A vision for creating lasting peace and justice

greenspun.com : LUSENET : Unk's Wild Wild West : One Thread

http://www.uniontrib.com/news/uniontrib/fri/index.html

A vision for creating lasting peace and justice

By Lawrence M. Hinman

October 12, 2001

In the month since the terrorist attack, I have found myself yearning for a vision of the future, a vision sufficiently strong and clear that can guide us through the perilous times that lie before us.

It is a vision of peace, a vision that allows for the possibility of specific and intense attacks against those responsible for the attacks against the United States and yet also a vision that is crafted with a commitment to peace at its center. Let me articulate its elements.

First, it is clear that those responsible for planning and assisting in the attacks against the WTC and the Pentagon must be brought to justice. No country can permit such an attack to go unanswered. Yet our military response should be as narrowly focused and precisely executed as possible. Large-scale military operations against those on the periphery of the groups responsible will create more enemies than they eliminate. If we engage in large-scale military operations, we will fail. For every "fanatic" we kill, we will create two converts.

Second, our principal response ought to be a concerted effort to bring conditions of genuine economic and social justice to the Middle East. This is no small goal, and obviously not one that we can accomplish easily or in its entirety.

Yet this is the long-term answer to terrorism. We will never be able to eliminate fanatics like Osama bin Laden, but we will be able to remove the basis of popular support such extremists must have to flourish.

Not only does this involve taking a more even-handed stance toward politics in the Middle East, but it also involves an aggressive plan to bring countries like Afghanistan into the world community. This may involve aid to the citizens of Afghanistan as well as strengthening in various ways the moderate wing of Islam.

In the past, the United States has demonstrated the wisdom of such an approach, although only after an enemy has been thoroughly vanquished. The Marshall Plan at the end of World War II is probably the best example of this enlightened self-interest: by helping a vanquished Germany to rebuild, we established a staunch ally and avoided the cycle of retribution and recurrent war that marked the end of World War I.

We need to pursue a similar policy in the Middle East, forging new alliances and interdependencies. We cannot wipe out the rebels, but we can erode their power base by reaching out to those who live in one of the poorest and most embattled countries in the world.

Third, we can take a major step toward the vision of peace by living up to our own ideals abroad. For too long, we have turned a blind eye to the human rights violations of our friends while condemning those same actions on the part of non-allies. We need to hold ourselves and our friends to the same high standards we set for our enemies.

Similarly, we need to sign key treaties -- such as the U.N. treaty on the rights of children, the land mine treaty, and various environmental accords -- that are deeply consistent with our highest ideals even when they conflict with short-term and short-sighted economic and military goals.

Fourth, we need to take positive steps toward the establishment of a genuine world court of criminal justice. This is only feasible if we are willing to let justice be blind, to be applied even-handedly to our friends and ourselves as well as to our foes.

There is wide opposition to terrorism at the moment, and this moment in history offers us a unique opportunity to build on this shared outrage and move toward a world court of criminal justice. The surest way to erode such support, however, is to play partisan politics, to want justice to apply to our enemies and mercy to our friends. The formation of an international coalition dedicated to establishing a truly international standard of justice will only flourish if we are committed to genuine justice, not partisan enforcement that meets narrow political ends.

Finally, we need to hold firmly to a vision of peace throughout all this. Our goal is not to win, whatever that might mean. It is certainly not to banish evil from the world. Rather, it is to create peace, to let the guiding principle behind our decisions be an abiding concern with creating a just and lasting peace throughout the Middle East, including Afghanistan. In the long run, this is the only real way to protect ourselves against terrorism.

Congress approved $40 billion in response to this terrorist attack. Let a percentage of that be devoted to a military operation directly against those responsible for this attack, but apportion a large part of that money to the active pursuit of peace and justice in the Middle East.

A military operation needs to be part of our overall response to this attack, but it need not be the only or even the principal element in that response. Let our primary response be guided by a vision of how to create lasting peace and justice in one of the poorest and most war-torn parts of the world.

=========

Hinman is a professor of philosophy and director of the Values Institute at the University of San Diego. He can be reached via e-mail at hinman@sandiego.edu.

-- Food (For@Thought.com), October 14, 2001

Answers

"If we engage in large-scale military operations, we will fail. For every "fanatic" we kill, we will create two converts. "

Thank you for your post, Food. Your post was balanced so it probably won't get much attention in this forum.

However, I appreciated it.

-- (Thank@you.very much), October 14, 2001.


'For every "fanatic" we kill, we will create two converts'.

This may be true. It may even be true that for every two "converts" that we kill, we will create four more converts. But I am willing to bet that at some point we will kill enough of the radical "Islamists" that there not only won't be two more to replace each one that is exterminated, but that eventually there won't even be one more to replace each one that is exterminated.

-- J (Y2J@home.comm), October 14, 2001.

Tell you what. Let this be their problem. Let them forge new alliances and dependencies. Let them worry about bringing genuine social and economic advantage to us. Let them take a more even- handed approach to us. Let them sign key UN treaties. Let them give aid to Americans.

Oh, I see. They're OK just as they are. We're the guys here who must change. They were just teaching us a much-deserved lesson.

-- ComeMyLittleFriends (NambyPamby@Wishy.Washy), October 14, 2001.


We have a problem. People out there are willing and eager to kill off as many of us as they can. They already proved how willing and eager they are. That fact is no longer questionable. Our goal is to stop them. I think everyone agrees about that.

When it comes to survival, I am all in favor of taking the pragmatic approach. If bombs work, use bombs. If bombs make things worse instead of better, then avoid bombs and use something else. Any solution that leads more people to kill more of us is not a good solution.

You can look at this a couple of ways. You could believe that the 911 attacks on us had no connection to anything we did before 911. That makes no sense at all. This isn't random violence. It is political violence and we are connected to it one way or another.

That leaves a couple other possibilities. You can say that we brought it on ourselves through our own mistakes. That seems possible. We aren't immune to mistakes. Or you can say that whatever we did before 911 that led us to become targets is what we would still choose to do, if we had it to do over - because the alternatives were worse than the attacks. That might well be true, too.

It would make sense to me to figure out what we could do differently, and then to figure out if what we could do is what we want to do. I only want to know what's going to work, not what sounds good or massages our egos.

-- Miserable SOB (misery@misery.com), October 14, 2001.


They were just teaching us a much-deserved lesson.

In their eyes, yes. Please expand your tunnel-vision and understand that much of the rest of the world considers our continual military aggressions (to protect our economic interests, of course) to be an act of terrorism towards them. In their eyes, we started it and they're trying to put a stop to it by wholly eradicating us. I can't agree with their solution but neither do I agree with ours. Violence is never an acceptable means to resolve conflict as it has a tendency to perpetuate itself in an endless loop of destruction.

As we stand on the threshold of biological and nuclear warfare, those of us promoting Peace are concerned about not only own country but the ultimate disposition of the world. This issue is much bigger than our own borders.

-- Food (For@Thought.com), October 14, 2001.



eventually there won't even be one more to replace each one that is exterminated.

And this is the terrorists mindset towards us. That door swings both ways. In your world the "winner" will be the very last man standing. In my world, that's not a Win at all. What you propose is to incite and condone the annihilation of the human race en masse. Tit for tat until no one is left and the planet is trashed. Is that the future you really want?

-- Food (For@Thought.com), October 14, 2001.


>>As we stand on the threshold of biological and nuclear warfare, those of us promoting Peace are concerned about not only own country but the ultimate disposition of the world. This issue is much bigger than our own borders.

We wish the best to the world, but our responsibility is not there. There are many, including you, who say we are meddling too much there. Agreed, the responsibility is to our own house.

Understand, you do not have a monopoly on wishing peace. We only wanted peace, and to be left alone, but that was not to be. It doesn't matter if cockroaches are simply doing their own thing in invading our house, and I don't need to understand their motivation. I need to understand only that they are cockroaches, and that they must be exterminated.

-- TooLate (FirstThings@First.First), October 14, 2001.


We only wanted peace, and to be left alone

If that were the case, we wouldn't have been involved in global meddling all these past decades. Militaristically we're the big, bad bullies on the block and somebody just knocked the chip off our shoulder. If we hadn't placed it there in the first place we wouldn't be a target now.

-- Paybacks (Are@A.Bitch), October 14, 2001.


I mean, really -- what a flake: "'For every "fanatic" we kill, we will create two converts"

You could use that argument against any war since the beginning of time. Hitler's Nazis were obvious fanatics. Perhaps killing some of them did create more converts.

But if you kill them all, you solve the problem. The Nazi movement is still there, but they've been a lot less effective in recent years than they were in, say, 1939 -- 1945.

-- E.H.Porter (just.wondering@about.it), October 14, 2001.


We have a winner!

Mr. E.H. Porter understood my post. Specifically, he said, "But if you kill them all, you solve the problem".

When they no longer exist, it will be very hard for them to highjack airplanes, spread anthrax, or pull off any other nasty surprise that they are dreaming up for America.

The answer is not to sing, "Give peace a chance"; the answer is to exterminate the lot of them.

-- J (Y2J@home.comm), October 14, 2001.


When they no longer exist...

You're making a huge assumption here. You have no way of knowing whether the U.S. can accomplish this objectives. Remember Vietnam? We had our asses handed to us in that one so Might Makes Right doesn't offer any guarantees. Maybe you ought to wrap your brain around the possibility that maybe, just maybe, the terrorists might be better at the killing game than we are. What then?

-- Flip (The@Coin.com), October 15, 2001.


lasting peace,is an illusion. never happen,until the Prince of Peace returns..but''blessed are the peacemakers'' prayer is the answer. the problem is much bigger,than mans ability too solve.

we may have some intermittant brief[peace] times but the war,will not end,until satan is evicted!!!

-- al-d. (dogs@zianet.com), October 15, 2001.


Of course we should kill the terrorists. But more importantly, they should know in advance that any state that supports them we'll turn into a free one; that should lessen their incentive somewhat. Keep in mind that they hate us primarily for what we ARE -- not for some failed foreign policy actions in the past.

Note that they picked as the main target a symbol of reason, freedom, rights, science, technology, progress, trade and capitalism in general -- the WTC (the pentagon was by far the minor issue). That's what we are -- and that's why they hate us.

Let's do what in the long run would be the most peaceful and compassionate things possible -- kill the terrorists and convert their governments to free ones.

-- Eve (eve_rebekah@yahoo.com), October 15, 2001.


Moderation questions? read the FAQ