than anyone else's. I
expect that's a hard-wired biological phenomenon, and I can't see the point in trying to change it.
msh says:
I'm a little surprised by this is very weak reasoning. Men are hard-wired to father 1000 children a
year; would you encourage that sort of behavior? Evolution in the MOQ means rising above our
biological inclinations when they prove detrimental to society. And, within Christianity, aren't you
encouraged to expand your notion of family to include the family of man?
Sam now says:
You rather creatively edited out part of my comment here. I had included the sentence "What we need
to do is work with the grain of human nature so that the 'circle of concern' is expanded." I'm quite
happy that our biological instincts need to be constrained and shaped in socially beneficial ways. I
think that what we need to do, however, is make sure that we are building on solid foundations, that
is, ones which respect the strongest biological drives and give them an acceptable outlet. This is a
core 'conservative' point of view, of course, and it rhetorically places itself against all the
totalitarians descending from Plato that would do away with normal biological ties. So the issue as
I see it is NOT about whether you rise above your biological inclinations or not, as whether the
social structure is one that sustainably extends the 'circle of concern' so that more people (or
animals, creation etc) are included. Now if you force people to put their own families at risk in
order to safeguard other families, I don't see that as sustainable. If, however, you convince them
that 'we sink or swim together' then that is sustainable. As you put it "within Christianity, [we
are] encouraged to expand [the] notion of family to include the family of man".
I think there is a very big issue here, which would benefit from some patient exploration, as I
think it 'goes all the way down' and probaly accounts for a huge part of our different approaches.
What do you think?
Now, next point: I argued that present governments are more humane than predecessors:
msh said: On the other hand, how can we say that the recent near unilateral invasion of Iraq is
"significantly better" than anything that came before? In what sense is this action "humanitarian,"
when world opinion was 10 to 1 against it? How can you ignore the objections of 90% of humanity
and call your action "humane?"
sam said:
On the latter point, "100,000 lemmings can't be wrong". If popular acceptance was the mark of humane
action we'd still have the death penalty in England.
msh then said:
People aren't lemmings, and all people should have some say regarding events that will affect them.
What's odd here is that you are denying the legitimacy of democratic institutions, assumming there
are such things.<snip various comments about democracy>
Sam now says:
Now who's guilty of the Platteral shift? Your argument was "In what sense is this action
"humanitarian," when world opinion was 10 to 1 against it? How can you ignore the objections of
90% of humanity and call your action "humane?" and my point was that popular approval is not how we
determine whether an action is humane or not. You have changed that into an argument about whether I
agree with democracy!! I'd be happy to explore how we do determine whether an action is humane or
not, if you're interested.
sam said:
I'm not persuaded that 'imperialist' is automatically an insult, that's all.
msh said:
I know. But I'd hoped you would recognize that argument for what it is: A variation of "But at
least Hitler made the trains run on-time." Or was it Mussolini? Point is, EVERY imperial power has
claimed that they are bringing light to the savages. (The Dutch Empire was a possible exception;
much to their credit, they never pretended that their imperialist adventures were really some sort
of civilizing mission (sorry Wim)).
Sam now says:
What's wrong with recognising ambiguity? Hitler was mostly vegetarian - does that make vegetarianism
wrong, or even tainted by association? I think this is a really key point. If you say that
'imperialist' is by definition something immoral, then the language uses much of its specific sense,
and becomes a synonym for 'bad'. So then, instead of saying 'this imperial action was bad', we say
'this bad action was bad' - and we haven't got anywhere. I think 'imperial' has a clear meaning, and
that it should be respected. We can then argue about the good or bad things which empires have done,
or even that they tend to do - as they are indeed concentrations of power, and I think we're agreed
that the concentration of power tends to be a bad thing? I just consider it intellectually sloppy to
make that moral equation, that's all (however regularly or repeatedly it may turn out to be true).
msh says:
BTW, in looking at your argument about US concern for International Law (IL) as a validiation of the
attack, I think you are on pretty hopeless ground. It will be quite simple to show that the US
cares not a wit about IL, unless it can be useful in achieving realpolitik goals. Are you sure you
want me to spend time on it, the way it's formulated? Or do you want to come back with something
that doesn't suggest that the USG-UKG is the guiding light of international diplomacy?
Sam now says:
I'll have another look, but on the whole, you may as well start with what I've put in (try turning
IL into 'the current sytem' or 'the current capitalist system' - I'm not about to start saying that
the USG has always been IL-abiding!).
However, if it's wrong, I reserve the right to either amend the argument or amend my views ;o)
Cheers
Sam
"Even to have expressed a false thought boldly and clearly is already to have gained a great deal."
Wittgenstein, 1948
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archives:
Aug '98 - Oct '02 - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
Nov '02 Onward - http://www.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/summary.html
MD Queries - horse@darkstar.uk.net
To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Tue Dec 14 2004 - 14:42:22 GMT