[Peace-discuss] Fwd: from Jonathan Glover 2/05/03

[Ricky Baldwin]

--- Robert McKim <r-mckim at uiuc.edu> wrote:
> Date: Tue, 4 Feb 2003 22:28:26 -0600
> To: baldwinricky at yahoo.com
> From: Robert McKim <r-mckim at uiuc.edu>
> Subject: from Jonathan Glover 2/05/03
> 
> Ricky, This is quite a good essay; if you agree you
> may want to 
> forward it to the entire AWARE group.  Regards,
> Robert
> 
> 
> 
> 
> >
> >Can we justify killing the children of Iraq?
> >
> >If we go to war with Saddam, thousands of children
> will die. So why 
> >aren't we agonising over this in the way we would
> the possible death 
> >of a child in Britain? Jonathan Glover argues that
> we do not have 
> >the moral authority to start such a conflict
> >
> >Wednesday February 5, 2003
> >The Guardian
> >
> >I have spent the past few years discussing medical
> ethics with 
> >students who are often doctors or nurses. Their
> work involves them 
> >in life-and-death decisions. Our discussions have
> reminded me of 
> >what many of us experience when we are close to
> someone in acute 
> >medical crisis. When a parent is dying slowly in
> distress or 
> >indignity, or when a baby is born with such severe
> disabilities that 
> >life may be a burden, the family and the medical
> team agonise over 
> >whether to continue life support. No one finds such
> a decision easy 
> >or reaches it lightly. What is at stake is too
> serious for anyone to 
> >rush the discussion.
> >
> >It is hard not to be struck by the contrast between
> these painful 
> >deliberations and the hasty way people think about
> a war in which 
> >thousands will be killed. The people killed in an
> attack on Iraq 
> >will not be so different from those in hospital
> whose lives we treat 
> >so seriously. Some will be old; many will be babies
> and children. To 
> >think of just one five-year-old Iraqi girl, who may
> die in this war, 
> >as we would think of that same girl in a medical
> crisis is to see 
> >the enormous burden of proof on those who would
> justify killing her. 
> >Decisions for war seem less agonising than the
> decision to let a 
> >girl in hospital die. But only because anonymity
> and distance numb 
> >the moral imagination.
> >
> >Questions about war are not so different from other
> life-and-death 
> >decisions. War kills many people, but each person
> has a life no more 
> >to be lightly destroyed than that of a child in
> hospital. This moral 
> >seriousness of killing is reflected in the ethics
> of war. If a war 
> >is to be justified, at least two conditions have to
> be met. The war 
> >has to prevent horrors worse than it will cause.
> And, as a means of 
> >prevention, it has to be the last resort. Killing
> people should not 
> >be considered until all alternative means have been
> tried - and have 
> >failed.
> >
> >Those supporting the proposed war on Iraq have
> claimed that it will 
> >avert the greater horror of terrorist use of
> biological or nuclear 
> >weapons. But this raises questions not properly
> answered. It is not 
> >yet clear whether Iraq even has these weapons, or
> whether their 
> >having them would be more of a threat than
> possession by other 
> >countries with equally horrible regimes, such as
> North Korea. No 
> >good evidence has been produced of any link to
> terrorist groups. 
> >Above all, there is no evidence of any serious
> exploration by the 
> >American or British governments of any means less
> terrible than war. 
> >Is it impossible to devise some combination of
> diplomacy and 
> >continuing inspection to deal with any possible
> threat? Is killing 
> >Iraqis really the only means left to us?
> >
> >The weak answers given to these questions by the
> two governments 
> >proposing war explain why they have persuaded so
> few people in the 
> >rest of Europe, or even in this country. It is
> heartening how few 
> >are persuaded by claims about intelligence too
> secret to reveal, or 
> >by the attempts to hurry us into war by leaders who
> say their 
> >patience is exhausted. We would never agree to
> removing the baby's 
> >life support on the basis of medical information
> too confidential 
> >for the doctor to tell us. Still less would we
> accept this because 
> >the doctor's patience has run out. It really does
> seem that this 
> >time many of us are thinking about war with
> something like the same 
> >seriousness.
> >There is an extra dimension to the decision about
> this particular 
> >war. The choice made this time may be one of the
> most important 
> >decisions about war ever made. This is partly
> because of the great 
> >risks of even a "successful" war. The defeat even
> of Saddam 
> >Hussein's cruel dictatorship may contribute to
> long-term enmity and 
> >conflict between the west and the Islamic world. In
> what is widely 
> >thought in the Islamic world to be both an
> unjustified war and an 
> >attack on Islam, an American victory may be seen as
> an Islamic 
> >humiliation to be avenged. This war may do for our
> century what 1914 
> >did for the 20th century. And there is an ominous
> sense of our 
> >leaders, as in 1914, being dwarfed by the scale of
> events and 
> >sleepwalking into decisions with implications far
> more serious than 
> >they understand.
> >
> >The other reason for the special seriousness of the
> decision about 
> >this war has to do with the dangerous
> post-September 11 world we 
> >live in. That day showed how much damage a low-tech
> terrorist attack 
> >can do to even the most heavily armed country. The
> US was like a 
> >bull, able to defeat any other bull it locked horns
> with, but 
> >suddenly unable to defend itself against a swarm of
> bees. All 
> >countries are vulnerable to such attacks. Combining
> this thought 
> >with the proliferation of biological weapons, and
> possibly of 
> >portable nuclear weapons, suggests a very
> frightening world.
> >This dangerous world is often seen as part of the
> argument in 
> >support of the war. If we don't act now, won't the
> problem, as Tony 
> >Blair said, "come back to haunt future
> generations"? But further 
> >thought may raise doubts about whether the
> dangerous world of 
> >terrorism and proliferation really counts for the
> war rather than 
> >against it.
> >
> >The frightening world we live in is like the "state
> of nature" 
> >described by Thomas Hobbes. What made life in the
> state of nature 
> >"solitary, poor, nasty, brutish and short" was the
> strength of the 
> >reasons people had to fight each other. There was
> no ruler to keep 
> >the peace. So everyone knew the strong would attack
> the weak for 
> >their possessions. But the instability was worse
> than this. My fear 
> >of attack by you gives me a reason for a
> pre-emptive strike against 
> >you before you get strong enough to start. But my
> reason for a 
> >pre-emptive strike against you in turn gives you a
> reason for a 
> >pre-emptive strike against me. And so the spiral of
> fear and 
> >violence goes on. Hobbes thought the only solution
> was the creation 
> >of Leviathan, a ruler with absolute power. Such a
> ruler could impose 
> >a peace otherwise unobtainable. The dangers of
> tyranny and injustice 
> >are outweighed by the dangers of a world where no
> one has power to 
> >impose peace.
> >
> >Our present international world seems alarmingly
> like the Hobbesian 
> >state of nature. Nations (and perhaps at least as
> frighteningly, 
> >small groups such as al-Qaida) have many motives
> for attack and our 
> >protection is flimsy. The pure Hobbesian solution
> to this would be a 
> >social contract between all such states and groups,
> giving all power 
> >to one to act as absolute ruler. This is unlikely
> to happen. But 
> >there is a naturally evolving equivalent. Sometimes
> one dominant 
> >power emerges, and imposes Pax Romana or Pax
> Britannicus or, in our 
> >time, Pax Americana. The Hobbesian suggestion is
> that, as the way 
> >out of the law of the jungle, we should welcome the
> emergence of a 
> >superpower that dominates the world.
> >
> >In his book, Perpetual Peace, Immanuel Kant saw
> that the Hobbesian 
> >solution was not the best possible. The Hobbesian
> ruler has no moral 
> >authority. His only claim to impose peace is his
> strength. Conflict 
> >is not eliminated, but suppressed by sheer
> strength. If the ruler 
> >grows weak, the conflict will surface again.
> >
> >This applies to the international world. A
> superpower with an empire 
> >may suppress conflict. But, as Pax Romana and Pax
> Britannicus remind 
> >us, empires fall as well as rise. Such a peace is
> unlikely to last 
> >for ever. And empires act at least partly out of
> self-interest, so 
> >the imposed arrangements may not be just.
> Palestinians, for 
> >instance, may be unhappy to entrust their future to
> Pax Americana. 
> >But absolutely central is the lack of moral
> authority of anything 
> >imposed by force. To put it crudely, no one
> appointed the US, or the 
> >US and Britain, or Nato, to be world policeman.
> >
> >Kant's solution was a world federation of
> nation-states. They would 
> >agree to give the federation a monopoly of the use
> of force. This 
> >use of force would have a moral authority derived
> from its 
> >impartiality and from its being set up by
> agreement. In the present 
> >world, the Kantian solution might be a proper UN
> police force, with 
> >adequate access to funds and to force of
> overwhelming strength. 
> >There would have to be agreed criteria for its
> intervention, 
> >together with a court to interpret those criteria
> and to authorise 
> >intervention. There are many problems with this
> solution. But 
> >something like it is the only way of policing the
> global village 
> >with impartiality and authority. It is the only
> hope of permanently 
> >bringing to an end the cycle of violence.
> >A central decision of our time is between these two
> ways of trying 
> >to keep the peace in the global village. In a
> Hobbesian village, 
> >violence is quelled by a posse rounded up from the
> strongest 
> >villagers. It is a Texas cowboy village, or
> Sicilian village with 
> >mafia gangs. In a Kantian village, there is a
> strong police force, 
> >backed up by the authority of law and the courts.
> The Kantian 
> >village may seem utopian. But there are reasons for
> thinking it is 
> >not impossible. In the first half of the 20th
> century, Europe gave 
> >the world colonialism, genocide and two world wars.
> Then it would 
> >have seemed utopian to think of the present
> European Union. Through 
> >pressure of experiencing the alternative, a
> federation did come 
> >about. With luck, Kant's proposal may come about
> because we see the 
> >importance of not experiencing what is likely to be
> a really 
> >terrible alternative.
> >
> >For all its inadequacies, the UN is the embryonic
> form of the rule 
> >of law in the world. This is another reason why the
> proposed war 
> >could be so disastrous. Every time Bush or Blair
> say they will not 
> >be bound by a security council veto, without
> knowing it they are 
> >Hobbesians. Never mind moral authority: we, the
> powerful, will 
> >decide what happens. If we want to make a
> pre-emptive strike, we 
> >will do so. And we will listen to the UN provided
> it says what we 
> >tell it to say.
> >Some of us fear the instability of a world of
> unauthorised 
> >pre-emptive strikes. We hope our precarious
> situation may nudge 
> >world leaders further towards the rule of law,
> towards giving more 
> >authority and power to the UN. The alternative is
> terrifying. This 
> >gives an extra dimension of menace to the attitude
> of the American 
> >and British governments to this crisis. The erosion
> of the world's 
> >attempt at international authority is something to
> add to the 
> >cruelty and killing of this lawless war we are
> being asked to 
> >support.
> >
> >· Jonathan Glover is director of the Centre of
> Medical Law and 
> >Ethics at King's College, London, and author of
> Humanity: A Moral 
> >History of the 20th Century.
> 
> 
> 
> 


__________________________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now.
http://mailplus.yahoo.com