[Vision2020] War Ethics!
Linda Pall
lpall@moscow.com
Mon, 10 Mar 2003 12:54:11 -0800
This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
------=_NextPart_000_0001_01C2E704.25C13660
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Dear Ms. Rwiza and Visionaries,
War is the LAST alternative to aggression and international harm. =
Jonathan Glover is correct.
Take a good look at this past Sunday New York Times editorial page and =
op-ed page. The lead editorial said it well: now is not the time nor is =
Iraq the place for the United States to become the aggressor and almost =
singular enforcer of disarmament. Jimmy Carter and Tom Friedman both =
wrote movingly and morally about the need for another way other than =
bombing, killing and abandonment of diplomacy.
I look at my students who are planning for commissioning in the military =
in the next few months and the thought of placing them anywhere near =
harm's way before we have done all we can through diplomacy and =
international law makes me weep.=20
I remember my friend, May Al-Jibouri, from graduate school at WSU in the =
late 1970s and know that she and her family are back in Iraq. The =
thought of May's children and grandchildren (probably now) in harm's way =
makes me weep.
We who are against war with Iraq on the Bush Administration's terms =
value our precious military men and women and our precious peace =
activists who are willing to continue the dialogue about a just war.
Shalom,
Linda Pall
----- Original Message -----=20
From: katetegeilwe rwiza=20
To: vision2020@moscow.com=20
Sent: Monday, March 10, 2003 9:57 AM
Subject: [Vision2020] War Ethics!
By Jonathan Glover.
Wednesday February 5, 2003
The Guardian=20
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 agonizes over whether to c! ontinue 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.=20
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 agonizing than the decision to let a girl in hospital die. =
But only because ano! nymity and distance numb the moral imagination.=20
Questions about wa r 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.=20
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?=20
The weak answers given to these questions by the two governments =
proposing war explain why the! y 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 remove 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.=20
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 c! onflict 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.=20
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. Al l 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.=20
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.=20
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.=20
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 R! omana 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.=20
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.=20
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.=20
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 an! d to force of overwhelming strength. There would have to be =
agreed cri teria for its intervention, together with a court to =
interpret those criteria and to authorize 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.=20
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 f! irst 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.=20
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.=20
Some of us fear the instability o f a world of unauthorized =
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.=20
=B7 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.
486 Taylor Avenue # 3,=20
Moscow,
Idaho 83843,
USA
Tel.: 1-208-885-1452
WebPage: http://www.uidaho.edu/~rwiz2091
-------------------------------------------------------------------------=
-----
The new MSN 8: smart spam protection and 2 months FREE* =
_____________________________________________________ List services made =
available by First Step Internet, serving the communities of the Palouse =
since 1994. http://www.fsr.net mailto:Vision2020@moscow.com =
=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=
=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=
=AF=AF=AF=20
------=_NextPart_000_0001_01C2E704.25C13660
Content-Type: text/html;
charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML xmlns:st1 =3D "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags" xmlns:o =
=3D=20
"urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office"><HEAD>
<META http-equiv=3DContent-Type content=3D"text/html; =
charset=3Diso-8859-1">
<META content=3D"MSHTML 5.50.4807.2300" name=3DGENERATOR>
<STYLE></STYLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY bgColor=3D#ffffff>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>Dear Ms. Rwiza and =
Visionaries,</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>War is the LAST alternative to =
aggression and=20
international harm. Jonathan Glover is correct.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>Take a good look at this past Sunday =
New York Times=20
editorial page and op-ed page. The lead editorial said it well: now is =
not the=20
time nor is Iraq the place for the United States to become the aggressor =
and=20
almost singular enforcer of disarmament. Jimmy Carter and Tom Friedman =
both=20
wrote movingly and morally about the need for another way other than =
bombing,=20
killing and abandonment of diplomacy.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>I look at my students who are planning =
for=20
commissioning in the military in the next few months and the thought of =
placing=20
them anywhere near harm's way before we have done all we can through =
diplomacy=20
and international law makes me weep. </FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>I remember my friend, May Al-Jibouri, =
from graduate=20
school at WSU in the late 1970s and know that she and her family are =
back in=20
Iraq. The thought of May's children and grandchildren (probably now) in =
harm's=20
way makes me weep.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>We who are against war with Iraq on the =
Bush=20
Administration's terms value our precious military men and women=20
<EM><STRONG>and</STRONG></EM> our precious peace activists who are =
willing to=20
continue the dialogue about a just war.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>Shalom,</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>Linda Pall</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2></FONT> </DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE=20
style=3D"PADDING-RIGHT: 0px; PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; =
BORDER-LEFT: #000000 2px solid; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px">
<DIV style=3D"FONT: 10pt arial">----- Original Message ----- </DIV>
<DIV=20
style=3D"BACKGROUND: #e4e4e4; FONT: 10pt arial; font-color: =
black"><B>From:</B>=20
<A title=3Drwiza@hotmail.com =
href=3D"mailto:rwiza@hotmail.com">katetegeilwe=20
rwiza</A> </DIV>
<DIV style=3D"FONT: 10pt arial"><B>To:</B> <A =
title=3Dvision2020@moscow.com=20
href=3D"mailto:vision2020@moscow.com">vision2020@moscow.com</A> </DIV>
<DIV style=3D"FONT: 10pt arial"><B>Sent:</B> Monday, March 10, 2003 =
9:57=20
AM</DIV>
<DIV style=3D"FONT: 10pt arial"><B>Subject:</B> [Vision2020] War =
Ethics!</DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2></FONT><FONT face=3DArial =
size=3D2></FONT><BR></DIV>
<DIV>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>
<P class=3DMsoNormal style=3D"MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt"><SPAN=20
style=3D"COLOR: black; mso-bidi-font-family: Arial">By Jonathan=20
Glover.<BR><BR></SPAN><st1:date Year=3D"2003" Day=3D"5" =
Month=3D"2"><I><SPAN=20
style=3D"COLOR: black; mso-bidi-font-family: Tahoma">Wednesday =
February 5,=20
2003</SPAN></I></st1:date><I><SPAN=20
style=3D"COLOR: black; mso-bidi-font-family: Tahoma"><BR>The Guardian=20
<BR><BR></SPAN></I><SPAN style=3D"COLOR: black; mso-bidi-font-family: =
Tahoma">I=20
have spent the past few years discussing medical ethics with students =
who are=20
often doctors or nurses. Their work involves them in life-and-death =
decisions.=20
Our discussions have reminded me of what many of us experience when we =
are=20
close to someone in acute medical crisis. When a parent is dying =
slowly in=20
distress or indignity, or when a baby is born with such severe =
disabilities=20
that life may be a burden, the family and the medical team agonizes =
over=20
whether to c! ontinue life support. No one finds such a decision easy =
or=20
reaches it lightly. What is at stake is too serious for anyone to rush =
the=20
discussion. <BR>It is hard not to be struck by the contrast between =
these=20
painful deliberations and the hasty way people think about a war in =
which=20
thousands will be killed. The people killed in an attack on=20
</SPAN><st1:country-region><st1:place><SPAN=20
style=3D"COLOR: black; mso-bidi-font-family: =
Tahoma">Iraq</SPAN></st1:place></st1:country-region><SPAN=20
style=3D"COLOR: black; mso-bidi-font-family: Tahoma"> will not be so =
different=20
from those in hospital whose lives we treat so seriously. Some will be =
old;=20
many will be babies and children. To think of just one five-year-old =
Iraqi=20
girl, who may die in this war, as we would think of that same girl in =
a=20
medical crisis is to see the enormous burden of proof on those who =
would=20
justify killing her. Decisions for war seem less agonizing than the =
decision=20
to let a girl in hospital die. But only because ano! nymity and =
distance numb=20
the moral imagination. <BR>Questions about wa r are not so different =
from=20
other life-and-death decisions. War kills many people, but each person =
has a=20
life no more to be lightly destroyed than that of a child in hospital. =
This=20
moral seriousness of killing is reflected in the ethics of war. If a =
war is to=20
be justified, at least two conditions have to be met. The war has to =
prevent=20
horrors worse than it will cause. And, as a means of prevention, it =
has to be=20
the last resort. Killing people should not be considered until all =
alternative=20
means have been tried - and have failed. <BR>Those supporting the =
proposed war=20
on </SPAN><st1:country-region><st1:place><SPAN=20
style=3D"COLOR: black; mso-bidi-font-family: =
Tahoma">Iraq</SPAN></st1:place></st1:country-region><SPAN=20
style=3D"COLOR: black; mso-bidi-font-family: Tahoma"> have claimed =
that it will=20
avert the greater horror of terrorist use of biological or nuclear =
weapons.=20
But this raises questions not properly answered. It is not yet clear =
whether=20
</SPAN><st1:country-region><st1:place!><SPAN=20
style=3D"COLOR: black; mso-bidi-font-family: =
Tahoma">Iraq</SPAN></st1:place!></st1:country-region><SPAN=20
style=3D"COLOR: black; mso-bidi-font-family: Tahoma"> even has these =
weapons, or=20
whether their having them would be more of a threat than possession by =
other=20
countries with equally horrible regimes, such as=20
</SPAN><st1:country-region><st1:place><SPAN=20
style=3D"COLOR: black; mso-bidi-font-family: Tahoma">North=20
Korea</SPAN></st1:place></st1:country-region><SPAN=20
style=3D"COLOR: black; mso-bidi-font-family: Tahoma">. No good =
evidence has been=20
produced of any link to terrorist groups. Above all, there is no =
evidence of=20
any serious exploration by the American or British governments of any =
means=20
less terrible than war. Is it impossible to devise some combination of =
diplomacy and continuing inspection to deal with any possible threat? =
Is=20
killing Iraqis really the only means left to us? <BR>The weak answers =
given to=20
these questions by the two governments proposing war explain why the! =
y have=20
persuaded so few people in the rest of </SPAN><st1:place><SPAN=20
style=3D"COLOR: black; mso-bidi-font-family: =
Tahoma">Europe</SPAN></st1:place><SPAN=20
style=3D"COLOR: black; mso-bidi-font-family: Tahoma">, or even in this =
country.=20
It is heartening how few are persuaded by claims about intelligence =
too secret=20
to reveal, or by the attempts to hurry us into war by leaders who say =
their=20
patience is exhausted. We would never agree to remove the baby's life =
support=20
on the basis of medical information too confidential for the doctor to =
tell=20
us. Still less would we accept this because the doctor's patience has =
run out.=20
It really does seem that this time many of us are thinking about war =
with=20
something like the same seriousness. <BR>There is an extra dimension =
to the=20
decision about this particular war. The choice made this time may be =
one of=20
the most important decisions about war ever made. This is partly =
because of=20
the great risks of even a "successful" war. The defeat even of Saddam=20
Hussein's cruel dictatorship may contribute to long-term enmity and c! =
onflict=20
between the west and the Islamic world. In what is widely thought in =
the=20
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=20
may do for our century what 1914 did for the 20th century. And there =
is an=20
ominous sense of our leaders, as in 1914, being dwarfed by the scale =
of events=20
and sleepwalking into decisions with implications far more serious =
than they=20
understand. <BR>The other reason for the special seriousness of the =
decision=20
about this war has to do with the dangerous post-September 11 world we =
live=20
in. That day showed how much damage a low-tech terrorist attack can do =
to even=20
the most heavily armed country. The=20
</SPAN><st1:country-region><st1:place><SPAN=20
style=3D"COLOR: black; mso-bidi-font-family: =
Tahoma">US</SPAN></st1:place></st1:country-region><SPAN=20
style=3D"COLOR: black; mso-bidi-font-family: Tahoma"> was like a bull, =
able to=20
defeat any other bull it locked horns ! with, but suddenly unable to =
defend=20
itself against a swarm of bees. Al l countries are vulnerable to such =
attacks.=20
Combining this thought with the proliferation of biological weapons, =
and=20
possibly of portable nuclear weapons, suggests a very frightening =
world.=20
<BR>This dangerous world is often seen as part of the argument in =
support of=20
the war. If we don't act now, won't the problem, as Tony Blair said, =
"come=20
back to haunt future generations"? But further thought may raise =
doubts about=20
whether the dangerous world of terrorism and proliferation really =
counts for=20
the war rather than against it. <BR>The frightening world we live in =
is like=20
the "state of nature" described by Thomas Hobbes. What made life in =
the state=20
of nature "solitary, poor, nasty, brutish and short" was the strength =
of the=20
reasons people had to fight each other. There was no ruler to keep the =
peace.=20
So everyone knew the strong would attack the weak for their =
possessions. But=20
the instability was worse than this. My fear of attack by you gives me =
a=20
reason for a pre-emptive strike ! against you before you get strong =
enough to=20
start. But my reason for a pre-emptive strike against you in turn =
gives you a=20
reason for a pre-emptive strike against me. And so the spiral of fear =
and=20
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=20
otherwise unobtainable. The dangers of tyranny and injustice are =
outweighed by=20
the dangers of a world where no one has power to impose peace. <BR>Our =
present=20
international world seems alarmingly like the Hobbesian state of =
nature.=20
Nations (and perhaps at least as frighteningly, small groups such as =
al-Qaida)=20
have many motives for attack and our protection is flimsy. The pure =
Hobbesian=20
solution to this would be a social contract between all such states =
and=20
groups, giving all power to one to act as absolute ruler. This is =
unlikely to=20
happen. But there is a naturally evolving equivalent. Sometimes one =
dominant=20
power emerges, and imposes Pax R! omana or Pax Britannicus or, in our =
time,=20
Pax Americana. The Hobbesian suggestion is that, as the way out of the =
law of=20
the jungle, we should welcome the emergence of a superpower that =
dominates the=20
world. <BR>In his book, Perpetual Peace, Immanuel Kant saw that the =
Hobbesian=20
solution was not the best possible. The Hobbesian ruler has no moral=20
authority. His only claim to impose peace is his strength. Conflict is =
not=20
eliminated, but suppressed by sheer strength. If the ruler grows weak, =
the=20
conflict will surface again. <BR>This applies to the international =
world. A=20
superpower with an empire may suppress conflict. But, as Pax Romana =
and Pax=20
Britannicus remind us, empires fall as well as rise. Such a peace is =
unlikely=20
to last for ever. And empires act at least partly out of =
self-interest, so the=20
imposed arrangements may not be just. Palestinians, for instance, may =
be=20
unhappy to entrust their future to Pax Americana. But absolutely =
central is=20
the lack of moral authority of anything imposed by force. To put it =
crudely,=20
no one appointed the </SPAN>! <st1:country-region><st1:place><SPAN=20
style=3D"COLOR: black; mso-bidi-font-family: =
Tahoma">US</SPAN></st1:place></st1:country-region><SPAN=20
style=3D"COLOR: black; mso-bidi-font-family: Tahoma">, or the=20
</SPAN><st1:country-region><st1:place><SPAN=20
style=3D"COLOR: black; mso-bidi-font-family: =
Tahoma">US</SPAN></st1:place></st1:country-region><SPAN=20
style=3D"COLOR: black; mso-bidi-font-family: Tahoma"> and=20
</SPAN><st1:country-region><st1:place><SPAN=20
style=3D"COLOR: black; mso-bidi-font-family: =
Tahoma">Britain</SPAN></st1:place></st1:country-region><SPAN=20
style=3D"COLOR: black; mso-bidi-font-family: Tahoma">, or NATO, to be =
world=20
policeman. <BR>Kant's solution was a world federation of =
nation-states. They=20
would agree to give the federation a monopoly of the use of force. =
This use of=20
force would have a moral authority derived from its impartiality and =
from its=20
being set up by agreement. In the present world, the Kantian solution =
might be=20
a proper UN police force, with adequate access to funds an! d to force =
of=20
overwhelming strength. There would have to be agreed cri teria for its =
intervention, together with a court to interpret those criteria and to =
authorize intervention. There are many problems with this solution. =
But=20
something like it is the only way of policing the global village with=20
impartiality and authority. It is the only hope of permanently =
bringing to an=20
end the cycle of violence. <BR>A central decision of our time is =
between these=20
two ways of trying to keep the peace in the global village. In a =
Hobbesian=20
village, violence is quelled by a posse rounded up from the strongest=20
villagers. It is a </SPAN><st1:State><st1:place><SPAN=20
style=3D"COLOR: black; mso-bidi-font-family: =
Tahoma">Texas</SPAN></st1:place></st1:State><SPAN=20
style=3D"COLOR: black; mso-bidi-font-family: Tahoma"> cowboy village, =
or=20
Sicilian village with mafia gangs. In a Kantian village, there is a =
strong=20
police force, backed up by the authority of law and the courts. The =
Kantian=20
village may seem utopian. But there are reasons for thinking it is not =
impossible. In the f! irst half of the 20th century, =
</SPAN><st1:place><SPAN=20
style=3D"COLOR: black; mso-bidi-font-family: =
Tahoma">Europe</SPAN></st1:place><SPAN=20
style=3D"COLOR: black; mso-bidi-font-family: Tahoma"> gave the world=20
colonialism, genocide and two world wars. Then it would have seemed =
utopian to=20
think of the present European Union. Through pressure of experiencing =
the=20
alternative, a federation did come about. With luck, Kant's proposal =
may come=20
about because we see the importance of not experiencing what is likely =
to be a=20
really terrible alternative. <BR>For all its inadequacies, the UN is =
the=20
embryonic form of the rule of law in the world. This is another reason =
why the=20
proposed war could be so disastrous. Every time Bush or Blair say they =
will=20
not be bound by a Security Council veto, without knowing it they are=20
Hobbesians. Never mind moral authority: we, the powerful, will decide =
what=20
happens. If we want to make a pre-emptive strike, we will do so. And =
we will=20
listen to the UN provided! it says what we tell it to say. <BR>Some of =
us fear=20
the instability o f a world of unauthorized pre-emptive strikes. We =
hope our=20
precarious situation may nudge world leaders further towards the rule =
of law,=20
towards giving more authority and power to the UN. The alternative is=20
terrifying. This gives an extra dimension of menace to the attitude of =
the=20
American and British governments to this crisis. The erosion of the =
world's=20
attempt at international authority is something to add to the cruelty =
and=20
killing of this lawless war we are being asked to support.=20
<BR><BR><B><I>=B7</I></B><I> Jonathan Glover is director of the Centre =
of=20
Medical Law and Ethics at King's College,=20
</I></SPAN><st1:City><st1:place><I><SPAN=20
style=3D"COLOR: black; mso-bidi-font-family: =
Tahoma">London</SPAN></I></st1:place></st1:City><I><SPAN=20
style=3D"COLOR: black; mso-bidi-font-family: Tahoma">, and author of =
Humanity: A=20
Moral History of the 20th =
Century.</SPAN></I><o:p></o:p></P><BR><BR><BR>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV>486 Taylor Avenue # 3, </DIV>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV>Moscow,</DIV>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV>Idaho 83843,</DIV>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV><STRONG>USA</STRONG></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV>Tel.: 1-208-885-1452</DIV>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV>WebPage: <A=20
=
href=3D"http://www.uidaho.edu/~rwiz2091">http://www.uidaho.edu/~rwiz2091<=
/A></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV></DIV><BR clear=3Dall>
<HR>
The new <A href=3D"http://g.msn.com/8HMOEN/2737">MSN 8:</A> smart spam =
protection and 2 months FREE*=20
_____________________________________________________ List services =
made=20
available by First Step Internet, serving the communities of the =
Palouse since=20
1994. http://www.fsr.net mailto:Vision2020@moscow.com=20
=
=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=
=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=
=AF=AF=AF=20
</BLOCKQUOTE></BODY></HTML>
------=_NextPart_000_0001_01C2E704.25C13660--