I am abondoning writing about pacifism due to beginning grad school. My new topic is on pain and exercise. The blog for this topic is:
http://themboneshurt.blogspot.com/
Saturday, June 07, 2008
Saturday, March 22, 2008
a premature ending to some expansive thoughts...
Working as hard as a dog allows no time for writing. I decided that this morning. No sense in me keeping hope alive for further writing on pacifism Vs. aggression. I am a full-time married man, part-time house maintenance man, full-time physical therapist and part-time student.
So it ends here. My rambling writing on pacifism and aggression is over for now. No doubt I will continue to think on the matter much. For now I end off prematurely with some personal conclusions and determinations: POLITICS, MORALITY, THEOLOGY, LIFESTYLE.
POLITICS: American politics are ramping up for November presidential elections. One presidential candidate held up liberty as a virtue and peace as a plan more than any other; that was Ron Paul. Rep Paul is now out of the republican campaign and I am now unsure if any other candidate would represent my values to any great extent.
McCain has made strong overtures toward continuing American military heavy-handedness in Iraq, Korea, Kosovo, Afghanistan, Japan, Germany, Saudi Arabia and... well the list goes on. Not to mention that he took an apparently strong stand against employing "harsh" interrogation techniques with detainees only to quietly negotiate with the President a legal clause in S.3930 that says "the President has the authority for the United States to interpret the meaning and application of the Geneva Conventions." So, torture is illegal, but the president has legal wiggle-room to authorize "harsh" techniques as long as they fall outside his interpretation of the definition of torture. Wow, that is tremendous; it sounds like the sort of self-justification the Soviets would have employed back in the 1980's. (Remember the Soviets, those damn enemies of freedom?) This is not to mention that McCain's bill denied habeas corpus rights to the hundreds of detainees that America is holding for not all together certain reasons. McCain is not the one America needs right now.
Barrack Obama has made speeches in the Senate expressing opposition to torture and suspending habeas corpus rights. He voted against the above bill. Disturbingly, though, Obama said that if elected in November he would be willing to attack inside Pakistan with or without approval from the Pakistani government. How does that work? As a general principal is it right for one sovereign nation to attack within another sovereign nation without approval from that nation? I think not. America would not react ambivalently to Russian strikes against Chechens on American soil. Such a scenario would mean war between Russia and America. Why should we think any differently about Pakistan. Diplomacy is not an option when dealing with sovereign nations, it is a rule. With Obama's comments one thinks back to President William Clinton's decision to launch a cruise missile strike at a pharmaceutical plant in Khartoum. We wonder now why Khartoum is unwilling to truly cooperate with the US with regard to Darfur. The America with which they are acquainted is a country that lacks diplomatic will power. America needs a president who will not be like a bull in the international china shop. I am concerned that Obama would be a very well meaning but disastrously spirited bull in the Southeast Asian china shop.
That leaves me with Hillary Clinton. Honestly, I have not given her policies much thought. She is hardly an international libertarian like Paul, but I do think that she may exhibit more international restraint than the other two candidates. I am just beginning to scrutinize her platform, but right now she is the front runner in my mind...however reluctant I might be to say that given America's violent international actions during her husband's White House tenure (remember Khartoum, Kosovo and Somalia?).
MORALITY: A large percentages of the American GDP is spent on keeping people alive. In fact, so much money is spent on health and life that one might be tempted to conclude that America views life as a precious gift, and disease and death as twin monsters. On the contrary, second glances at American activity reveal cavalier attitudes toward abortion and warfare. Perhaps disease and death are only monsters when they offend our highest convenience. Public laws and personal actions at times place utility way up high in the sky as the one transcendent rule of law. "What benefit will this be to us?" has become the litmus question. And without a doubt this has been the main thrust of my own thoughts on pacifism. My question has become this: "What functional outcome will benefit us best with concern to international action?" However, I make a stark departure from strict utilitarian thought by framing my functional equation within a matrix of morality. Two questions must be asked: "What is right?" and "What is most beneficial to everyone?" Unlike what the utilitarian might say, moral right is not determined by the benefits any rule or value yields to a group. Moral right is given to us by God and does not bend from age to age to meet the needs of any particular group. A group might have no other choice than to bend away from moral right to meet its needs, but this is the group bending not moral law. The moral matrix within which I place utilitarian thought is this: killing is evil. In the end a society that bends away from this moral matrix is committing evil, whether it be Germany killing Jews or America killing Bosnians or China killing Tibetans. Death is a monster and war is the result of a decision by countries to unleash a flurry of evils into the world. I am not saying that these evils are always unnecessary, sometimes they are necessary (e.g.: America entering the war against the Nazi's). However, I am saying that these evils are evil. Naming an evil as something other than an evil is a worse sin than committing that evil because it opens a fountain from which flow myriad other evils. It is a turning away from moral understanding that throws groups and nations into a spiral of wicked action. America committed evil when under Roosevelt's direction it entered into war against Germany, Italy and Japan; we should not cower away from saying this. In the end of time Roosevelt will stand trembling before the Almighty and he will answer for the Dresden fire bombings; I believe God does not play favorites with people because they used evil for a beneficial end (e.g.: ending Nazi atrocities). War is always a crime. Evil is called evil because it is repulsive to God.
With this final judgment in mind I say with a trembling heart that violence is sometimes necessary to protect the weak and oppressed. Even so, a country fighting on behalf of the weak must keep in mind that in the end we are all oppressors and ruthless killers (to some degree) who plead at the mercy seat for grace and transformation. I would go so far to say of myself that even I (a supposed pacifist) am a killer.
THEOLOGY: God created out of his limitless inspiration and God will justly destroy any critter that maligns his good creation. God exists in perfect righteousness. Right action continually emanates from His holy character. Evil cannot begin to get near to God without being justly destroyed. Paradoxically, though, God is not absent from this thoroughly evil world. Understanding this paradox from a reformed line of thought has been my passion for three or four years now. Mentally enter the old Greek pagan shrines, Jewish temple courts, ancient family lives, Roman legal systems and markets and you have in mind the images Saint Paul conjured up when reckoning with the reality of a holy God acting in love to an evil world. God lovingly incarnated into the world and bore the penalty of evil to reconcile the world to Himself. In so doing God did not condone wickedness but rather objectively dealt with it and demonstrated holy wrath against such wickedness through the death of Christ on the Cross. A world which had stolen from God's good creation beginning in the Garden of Eden had been ransomed by Christ. The debt of death owed by humanity to God was paid by God. Christ willingly bore humanities wickedness and received the full measure of God's wrath in our place. Conversely, the moral righteousness of God was placed on those obedient to God by Christ. God's long divorced family was reconciled through the Good Friday work of Christ.
And yet evil remained evil. Righteousness remained righteousness. In other words, when living became right for humans, killing did not become right. The moral law remained unchanged. Please toss aside any idea of a morally superior nation justly waging war against a morally inferior nation. Christ went to the cross because of all-pervasive wickedness; there was no such thing as a righteous remnant. This is not to say that God does not execute righteous judgement through one nation directed at another nation. However, one look at ancient Hebrew national history reveals that YHWH would at times direct His wrath through the Hebrews against pagan nations and at other times through a pagan nation against the Hebrews. At times the Hebrews were used to execute YHWH's judgment on another nation when it was the Hebrews themselves were deserving of the judgment they were dishing out. God was just in so acting, the Hebrew nation was not. All nations are wicked and consequently unjustified in any war.
LIFESTYLE: How should I live then? I have not ever physically killed any person. As a child I did used to torture my brothers. From time to time I did kill various animals ranging from ants to toads to crabs. That is the closest I have come to actual, personal violence and killing.
So what do my thoughts on pacifism mean for me, then. First of all I need to recognize that if ever I am in a situation where I am physically malnourished, physically unsafe and emotionally anguished I will be severely tempted to use violence. A disciplined reliance on the spiritual sustenance of Christ would be an anchor for me in such a crisis. Regimined time with the Lamb of God would remind me how to chose to live as He chose to live...a man for others.
Secondly, I need to practice habits of verbal conflict resolution. The alternative to the sword is the tongue. All too often the words I do not use are words of honesty which, when conveyed lovingly across time, speak to my personal disaffections toward people. Only after speaking specifically to a rupture in a relationship can reconciliation occur. For me, this requires honesty about my feelings and particular concerns about the history within that relationship. It also requires a good deal of active listening when emotions run high. Walking away in anger is the fighters response. Day in and day out I find myself repressing my true thoughts and feelings. Just yesterday I walked away from a nurse who I felt was disrespectful to me. I then proceeded to talk about her to all my co-workers; that was the wicked fighter in me, not the peace maker. Verbal conflict resolution means engaging in conflict verbally. God, help me here.
Thirdly, I need to specifically recognize my own moral corruption. There can be no healthier practice for this Christian than to invite the Spirit to search my insides for wickedness. The temptation arises in a conflict to search my "adversary's" character for easy-to-find flaws. What I need is to see my short comings, my wickedness, my guilt before the Almighty and my "adversary." Self-searching creates a genuine humility which is the breading ground for peace making. After internal and external confession of transgression against my adversary I can confidently speak my complaint without internally being a self-righteous, arrogant man.
Fourthly, as a citizen of Heaven I am an ambassador for Christ. This citizenship trumps my American citizenship. When enemies strike America my regular discipline needs to be that I revisit Good Friday. St. Paul said it well, "While we were still enemies we were reconciled to God through the death of His Son." God's Son died for God's enemies. This is a powerfully provocative picture for the Christian residing in a country at war. My personal conviction is that my role as Christ's ambassador is not to die for my country or my family but rather to live for them. If I must die, my dying should be a dying for my enemy. This is real love: to die for an enemy while engaging him in the ministry of reconciliation. Reciprocal altruism be damned. The most pressing question now is do I really mean that? Time tells all.
Now that I put all those thoughts out there I can end my writing on the topic (for now, anyway). I will not stop writing, though. My next project is to get a graduate degree in physical therapy. This will involve lots of writing and eventually publishing research. If I have any readers remaining I would direct them to my new blog: http://themboneshurt.blogspot.com/
So it ends here. My rambling writing on pacifism and aggression is over for now. No doubt I will continue to think on the matter much. For now I end off prematurely with some personal conclusions and determinations: POLITICS, MORALITY, THEOLOGY, LIFESTYLE.
POLITICS: American politics are ramping up for November presidential elections. One presidential candidate held up liberty as a virtue and peace as a plan more than any other; that was Ron Paul. Rep Paul is now out of the republican campaign and I am now unsure if any other candidate would represent my values to any great extent.
McCain has made strong overtures toward continuing American military heavy-handedness in Iraq, Korea, Kosovo, Afghanistan, Japan, Germany, Saudi Arabia and... well the list goes on. Not to mention that he took an apparently strong stand against employing "harsh" interrogation techniques with detainees only to quietly negotiate with the President a legal clause in S.3930 that says "the President has the authority for the United States to interpret the meaning and application of the Geneva Conventions." So, torture is illegal, but the president has legal wiggle-room to authorize "harsh" techniques as long as they fall outside his interpretation of the definition of torture. Wow, that is tremendous; it sounds like the sort of self-justification the Soviets would have employed back in the 1980's. (Remember the Soviets, those damn enemies of freedom?) This is not to mention that McCain's bill denied habeas corpus rights to the hundreds of detainees that America is holding for not all together certain reasons. McCain is not the one America needs right now.
Barrack Obama has made speeches in the Senate expressing opposition to torture and suspending habeas corpus rights. He voted against the above bill. Disturbingly, though, Obama said that if elected in November he would be willing to attack inside Pakistan with or without approval from the Pakistani government. How does that work? As a general principal is it right for one sovereign nation to attack within another sovereign nation without approval from that nation? I think not. America would not react ambivalently to Russian strikes against Chechens on American soil. Such a scenario would mean war between Russia and America. Why should we think any differently about Pakistan. Diplomacy is not an option when dealing with sovereign nations, it is a rule. With Obama's comments one thinks back to President William Clinton's decision to launch a cruise missile strike at a pharmaceutical plant in Khartoum. We wonder now why Khartoum is unwilling to truly cooperate with the US with regard to Darfur. The America with which they are acquainted is a country that lacks diplomatic will power. America needs a president who will not be like a bull in the international china shop. I am concerned that Obama would be a very well meaning but disastrously spirited bull in the Southeast Asian china shop.
That leaves me with Hillary Clinton. Honestly, I have not given her policies much thought. She is hardly an international libertarian like Paul, but I do think that she may exhibit more international restraint than the other two candidates. I am just beginning to scrutinize her platform, but right now she is the front runner in my mind...however reluctant I might be to say that given America's violent international actions during her husband's White House tenure (remember Khartoum, Kosovo and Somalia?).
MORALITY: A large percentages of the American GDP is spent on keeping people alive. In fact, so much money is spent on health and life that one might be tempted to conclude that America views life as a precious gift, and disease and death as twin monsters. On the contrary, second glances at American activity reveal cavalier attitudes toward abortion and warfare. Perhaps disease and death are only monsters when they offend our highest convenience. Public laws and personal actions at times place utility way up high in the sky as the one transcendent rule of law. "What benefit will this be to us?" has become the litmus question. And without a doubt this has been the main thrust of my own thoughts on pacifism. My question has become this: "What functional outcome will benefit us best with concern to international action?" However, I make a stark departure from strict utilitarian thought by framing my functional equation within a matrix of morality. Two questions must be asked: "What is right?" and "What is most beneficial to everyone?" Unlike what the utilitarian might say, moral right is not determined by the benefits any rule or value yields to a group. Moral right is given to us by God and does not bend from age to age to meet the needs of any particular group. A group might have no other choice than to bend away from moral right to meet its needs, but this is the group bending not moral law. The moral matrix within which I place utilitarian thought is this: killing is evil. In the end a society that bends away from this moral matrix is committing evil, whether it be Germany killing Jews or America killing Bosnians or China killing Tibetans. Death is a monster and war is the result of a decision by countries to unleash a flurry of evils into the world. I am not saying that these evils are always unnecessary, sometimes they are necessary (e.g.: America entering the war against the Nazi's). However, I am saying that these evils are evil. Naming an evil as something other than an evil is a worse sin than committing that evil because it opens a fountain from which flow myriad other evils. It is a turning away from moral understanding that throws groups and nations into a spiral of wicked action. America committed evil when under Roosevelt's direction it entered into war against Germany, Italy and Japan; we should not cower away from saying this. In the end of time Roosevelt will stand trembling before the Almighty and he will answer for the Dresden fire bombings; I believe God does not play favorites with people because they used evil for a beneficial end (e.g.: ending Nazi atrocities). War is always a crime. Evil is called evil because it is repulsive to God.
With this final judgment in mind I say with a trembling heart that violence is sometimes necessary to protect the weak and oppressed. Even so, a country fighting on behalf of the weak must keep in mind that in the end we are all oppressors and ruthless killers (to some degree) who plead at the mercy seat for grace and transformation. I would go so far to say of myself that even I (a supposed pacifist) am a killer.
THEOLOGY: God created out of his limitless inspiration and God will justly destroy any critter that maligns his good creation. God exists in perfect righteousness. Right action continually emanates from His holy character. Evil cannot begin to get near to God without being justly destroyed. Paradoxically, though, God is not absent from this thoroughly evil world. Understanding this paradox from a reformed line of thought has been my passion for three or four years now. Mentally enter the old Greek pagan shrines, Jewish temple courts, ancient family lives, Roman legal systems and markets and you have in mind the images Saint Paul conjured up when reckoning with the reality of a holy God acting in love to an evil world. God lovingly incarnated into the world and bore the penalty of evil to reconcile the world to Himself. In so doing God did not condone wickedness but rather objectively dealt with it and demonstrated holy wrath against such wickedness through the death of Christ on the Cross. A world which had stolen from God's good creation beginning in the Garden of Eden had been ransomed by Christ. The debt of death owed by humanity to God was paid by God. Christ willingly bore humanities wickedness and received the full measure of God's wrath in our place. Conversely, the moral righteousness of God was placed on those obedient to God by Christ. God's long divorced family was reconciled through the Good Friday work of Christ.
And yet evil remained evil. Righteousness remained righteousness. In other words, when living became right for humans, killing did not become right. The moral law remained unchanged. Please toss aside any idea of a morally superior nation justly waging war against a morally inferior nation. Christ went to the cross because of all-pervasive wickedness; there was no such thing as a righteous remnant. This is not to say that God does not execute righteous judgement through one nation directed at another nation. However, one look at ancient Hebrew national history reveals that YHWH would at times direct His wrath through the Hebrews against pagan nations and at other times through a pagan nation against the Hebrews. At times the Hebrews were used to execute YHWH's judgment on another nation when it was the Hebrews themselves were deserving of the judgment they were dishing out. God was just in so acting, the Hebrew nation was not. All nations are wicked and consequently unjustified in any war.
LIFESTYLE: How should I live then? I have not ever physically killed any person. As a child I did used to torture my brothers. From time to time I did kill various animals ranging from ants to toads to crabs. That is the closest I have come to actual, personal violence and killing.
So what do my thoughts on pacifism mean for me, then. First of all I need to recognize that if ever I am in a situation where I am physically malnourished, physically unsafe and emotionally anguished I will be severely tempted to use violence. A disciplined reliance on the spiritual sustenance of Christ would be an anchor for me in such a crisis. Regimined time with the Lamb of God would remind me how to chose to live as He chose to live...a man for others.
Secondly, I need to practice habits of verbal conflict resolution. The alternative to the sword is the tongue. All too often the words I do not use are words of honesty which, when conveyed lovingly across time, speak to my personal disaffections toward people. Only after speaking specifically to a rupture in a relationship can reconciliation occur. For me, this requires honesty about my feelings and particular concerns about the history within that relationship. It also requires a good deal of active listening when emotions run high. Walking away in anger is the fighters response. Day in and day out I find myself repressing my true thoughts and feelings. Just yesterday I walked away from a nurse who I felt was disrespectful to me. I then proceeded to talk about her to all my co-workers; that was the wicked fighter in me, not the peace maker. Verbal conflict resolution means engaging in conflict verbally. God, help me here.
Thirdly, I need to specifically recognize my own moral corruption. There can be no healthier practice for this Christian than to invite the Spirit to search my insides for wickedness. The temptation arises in a conflict to search my "adversary's" character for easy-to-find flaws. What I need is to see my short comings, my wickedness, my guilt before the Almighty and my "adversary." Self-searching creates a genuine humility which is the breading ground for peace making. After internal and external confession of transgression against my adversary I can confidently speak my complaint without internally being a self-righteous, arrogant man.
Fourthly, as a citizen of Heaven I am an ambassador for Christ. This citizenship trumps my American citizenship. When enemies strike America my regular discipline needs to be that I revisit Good Friday. St. Paul said it well, "While we were still enemies we were reconciled to God through the death of His Son." God's Son died for God's enemies. This is a powerfully provocative picture for the Christian residing in a country at war. My personal conviction is that my role as Christ's ambassador is not to die for my country or my family but rather to live for them. If I must die, my dying should be a dying for my enemy. This is real love: to die for an enemy while engaging him in the ministry of reconciliation. Reciprocal altruism be damned. The most pressing question now is do I really mean that? Time tells all.
Now that I put all those thoughts out there I can end my writing on the topic (for now, anyway). I will not stop writing, though. My next project is to get a graduate degree in physical therapy. This will involve lots of writing and eventually publishing research. If I have any readers remaining I would direct them to my new blog: http://themboneshurt.blogspot.com/
Sunday, January 06, 2008
The Wall...
We have all heard the expression 'It's just a matter of time.' Well, time has caught up with me on this particular intellectual challenge. Ten months ago I started strong, steadily writing my thoughts on this subject of pacifism and world events. Now I fear that I have hit the wall, my friends. I sit down to begin research on US-Japanese diplomatic relations in the 1930's and 1940's, but am only able to think about the chocolate in the pantry or the next household chore that needs to be completed.
I am wondering how I ever had the drive to write on a research oriented topic in the first place. So much reading; so much analysis; so much questioning and re-positing. Quite frankly I find even the thought of doing more research to be tiring. How will I keep going? How will I keep my research fire stoked? Perhaps a little break from the research end of things is in order. Maybe then I will gain a little strength to scale the wall.
Over Christmas I had an extraordinary opportunity to interview Papa Jack (Kristin's father's father) about his experiences as a B-24 bomber pilot over the Pacific. Papa Jack shared stories about training and combat that transported me back in time to America and the Pacific Theatre during the mid-1940's. Watching Papa Jack mentally re-live his war life I felt my own mind overwhelmed with the prospects of living a life where anti-aircraft fire daily threatened to extinguish my own life. A life where small mistakes made in the air meant life changing injury or even death. From where does the strength and courage come to live this kind of self-sacrificial life? I never did ask Papa Jack that, but I imagine he would say that he did what he had to. Perhaps an even more poignant question would be how did he find the strength to move on with life after his war experience?
Papa Jack gave me the contact name of his bombardier who lives in Columbus. I would very much like to visit him in Columbus and learn more about his experience with Papa Jack and his military career after the war ended. This continued personal look into WWII bomber life might be the right rabbit trail to briefly lead me away from and then back into my current diplomatic policy questions about the war.
I am wondering how I ever had the drive to write on a research oriented topic in the first place. So much reading; so much analysis; so much questioning and re-positing. Quite frankly I find even the thought of doing more research to be tiring. How will I keep going? How will I keep my research fire stoked? Perhaps a little break from the research end of things is in order. Maybe then I will gain a little strength to scale the wall.
Over Christmas I had an extraordinary opportunity to interview Papa Jack (Kristin's father's father) about his experiences as a B-24 bomber pilot over the Pacific. Papa Jack shared stories about training and combat that transported me back in time to America and the Pacific Theatre during the mid-1940's. Watching Papa Jack mentally re-live his war life I felt my own mind overwhelmed with the prospects of living a life where anti-aircraft fire daily threatened to extinguish my own life. A life where small mistakes made in the air meant life changing injury or even death. From where does the strength and courage come to live this kind of self-sacrificial life? I never did ask Papa Jack that, but I imagine he would say that he did what he had to. Perhaps an even more poignant question would be how did he find the strength to move on with life after his war experience?
Papa Jack gave me the contact name of his bombardier who lives in Columbus. I would very much like to visit him in Columbus and learn more about his experience with Papa Jack and his military career after the war ended. This continued personal look into WWII bomber life might be the right rabbit trail to briefly lead me away from and then back into my current diplomatic policy questions about the war.
Monday, December 17, 2007
a note from the wife
Hello, Paul's readers! If you've been eagerly anticipating another intellectual, compelling post (which, I suppose, is not an oxymoron) then come back later. I’m used to writing the occasionally witty but almost always fluffy and crafty entry on my own blog. Why did I venture over here? Well, today’s advent calendar assignment was to write posts each other’s blogs. So, here I am.
I suppose I should be writing something about aggression, pacifism, or the love of humankind. So...let’s go with aggression. You know what aggravates me? And is really something completely beyond my comprehension? Self-checkout lines. Paul is forever dragging me through them, always to my annoyance and chagrin. Paul thinks they’re faster. My sister thinks they’re novel entertainment. But I totally don’t get the appeal. You wait in a long line just to have to scan your own merchandise (several times, usually), inevitably having to stop and go up to the real-live person for help, push a bunch of extra buttons in an effort to swipe your debit card, meanwhile trying to pack the bags and load the cart. I mean, I already have to drive to the store and walk aimlessly up and down the aisles in search of my things, why do I want to do the work of checking out when there are people there to do it for me? To each is own I guess. In an effort to be more passive, I will at least refrain from incessantly sighing the next time Paul and I go grocery shopping.
Peace,
Kristin
I suppose I should be writing something about aggression, pacifism, or the love of humankind. So...let’s go with aggression. You know what aggravates me? And is really something completely beyond my comprehension? Self-checkout lines. Paul is forever dragging me through them, always to my annoyance and chagrin. Paul thinks they’re faster. My sister thinks they’re novel entertainment. But I totally don’t get the appeal. You wait in a long line just to have to scan your own merchandise (several times, usually), inevitably having to stop and go up to the real-live person for help, push a bunch of extra buttons in an effort to swipe your debit card, meanwhile trying to pack the bags and load the cart. I mean, I already have to drive to the store and walk aimlessly up and down the aisles in search of my things, why do I want to do the work of checking out when there are people there to do it for me? To each is own I guess. In an effort to be more passive, I will at least refrain from incessantly sighing the next time Paul and I go grocery shopping.
Peace,
Kristin
Saturday, December 15, 2007
A farewell prayer for Darfur...
Months ago I started writing on this blog with the intent of probing my own thoughts. Since then the states of Kosovo, Darfur and Somalia have been on my mind while I research past and present violent conflicts there. Places like these are so far from my daily life and yet as I have researched each conflict I have felt a growing empathy in my heart for the people of each state. My heart longs for the day when Christ will return and heal these states.
March of 2007 was the month that I began this intellectual journey. Today I read through my past posts and was a little excited to see how much I have learned and how my thoughts have developed through the course of exploring this topic. However, I feel that there is much missing from my current line of thinking. Nowhere in my reading of past posts have I found a particularly thorough expression of the possible infeasibility of state aggression in the nuclear age. In fact my very first post in March of 2007 said that the general thrust of the blog was to explore this infeasibility. Whoops. I guess I had better get moving on this whole nuclear age examination thing. Of course I have not examined the Japanese-American conflict in WWII yet either...I believe that an examination of this conflict would provide serious answers to my questions about the infeasibility of aggression in the nuclear age. Also present on my docket for exploration, but left out of my current discussion is the issue of Joseph Kony and the people of Northern Uganda. I will at this time skip over the topic of Joseph Kony in favor of beginning the topic of Japanese-American diplomacy leading up to American involvement in WWII.
So I am leaving the topic of international policing with regard to Darfur and Khartoum. For ten months I have been writing in my little peaceful nook of University Heights. Meanwhile thousands of women and girls in Darfur have been raped and/or beaten. Thousands of Darfurians have died hungry and aching deaths. Hundreds of thousands of people have continued to live in meager IDP camps where neither food, water nor security are common. Hundreds of thousands of men have chosen violence; by joining active armies and rebel groups they have chosen to witness first hand the loss of friends, family members and sometimes even their own souls. All of Sudan has reeled back and forth in a fit of violent chaos as Khartoum, America, China and the UN all vie for power positions within northern Africa. Needless to say I am saddened that ten months have gone by and yet people continue to suffer so much in Darfur. The only fitting way I know to close my discussion on Darfur is with a prayer to the Almighty that His peace would come to the country of Sudan:
Father in Heaven, Your name is revered all across the earth. And yet there are places on this globe where Your glory seems absent. In particular the nation of Sudan is controlled by men and governments who love violence. I pray that Your kingdom would invade this great land. I pray that Your will would be done in the nation of Sudan just as it is in Heaven. Give the hungry people of Sudan food for the day. Forgive folks in Sudan for their sins: specifically bring Bashir to a place of repentance, bring him trembling face to face with your perfect glory
and reconcile him to Yourself through Christ. Teach mothers and fathers and children in Sudan to forgive their offenders: specifically bring the Christians of southern Sudan into a state of forgiveness toward the Khartoum regime knowing that you have likewise forgiven them. Do not lead the people of Darfur into temptation, but deliver them from the evil one who would destroy not only their state but their souls. Father, although it seems to me that presidents and generals of this day and age are ruling the situation in Sudan I know that this is a lie. Sudan is Your kingdom. All of the power rests in Your hands. All of the glory is Yours forever. Amen.
March of 2007 was the month that I began this intellectual journey. Today I read through my past posts and was a little excited to see how much I have learned and how my thoughts have developed through the course of exploring this topic. However, I feel that there is much missing from my current line of thinking. Nowhere in my reading of past posts have I found a particularly thorough expression of the possible infeasibility of state aggression in the nuclear age. In fact my very first post in March of 2007 said that the general thrust of the blog was to explore this infeasibility. Whoops. I guess I had better get moving on this whole nuclear age examination thing. Of course I have not examined the Japanese-American conflict in WWII yet either...I believe that an examination of this conflict would provide serious answers to my questions about the infeasibility of aggression in the nuclear age. Also present on my docket for exploration, but left out of my current discussion is the issue of Joseph Kony and the people of Northern Uganda. I will at this time skip over the topic of Joseph Kony in favor of beginning the topic of Japanese-American diplomacy leading up to American involvement in WWII.
So I am leaving the topic of international policing with regard to Darfur and Khartoum. For ten months I have been writing in my little peaceful nook of University Heights. Meanwhile thousands of women and girls in Darfur have been raped and/or beaten. Thousands of Darfurians have died hungry and aching deaths. Hundreds of thousands of people have continued to live in meager IDP camps where neither food, water nor security are common. Hundreds of thousands of men have chosen violence; by joining active armies and rebel groups they have chosen to witness first hand the loss of friends, family members and sometimes even their own souls. All of Sudan has reeled back and forth in a fit of violent chaos as Khartoum, America, China and the UN all vie for power positions within northern Africa. Needless to say I am saddened that ten months have gone by and yet people continue to suffer so much in Darfur. The only fitting way I know to close my discussion on Darfur is with a prayer to the Almighty that His peace would come to the country of Sudan:
Father in Heaven, Your name is revered all across the earth. And yet there are places on this globe where Your glory seems absent. In particular the nation of Sudan is controlled by men and governments who love violence. I pray that Your kingdom would invade this great land. I pray that Your will would be done in the nation of Sudan just as it is in Heaven. Give the hungry people of Sudan food for the day. Forgive folks in Sudan for their sins: specifically bring Bashir to a place of repentance, bring him trembling face to face with your perfect glory
and reconcile him to Yourself through Christ. Teach mothers and fathers and children in Sudan to forgive their offenders: specifically bring the Christians of southern Sudan into a state of forgiveness toward the Khartoum regime knowing that you have likewise forgiven them. Do not lead the people of Darfur into temptation, but deliver them from the evil one who would destroy not only their state but their souls. Father, although it seems to me that presidents and generals of this day and age are ruling the situation in Sudan I know that this is a lie. Sudan is Your kingdom. All of the power rests in Your hands. All of the glory is Yours forever. Amen.
Sunday, December 02, 2007
Crafting foreign policy that helps the weak.
How does a nation help the weak with its foreign policy? Foreign policy is a high wire balancing act. One slight shift to the left and a nation can isolate itself thereby turning a blind eye to international injustices. One slight shift to the right and a nation can imperialistically dominate another nation under the guise of 'liberating' oppressed peoples.
Consider Sudan with me. The foreign policy options basically boil down to either using diplomacy or violent force. Violent force has been approved at the UN mediated level and is in the process of being implemented to protect internally displaced persons (IDP) camps. There is no doubt that this UN force alone would not enough to end the violence in Sudan. Consequently a foreign policy is needed to add pressure on the Khartoum regime. Many people in America are in favor of employing divestment strategies to financially punish the regime until they stop the genocide in Darfur. In this post I will question the efficacy of such a foreign policy tactic.
Most recently the House passed the Sudan Divestment Act of 2007 (HR180) and passed it onto the Senate for approval. Basically this act would allow state governments, municipalities and universities to divest their retirement funds from companies with: a) any investment in the Sudanese government or weaponry; b) more than 10% of their investments in Sudanese oil, minerals or power generation. Additionally the act would prohibit the US government from contracting for goods and services with any such company described above. Currently the Bush administration is opposed to the legislation stating that it would handcuff its diplomatic options to utilize Lybia in helping end the violence in Darfur. I am unsure to what extent that is true, but if Lybian companies stand to loose significant revenue through the act I could imagine how the act would prove to be a diplomatic obstacle for the administration to overcome.
Folks in the Divest Sudan camp often cite South Africa as their example of successful sanctioning. While sanctions worked very well in South Africa during the 1980's I have my reservations about employing them in this situation. As long as sanctions remain unilateral or lightly multilateral, the Khartoum regime will find ways to utilize the trade embargo as a way to impoverish the oppressed in Sudan and continue to enjoy an affluent lifestyle via the financial support of others countries like China. This thought about unilateral sanctions bears out well in research published by the Peterson Institute for International Economics. "...unilateral U.S. sanctions in place from 1970-2000 were effective only 19 percent of the time" (Taken from the testimony of William A. Reinsch before the Senate Committee on Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs).
That being said, then, what options are left for US foreign policy? I would suggest that the Bush administration and Congress work toward building an internationally viable sanction of the Khartoum regime. Even if the scope of this sanction is smaller than the proposed Divestment Act it would provide the basis for future collaboration between nations on the Darfur crisis. With coordinated sanctions, Khartoum will also have less wiggle room to avoid the effects of those sanctions.
As a side thought I wonder if it might not be a productive activity for the diplomatic wing of the Bush administration to pause for a moment and consider Khartoum to be a legitimate sovereign government with legitimate political concerns about its own survival. Threatened by 'domestic terrorists' (the Justice and Equality Movement & the Sudanese Liberation Movement/Army) from within who frequently attack military equipment and personnel. Facing outright civil war as the South threatens to take up military action through its own rebel forces. Threatened to the west by Chad who's government has been at odds with Khartoum all along and medals in the Darfur conflict by equipping and funding Darfurian rebels. Threatened to the east by Africa's largest army, the Ethiopian army which has been building up for years and most recently has invaded Somalia. Perhaps it would be good for those who will perform face-to-face diplomacy with Bashir to consider for a moment that he is a bit like a scared animal who fearing for its life thrashes out at all who come near to his place of power. Perhaps with this mentality diplomats might be able to set out a couple of carrots to motivate Bashir and his government to move in the right direction. Carrots like the offer of Lybian protection against Chad and US diplomatic protection from Ethiopia. Just a thought from a humble American worker who doesn't really know anything about diplomacy.
Consider Sudan with me. The foreign policy options basically boil down to either using diplomacy or violent force. Violent force has been approved at the UN mediated level and is in the process of being implemented to protect internally displaced persons (IDP) camps. There is no doubt that this UN force alone would not enough to end the violence in Sudan. Consequently a foreign policy is needed to add pressure on the Khartoum regime. Many people in America are in favor of employing divestment strategies to financially punish the regime until they stop the genocide in Darfur. In this post I will question the efficacy of such a foreign policy tactic.
Most recently the House passed the Sudan Divestment Act of 2007 (HR180) and passed it onto the Senate for approval. Basically this act would allow state governments, municipalities and universities to divest their retirement funds from companies with: a) any investment in the Sudanese government or weaponry; b) more than 10% of their investments in Sudanese oil, minerals or power generation. Additionally the act would prohibit the US government from contracting for goods and services with any such company described above. Currently the Bush administration is opposed to the legislation stating that it would handcuff its diplomatic options to utilize Lybia in helping end the violence in Darfur. I am unsure to what extent that is true, but if Lybian companies stand to loose significant revenue through the act I could imagine how the act would prove to be a diplomatic obstacle for the administration to overcome.
Folks in the Divest Sudan camp often cite South Africa as their example of successful sanctioning. While sanctions worked very well in South Africa during the 1980's I have my reservations about employing them in this situation. As long as sanctions remain unilateral or lightly multilateral, the Khartoum regime will find ways to utilize the trade embargo as a way to impoverish the oppressed in Sudan and continue to enjoy an affluent lifestyle via the financial support of others countries like China. This thought about unilateral sanctions bears out well in research published by the Peterson Institute for International Economics. "...unilateral U.S. sanctions in place from 1970-2000 were effective only 19 percent of the time" (Taken from the testimony of William A. Reinsch before the Senate Committee on Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs).
That being said, then, what options are left for US foreign policy? I would suggest that the Bush administration and Congress work toward building an internationally viable sanction of the Khartoum regime. Even if the scope of this sanction is smaller than the proposed Divestment Act it would provide the basis for future collaboration between nations on the Darfur crisis. With coordinated sanctions, Khartoum will also have less wiggle room to avoid the effects of those sanctions.
As a side thought I wonder if it might not be a productive activity for the diplomatic wing of the Bush administration to pause for a moment and consider Khartoum to be a legitimate sovereign government with legitimate political concerns about its own survival. Threatened by 'domestic terrorists' (the Justice and Equality Movement & the Sudanese Liberation Movement/Army) from within who frequently attack military equipment and personnel. Facing outright civil war as the South threatens to take up military action through its own rebel forces. Threatened to the west by Chad who's government has been at odds with Khartoum all along and medals in the Darfur conflict by equipping and funding Darfurian rebels. Threatened to the east by Africa's largest army, the Ethiopian army which has been building up for years and most recently has invaded Somalia. Perhaps it would be good for those who will perform face-to-face diplomacy with Bashir to consider for a moment that he is a bit like a scared animal who fearing for its life thrashes out at all who come near to his place of power. Perhaps with this mentality diplomats might be able to set out a couple of carrots to motivate Bashir and his government to move in the right direction. Carrots like the offer of Lybian protection against Chad and US diplomatic protection from Ethiopia. Just a thought from a humble American worker who doesn't really know anything about diplomacy.
Saturday, October 20, 2007
Darfur: Two Ways Forward...revisited
Previously (23 April 2007) I posted a list of two broad categories of interventions available with regard to Darfur: violent or non-violent.
The list of violent interventions follows:
1) unilateral national aggression
2) multilateral international aggression
3) UN mediated international aggression
4) proxy aggression
The lists of non-violent interventions follows:
1) international diplomacy
2) sanctions
3) incentives
A decision to utilize any of the above four violent interventions would be a decision to act wickedly. I hope that I have made this position clear through my thoughts in past posts. This statement does not rule out the use of violent intervention as a necessary evil, but it does rule out the idea of justifying such an intervention. Such an intervention might be a good faith effort to protect the weak, but should go down in the history annals as a wicked action performed on behalf of the weak.The remaining question with regard to Darfur is this: is violent intervention a necessary evil? My answer to this question is no. My criterion for deciding on necessity is a utilitarian one. Will violent action be useful for accomplishing a good which functionally outweighs the evil of violent intervention? Notice this is not an 'ends justifies the means' sort of utilitarian thought; the end does not make the means right. Rather it is an 'ends functionally outweighs the means' utilitarian thought; the end works functionally better with the means than without the means. Here the means remain outside of the moral right but within optimal outcome. By optimal outcome I mean a system of action useful for providing good for the most number of people. The violent option may be recommended but not lauded. Lauding is reserved for righteous action not wicked action.
Specifically with regard to Darfur, violent intervention would do harm to more Darfurians than non-violent intervention. The options of unilateral national aggression, multilateral aggression and proxy aggression are currently not under consideration by the United States government. However, UN-mediated violent intervention has been possibly urged by the US Senate under Senate Resolution 276 (http://clinton.senate.gov/features/darfur/documents/2007_08_02_s_res_276.pdf), a resolution produced largely from the guidance of Senators Lugar and Biden. The Sudanese government is a sovereign government which rules over the territory of Sudan. Any violent action against Sudanese military personnel or equipment would provoke Khartoum to immediately withhold aid to the people of Darfur (such violent action is encouraged by the no-fly zone sentence in the resolution). Such a response by Khartoum would be devastating and would result in the death of hundreds of thousands of Darfurians. This is not to mention that the peace between the "North" and the "South" brokered by President Bush in 2004 is already tenuous as the South is complaining of inequality in oil profit sharing and national governmental power sharing with Khartoum. UN mediated violence against Sudanese military personnel or equipment would encourage the Sudanses Liberation Movement/Army (SLM/A), the Sudanese Liberation Movement (SLM) and the Justice and Equality Movement (JEM) rebel forces to act violently against the Sudanese military. Under attack in the west by Darfurian rebels and in the south by Southern Rebels, Khartoum would respond violently with military action to preserve its governmental authority over all of Sudan. Further complications from violent intervention could occur if rebel forces in Chad cross the border to launch attacks in Darfur against Janjaweed or others. This would further inflame the situation toward an international skirmish between Darfur and Chad.
UN presence would be a welcome thing for the residents of Darfur only if they do not actively engage in attacks on Sudanese military personnel or equipment as would be the case with a mandate to enact a no-fly-zone. A mandate to protect residents of Internally Displaced Persons camps and surviving Fur villages is all that is required.
In the next post I will examine the use of non-violent intervention and will offer an assessment of Save Darfur's (www.savedarfur.org) encouragement of unilateral sanctions via lobbying on the Sudan Divestment Authorization Act of 2007 (HR180).
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)
