Aggression, Pacifism and the Love of Humankind

A new blog...

2008-06-07T06:26:00.001-07:00

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/

a premature ending to some expansive thoughts...

2008-03-22T04:29:00.000-07:00

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/

The Wall...

2008-01-06T11:03:00.000-08:00

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.

a note from the wife

2007-12-17T17:42:00.000-08:00

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

A farewell prayer for Darfur...

2007-12-15T04:08:00.001-08:00

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.

Crafting foreign policy that helps the weak.

2007-12-02T18:46:00.000-08:00

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.

Darfur: Two Ways Forward...revisited

2007-10-20T08:33:00.000-07:00

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).

Three weeks from today...

2007-09-15T08:50:00.001-07:00

In three weeks I will be marrying Kristin. Recently I have been feeling somewhat of a frenzy to get everything done now. I guess I feel this because the 'Big Day' that I have for so long thought of as 'that day way off' is now 'that day next month.'

So I'm getting this sense that I need to accomplish everything yesterday. I mean everything. Get the house painted and the floors polyurethaned; move Kristin's stuff in; finalize the ceremony; finalize honeymoon arrangements; figure out how to transition from celibacy to physical intimacy; find a new church home; solve the crisis in Darfur; discern the societal forces behind the trend of increased ice cream consumption in February; etc. And this is not to mention keeping up a blog.

I am resorting to 'to-do' lists these days. One of my lists is entitled, "Things that I need to get done before October 6th so that I don't alienate Kristin before the honeymoon even starts." Unfortunately this blog is not on that list. I am taking a one month sabbatical from the blog. Much to every one's disappointment there will be no abstract yet exciting posts on current events and aggression.

To keep everyone's mind busy, though, I will leave you with a parting question:

Can a hearse (occupied solely by a driver and a corpse) legally drive in the car pool lane? Please leave your insights; feel free to reference court rulings or your own imagination.

Pick your Poison: Violence or Cowardice?

2007-09-07T19:57:00.000-07:00

Matt posed a hard question to me in my last blog:

"...you mentioned that we all sin even in doing good. Assuming that pacifism is the moral alternative to war, doesn't it follow that pacifists will be judged as well for alterior motives in their pacifism?"

Let me elucidate some of my reasoning to date as well as some of the tacit reasoning within Matt's question and show its logical end before I address the question in full.

Proposition in question: Pacifists are morally superior to aggressors.

Premise 1: Every non divine person sins to some extent, even when doing good.
Premise 2: Pacifists are non divine.
Conclusion 1: Pacifists sin to some extent when doing good.

Premise 1: In any given moment of time when a person sins he is incapable of being morally superior to other people.
Premise 2: Pacifists sin to some extent when doing good.
Conclusion 2: When Pacifists do good they are not morally superior to other people.

Defeater: Pacifists are not morally superior to aggressors, even when they do good.

This is sound logic. However, one might object and say that while the pacifist is not morally superior, pacifism is a morally superior action compared to aggression. The premise here is that pacifism is morally superior in that it does not take human life, liberty, or health. On the other hand, aggression ends life and ruins limb without the ability to restore such things. (As a side note pertaining to YHWH and His action in the world, this objection does not rule out the idea that a morally perfect being could justifiably carry out aggression or that an omnipotent being could carry out aggression with the ability of future restoration. ) The objection points to the reality that pacifism can be a morally good option available to morally imperfect people. While the pacifist will no doubt sin while carrying out his pacifist actions, his sin will have not been pacifism. It will have been some vice such as cowardice or negligence. On the other hand, the violent aggressor will no doubt sin while carrying out his actions; his sin will have been violent aggression.

Matt has shown that unless the action of violent human aggression is innately evil, then pacifism cannot be a morally commendable course of action when compared to aggression. As Matt also pointed out, a pacifist is not exempt from judgment for moral wrong doing while she is partaking in a morally good pacifist action.

Darfur: Proxy Aggression as a Way Forward

2007-09-03T19:05:00.001-07:00

Interesting news today in the New York Times article entitled, "Chaos in Darfur Rises as Arabs Fight With Arabs." Apparently the Arabs who had previously been pillaging the Fur tribes people are now assaulting each other in a clash over who will dominate the land stolen from the Fur. The two tribes are the Terjem and the Mahria.

According to the article, the Terfem are cattle herders and farmers who lived closely with the Fur. The Mahria are nomadic camel herders who have a knack for fighting. Together they worked as the Janjaweed; the Terjem located the Fur and the Mahria attacked them. In December the Mahria and Terjem began skirmishing as the Mahria were migrating south and trampled on Terjem land. The skirmishing happened again in July as Mahria migrated back north through the same land. Unlike past skirmishes between the two tribes, this last period of summer fighting is persisting, perhaps due to a drive to seize land before a hybrid UN/AU peacekeeping force arrives in Darfur.

Regardless, this goes to show the complexity of the crisis. Proxy aggression might utilize Chad or the Fur or now even the Mahria or Terjem. But, with such factious conditions abounding, I am dubious about the outcome of any such meddling.

More later...

Romans 13 in the context of Israel and YHWH: Part II

2007-09-01T04:58:00.000-07:00

Can there be such a thing as just war? Can war be justified? Can a warring nation be held innocent when it is violent? I believe that the notions of just war or a nation justifying its motives for war are possible only in the world of ideals. In theory, a nation can act violently with pure motives on behalf of the weak, the poor, the oppressed and against the corrupt, the abusive, the oppressors. In reality, no nation has entirely pure motives. A nation will always seek its own preservation and will, to some degree, do this to the detriment of other nations or peoples. If a nation could be morally perfect, then its wars could be just. No such perfect nation exists. War is always unjust to some degree or another by the standards of YHWH's righteousness.

This bears itself out well in the Old Testament. YHWH called Israel out to be His special people. He commanded Moses to lead Israel into the Promised Land and slaughter the inhabitants there. Joshua led a bloody march into Canaan and Israel took up residence. During that bloody march and immediately after that Israel was already falling away from YHWH's standards of holiness. Idolatry, intermarriage with Canaanites, fornication, refusing to tear down the high places, pillaging idols, and much more were all a part of Israel's short comings in the post Exodus period.

YHWH had told Moses that if Israel did not keep His commands, then they would be utterly destroyed. By the end of the period of kingly reign in Israel, YHWH was preparing to follow through on his promise to judge Israel for its wickedness. Observe in II Kings 21:9-16:

But they did not listen, and Manasseh seduced them to do evil more than the nations whom the LORD destroyed before the sons of Israel. Now the LORD spoke through His servants the prophets, saying, "Because Manasseh king of Judah has done these abominations, having done wickedly more than all the Amorites did who were before him, and has also made Judah sin with his idols; therefore thus says the LORD, the God of Israel, 'Behold, I am bringing such calamity on Jerusalem and Judah, that whoever hears of it, both his ears will tingle. 'I will stretch over Jerusalem the line of Samaria and the plummet of the house of Ahab, and I will wipe Jerusalem as one wipes a dish, wiping it and turning it upside down. 'I will abandon the remnant of My inheritance and deliver them into the hand of their enemies, and they will become as plunder and spoil to all their enemies; because they have done evil in My sight, and have been provoking Me to anger since the day their fathers came from Egypt, even to this day.'" Moreover, Manasseh shed very much innocent blood until he had filled Jerusalem from one end to another; besides his sin with which he made Judah sin, in doing evil in the sight of the LORD.

Israel was in for destruction. God's chosen nation, the people He chose to dish out His vengeance on the Canaanites, was about to be on the receiving end of His wrath. Notice that Israel had been provoking YHWH's wrath since the day they left Egypt. Even when Israel was carrying out its war campaigns it was unrighteous and deserving of judgment. YHWH had motive to destroy them just as much as He had motive to destroy the Canaanites. While we can definitely say that during Israel's wars it was carrying out the will of YHWH, we cannot say that Israel was righteous in carrying out the will of YHWH. Israel was sinful and deserving of YHWH's wrath. It was only by the LORD's grace that she received promised land instead of desolation.

In Romans 13 Paul says that government is from God's authority and that it bears the sword for the purpose of avenging the one who practices evil. In context of Israel and YHWH we can interpret that rulers bear the sword not only to avenge individuals, but also nations. One might say that the reason China is nuclear equipped is so that YHWH can bear out His wrath on America's sinfulness. Likewise, one might say that the reason why India is nuclear equipped is so that YHWH can bear out His wrath on China's sinfulness. And so on. What cannot be said is that any attack by China on America (or India on China) is justifiable. Such attacks are carried out by sinful nations that have corrupt morals and corrupt motives. Only YHWH is perfect and only He is just in every way. The rest of us sin even in doing good (e.g.: defending the weak, the poor, the oppressed). To find just war we must fast forward to the culmination of all history when the One who is called Faithful and True rides in on a white horse and wages a war in righteousness.

In summary, Romans 13 describes God's sovereign use of rulers that war. However, Romans 13 does not support the idea of just human actors in war. A warring nation is never innocent when it is violent; such a nation is in the wrong and will be judged for shedding blood.

Romans 13 in the context of Israel and YHWH.

2007-07-18T19:48:00.000-07:00

Christians have approved of government waged war throughout the ages. Romans 13 contains the words Christians have traditionally used to warrant the idea of just war. It runs like this in verse four:

For it (the government) is a minister of God to you for good. But if you do what is evil, be afraid; for it does not bear the sword for nothing; for it is a minister of God, an avenger who brings wrath on the one who practices evil.

Here Paul urges Christian folks in Rome to be obedient to the Roman emperor, a man who was not friendly to the Christian cause.

Further Scriptural warrant for national violence can be obtained in Peters first epistle, chapter 2. Verses 13-14 run like this:

Submit yourselves for the Lord's sake to every human institution, whether to a king as the one in authority,or to governors as sent by him for the punishment of evildoers and the praise of those who do right. For such is the will of God that by doing right you may silence the ignorance of foolish men.

In the old Covenant the Scriptural warrant for war is even more plain within the Pentateuch. In Deuteronomy 20:10-18 we have the record of YHWH commanding Moses to destroy men in villages that would not agree to become slaves to the Hebrews; in the cities of Canaan YHWH commands Moses to kill man, woman, child and animal. Nothing living is to be spared. The reason given by YHWH is that Israel would learn the detestable practices of the Canaanite inhabitants if they were not completely destroyed.

Maybe this still is not enough scriptural warrant. We might think that this record of the invasion of the Holy Land is a special exemption to the way that YHWH acts; He is just making His Covenant clear to the world before revealing His heart of mercy to the world through the likes of David and his lineage. But, the man after YHWH's own heart, the man of mercy, was commanded by the God of justice to go slaughter a people. In second Samuel chapter five we have the record of God actually telling David to go to war:

Then David did so, just as the LORD had commanded him, and struck down the Philistines from Geba as far as Gezer.

Mercy was no doubt revealed through David; he was a man in need of forgiveness and he found it in the sight of YHWH. Yet mercy was not borne out upon David's enemies. Observe Psalm 110:1;5-6:

The LORD says to my Lord:
Sit at My right hand
Until I make Your enemies a footstool for Your feet.
The Lord is at Your right hand;
He will shatter kings in the day of His wrath.
He will judge among the nations,
He will fill them with corpses,
He will shatter the chief men over a broad country.

Granted, this Psalm is about YHWH speaking to the Messiah and it is the Psalmists description of the Messianic rule over kings and nations. But it shows us David's understanding of YHWH's attitude toward warfare; it was not just he who was warring against the nations. The LORD was with him, helping him kill the enemy. David had a clear perspective of YHWH's wrath and impending judgment of the nations. Pacifism was not a virtue well esteemed by the man after YHWH's own heart.

Next blog...

a look at God's warriors as they are slaughtered by the nations. What does this mean for the idea of justification? Can a warring nation be justified in its violence? Or putting the question of justification more poignantly, can a warring nation be held innocent when it is violent?

Back in the swing.

2007-07-07T08:33:00.000-07:00

For months I have been stumbling through a dark night of literary isolation. No longer, though. The published pending website is back up and running and I am connected to my writing comrades once again. Praise be to our wonderful web manager for he has delivered us from the demons that cleverly work internet destruction! How I have missed the blog. And by 'missed' I mean 'been thankful not to have had one more thing to get done.'

Unfortunately I have written nothing since the last post. Since I am out of the habit of writing, I thought a personal post about my topic would help get me back in the swing of things. Here goes:

Reconciliation was nailed hard up against my heart muscles years ago when my college dating relationship ended. Those painful nails entered my heart and gathered the heat of my memory to forge a weapon of bitter un-forgetfulness. The memory of these hurts was like yesterday's large helping of chocolate Moose Tracks ice cream slowly creeping back up my throat in the form of hungry fire ants. Deep and visceral, these hurtful memories initially wakened mighty feelings of righteous vengeance and an infantile desire to strike out against my 'old flame'. I was a righteous man internally working out justice for the wounds of my heart, only offering lip service to my own transgressions. For months, my rightness in the relational break-up lay uncritically examined by myself; and so I acted like the myopic old man who blames all the words in books for being 'so fuzzy these days'.

My righteousness never demanded I open up my memories to scrutiny, mostly because I fabricated this story about how I took the moral high road in the relationship. Every time I rehearsed this story my heart was filled with resentment about how she wronged me. Regular baths of bitterness cleansed my heart from all personal wrong doing and gently nourished an outwardly projected judgment. Today as I reflect about my inner monologues of that bitter time I realize that the meaning of the word 'I' took on the general sense of 'morally good person.' In my dating relationship I was patient in communicating, I was a true lover, I was concerned about her well-bing. Likewise, the word 'she' was used as a synonym for 'morally flawed person.' In my dating relationship she was uncommitted, she was unwilling to talk, she was selfish. In philosophical terms she became my evil other; the one upon whom I projected all evil with regards to our relational break up. She was evil and I was good. She was condemned in my thinking, and I was justified.

Fortunately I was righteous to this extent for only a period in my life. Time passed and the LORD called me behind the water shed for a whipping, as my brother-in-law would say. In fact I was reading Romans 12 when I came across the passage that reads:

"Never pay back evil for evil to anyone. Respect what is right in the sight of all men. If possible, so far as it depends on you, be at peace with all men. Never take your own revenge, beloved, but leave room for the wrath of God, for it is written, 'VENGEANCE IS MINE, I WILL REPAY,' says the Lord. 'BUT IF YOUR ENEMY IS HUNGRY, FEED HIM, AND IF HE IS THIRSTY, GIVE HIM A DRINK; FOR IN SO DOING YOU WILL HEAP BURNING COALS ON HIS HEAD.' Do not be overcome by evil, but overcome evil with good."

In a moment, in the twitch of an eyelid my bitter self-justification was demolished. Wrecking balls have never brought down walls as quickly as this Scripture brought down my own righteousness. The standards are high. How could I escape the fact that I had come nowhere close to feeding my enemy? I was repaying evil for evil in the inner chambers of my heart. I was being overcome by evil.

Like the Psalmist, I was hemmed in behind and in front by the righteousness of YHWH; I had no where to turn that did not remind me of my own vile heart. A confession spewed out of my insides, "My born-again, sanctified heart is evil and in desperate need of salvation." At the moment of this confession my heart was liberated from a cold and slimy prison of bitter memories. I believe it was the same LORD who hung on the cross forgiving His enemies that also swept through my heart and set it free. This liberation was powerful and transformative enough to in time subvert my bitter memories with a new spirit of reconciliation. At the heart of this spirit was a realization that I was never and never will be a morally right person as long as I live on this green earth. I could see that I was not right by the standards of Romans 12 because, ironically, I was stuck on rehearsing my own rightness and was forgetting to take care of my 'enemy'.

Not long after the LORD gave me this spirit of reconciliation He began to bolster it further with another work. He was pointing out the thoroughly depraved state of my heart. This happened as I became deeply convicted of my inward sins of lust and anger and greed. YHWH looked at my heart from afar and with holy wrath pronounced it unclean. As I reflected back upon my dating relationship I realized that while I was pointing out my lover's external flaws I was ignoring my own internal flaws. Like Jesus' hypocrite with the log hanging from his cornea, I was attempting to surgically remove the splinter from my lover's moral soul without worrying about my dirty hands and contagious diseases. Once again the LORD'S spirit of reconciliation was at work in my heart teaching me that I could never consider myself to be right.

I have learned that I am always and unconditionally wrong. And I do not mean this in the sense of being wrong in a logical argument (although I am usually not a very thorough logician and am frequently wrong in the arena of logic). Morally flawed is what I mean when I use the word 'wrong' here. Never am I morally superior to another person. Try as I might to justify myself and put myself in the right, I am always wrong.

If you have read my blog at all this far you will know that my interest is international politics. At the root of this interest is this same spirit of reconciliation. The LORD has given me a spirit of reconciliation and this spirit does not cease to be active when I think about nations and governments. I continue to anchor myself in the fact that American is not right. Terrorists (eg: AlQueda) who kill 'infidel' civilians are not justified in doing so because the terrorists themselves are evil. Likewise, a government which kills terrorists (eg: the US) is not justified in doing so because the government itself is evil. When history comes to its climax and the Word of God will slay the nations with a sword will the American government appear right before YHWH'S righteousness? Absolutely not.

And so you can see that my thinking has its origins in Romans 12 and has progressed from there to Romans 13 as I have broadened my thoughts to the world level. So I have moved into the territory of Romans 13 and should probably write a post working within this text, a text that has been used throughout Christian times to justify war. I will begin my next post by highlighting the history of Israel's wars. First, I will look into the Old Covenant where God used Israel to destroy nations with violence and then used these same nations to destroy Israel.

Afghanistan: Proxy Aggression as a Way Forward

2007-05-10T11:50:00.000-07:00

So I have been dreadfully short on time here recently. Subsequently I have been unable to thoroughly research the information on US proxy intervention in Afghanistan. However, for the sake of continuing to write I am going to proceed without all the data I need.

The United States of America conducted covert operations in Afghanistan from 1979 until 1992 (Pike, John E. "Covert Operations." 2 May 2007. http://www.globalsecurity.org/intell/ops/covert-ops.htm). Why? The US government was firmly entrenched with the USSR in the Cold War. Afghanistan was just one other US country used to strategically weaken the USSR. One question I have is regarding the sequence of events. Had the Russians invaded Afghanistan already or did the US proxy strategy entice the Russians into Afghanistan? Regardless, the US government covertly supported the Mujahideen via the CIA. During the Carter and Reagan administrations the radical Jihadists (Mujahideen) were funded and trained by the CIA so that they could undermine the 'atheistic' communist government.

The Russians were unsuccessful in their battles for Afghanistan largely due to CIA covert operations with the Mujahideen. Due to the huge cost of operations in Afghanistan the Russians left the country in 1989. The CIA then stopped its Afghanistan involvement in 1992. From that time until 1996 power struggles ensued between conflicting Mujahideen groups. In 1996 the Taliban seized control of Kabul and began its rule of the country. It was also in 1996 that the Taliban invited Osama Bin Laden to stay in their country. Osama Bin Laden had been trained by the CIA as a part of the Mujahideen. He came to Afghanistan from Sudan where he was being hunted by none other than the US government for his role in the US embassy bombings and the bombing of the US Cole.

On September 11th of 2001 a handful of radical Muslim men flew planes into two New York skyscrapers and the Pentagon. These men were trained by Bin Laden in Afghanistan. Anticipating the Al Qaeda success in September one Shaykh said this, “There will be a great hit and people will go out by hundreds to Afghanistan” (Shaykh Salih Al-Shuaybi as quoted by an unnamed Shaykh in a November, 2001 video with Usama Bin Laden.). Al Qaeda had been training for years with this plot and its success startled the Bush administration as well as the entire US population.

One of the Al Qaeda training manuals found in Afghanistan contains this quote:

"These young men realized that an Islamic government would never be established except by the bomb and rifle. Islam does not coincide or make a truce with unbelief.,. but rather confronts it. The confrontation that Islam calls for with these godless and apostate regimes, does not know Socratic debates, Platonic ideals nor Aristotelian diplomacy. But it knows the dialogue of bullets, the ideals of assassination, bombing, and destruction, and the diplomacy of the canon and the machine-gun." (Al-Qaeda training manual).

The result of US proxy intervention in Afghanistan from 1979-1992 was the decline of the USSR and the rise of Al Qaeda.

Somalia: Some Specifics on US Proxy Intervention

2007-04-29T20:02:00.000-07:00

Here are some quotes regarding the US proxy intervention in Somalia post 9/11.

"The US viewed the Islamists' rise with alarm, fearing the emergence of a Taliban-style haven for al-Qa'ida and other Islamist extremists. Its fears were stoked by jihadist elements in the courts and credible reports that they were harbouring known al-Qa'ida operatives. It responded by cobbling together a coalition of Somali warlords, funded by the CIA. But the alliance was short-lived and its collapse at the hands of the courts only increased the latter's legitimacy."
-Grono, Nick. "Somalia: Nation on the Cusp of Chaos or Resurrection." 8 January 2007. The Australian.

"It’s a well-established fact for the last few years that U.S. counterterrorism officials and other intelligence officials have been working through Somali partners to fight extremists. From the little we know, the U.S. is not supporting the warlords with arms, per se. Instead American operatives were paying the warlords to help track down and apprehend those in Somalia suspected of being members of Al Qaeda."
-Suliman Baldo, director for Africa policy at the International Crisis Group

"The full deployment of AMISOM (African Union mission to Somalia) will facilitate a more rapid departure of Ethiopian forces from Somalia. To achieve this objective, the United States is providing technical assistance and funding, approximately $19.6 million, to support the deployment of AMISOM, enabling the mission to provide security to the TFIs and allow the peace process to move forward with the visible support of the international community."
-James Swan, Deputy Assistant Secretary for African Affairs US State Dept.: 21 April 2007

Somalia: Proxy Aggression as a Way Forward

2007-04-26T06:16:00.000-07:00

In this post I am going to begin considering proxy aggression as an option for resolving the current Darfur humanitarian crisis. As a part of this consideration I will briefly review two other situations where proxy intervention has been utilized: Somalia (thank you Brandon) and Afghanistan. Then, I will examine the options available in Darfur for proxy aggression and offer some correlations from Somalia and Afghanistan. Today's post will focus on Somalia.

Moving from west to east across the entirety of the African continent, beginning in Nigeria, one can travel through as few as 5 countries (Nigeria, Chad, Sudan, Ethiopia and Somalia). As of today, April 26, three of these countries are suffering terrible internal violence, one (Ethiopia) is fueling the violence in its neighboring country (Somalia), and the fifth country (Nigeria) is on the verge of political upheaval due to dishonest elections. Among all of this violence and broken government I choose to focus today on Somalia. My information is taken from three sources: 1) UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon's April 17th report regarding the situation in Somalia; 2) various articles from the International Herald Tribune; 3) various articles from the New York Times.

Until the 18th century Somalia had been traditionally governed by clan elders. In the 18th century the Italians governed southern Somalia and created an Italian-speaking administration to help build the economy. This style of rule resulted in a weakening of the traditional systems of Somalian authority (Gettleman, Jeffrey. "Somaliland is an overlooked African success story." International Herald Tribune. 7 March 2007). This weakening of authority had its tragic outcome years and years later after the fall of the Somalian dictator in January of 1991. The dictator of Somalia was overthrown and warlords were then able to out muscle clan elders, plunging the country into a period of violent anarchy. Warlords in plenty operated within the country stealing, raping and destroying.

In August of 1992 George H. Bush agreed to send food aide to Somalia to feed the hundreds of thousands of starving. Food had been delivered in the past, however warlords had intercepted the shipments and sold them for more guns and munitions. Bush's plan was to not only provide food, but a means for ensuring their delivery to the starving of Somalia. An international group was dispatched (mostly from Pakistan) but was not enough to fend off the Somali warlords. By December of 1992 one thousand or more people per day were dying in Somalia. President Bush submitted a plan to send as many as 20,000 US troops to Somalia as a part of a UN rescue mission (Editorial. "Dot It Right in Somalia." 1 December 1992. New York Times). The troops were sent and experienced success in delivering food to the hungry.

In January of 2003 Bill Clinton became the US president and shortly thereafter the mission changed from one of humanitarian aide to one of nation building in which the goals was to build a democratic government in Somalia. President Clinton expressed a desire to decrease the amount of US troops and hand over control of the nation building project to the UN. US Troop levels were diminished to about 1,000 by June of 1993. However, on June 5th of 1993 over twenty Pakistani troops were ambushed and killed. Aidid and his followers were assumed to be responsible for this attack and orders were given to capture him. On July 12th a US Cobra helicopter attacked a house in Mogadishu were clan leaders were meeting. Many clan elders were killed and this proved to be the turning point where Somalians led an insurgency against UN and US forces. As attacks on UN and US troops increased a task force of 440 elite US military was dispatched to Somalia. Their mission was to capture Aidid who was believed to be responsible for the increased violence. In October of 1993 a Black Hawk helicopter full of elite US forces was shot down and the US military was humiliated. On October 7th president Clinton withdrew all US forces from Somalia. By late spring of 1994 all UN troops were withdrawn from Somalia. (Information taken from http://novaonline.nvcc.edu/eli/evans/his135/Events/Somalia93/Somalia93.html).

Since the failed UN intervention in Somalia anarchy has been the basic state of the country until June of last year. Islamic militias backed by local business men gained control of Mogadishu in June of 2006. An article from the New York times dated June 6th, 2006 describes how the Islamic militias gained control of Mogadishu:

"After months of fierce fighting, Islamic militias declared Monday that they had taken control of Somalia's capital, Mogadishu, defeating the warlords widely believed to be backed by the United States and raising questions about whether the country would head down an extremist path. The battle for Mogadishu has been a proxy war, of sorts, in the Bush administration's campaign against terrorism, with the warlords echoing Washington's goal of rooting out radical Islam and the presence of Al Qaeda in the region" (Lacey, Marc. "Somali Islamists Declare Victory; Warlords on Run." The New York Times. 6 June 2006).

The Islamic militia's motivation behind the June battle in Mogadishu was a desire to neutralize the warlords and improve business prospects. After setting up power in Mogadishu the Islamic militants provided security in the area for the first time in years. This in combination with the fact that they did not levy heavy taxes created a good economic atmosphere which lasted until the radical Islamic wing took over the government and declared war on Ethiopia. "The US viewed the Islamists' rise with alarm, fearing the emergence of a Taliban-style haven for al-Qa'ida and other Islamist extremists. Its fears were stoked by jihadist elements in the courts and credible reports that they were harbouring known al-Qa'ida operatives. It responded by cobbling together a coalition of Somali warlords, funded by the CIA. But the alliance was short-lived and its collapse at the hands of the courts only increased the latter's legitimacy." (Grono, Nick. "Somalia: Nation on the Cusp of Chaos or Resurrection." 8 January 2007. The Australian.)

In December of 2006 Ethiopia, with covert help from the US, crushed the Islamic militia (Mohammed Ibrahim and Yuusuf Maxamuud. "In Somalia, Those Who Feed Off Of Anarchy Fuel It." 25 April 2007. The New York Times). Since then Mogadishu has been a broiling pot of violence. UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon's April report on Somalia stated that 124,000 people have fled Mogadishu since February of this year. He also offers this information regarding violence in Mogadishu:

"Since early January 2007, there have been frequent attacks on Ethiopian and Transitional Federal Government troops in Mogadishu, either against convoys travelling on key routes in the city or against troop locations and official residences, including hotels. There has been an increase in targeted assassinations of persons, including those suspected of being informers or supporters of the Government, and prominent figures. Buildings that house Ethiopian and Transitional Federal Government troops have been subjected to mortar attacks, as have the Mogadishu airport, the main seaport and Villa Somalia, the official State House in the capital. There has been a resurgence of inter- and intra-clan fighting in Mogadishu and elsewhere in Somalia."

So the current state of affairs in Somalia is poor at best. US Proxy intervention has been pursued through covert support of Somalian war lords, aerial bombing by US planes and ground support from Ethiopian forces. The result has been a disruption of the Islamic militias rule and a return to anarchy in southern Somalia.

Right ways trump expediate ways...

2007-04-25T03:46:00.000-07:00

Psalm 125
A Psalm of Ascent
For the scepter of wickedness shall not rest upon the land of the righteous,
So that the righteous will not put forth their hands to do wrong.
Do good, O LORD, to those who are good
And to those who are upright in their hearts.
But as for those who turn aside to their crooked ways,
The LORD will lead them away with the doers of iniquity
Peace be upon Israel.

Darfur: Two Ways Forward.

2007-04-23T20:13:00.000-07:00

To the humanitarian crisis in Darfur nations can intervene in two general sorts of ways: violently or non-violently. Of course there is a third way forward which is the passive non-intervention method; I am excluding this option from consideration in this post under the assumption that the crisis in Darfur requires intervention. So here I will briefly list the American government's options under both the violent and non-violent interventions. In a later post I will explore these options further.

Violent Intervention:
1) Unilateral Aggression (the US forcibly intervenes without the consent of any other sate).
2) Multilateral Aggression (the US forcibly intervenes with several states without the consent of some other states).
3) UN Mediated Aggression (UN security counsel approves intervention by force).
4) Proxy Aggression (a state(s) provides the guns/munitions, intelligence, military training and/or money to rebel forces).

Non-Violent Intervention:
1) International Diplomacy (the US government applies pressure on the Chinese government to in turn apply pressure on the Khartoum government).
2) Sanctions (the US government enforces trade embargoes against Sudan).
3) Incentives (the US government promises aide relief or financial assistance to Darfur if all the rebel groups engage in peace talks with Khartoum).

Those wicked barbarians...Part II

2007-04-18T20:03:00.000-07:00

I believe their is a kernal of truth in Foucault's idea that there is an exclusionary shadow that stubbornly trails modernity's history of inclusion. He carries his line of thought from Nietzsche (Thus Spake Zarathustra) who in his reading of the gospels makes the point that it was the "good and just" who murdered Jesus not the "wicked." The "good and just" could not understand Jesus because their "spirit was imprisoned in their good conscience" and they crucified him because they construed as evil his rejection of their notions of good. Foucault lifts up "the rational" and "the civilized" (Madness and Civilization) in much the same light as Nietzsche's "good and just." For Foucault "civilization" is a smooth destroyer of those things inside and outside of itself that it construes as "immoral" and "barbarous."

Think what you might about Nietzsche and Foucault, they raise a good point here that the "moral" and "civilized" self all too often relies on the exclusion of the "barberous" and "immoral" other. The "moral" and "civilized" self looks upon the "barberous" Muslims that suicidally killed Americans and says "You are wrong" from an imiplied position of "I am right."

As Jesus so prophetically asked in front of his audience, "Why do you look at the speck of sawdust in your brother's eye and pay no attention to the plank in your own eye? How can you say to your brother, 'Let me take the speck out of your eye,' when all the time there is a plank in your own eye?"

PS: I borrowed this strand of thought from Miroslav Volf.

Those wicked barbarians.

2007-04-17T03:43:00.000-07:00

Here is an excerpt from the most recent UN report on Darfur:

"The HLM has also received credible information of torture, inhumane and degrading treatment by National Security and Military Intelligence during attacks and in the treatment of detainees. The methods used include beatings with whips, sticks and gun butts, prolonged sun exposure, starvation, electrocution, and burning with hot candle wax or molten plastic. Many detainees are held incommunicado without charge or access to a lawyer."

Does this sort of treatment of 'enemies' remind you of any particular Western democratic government?

Psalm 120

2007-04-11T16:29:00.000-07:00

In my distress I cried unto the LORD, and he heard me.
Deliver my soul, O LORD, from lying lips, and from a deceitful tongue.
What shall be given unto thee? or what shall be done unto thee, thou false tongue?
Sharp arrows of the mighty, with coals of juniper.
Woe is me, that I sojourn in Mesech, that I dwell in the tents of Kedar!
My soul hath long dwelt with him that hateth peace.
I am for peace: but when I speak, they are for war.

Darfur: A Brief History of the Crisis.

2007-04-08T06:41:00.000-07:00

I would like to begin surveying the current humanitarian crisis in Darfur, Sudan. Eventually I will explore the possibilities of both aggressive and pacifistic interventions in Darfur. Today, however, I will offer a brief history of the crisis.

This post is an excerpt taken from the 2007 UN report on the Darfur crisis (released in March 2007). Full text is available at:

www.ohchr.org/english/bodies/hrcouncil/docs/4session/A-HRC-4-80.doc

A - Brief history and causes of the conflict

The causes of conflict in Darfur are complex. Historically, tribal groups have come into conflict over land, water or livestock, but such disputes were settled through traditional tribal mechanisms. But in the 1970s, in part in an effort to modernize, Khartoum introduced a number of administrative changes that began to erode those mechanisms. First Darfur was divided into three states, fragmenting the collective power of tribal groups. Khartoum then appointed new officials with both executive and judicial powers at the state level, and appointed leaders at the local level based upon loyalty to the central government, without regard to the traditional leadership recognized by the communities. While traditional mechanisms were still sought out, those structures were severely weakened, just as power relations between groups were being distorted.

In the 1970s and the 1980s, increased desertification and drought resulted in significant movements of people, with nomadic groups moving deeper into southern areas as well as “newcomers” entering from Chad, Libya Arab Jamahiriya and Mauritania. With Darfur’s own issues of scarce water and other resources, relations became increasingly contentious. The intensity of conflicts increased significantly with the formation of village defense groups and militias and the influx of small arms and light weapons into the region. By the end of the 1980s most conflict was between the Fur and nomadic tribes.

In addition to the struggles around land and resources, the peoples of Darfur have felt discriminated against and marginalized by the central Government. Generally excluded from social services normally provided by the State such as education and basic medical care, they have had no significant political voice in Khartoum. Attempts by the Government to mediate ongoing tribal conflicts produced no long-term results, fueling the perception that Khartoum was unwilling or unable to protect Darfurians or to address their broader needs. Quite to the contrary, as fighting intensified between 1995-1998, the Government began its recruitment of militias, further aggravating divisions.

Against this backdrop of conflict and marginalization, two rebel groups began to organize in 2001/02 – the Sudan Liberation Movement/Army (SLM/A) and the Justice and Equality Movement (JEM) – drawing their members primarily from village defense groups. Most rebels were from the Fur, Massalit and Zaghawa tribes. Interestingly, they were calling for equality and justice for all Sudanese and not just redress of more narrow tribal interests. The rebel forces began attacking Government police and military targets in late 2002, and those attacks accelerated in 2003.

B- Nature of the Government’s response

The Government was not prepared either for the intensity or the successes of the rebel attacks. With many of its forces engaged in its long war with the Sudan People Liberation Army (SPLA) in South Sudan, Khartoum was also concerned because many rank and file soldiers in the Sudanese military were from Darfur. The Government significantly picked up its recruitment of proxy militias, continuing to exploit the existing and ongoing tensions between tribal groups. Those members of Arab tribes recruited to fight in Government-backed counterinsurgency operations became known as “Janjaweed,” which is a term used in Darfur for an armed man on horse or camel.

Janjaweed attacks, sometimes in concert with Government land and air forces have been and continue to be primarily directed against the civilian population of Darfur, and focused especially on the tribal groups from which most of the rebels have been drawn. In both refugee camps, and in our discussions with a number of observers, we were told of such joint attacks on civilians. Women, children and men have been killed indiscriminately. Villages have been razed, livestock stolen or killed, and crops destroyed, and whole populations forcefully displaced, in part in an attempt to deprive rebel groups of support and resources. In particular, rape and sexual assault have been widespread and systematic, terrorizing women and breaking down families and communities.

III- The Darfur Peace Agreement, the ensuing violence and the responsibility to protect

Attempts to resolve the conflict began in 2003, and a ceasefire between the Government and the SLM/A was signed on 3 September of that year. A report to the AU Peace and Security Council read, “Following the September Ceasefire Agreement, fighting largely stopped between the Government and the SLM/A. However violence intensified against the civilian population. A militia group called ‘DJanjaweed’ deliberately targeted civilians viewed as providing support to the SLM/A and the JEM.”

As violence and violations of human rights continued, so did attempts to stop the conflict. On 8 April 2004, the Government, the SLM/A, and JEM signed a humanitarian ceasefire agreement and protocols on establishing humanitarian assistance in Darfur. The ceasefire agreement called for the establishment of a Ceasefire Commission (CFC) to monitor the cessation of hostilities, supported by an AU Observer Mission. Appeals were made to the United Nations and the international community to support the CFC, to “ensure the scrupulous compliance” of warring parties to the ceasefire.

Subsequent efforts for peace in Darfur took place in Addis Ababa and in Abuja mediated by the African Union and with all parties to the conflict participating. But against this backdrop, violence was again on the rise in Darfur as all parties sought military gains to advantage them in the talks. At the seventh round of negotiations, the Darfur Peace Agreement was signed on 5 May 2006, but only by the Government and by one faction of the SLM (that of Mini Minawi, SLM/MM). The SLA faction led by Abdul Wahid (SLM/AW) did not sign, nor did the JEM.

Since the signing of the DPA, the security situation in the region has deteriorated. Non-signatory rebel factions have splintered. Though hostilities have been significantly reduced between the two signatories to the DPA, fighting between signatories and those opposed to the DPA escalated in violation of the ceasefire agreements. Attempts by these factions to meet and develop common positions for renewed efforts to open the DPA to new negotiations have been attacked and bombed by Government forces. Violations of human rights and international humanitarian law have increased by all parties to the conflict since the signing of the DPA. Armed banditry and other criminal activity have also increased.

People began to flee the fighting that erupted in Sudan’s western region of Darfur in early 2003. By the end of 2004, some 200,000 Sudanese had fled across the border to neighboring Chad and an estimated 1.6 million were displaced within Darfur. The deteriorating security situation since the DPA has resulted in tens of thousands of newly displaced – now totaling well over two million displaced people in Darfur -- and 30,000 more refugees in the camps in Chad, with new arrivals daily.

Cross-border attacks into Chad by Janjaweed and retaliations by rebels and Chadian forces have resulted in a dramatic increase in Chadian IDPs – from about 30,000 in June of 2006 to over 113,000 by the end of that year. Today, the conflict is also having a growing impact in the Central African Republic. If the conflict in Darfur is not meaningfully and equitably resolved, bringing peace and security to its people, it could increasingly engulf the region. UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon has called for a peace-keeping force along both borders.

Humanitarian aid has, since the beginning of the conflict, consistently been restricted by the Government with delays in the issuing of visas, travel permits to go to Darfur, daily travel permits to leave the capitals in Darfur, and fuel permits to travel around Darfur. But with the spiraling of violence since the DPA, humanitarian access to populations in dire need has been increasingly strangled and in some areas it has ceased entirely. Action by rebel groups has also impacted humanitarian access in recent months.

Attacks on humanitarian agencies have increased dramatically over the past months. On 17 January 2007, in an unprecedented initiative, 14 UN agencies with operations in Darfur issued a Joint Statement on the urgency of the situation. They noted that: 12 aid workers have been killed in the past 6 months -- more than in the previous 2 years; 30 NGO and UN compounds were directly attacked by armed groups; and more than 400 aid workers were forced to relocate 31 times from different locations throughout the 3 Darfur states in both government and rebel controlled areas There have also been three sexual assaults on relief workers in the previous five months – the first in September 2006 by Janjaweed /militia, the second in December 2006 by SLA/MM forces, and the third on 19 January 2007 by Government police and National Security agents.

IV - Sudan’s actions regarding the Responsibility to Protect

The witnesses, victims and observers with whom we spoke, and the UN and other documentation consulted underscore that the killing of civilians in Darfur remains widespread. Violence has increased since late 2005 and has continued unabated into 2007. There were numerous large scale attacks on civilian communities during this period. Descriptions of these attacks indicate that tactics used have been very similar to those used during the height of the war in Darfur in late 2003 and 2004, characterized by (1) coordination of operations between the Sudanese armed forces and government-supported militia, (2) failure to respect the principles of distinction and proportionality, and (3) grave violations of international human rights and humanitarian law. While precise figures are not available, the UN estimates that 200,000 civilians have been killed as a direct result of the conflict or due to its devastating impact on access to health care, food and other life essentials.

Rape and sexual violence are widespread across Darfur, including cases of gang-rape. Since May 2006 sexual violence has also been reported in intra-tribal attacks. Despite the well-known patterns of rape of women around IDP camps, the authorities have done little to diminish the threat or investigate cases reported. Monitoring of the criminal justice system over the last two years has shown that very few cases of rape are investigated or prosecuted relative to the number of incidents that occur. Access to justice and prosecution of rape is further complicated both by cultural and by institutional factors, including the provisions of the criminal law combining rape and adultery in the same article. Women are also attacked in and around refugee camps in Chad.

Arbitrary arrest and detention in Darfur by government security forces continue. Individuals reportedly targeted include lawyers, community leaders and others who work on human rights, Sudanese who work for international organizations or who are perceived as cooperating too closely with the international community, individuals who share the predominant ethnicities of various rebel groups, and Sudanese who display opposition political views. Since May 2006 security forces have also targeted individuals who openly oppose the DPA. Sudanese who work closely with IDPs are also targeted, often on the basis of accusations that they encourage popular discontent and anti-government sentiment.

Since September 2006 there has been a wave of arrests of Darfurians in Khartoum. The arrests of over 30 Darfurian teachers, businessmen, journalists and university students predominately from the Fur, Masaalit and Zaghawa tribes have been carried out by the police and National Security, purportedly in furtherance of the investigation into the murder of Mohamed Taha, a prominent editor. Former detainees suggest that the murder investigation is being used as a pretext to arrest those with perceived links to rebel movements in Darfur. To date 13 detainees have been released due to lack of evidence, with three released as recently as 29 January 2007. Another three continue to be held without charge while 19 others have been charged with murder.

Arbitrary restrictions on freedom of expression, association and assembly are widespread. Human rights defenders, lawyers, local leaders and political opponents voicing concerns or expressing views that are critical, of the Government, continue to be particularly vulnerable to abuses by state security agencies. The UN has documented numerous cases of people being harassed, arrested, detained and physically abused for voicing their human rights concerns. The victims include members of NGOs, journalists, and people who file complaints with the police or other government officials.

The HLM has also received credible information of torture, inhumane and degrading treatment by National Security and Military Intelligence during attacks and in the treatment of detainees. The methods used include beatings with whips, sticks and gun butts, prolonged sun exposure, starvation, electrocution, and burning with hot candle wax or molten plastic. Many detainees are held incommunicado without charge or access to a lawyer.

Leahy for President in 2008?

2007-04-07T07:48:00.000-07:00

How does one vote in the upcoming presidential elections for 2008? I realize that there is no perfect way to research for the elections, but I thought I would share my own own limited method for those interested. The method I use is to choose two or three realms that I believe to be paramount in our nations future, then research how the candidates have acted/voted/preached on issues related to those realms.

In this years election one issue I am focusing on is international diplomacy: in particular non-proliferation as it pertains to Iran and North Korea. Over one year ago the US Senate decided to approve the sale of nuclear material and reactors to India with the passage of bill HR 5682 entitled the `United States-India Peaceful Atomic Energy Cooperation Act of 2006'. In this legislation the US Government reversed its history of abstaining from sharing nuclear material/technology with India. Why has America abstained from trading nuclear abilities with India in the past? Well, in 1954 the US government passed the Atomic Energy Act. One of the relevant statement from this act is as follows: "No nuclear materials and equipment or sensitive nuclear technology shall be exported to any non-nuclear-weapon state that is found by the President to have, at any time after the effective date of this section, detonated a nuclear explosive device..." (Section 129). India tested its first nuclear bomb on May 18th, 1974--roughly 20 years after the Atomic Energy Act was passed in Congress. Consequently, the US government has been legally unable to trade nuclear technology to India.

Then, why has the US government created new legislation (HR 5682) to begin trading nuclear technology with India? The recently passed legislation which exempts India from the 1954 Nuclear Energy Act lists several rational for trading with India. One is that "commerce in civil nuclear materials between India and the US and other countries has the potential to benefit people of all countries." This is a not so obvious way of saying that the growing Indian economy desperately needs energy. Another rationale listed in the legislation is that "strong bilateral relations with India are in the national interests of the United States." In other words, the current world is an incubator for two growing powers, India and China. We might as well make fast friends with one of them.

Perhaps one of the most disturbing phrases in the legislation is this: "such commerce (with India) also represents a significant change in United States policy regarding commerce with countries not parties to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, which remains the foundation of the international non-proliferation regime..."

What is this Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) and why is it disturbing that the United States policy is changing regarding countries not parties to it? The NPT was signed by countries to prevent the proliferation of nuclear weapons in the thin hope that we might not blow this earth to bits. Article I of the NPT reads: "Each nuclear-weapon State Party to the Treaty undertakes...not in any way to assist, encourage, or induce any non-nuclear weapon State to manufacture or otherwise acquire nuclear weapons or other nuclear explosive devices, or control over such weapons or explosive devices." Language from HR 5682 includes this same word "encourage" when speaking of the US duty to avoid encouraging India from "in any way" increasing their fissile material for non-civilian purposes (Sec. 103.9). My take is that the inclusion of this word is an attempt to overtly endorse the NPT while winking coyly at India. After all, in what way does the American deal to send nuclear material to India not encourage production of fissile material for non-civilian purposes? Especially given the lack of International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) access to monitor India's current nuclear weapons program. Allow me to ask this, if we are providing energy for civilian purposes does this not allow India to devote more of their indigenous nuclear material for weapons production?

My answer to the above question is, "It is probable and plausible that America is indirectly encouraging India to develop weapons." The one factor that would change this plausibility is if India would allow monitoring of all its nuclear facilities. As my Indian patient commented, the odds of a national power allowing access to its military facilities are slim to non. And yet without IAEA monitors at all of India's reactors (both military and civilian) there is no assurance that India is not increasing its nuclear arsenal.

India is one of a handful of nations (Israel, Pakistan, North Korea) who have not signed the Nuclear non-Proliferation Treaty and one of several countries who flaunt their nuclear weapons program. "Who else flaunts their programs as overtly as India?" you might ask. Pakistan for one; and North Korea for a second; and Iran for a third. If we are indirectly encouraging India to produce nuclear weapons, then what becomes of our moral credibility as we continue to discourage Iran and North Korea from developing/enhancing nuclear weapons programs? With this recent legislation the United States government has unfortunately injured its credibility with regards to non-proliferation. I believe that this will in turn harm the US strategy to illicit multilateral pressure upon North Korea and Iran to halt their respective nuclear programs.

The United States-India Peaceful Atomic Energy Cooperation Act of 2006 was passed in congress last year. In the House the vote was 330 in favor and 59 against. In the Senate the vote was 85 in favor and 12 against. Here are the names of the Senators who voted against HR 5682:

Akaka (D-HI)
Bingaman (D-NM)
Boxer (D-CA)
Byrd (D-WV)
Conrad (D-ND)
Dayton (D-MN)
Dorgan (D-ND)
Feingold (D-WI)
Harkin (D-IA)
Johnson (D-SD)
Kennedy (D-MA)
Leahy (D-VT)

From this list I recognize only two names: Kennedy and Leahy. For various reasons I would abhor having Kennedy as president. On the other hand, I know nothing about Leahy. Maybe I will write him in in the 2008 presidential election. Hmmm.

Synopsis of the last post in 110 words or less...

2007-04-04T18:12:00.000-07:00

My last post addressed the question, “Is national aggression an unjustifiable, but necessary thing?”

The pacifist answers this question in the negative and might provide two arguments to explain this answer. First, the end does not justify the means. While the supposed end of aggression is the defense of the weak, the means (violent destruction) are not justified by such a defense. Second, theistic justification for aggression adds evidence to the atheistic assertion that morals originate solely from a drive to survive. While the 'aggressive theist' points to God, his morals point to Darwin. It is the pacifist's morals that have the potential to point to a god beyond nature.

Anyone need some violence?

2007-04-02T20:44:00.000-07:00

If you are in accord with the general thrust of this blog up to now you agree that human violence is not justifiable. The notion of just war is fine in theory only. In reality it is an idealist pipe dream. War is never just, given the destruction it yields and given the wicked men who pursue it. War could be just only if it could be conducted by a morally pure person (or nation) who had the power of restoring everyone after that war. Unfortunately, no human (or nation) fits this description.

But viewing war as unjustifiable does not exclude a view of war as a necessary evil. Allow me to return to quote form a past post (March 2, 2007):

"Let us say, then, that national aggression is not justifiable. We may still decide that it is a necessary evil. For instance, how can one say that national aggression should not be pursued when such wickedly violent acts are being perpetrated upon vulnerable people? To make this question even more vivid we could consider the story of a Muslim woman in

Bosnia

. She says, "My student, Zoran, the only son of my neighbor, urinated into my mouth. As the bearded hooligans standing around laughed, he told me: 'You are good for nothing else, you stinking Muslim woman...' I do not know whether I first heard the cry or felt the blow. My former colleague, a teacher of physics, was yelling like mad, 'Ustasha, ustasha....' and kept hitting me. Wherever he could. I have become insensitive to pain. But my soul? It hurts." (The Killing of Sarajevo, Vukovic).

What are we to do with this woman? Sit around and pretend nothing is happening? Allow her tormentors to take advantage? Is it not right to flex a little muscle on behalf of the weak?"

Perhaps aggression is a necessary evil. Dietrich Bonhoeffer believed something along those lines. He wrote, "How should the Christian act in war? There is no plain commandment of God on this point. The church can never bless war or weapons. The Christian can never take part in an unjust war. If a Christian takes to the sword he will daily pray to God for forgiveness of the sin and pray for peace" (Bethge 188). Bonhoeffer would later say that there can be no justification for war, even a defensive war (Bethge 386). What is truly remarkable about him is that years after expressing these views he decided to aid in an assassination plan to kill Hitler. Additionally, he began an elaborate lie in which he attempted to deceive the Nazi authorities about his complicity in the assassination attempt. (He viewed it as a worse sin for a lover of lies to tell the truth than for a lover of truth to tell a lie.) Bonhoeffer never sought to justify his actions, but rather accepted Christ's words, 'They that take the sword shall parish with the sword.' In the mind of Bonhoeffer he drew no solace by pretending that God was justifying his plans for violence. Bonhoeffer pursued injustice (murder) with the hopes of obtaining some future justice (an end to Nazi oppression); he believed in doing this he was sinning and in need of God's forgiveness.

So is this the way for a Christian to act on behalf of the weak (e.g.: children, enslaved persons, conquered folk)? For the Christian pacifist the answer to this question is an unqualified no. If violence is not justifiable then it should not be pursued. For the pacifist the end does not justify the means (this is similar reasoning to the means/end argument against abortion for the sake of preventing the birth of a child with catastrophic defects). Life is sacred and cannot be crunched in some casualty computation in which this many lives lost is on one side and this many lives saved is on the other side.

How does the intellectual Christian pacifist answer the question of violence as necessary evil? Well, she might engage in an evolutionary argument against naturalistically derived morals. (I have never heard or read of this argument being employed by a pacifist. Here I have whimsically adapted this argument from arguments made by some atheists; it is also of note that I have taken considerable inspiration from the analytic theist Alvin Plantinga. I am obviously not a logician so my apologies for the crassness of this argument.) The argument goes something like this: The probability of pacifistic practices being preserved is low, given the rule of reciprocal altruism and the ubiquitous presence of violent conflict; yet pacifism exists. This is represented as such:

P(Pa/A & V) is low and yet Pa,

where 'Pa' is the proposition that pacifistic beliefs are preserved and practiced, 'A' the proposition that morals have evolved naturalistically based on current theories of reciprocal altruism, and 'V' the proposition that violence is ubiquitous within society.

All atheists claim that societal morals have their origin naturally without the strong arm of God delivering them to the world. Some atheists invoke Darwin's theory of natural selection to postulate the specific mechanics of how morals originate apart from God. They say that morals are rules accepted by a society for the purpose of self preservation. Moral rules which survive the test of time are the ones which give certain societies the upper hand among societies with radically different morals. For instance, the society which morally embraces strict homosexuality as a normative practice for all men will have a shrinking population; the society which morally embraces infant sacrifice will have ever decreasing descendants; the society which morally embraces recreation above industry will slip into economic depression. On the contrary, the society which embraces reciprocal altruism (something like, 'do unto others as you would have them do unto you') builds a sense of trust and cooperation. In this society people do not have to spend as much energy on discerning whether or not to trust their neighbors. Instead they can put time and energy into cooperating in building families, businesses and governments. Simply put morality is not from God, rather it is a mechanism for survival. All morals serve to increase survivability (see Michael Shermer in The Science of Good and Evil).

Of course this is true of almost all morals. We embrace the practice of reciprocal altruism as long as it protects us, our kin, or our nation. However, when survival is at stake we have a different set of morals governed by the principal of protection at the expense of the competition (aggression). Aggression is pursued for the sake of survival. Once the competition is either eliminated or co-opted into the victorious society a return to the practice of reciprocal altruism occurs.

Here the naturalistic philosophers have made headway in explaining the possible natural origins of morality. However, what is to be said of renegade morals such as unconditional altruism? When a sub-society embraces the moral of unconditional altruism how does it continue to survive? Such a question is relevant to any pacifist culture. Here the culture embraces a moral which commits altruism even when others do not reciprocate. Is such a society evolutionarily disadvantaged? Likewise, we should ask about the society which embraces conditional reciprocal altruism (e.g.: the aggressive nation). Is such a society merely serving the purpose of its own survival?

In my next post I will turn this question of aggression as a necessary evil toward the current Darfur crisis. I will begin by reviewing the history of the conflict and assessing some of the possible causes of the violence. Then, I will build on previous posts to assess the possibility of both violent and non-violent interventions in the crisis.

No Joke

2007-04-01T07:03:00.000-07:00

To the idea of pacifism there exist a gamut of responses from reverence to avoidance to mockery. I would like to briefly comment on the response of mockery.

The mocker is a person who finds special joy in exulting over others through demeaning language. The mocker does not pause to consider the complexities of life, but rather rapidly moves to an ignorant commentary with a sneer on the face. When the mocker hears the word 'pacifism' he goes to his work without heed to the depths of the idea. "Look where Gandhi's pacifism got him. Isn't it ironic that he was trying to end violence when he was violently killed?" Such a sentence is usually followed by cackles.

Now there is nothing wrong about having fun with a poor idea. Poor ideas deserve to be shown for what they are. But, this is not what the mocker is doing. The mocker reverts to second grade. He sets up his straw man and gets a thrill out of knocking it down time and time again. Should the mocker be interested, he might examine the idea thoroughly for all that it is worth. Perhaps then he would have something of real humor to offer on the subject. I predict that his humor would have a bit more respect though.

Gandhi preached the virtue of courage. To him courage was a more elementary and more weighty virtue than any other. He once said that people who lack courage should not be pacifists. To him it was better that they commit violence and thereby prove their courage versus avoiding violence as a matter of cowardice. A pacifist need be ready to lose his life to the violent for the sake of peace. Additionally, according to Gandhi not only is the person who hides behind pacifism a coward, but also the person who gives intellectual assent to just war but avoids active duty in that war.

To the mocker I say, 'What's to laugh at here? Should we poke fun at courage?' Perhaps the mocker mocks because he lacks the kind of courage needed.

The mocker who scorns pacifists for not achieving 'their goal' of world peace is an ignorant man. The goal of a pacifist is not necessarily to bring global harmony. At the root of the sort of pacifism which I am examining is a refusal to respond violently to violence. Christ on the cross did not pray, "Father help them to follow my example and put an end to violent reprisal. Amen." Nor did He pray like the fundamentalist, "Father, smite them in Thy holy vengeance for what they have done unto Thy faithful servant." No, no, no, no. His prayer was, "Father forgive them for they know not what they do." Listen to that. This is no silly John Lennon idea of the whole world getting caught up in a global hug. Nor is there any cry for retaliation. This sort of pacifism is courageously reckoning with the world as it is and refusing to be conformed to it even to the point of death. This sort of pacifism is about paving the path for future reconciliation, even if it means that the pacifist must lay down his life as the first step in that path.

Kosovo Revisited

2007-03-27T13:59:00.000-07:00

Before moving on to discuss the Darfur crisis of today I would like to reflect on the Kosovo humanitarian crisis of 1999. This brief reflection will put us in good stead to consider Darfur.

During the 1990’s we in

America

had encountered countless news stories of unrest in the former Yugoslav states. Seemingly, state after state succeeded from Yugoslavia in bloody battles between ethnic groups we had never heard of. By 1999 the reports on western TV had become climactic: CNN reported mass graves in Kosovo and displayed grim looking pictures of the tyrannical Milosevic. According to the media, the Serbs were the bad guys and the Kosovar Albanians were the helpless oppressed.

The West decided to take action in Kosovo through a NATO bombing campaign, relegating the UN to pointless arguments over what qualifies as genocide.

When Bill Clinton gave US sanction to the NATO bombing campaign in Kosovo I remember how morally gratified I felt. “Finally, someone is standing up and taking action to combat Serbian oppression,” I thought to myself. No more stalling with foolish diplomacy and no more fruitless debates while thousands in Kosovo are ruthlessly raped, tortured and executed. It was time for NATO to bring justice down on the head of Milosevic and his genocidal maniac comrades.

Over two months later the NATO bombing campaign ended with ‘victory.’ Serbia withdrew from Kosovo and ethnic Albanians were going to be able to return home. Again, I remember how morally gratified I felt that the West had finally stood up and taken action.

And this was the way I continued to feel until recently when I listened to Noam Chomsky’s Gifford Lecture series, “Illegal but Legitimate: a Dubious Doctrine for the Times.” During his lecture Noam points out that the vast majority of Serbian atrocities were committed after the NATO bombing campaign began. Noam’s point is simple, military aggression did not prevent the genocide in Kosovo. In fact, the bombings exacerbated the violence. One retired UN Force Commander (Lt Gen Satish Nambiar) very prophetically noted during the second week of NATO’s bombing campaign that the intervention was fatally flawed. He implied that the atrocities being committed during the bombings may have been spontaneous acts of revenge and retaliation by Serb forces against Kosovar Albanians for urging the West to bomb the Serb forces.

Lt Gen Nambiar states that when Western media portrayed the Serbs as 'evil aggressors' and the Kosovar Albanians as 'innocent' it was not only counterproductive but also dishonest. For instance, the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe (OSCE) published a sobering human rights account of the atrocities in Kosovo. This report shows that once the NATO bombing had ceased, violence in Kosovo was predominately carried out by the Kosovo Liberation Army (ethnic Albanians) on Kosovo Serbs. Four months after the “successful” bombing by NATO had ended the cycle of violence continued with the 'oppressed' attacking the 'oppressors'. Not much had changed in Kosovo. What had changed most remarkably was that the West had appeased its moral conscience through an expensive but sanitized bombing campaign. Whether or not justice was served or subjugated by NATO is a more complicated picture.

Synopsis to Date

2007-03-24T11:38:00.000-07:00

I have begun to explore the infeasibility of state aggression. To date I have discussed the following ideas.

1) Kosovo: a case study in humanitarian intervention in which aggressive intervention worsened the humanitarian crisis.

2) Unwarranted justification: justification for national aggression is unwarranted because human violence is not righted by further human violence.

3) Tainted justice: justification for national aggression is unwarranted because men are not good and are consequently unable to pursue untainted justice.

Next up:

Darfur and Khartoum: the question of war as a necessary evil.

Tainted Justice: War as a Moral Sewer

2007-03-24T07:24:00.001-07:00

In my post on Kosovo I listed two reasons why justification of national aggression is unwarranted: 1) national aggression can never right a wrong; 2) 'good men' (in particular national leaders) are guilty of habitually committing incredible evil acts against humanity and are therefore incapable of pursuing a justice that is untainted by their own moral decay. In this post I will further develop this second reason.

MEN ARE NOT GOOD AND CONSEQUENTLY ARE UNABLE TO PURSUE MORALLY UNTAINTED JUSTICE (E.G.: JUSTICE THAT IS NOT BIASED TO ANY DEGREE BY GREED OR REVENGE).

Descarte has set us Westerners on a path which we cannot un-walk. Our path is one that wanders through a land where perceptions are lying critters seeking to deceive us all. Only in thinking straight can we set our lying perceptions straight. Unfortunately, we have ambled far enough down the twisted path to realize that even our thinking belies us. Consequently our perceptions are uncorrected and our grip on reality can easily be lost. Upon such a dizzying path justice may seem as a dart throw in the dark. In the following paragraphs I will discuss three ways in which justice is lost: 1) natural outcomes; 2) universal greed; 3) oppression. No human justice (or justice system) is immune from at least one of these causes; all fall short of justice.

1) JUSTICE IS LOST BECAUSE OF NATURAL OUTCOMES

There is no doubt that blind justice is employed to help uphold each person's rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Unfortunately for justice it is an impossibility for everyone to have life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. During conditions of famine not all will have access to food. During conditions of war not all will have life. During economic depression not all will have the freedom to choose a vocation. Hell, during Alaskan winters not all will be happy. In our world someone must always play the part of the subservient, the cripple, the starving, the poor, the indigent, the dying, the imprisoned, the soldier, the scape goat, the glum, the suffering. Even if justice is employed in the service of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, it has more work than it can handle.

2) JUSTICE IS LOST BECAUSE OF UNIVERSAL GREED

Additionally, there is substantial doubt that an impartial justice can be employed to ensure that people have their rights upheld. Even those who seek power with pure motives can succumb to the comfort provided them by their position of power. Greed seeps into hearts insidiously and perverts powerful people into power mongers and wealth hoarders. The perverted heart becomes blind to certain people in need of justice. A deceptive web is woven via euphemisms, ethnocentric/geocentric views of global situations, emotional detachment, and rationalizations. This web serves to maintain comfort by preventing feelings of guilt or conviction which would motivate powerful people to give up their comfortable lives for the sake of bringing justice to those in need.

One good example of justice being subjugated for the sake of comfort can be found in the United States of America. Since September 11th the United States has been increasing national security at all costs. The lifestyle of America is at stake (see President Bush's comments encouraging people to go out and spend money in response to Sept 11th terrorist attacks). One cost had been our moral sense regarding torture. Before 9/11 the American government officially condemned the use of cruel treatment to obtain information. After 9/11 torture (although never referred to as 'torture') was used by government officials to obtain information. It was not until debates in Congress during 2006 that this practice was voted against. But even here the President was given the clearance to authorize this practices at his discretion.

Additionally, the United States of America has officially denied habeas corpus rights to detainees at Guantanamo. Habeas corpus is the right to compel the executive to justify itself when it imprisons people. Without this right the executive has unchecked power to imprison people for an indefinite period without evidence of maleficence. Justice is obscured.

One basic moral underpinning for international law is the law of moral universality–"what applies to you applies to me." This moral law is spelled out by the US government in the language of the State Department’s “Universal Declaration of Human Rights.” (www.state.gov/g/drl/hr/60372.htm) If an innocent US citizen were captured in Iran and imprisoned INDEFINITELY by the Iranian government as an unlawful enemy combatant and the Iranian government would not allow the US citizen to contest his imprisonment, would the US Department of Justice object to the imprisonment? I dare say that they would contest with a great deal of power. (For a comparable situation we need look no further than the Iranian capture of British UN troops.) Iran commiting a crime like this would be headline material in America, and yet the US government has little to no qualms about employing this legal practice (or lack thereof) on its own 'unlawful enemy combatants.' If the detainee is accused of committing unlawful combat against the US, why is he not allowed to face the military tribunal and ask them to justly accuse him? In this situation American security is 'maintained' at the expense of justice. I believe this to be a case of greed (for power) subverting the cause of justice.

3) JUSTICE IS LOST BECAUSE OF OPPRESSION.

There even exists a substantial doubt that justice will always be employed in the service of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness; justice does often do free lance work for murder, oppression and the pursuit of misery. Does anyone doubt this? Allow me to give examples from recent history. Murder: OJ Simpson. Oppression: Jim Crow laws. The pursuit of misery: tax hikes (so much for being a liberal:). These all sound fluffy or remote only because they mostly are. But the fact that justice does the work of oppression and misery is very real and very current. This has become vividly apparent to me as I have acquainted myself with the International Justice Mission (www.ijm.org). The Justice Mission intervenes in many cases of forced child prostitution. The process of rescuing a child from prostitution involves secretly recording evidence of pimping, contacting local police and working with the victims and their families. Even if the evidence is recorded and the local police officials are convinced to act, the case is far from over. Often times the pimps will find a way to threaten violence to the victims if they testify in court. At other times the families will deceive the children by convincing them that they were not going to be sold as prostitutes, but as laborers who would help the family earn desperately needed money. If the pimps prevail in wielding their influence, justice will be used to uphold the prostitution rings at trial. In situations such as this we find that ironically justice serves the purposes of injustice.

At this point let me emphasize that I am not making a case against justice. Rather I am making a case against the notion that human justice can be issued from a morally pure stand point. I am not expounding the idea that all behavior is equally acceptable or that all values are equally good. Justice does undoubtedly exist as does a definite good and a definite evil which are requisite for said justice. Murder must either be good or evil; it cannot be both good and evil. It might at sometimes be necessary (Hitler) and at other times be unnecessary (Able), but it is at all times only either good or evil. To make murder arbitrarily good or to make its moral nature (e.g.: good/evil) situationally relative is to turn justice into not-justice. If justice becomes relative, then a society cannot rely on it for vindication. For instance, when a baby's life is endangered in a society which decides that killing a child is morally ambivalent what recourse will that baby have to life?

I am also not asserting that justice should not be pursued. What sort of world would we experience if the weak were not defended or the poor were not aided? Such a world would be dominated by oppressors and would be a miserable hell. My point in this blog is to show the culpability of all people. When justice is pursued by humans it is never pursued from a morally pure position. All people are morally corrupt to one degree or another. When two people fight each other they both begin from a morally tarnished position (regardless of the circumstance that led to the fight). Justifying one of the two people is not possible. They are both wrong. We might say that one needed to fight (self protection) but we cannot say that this person was fighting with a pure heart or a history of pure motives. Undoubtedly the person we attempt to justify has some internal moral flaw (e.g.: rage, bitterness, etc.) which would motivate him to cause harm to the other person. Likewise, when one nation wars against another it is not correct to justify the one nation over the other. Both nations are culpable. Both nations would cause harm to the other for the purposes of selfish gain.

We like to think of an altruistic nation which intervenes for the sake of justice and which is willing to pursue justice even to its own detriment. Reality shows that victors in war always gain power over others in one way or another, be it economically or governmentally or in some other way. Even when justice is being pursued, power is gained by the victor. A power which, again, will insidiously pervert the motives of a nation such that it works to consolidate its hold on power at the expense of justice. If national aggression is to be embraced it will not be by justifying actions. People and nations are always morally culpable. Aggression is always morally evil, even if necessary. Aggression is one of the many moral sewers in which the world's depravity is incarnated in all of its vileness. This sewer serves as a dumping ground for the victorious nation's shit. A place far away from the public's consciousness where the excess depravity of its society can be discarded. The victor can sanitize its own waste as much as it wants to, however, this sanitizing does nothing to make the victor less full of shit.

On a scriptural note I would like to highlight the nation of Israel. Called out by God to be God's people, they were warned by the great YHWH not to stray from His commands (Deut 29). YHWH speaks to them and tells them that the punishment for straying would be invasion by other countries, an invasion that would result in dispersion. Later on (Deut 30) YHWH speaks in a manner which reveals that Israel's rebellion is not a maybe, but a definite. "So it shall be when all of these things have come upon you, the blessing and the curse which I have set before you, and you call them to mind in all nations where the LORD your God has banished you..." When these people fail to love YHWH (a people who carry the authority of YHWH) they are punished. YHWH's chosen authorities are not perfect in their love of YHWH and are not immune to God's judgment.

As a Christian I am reminded that the love of my Heavenly Father is not possible without a demonstrative love for my earthly brother (I John 3:17). Likewise, I hold the nation which does not demonstratively love its brother via an accurate pursuit of justice to be guilty of not loving God. Since all nations are guilty of not loving their brothers this way, all nations are culpable before the great I Am. Justification is out of the equation.

Let us say, then, that national aggression is not justifiable. We may still decide that it is a necessary evil. I will discuss the idea of war as a necessary evil in my post regarding the current Darfur tragedy.

When Indians and Americans meet at the water cooler...

2007-03-21T17:05:00.000-07:00

Today at work I found myself swept into one of those quasi-monologue/quasi-arguments with one of my patients. After treating him he seized the opportunity to talk at me for an hour past what I like to call 'Time to get the hell out of work because it's 5:30.'

The monologue began with an emphasis on Jews living in India and ended on Indian/Pakistani relations. Somewhere in his expositions he expressed his distaste for the way Gandhi convinced the Indian government to pay Pakistan money as a means to end Pakistan's aggression against northern India.

Later he mentioned the good quality of Indian higher learning institutions. Americans are sending their students to Indian universities to learn computer technology. He said that Indian academies are so much superior to American institutions because they give scholarships based upon merit, not upon minority status. This in turn led to his making the point that Indian ingenuity was excellent, especially with regards to their nuclear fuel development. He asserted that India has found a method to generate cheap nuclear fuel; cheaper than fuel anywhere else. From there he began to talk about the deal that President Bush sent to congress regarding trading nuclear fuel to India.

My patient commented that of course India has separated its nuclear program into two sectors: civilian and military; or energy and weapons. The reason why Bush wants to make a deal with India is because of the indigenous fuel techniques that India possesses. Of course the Indian government will not allow American inspection of Indian nuclear weapons plants, because they want to keep their indigenous techniques a secret. This is all very good and, as far as I could imagine, true. But here I had something to say which led to my first entrance into the conversation and also marked the turning of the monologue into an argument. The argument went as follows.

PAUL
I mentioned that many people in the non-proliferation group believe that America should not issue nuclear fuel to a nation if it is not able to inspect all of the nations plants to ensure that the fuel will not be used to develop nuclear arms.

PATIENT
He argued that America would not allow inspection of its military facilities so why should India be expected to allow America to inspect its facilities.

PAUL
In response I cited the non-proliferation treaty which America signed with Germany, France, England, Russia, China and others saying that it would by no means facilitate nuclear proliferation.

PATIENT
He asserted that China did not sign the treaty.

PAUL
I sat there and felt stupid. (Later research revealed that China did sign the treaty)

PATIENT
He went on to say that India has been developing its program and has a high level of demand for nuclear energy. Also, India did not sign any treaty with America and has no responsibility to avoid proliferation.

PAUL
I argued that America did sign the treaty and did have a duty to abide by its word. Selling nuclear fuel to India is cleared by the treaty only if America can ensure that the fuel is not being turned into weapons. This cannot happen when America is not allowed access to some of the Indian fuel plants (i.e.: weapons plants).

PATIENT
He replied that the treaty was signed for purpose of political expediency; the nations who signed it at that time had no dealings in nuclear proliferation. He also commented that when a country makes a decision to avoid the trade of a highly demanded good it isolates itself from other countries and becomes obsolete. It is not practical to avoid dealing in the good.

PAUL
I replied that the deal between America and India would be made at the expense of America keeping its word to avoid nuclear proliferation. It is important for a nation to keep its word. Language is based on a connection between expressed word, behavior and meaning. If we say the word 'yes' and mean 'yes' but act as if the word 'no' were spoken then the meaning of the word 'yes' becomes ambiguous. Communication enters a hall of mirrors in which no one knows which is real: word, behavior or meaning.

At this point the patient went on to monologue further about Indian politics. He recommended a movie (with subtitles) that I should watch which tells the story of Gandhi's assassination from the assassins perspective.

In short...

2007-03-18T12:03:00.000-07:00

I thought I might help my readers by creating a post which more succinctly states my exploration of pacifism to date (for those with less than 10 hours of free time to kill).

I have not been a pacifist and am not a pacifist at current. I am an American boy who has written off pacifism as an impossible stance (influenced by CS Lewis' "Why I am not a pacifist"). I am also a Christian who admires and would like to further embrace the victory that God achieved on the Cross of Christ.

Recently the specter of nuclear holocaust has brought a surprising question to my mind. Is aggression less feasible than pacifism? After all, how does a world of aggressive nations work after they have nuked each other into annihilation? Is aggression really any more feasible than pacifism? Aggression seems to have no survivability advantage given the current state of nuclear proliferation. Consequently, I have opened my mind a bit to the possibility of pacifism as a way to live and govern. This blog is a journal of my rambling thoughts on pacifism.

To date this is what I have basically written:

1) NATO aggression in Kosovo caused harm (not the intended good) to the people of Kosovo.
2) National aggression does not do the work of restorative justice because aggression ads further wronging to a situation.

Here is what I plan to write:

1) Tainted Justice: how morally imperfect people step into moral sewers.
2) Sudan and Khartoum: the question of war as necessary evil.
3) Joseph Kony and Uganda: the question of just reconciliation.
4) Japan-American communications and Pearl Harbor: the question of diplomacy as power.

Unwarranted Justification.

2007-03-15T19:42:00.000-07:00

In my post regarding Kosovo I wrote that justification for national aggression is unwarranted for two reasons: 1) Human violence is not righted by further human violence; 2) Men are not good and consequently are unable to pursue morally untainted justice (e.g.: justice that is not biased to any degree by greed or revenge). In this post I will develop the first of these two reasons further.

"HUMAN VIOLENCE IS NOT RIGHTED BY FURTHER HUMAN VIOLENCE."
In this statement I presume the end course of justice to be the righting of a wrong...bringing restoration to a situation where wronging has occurred. I do not presume the end course of justice to be protecting one's own or demonstrating power or defending the weak (although all of these should occur in the process of righting a wrong). By describing justice in this manner one can discern a thrust for absolute pacifism. No human violence ever sets a situation right; human violence never achieves ultimate justice.

Human violence cannot restore a situation where human violence has occurred. This is true at the inter-governmental level as much as it is at the interpersonal level. For instance, the Dresden fire bombings were an Allied response to Nazi aggression and genocide during WWII. While these bombings (along with all other Allied military action) did end Nazi oppression, it is also true that non-Nazi German citizens were killed in the Dresden bombings. Additionally it is true that those individuals killed and mistreated by the Nazi's before the Dresden bombings were not restored after the Dresden fire bombings. Those killed by the Nazi's remained dead; those who were mistreated by the Nazi's continued to suffer the memories of their mistreatment. While the result of the bombing (along with other allied aggression) was to eliminate Nazi oppression, the result was NOT to restore the German nation to its pre-Nazi era. Germany as a government and as a land of individuals continued to suffer because of the Nazi aggression and the allied attack. Again this is true at both a political and a personal level. Although the Dresden fire bombings (and all other Allied aggression) may have protected many of the oppressed in Europe, they did not achieve ultimate justice.

Logically speaking I might work it out like this. Premise: Present human violence does not right past human violence because of the wronging that present human violence causes. International aggression is caused by Causes A (racial tension, profit disparity, nationalism, religious conflict, etc.) where Nation 1 attacks Nation 2 because of Causes A. In this situation Nation 2 has been wronged by Nation 1 even if Nation 2 shares in the responsibility for Causes A. Nation 2 may be part to blame for Causes A, however invariably some of Causes A are also due in part to Nation 1. Nation 1 is not morally justified in its aggression because they have not begun from a place of moral innocence. Nation 1's aggression will have done nothing more than to sully its moral record further. While some of Causes A may be remedied through aggression (especially if Nation 1 can dominate Nation 2) the remedy comes through a morally imperfect government which used morally imperfect methods for a morally imperfect end. Nation 1 is unjustified in its aggression because it has killed and injured people as a means to changing Causes A. I believe this reasoning is similar to how just war theorists derive support for war as self defense...Nation 1 unjustly attacked Nation 2, now Nation 2 has the right (duty?) to attack the aggressors in Nation 1 for the purpose of self defense.

Now consider the situation where Nation 2 attacks Nation 1 in self defense. When Nation 2 counter-attacks Nation 1, then Nation 1 may be deterred from further aggression (especially if Nation 2 is much stronger than Nation 1), but further wronging will have occurred in the form of Nation 2 killing and injuring people as a means to deterring Nation 1. Deterring Nation 1 is the objective; killing and injuring people is the means. If Nation 2 has the right to defend against Nation 1 because of aggression, Nation 1 then has the right to defend against Nation 2. Nation 1 is now in the situation that Nation 2 was in before Nation 1 aggressed, excepting that it did not begin from a point of passivity like Nation 2 did. It has the moral right (duty?) to attack the aggressors in Nation 2 for the purpose of self defense.

This cycle of aggression continues until: 1) one country achieves domination of the other, 2) mutual peace agreements are made, or 3) the conditions for warfare are removed (e.g.: a common enemy arrives on the scene, natural disaster strikes). When violent conflict has finally ceased Nation 1 may or may not have ameliorated Causes A and Nation 2 may or may not have preserved its autonomy from Nation 1. Both the amelioration of Causes A and the preservation of Nation 2's autonomy are possible (but not guaranteed) only in situations 2 and 3 mentioned above. In the case of situation 3 the remedy achieved by aggression is temporary because of looming disaster (either from the new enemy or from each other once the threat has passed). In situation 2 there is a good possibility that both the amelioration of Causes A and the preservation of Nation 2's autonomy may endure in an era of peace. Even so, through mutual aggression each country is further wronged by the other. Human beings are either injured or lost in an irreparable manner. Even given the possibility of lasting peace in situation 2, human violence has not restored the situation but has rather added further wronging.

Now the obvious response to this argument follows. "Pacifism would restore the situation only if both countries were committed to pacifism. In our world the likelihood of two non-violently conflicting countries being committed to pacifism is low. In fact it is the country committed to pacifism that would be likely to be attacked by a country committed to aggression. In this case, the pacifist nation cannot right the wrongs of the aggressive nation through its pacifism for the reasons discussed in the above paragraph." Essentially this argument points out that once violence has occurred, irreparable wronging has also occurred whether the victims commit to pacifism or not. Pacifism does nothing more than aggression to bring life back from the grave or to erase the memory of oppression. Once violence has occurred there is no reaching ultimate justice. So what would be the reason for embracing pacifism if not for the sake of justice?

In response to this argument I will give an eschatological reason for a pacifist nation to reject aggressive self-defense. As I mentioned above human justice is never morally perfect. Notice that I do not say that justice is never morally perfect. Rather, humans are incapable of pursuing a morally perfect justice. Justice which is morally perfect comes from a morally perfect person. Such a morally perfect person is not tainted by the whims of revenge or by a greed for power. Such a morally perfect person stands in a place to judge rightly. I would assert that such a morally perfect person exists in in the Jewish God, YHWH. I would also assert that YHWH judges everything. The national leaders and citizens which have pursued human violence are judged by YHWH. The nation which responds to aggression with further aggression has ensured its culpability before YHWH.

Here a Jew (or a Christian) might argue that YHWH chooses to act through the nation (people) that wields the sword. It is not they that are acting independently, rather it is YHWH acting through them. Yes, YHWH acts through the nations on earth; but no the nations through which YHWH acts are not held innocent. As YHWH said to Noah, "The end of all flesh has come before Me; for the earth is filled with violence because of them; and behold, I am about to destroy them with the earth." Or as Jesus spoke it, "Put your sword back into its place; for all those who take up the sword shall perish by the sword."

How will a nation be judged at the climax of all time? When all the historians, political spinners , policy advisers and newscasters have ceased from their labor; when there are no longer wars of nation against nation; just before the time when there will be no more death or mourning or crying or pain. When the Word of God rides in upon His white horse (sword jutting out of His mouth) and strikes down the nations, what national legacy is it that will be pleasing to Him?

Nothing to do with love or the Pacific.

2007-03-02T17:58:00.000-08:00

I am neurotic. Often times I cannot sleep because I am either devoted to completing that last household chore or researching some random thought.

Fear drives my neurosis. I fear that buying my house was a mistake. Every last flaw in the house is a sermon preached to me on the theme "Paul is a big fat idiot for buying this house." Every sermon brings an inward sense of condemnation and remorse. I wonder how devalued my house is after one year of owning it. It has probably devalued so much that the bank will claim my firstborn child. Any way, every chore that I do not complete is just another reminder of what a mistake the house is.

What about the research of random thoughts? My fear of amnesia drives my research. I fear amnesia for three good reasons. One: I have amnesia. Two (a): people who have amnesia regularly experience socially awkward pregnant pauses during dialogue. Two (b): I fear being socially awkward. Three: This process of persistently remembering and reflecting upon my amnesia is in itself a fearfully confusing situation.

Researching random thoughts is an exercise which is meant to ameliorate my amnesia. However, it has really become an exercise in futility. Late at night I frequently have novel thoughts (novel to my brain so far as I can recall). I search the internet, my bookshelf and maybe even call Mom. Invariably in my research I run across thousands of new little facts which my mind will readily lose track of. In the morning I will remember that I was researching, but I will remember nothing about the research. If I'm lucky I will remember to put pants on over my boxers before leaving the house.

Kosovo: A case study in humanitarian intervention.

2007-03-02T17:56:00.000-08:00

In this post I write about the NATO bombing in Kosovo of 24 March to 10 June 1999. I begin with a quote from an ethnically Albanian survivor and proceed to describe in brief the period leading up to the NATO bombing and the results of said bombing.

"One 17-year-old boy describes how on his way to Velika Krusa/Krushe e Madhe (Orahovac), he was stopped by police and put in a line of young men. They were forced to say 'Long live Serbia' and give the Serbian sign (three fingers). A 25-year-old mute man, since he could not say "Long live Serbia ", was ordered to get into a pool of water. He was shot in the back and a second time with an automatic weapon. The police then took four or five men from the group and put them in the water, one by one. They forced them to drink from the pool where the bodies were. They were then shot." (Human Rights in Kosovo: As Seen As Told. Volume I, Ch 15)

In 1999 the US collective moral conscience was awakening to the horrors of Serbian violence towards ethnic Albanians in Kosovo. National news reports were conveying stories, similar to the one above, to incensed American households. The American public's conscience was especially sensitive due to a pervasive sense of guilt over American inactivity during the Rwandan genocide of 1994. As Senator Kerry said of the Bosnian confict, "History has taught us that we can't sit idly by while people commit these incredible evil acts against humanity" (Boston Globe, 1994). Kerry used this rational for NATO intervention in Bosnia in 1994; he also backed NATO intervention in Kosovo in 1999. The scope of political involvement was greater than just the States, though. The political outcry against Serbian atrocities was international; all the NATO nations began to demand withdrawal of Serbian troops from Kosovo. After continued belligerence by the Serbian government, the moral outcry from the West became so great that a NATO bombing campaign was begun in Kosovo on March 24, 1999. The plan was to end Serbian violence by striking the Serb forces in Kosovo.

When the NATO bombing campaign began on March 24th, areas that had previously been unaffected were targeted by Serbs. "Indiscriminate attacks on populated areas, sporadic prior to 24 March 1999, became a widespread occurrence after that date. For many civilians there was no chance to escape and many were killed due to indiscriminate shelling or grenade attacks by Serbian forces" (Human Rights in Kosovo: As Seen As Told. Volume I, Ch 4). Apparently when the bombing began, Serb forces immediately realized that the Albanian Kosovars had solicited the help of the West. On the day the bombing began Serbs began taking revenge on ethnic Albanians in Kosovo for "bringing the NATO bombing campaign upon their troops."

The bombing campaign received popular backing in America because of the sensational reports of Serbian violence. Something had to be done. History had taught us that we "couldn't just sit idly by while people commit these evil acts." How ironic is it that the majority of Serbian violence occurred after the NATO bombing campaign began? In fact the story of the 17-year-old boy quoted at the beginning of this blog occurred eight days after the campaign had begun. What is the moral of the blog? In the Kosovo situation, international aggression brought further harm to the 'victims' to such a degree as to be considered a blunder from a humanitarian perspective. Let me remind you that it was the humanitarian issue that brought the public on board with the NATO campaign, not any issue of state rights or oil pipelines.

At this point I cannot resist a little editorializing related to the above Kerry quote. This bit of political spin was yet another interpretation on the quote, 'All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing,' which is falsely attributed to Edmund Burke. Often lurking in the dark corners of pronouncements like these is an insidious evil far greater than the evil of which they speak. The insidious evil comes in the form of unwarranted justification of national aggression. Unwarranted in two ways. First, because human violence can never be made right by further human violence; the result of human violence is always a certain wronging even if a degree of righting is achieved. Second, because often the 'good men' represented by such a saying are far from innocent in the 'incredible evil acts against humanity' category. Justification is out of the question with concern to any approval of human violence.

Let us say, then, that national aggression is not justifiable. We may still decide that it is a necessary evil. For instance, how can one say that national aggression should not be pursued when such wickedly violent acts are being perpetrated upon vulnerable people? To make this question even more vivid we could consider the story of a Muslim woman in Bosnia. She says, "My student, Zoran, the only son of my neighbor, urinated into my mouth. As the bearded hooligans standing around laughed, he told me: 'You are good for nothing else, you stinking Muslim woman...' I do not know whether I first heard the cry or felt the blow. My former colleague, a teacher of physics, was yelling like mad, 'Ustasha, ustasha....' and kept hitting me. Wherever he could. I have become insensitive to pain. But my soul? It hurts." (The Killing of Sarajevo, Vukovic) What are we to do with this woman? Sit around and pretend nothing is happening? Allow her tormentors to take advantage? Is it not right to flex a little muscle on behalf of the weak? I will return to this strand of thought in another blog regarding the current Darfur humanitarian crisis. Just thought I'd raise the question now.

One positive in this whole story is that former President Clinton authorized the establishment of Camp Bondsteel after the NATO bombing campaign. Fortuitously it was established along Corridor 8 where the AMBO oil pipeline will run. America now has military presence along a corridor that should provide lucrative Caspian Sea oil. The legal company that the former President joined after leaving the presidency has overseen the legality of the AMBO contract while Halliburton has established connections with the company performing the construction. Corridor 8 pipeline development in the Balkan area had been in the works since 1996...three years before the NATO bombing. Even though thousands of Serbs and Albanians died after the NATO attack, at least the US might be able to get some economic gain from it all.

Reconsidering State Aggression.

2007-03-02T17:20:00.000-08:00

My topic of interest is pacifism. For most of my life I have written off pacifism as an infeasible stance. After all, how does pacifism work in a world of Hitlers and the like? A state must have a policy of aggression for the purpose of self defense and world policing...right?

Recently I've been very moved by the imagery of Jesus on the cross praying, "Father forgive them, they know not what they do." So, I am exploring pacifism these days. I will begin this exploration by examining the dynamics of the 1999 NATO bombing campaign in Kosovo. My hypothesis is that the NATO bombing campaign was ineffective in preventing genocide and, at the worst, even exacerbated the genocide.

I also hope to write on the following topics related to the following current events:

1) International Policing: Khartoum and Darfur.
2) Reconciliation: Joseph Kony and the people of northern Uganda.
3) Diplomacy: Japan-American communications leading up to Pearl Harbor.

My general thrust is to explore the infeasibility of sate aggression in the nuclear age.