CLASH OF CIVILIZATIONS: US VS. CHINA
ARGUMENTATION OVER GOOGLE INCIDENT
The following is my observation in my upcoming book: CYBERSPACE GOVERNANCE IN CHINA (N.Y.: Nova Science Publisher, 2011) (June 2011), over the Google incident.
A Call to Arms by the United States
On January 21, 2010, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton made the following foreign policy speech. The speech makes the promotion of free speech and defense of Internet access around the world a 21st Century foreign policy of the United States and a mandate and imperative of her administration. In so doing, Clinton offered up an explicit challenge to the Chinese authority—stop what you are doing to the netizens and Internet, otherwise we will unilaterally liberate the Internet for you.
Some have applauded this bold and visionary “Clinton doctrine.” As many condemned it as “Internet imperialism,” reminiscent of the call for “opium” war, wherein the British forced open China with opium trade and gunboat diplomacy, in the name of free trade.
Considering the tone, texture and content of the Clinton speech, it can best be described as a “call to arms of the United States” against China. In the words of Huntington, “A Clash of Civilizations” is fast developing into a contest over two visions of the virtual world. As Secretary Clinton put it:
The spread of information networks is forming a new nervous system for our planet…During his visit to China in November, for example, President Obama …spoke about how access to information helps citizens hold their own governments accountable, generates new ideas, encourages creativity and entrepreneurship… And technologies with the potential to open up access to government and promote transparency can also be hijacked by governments to crush dissent and deny human rights…On their own, new technologies do not take sides in the struggle for freedom and progress, but the United States does. We stand for a single Internet where all of humanity has equal access to knowledge and ideas…our responsibility to help ensure the free exchange of ideas goes back to the birth of our republic. …This freedom is no longer defined solely by whether citizens can go into the town square and criticize their government without fear of retribution. Blogs, emails, social networks, and text messages have opened up new forums for exchanging ideas, and created new targets for censorship…The Berlin Wall symbolized a world divided, and it defined an entire era. …Some countries have erected electronic barriers that prevent their people from accessing portions of the world’s networks. They’ve expunged words, names, and phrases from search engine results. They have violated the privacy of citizens who engage in non-violent political speech. These actions contravene the Universal Declaration on Human Rights, which tells us that all people have the right “to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers”…Now, all societies recognize that free expression has its limits. We do not tolerate those who incite others to violence…Now, just as these technologies must not be used to punish peaceful political speech, they must also not be used to persecute or silence religious minorities.….But make no mistake—some are and will continue to use global information networks for darker purposes. Violent extremists, criminal cartels, sexual predators, and authoritarian governments all seek to exploit these global networks… As we work to advance freedoms, we must also work against those who use communication networks as tools of disruption and fear…Now, the principles I’ve outlined today will guide our approach in addressing the issue of Internet freedom and the use of these technologies…We are also supporting the development of new tools that enable citizens to exercise their rights of free expression by circumventing politically motivated censorship. We are providing funds to groups around the world to make sure that those tools get to the people who need them in local languages and with the training they need to access the Internet safely…Both the American people and nations that censor the Internet should understand that our government is committed to helping promote Internet freedom. Now, the United States and China have different views on this issue, and we intend to address those differences candidly and consistently in the context of our positive, cooperative, and comprehensive relationship. …Now, ultimately, this issue isn’t just about information freedom; it is about what kind of world we want and what kind of world we will inhabit. It’s about whether we live on a planet with one Internet, one global community, and a common body of knowledge that benefits and unites us all, or a fragmented planet in which access to information and opportunity is dependent on where you live and the whims of censors. (Italics provided).
In the above speech, Clinton made clear that United States stands for freedom of speech, while China stands for control of Internet. There is little common ground. The United Sates will do everything and anything to break down the Chinese “firewall,” just as it did with destroying the Berlin Wall in another era. The speech is not only noted for what is being said, i.e., China and the United States do not see eye to eye on the fundamental issue of free speech vs. control of Internet, but for its belligerent tone—bring it on; the United States relishes a good fight with China, and we will win.
Clinton’s speech is “a calls to arms” against China. The “Clash of Civilization” has arrived.
Fundamental Dispute from China
Western human rights advocates claim that free speech and privacy rights are universal and absolute. They can be ascertained in the abstract and as a matter of principle. China adopts a different view. Human rights are relative and particularistic, contingent upon time, place, people, and situation. They can only be actualized in context.
Human right activists and democracy champions from the West talk about the importance of human rights, freedom and democracy as universal and fundamental moral principles. Many people from around the world (including China) have argued that human rights, while important and deserving of our attention, should not remain our exclusive, or even dominant, concern. In our debate over human values, we also need to think about cultural exchange and not simply imposition of one nation/people/culture’s values on other autonomous individuals or sovereign nations.
To start the debate, we need to observe that there are many values worthy of human pursuit, e.g., freedom from starvation, personal integrity, filial piety, social responsibilities and loyalty to one’s country. In this regard, there are four observations to be made. First, it is clear that not all values are created equal. For example, material goods pale alongside moral and spiritual ones. Second, it is also clear that no single value, moral principles included, is so fundamental as to absolutely overshadow others at all times, in all places, and in all situations. Even the taking of innocent human lives can at times be justified in the name of stopping a greater evil. Third, judging values in context goes well beyond merely determining which moral principles should apply in a given decision-making frame. Many valves are involved. Most of them are in conflict, and priorities must be set. The challenge is how to choose and pick given a set of ranked values, national priorities and limited resources. Fourth, the ranking of values in the abstract is so loaded with conditions and disclaimers that such abstractions are of little use when applied to real-life situations. Indeed, they might create problems even in a theoretical multi-value matrix decision-making set. Should I kill one to save the lives of many or possibly to improve the welfare of all? If not, then what right do we have, as a civilized government, to build a highway that, after all, kills? Are the traffic fatalities not victims of a government’s conscious policy choice, to develop highways instead of airports? Do we not call them casualties of human progress? The complexities and difficulties in arriving at agreed values are best described thusly:
Second: there is no shared set of value priorities. We make much of the fact that we share values and we frequently say that, well, basically humans want the same things so we ought to be able to work things out. Perhaps, at a survival level, but beyond that, and even there, there is not a shared set of priorities with regard to values. Instead, priorities change with circumstance, time, and group. Here are some examples where value priorities differ depending on the group and circumstance. Short-term expedience versus long-term prudent behavior and vice versa. Group identity versus individual identity. Individual responsibility versus societal responsibility. Freedom versus equality. Local claims versus larger claims for commitment. Universal rights versus local rights (that can repudiate universal rights; fundamentalisms, for example.) Human rights versus national interests (e.g., economic competition or nationalist terrorism). Public interest versus privacy (the encryption conflict, health information, whether private or not). First amendment limits (pornography, etc.). Seeking new knowledge and its potential benefits versus. its potential costs. Who sets the rules of the game and who decides? These are all issues where the priority of values is in contention. There is no reliable set of priorities in place that can be used to choose decisively among actions toward the larger issues.
The above are not arguments for value relativity, nor propositions for situational ethics. It is a proposition for value pluralism. Value pluralism simply means that there are many more human values that give meaning to life and happiness to people than the principles of justice, freedom, equality and democracy. Put in another way, a country can hold other enduring values—love for family, loyalty to friends, duty to society—and still deserve our admiration and respect. A benevolent dictator is better to many than starvation and chaos.
Human rights advocates argue that human rights are so fundamental that all other values pale in comparison. While this argument has surface appeal and is emotionally satisfying, a moment of critical reflection shows that this does not conform to our understanding of how human values are formed, adopted, and evolved. First, human rights advocates deem it “self-evident” that human rights—life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness —are fundamental in nature, universal in application, and apparent to all. All human beings should and must subscribe to the same set of human rights values—in content, importance, and, when compared with other values, priority. There are no exceptions or deviations. Nothing could be further from the truth. Human values, as with beauty, are in the eyes of the beholder. Likewise, there are many ways to discover human values; as many as there are individuals on this earth.
On a theoretical plane, Kant’s categorical imperatives or Bentham’s utilitarianism are good starting points in order for one to discover individual or social values, but these are not final. Ontological and teleological validations of value choices are not exhaustive.
In more practical terms, rational analysis and positive thinking are not the only, nor even the best, tools to determine the content, contour and correctness of human values. Indeed, I venture to guess rational analysis is ill suited to the investigation of value matters that are, after all, more instinctual than cognitive, and more emotive than logical. We love humanity with our heart, and appreciate life with our soul, not with a computer and a brain. In the end, spiritual enlightenment, personal feelings, human experience and collective wisdom can all play a part in one’s endless value search.
In addition, human rights belong to each and every individual and are not monopolized by one ideological camp. Most certainly, values, of which human rights are an integral part, are not beholden to the intellectually bright, militarily strong, economically wealthy or culturally rich. As nations, as communities, as families, and as individuals, we all subscribe to a set of values. Each of us is equally capable of finding a set of values suited to our taste. All of us are equally endowed as moral agents. It is apparent that no one country—no matter how big, how strong, how rich, and how enlightened—can monopolize the creation of desirable values, much less be the net exporter of virtues.
With regard to national values: as with one’s moral compass, national values do not come prepackaged. They are a combined and integrated product of personal make-up, cultural heritage, social consensus, economic circumstances, and even accidental events. In other words, values are a sum total of human existence: wants, needs, phobia, remembrance, dreams, and hopes. Once formed, they are a given fact of personality - nationhood and are seldom right or wrong in the abstract or in totality.
Fourth, values are formed experientially, experimentally, naturally, and incrementally, more so than cognitively, absolutely, positively and dramatically. Historical accidents and national happenstance have as much to do with a country’s value formation as do rational discourse and reflective policy. Much of the values Americans take for granted are rooted in the manner by which the United States found liberation, independence, and individuality as a result of rebellion against British rule. Conversely, the Chinese people have sought refuge in paternalism and collectivity because historically they have embraced the teachings of Confucius.
Given this “dynamic” and “dialectical” process of human value formation, it should come as no surprise to anyone to learn that human values never stop growing and evolving, changing in content and mix every minute and hour of the day. “We get wiser as we grow older” is as much a descriptive statement as it is an admonition to the young who are eager to live all that life has to offer in one day. Viewed in this light, the search for human values is not a discovery process but a creative journey. An individual, a people, a community, a nation-state—all are searching for an elusive and transient identity, but never arrive at an ultimate destiny. It is the process of searching for, and not the ultimate finding of, human values, which gives meaning to life.
Lastly and most significantly, values are bound by time and space and posited within certain places and societies. Two very important observations flow from this postulate. First, values exist within a context of history, place, people, society, and culture. There is no non-historical, non-social or non-cultural value. To appreciate why Chinese rulers, and, for that matter, many Asian leaders, adopt a paternalistic attitude towards their subjects, it is necessary to consider the importance and structure of the family within Chinese history and culture. A critique of the Chinese style of government is not just an attack on Chinese current leaders but also an indictment against China’s cultural heritage in general, and the role and functions of family in particular. With so much at stake, and such complexities involved, a country passing judgment on others should be more reflective, thoughtful and considerate. It is easy to be misinformed and to misjudge.
Second, values are bundled goods. The meaning and importance of a value cannot be easily extracted from the collective of values of which it forms an integral part. The surgical removal and strategic implantation of values will certainly cause political disruption, such as the wholesale abandonment of communism in U.S.S.R., which led to social unrest and political chaos, and social rejection, such as the ban on U.S.-style adversarial journalism in Singapore.
It is most difficult, if not impossible, for a person or country to transcend its intellectual horizon and value space. Cultural myopia is the norm. China calls herself “Central Kingdom” and still acts that way. Intellectual provincialism is the rule. All rationality is bounded.
Marx’s critique of the capitalistic intellectual order, that the consciousness of the mass is conditioned, controlled and dominated by ideas emulating from the economic base, is flawed, less so because it is an overbroad observation than because it is not carried far enough. Marx failed to explain convincingly why he could liberate himself from such an all-embracing ideological confine to lead the charge against capitalism, while others could not. Rawls’ Theory of Justice suffered from a similar cultural straight jacket: the just society behind “the veil of ignorance” envisioned by Rawl looked more like twentieth-century Boston than traditional Indonesia or contemporary Japan.
Is it surprising to see first the Romans, then the British and now the Americans preaching the virtues of their culture to the rest of the world; through persuasion if possible (BBC, VOA, CNN) and by force (extra-territoriality, Vietnam, Iraq) if necessary? Echoing Huntington, does it not appear odd that it takes the British a few hundred years to discover the essence of civilization while the Egyptians are still at a loss after 6,000 years? Is it possible that the Americans find the best in government in 200 years while the Chinese keep missing them after 4,000 years?
The discovery of universal values has more to do with individual ego and national pride than any intrinsic merit associated with those values. The successful spread of values, from democracy to gay rights, reflects more upon a country’s economic strength and concomitant cultural domination than on any inherent appeal and demonstrated goodness of certain moral principles.
Cultural domination, albeit in subtle form, is here to stay. Singapore’s senior statesman was right when he said that Asian values are as worthy of respect—because those values tell Asians who they are.
Tuesday, May 10, 2011
Monday, May 9, 2011
How to stop US from going to war: A democratic solution?
THE BASIC PREMISES: DEMOCRATIC WAR
Let me make my intent very clear before I start this commentary. I am not against war. I am against unjust wars and unnecessary invasions by the US, esp. into weaker and smaller counties, from Vietnam to Iraq to Libya. If there is to be a war or invasion by the US, I would like it to be conducted in a democratic way.
THE PROBLEM – TOO MANY WARS
US have fought many wars. (Timeline of United States military operations
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_United_States_military_operations)
Wars are costly. The war against Osama bin Laden alone costs trillions. (The Cost of Bin Laden: $3 Trillion Over 15 Years, Atlantic, May 7, 2011.) The war with Libya is costing the us close to a billion) (“Cost of Libya war for US at $608 million: Pentagon,” AFP, April 11, 2011)
Wars are wasteful. They kills people, damages properties and cost money. What do we get for destroying Libya's infrastructure? Or for the matter, killing scores of innocent Iraqis? Both countries are not likely, if ever, to change to be a democratic state, or transformed culturally.
List of countries US invaded include (1890 to 2011) (Dr. Zoltan Grossman, A CENTURY OF U.S. MILITARY INTERVENTIONS, http://academic.evergreen.edu/g/grossmaz/interventions.html:
COUNTRY OR STATE Dates of intervention Forces Comments
SOUTH DAKOTA 1890 (-?) Troops 300 Lakota Indians massacred at Wounded Knee.
ARGENTINA 1890 Troops Buenos Aires interests protected.
CHILE 1891 Troops Marines clash with nationalist rebels.
HAITI 1891 Troops Black revolt on Navassa defeated.
IDAHO 1892 Troops Army suppresses silver miners' strike.
HAWAII 1893 (-?) Naval, troops Independent kingdom overthrown, annexed.
CHICAGO 1894 Troops Breaking of rail strike, 34 killed.
NICARAGUA 1894 Troops Month-long occupation of Bluefields.
CHINA 1894-95 Naval, troops Marines land in Sino-Japanese War
KOREA 1894-96 Troops Marines kept in Seoul during war.
PANAMA 1895 Troops, naval Marines land in Colombian province.
NICARAGUA 1896 Troops Marines land in port of Corinto.
CHINA 1898-1900 Troops Boxer Rebellion fought by foreign armies.
PHILIPPINES 1898-1910 (-?) Naval, troops Seized from Spain, killed 600,000 Filipinos
CUBA 1898-1902 (-?) Naval, troops Seized from Spain, still hold Navy base.
PUERTO RICO 1898 (-?) Naval, troops Seized from Spain, occupation continues.
GUAM 1898 (-?) Naval, troops Seized from Spain, still use as base.
MINNESOTA 1898 (-?) Troops Army battles Chippewa at Leech Lake.
NICARAGUA 1898 Troops Marines land at port of San Juan del Sur.
SAMOA 1899 (-?) Troops Battle over succession to throne.
NICARAGUA 1899 Troops Marines land at port of Bluefields.
IDAHO 1899-1901 Troops Army occupies Coeur d'Alene mining region.
OKLAHOMA 1901 Troops Army battles Creek Indian revolt.
PANAMA 1901-14 Naval, troops Broke off from Colombia 1903, annexed Canal Zone; Opened canal 1914.
HONDURAS 1903 Troops Marines intervene in revolution.
DOMINICAN REPUBLIC 1903-04 Troops U.S. interests protected in Revolution.
KOREA 1904-05 Troops Marines land in Russo-Japanese War.
CUBA 1906-09 Troops Marines land in democratic election.
NICARAGUA 1907 Troops "Dollar Diplomacy" protectorate set up.
HONDURAS 1907 Troops Marines land during war with Nicaragua
PANAMA 1908 Troops Marines intervene in election contest.
NICARAGUA 1910 Troops Marines land in Bluefields and Corinto.
HONDURAS 1911 Troops U.S. interests protected in civil war.
CHINA 1911-41 Naval, troops Continuous occupation with flare-ups.
CUBA 1912 Troops U.S. interests protected in civil war.
PANAMA 1912 Troops Marines land during heated election.
HONDURAS 1912 Troops Marines protect U.S. economic interests.
NICARAGUA 1912-33 Troops, bombing 10-year occupation, fought guerillas
MEXICO 1913 Naval Americans evacuated during revolution.
DOMINICAN REPUBLIC 1914 Naval Fight with rebels over Santo Domingo.
COLORADO 1914 Troops Breaking of miners' strike by Army.
MEXICO 1914-18 Naval, troops Series of interventions against nationalists.
HAITI 1914-34 Troops, bombing 19-year occupation after revolts.
TEXAS 1915 Troops Federal soldiers crush "Plan of San Diego" Mexican-American rebellion
DOMINICAN REPUBLIC 1916-24 Troops 8-year Marine occupation.
CUBA 1917-33 Troops Military occupation, economic protectorate.
WORLD WAR I 1917-18 Naval, troops Ships sunk, fought Germany for 1 1/2 years.
RUSSIA 1918-22 Naval, troops Five landings to fight Bolsheviks
PANAMA 1918-20 Troops "Police duty" during unrest after elections.
HONDURAS 1919 Troops Marines land during election campaign.
YUGOSLAVIA 1919 Troops/Marines intervene for Italy against Serbs in Dalmatia.
GUATEMALA 1920 Troops 2-week intervention against unionists.
WEST VIRGINIA 1920-21 Troops, bombing Army intervenes against mineworkers.
TURKEY 1922 Troops Fought nationalists in Smyrna.
CHINA 1922-27 Naval, troops Deployment during nationalist revolt.
HONDURAS 1924-25 Troops Landed twice during election strife.
PANAMA 1925 Troops Marines suppress general strike.
CHINA 1927-34 Troops Marines stationed throughout the country.
EL SALVADOR 1932 Naval Warships send during Marti revolt.
WASHINGTON DC 1932 Troops Army stops WWI vet bonus protest.
WORLD WAR II 1941-45 Naval, troops, bombing, nuclear Hawaii bombed, fought Japan, Italy and Germany for 3 years; first nuclear war.
DETROIT 1943 Troops Army put down Black rebellion.
IRAN 1946 Nuclear threat Soviet troops told to leave north.
YUGOSLAVIA 1946 Nuclear threat, naval Response to shoot-down of US plane.
URUGUAY 1947 Nuclear threat Bombers deployed as show of strength.
GREECE 1947-49 Command operation U.S. directs extreme-right in civil war.
GERMANY 1948 Nuclear Threat Atomic-capable bombers guard Berlin Airlift.
CHINA 1948-49 Troops/Marines evacuate Americans before Communist victory.
PHILIPPINES 1948-54 Command operation CIA directs war against Huk Rebellion.
PUERTO RICO 1950 Command operation Independence rebellion crushed in Ponce.
KOREA 1951-53 (-?) Troops, naval, bombing , nuclear threats U.S./So. Korea fights China/No. Korea to stalemate; A-bomb threat in 1950, and against China in 1953. Still have bases.
IRAN 1953 Command Operation CIA overthrows democracy, installs Shah.
VIETNAM 1954 Nuclear threat French offered bombs to use against seige.
GUATEMALA 1954 Command operation, bombing, nuclear threat CIA directs exile invasion after new gov't nationalized U.S. company lands; bombers based in Nicaragua.
EGYPT 1956 Nuclear threat, troops Soviets told to keep out of Suez crisis; Marines evacuate foreigners.
LEBANON l958 Troops, naval Marine occupation against rebels.
IRAQ 1958 Nuclear threat Iraq warned against invading Kuwait.
CHINA l958 Nuclear threat China told not to move on Taiwan isles.
PANAMA 1958 Troops Flag protests erupt into confrontation.
VIETNAM l960-75 Troops, naval, bombing, nuclear threats Fought South Vietnam revolt & North Vietnam; one million killed in longest U.S. war; atomic bomb threats in l968 and l969.
CUBA l961 Command operation CIA-directed exile invasion fails.
GERMANY l961 Nuclear threat Alert during Berlin Wall crisis.
LAOS 1962 Command operation Military buildup during guerrilla war.
CUBA l962 Nuclear threat, naval Blockade during missile crisis; near-war with Soviet Union.
IRAQ 1963 Command operation CIA organizes coup that killed president, brings Ba'ath Party to power, and Saddam Hussein back from exile to be head of the secret service.
PANAMA l964 Troops Panamanians shot for urging canal's return.
INDONESIA l965 Command operation Million killed in CIA-assisted army coup.
DOMINICAN REPUBLIC 1965-66 Troops, bombing Marines land during election campaign.
GUATEMALA l966-67 Command operation Green Berets intervene against rebels.
DETROIT l967 Troops Army battles African Americans, 43 killed.
UNITED STATES l968 Troops After King is shot; over 21,000 soldiers in cities.
CAMBODIA l969-75 Bombing, troops, naval Up to 2 million killed in decade of bombing, starvation, and political chaos.
OMAN l970 Command operation U.S. directs Iranian marine invasion.
LAOS l971-73 Command operation, bombing U.S. directs South Vietnamese invasion; "carpet-bombs" countryside.
SOUTH DAKOTA l973 Command operation Army directs Wounded Knee siege of Lakotas.
MIDEAST 1973 Nuclear threat World-wide alert during Mideast War.
CHILE 1973 Command operation CIA-backed coup ousts elected marxist president.
CAMBODIA l975 Troops, bombing Gas captured ship, 28 die in copter crash.
ANGOLA l976-92 Command operation CIA assists South African-backed rebels.
IRAN l980 Troops, nuclear threat, aborted bombing Raid to rescue Embassy hostages; 8 troops die in copter-plane crash. Soviets warned not to get involved in revolution.
LIBYA l981 Naval jets Two Libyan jets shot down in maneuvers.
EL SALVADOR l981-92 Command operation, troops Advisors, overflights aid anti-rebel war, soldiers briefly involved in hostage clash.
NICARAGUA l981-90 Command operation, naval CIA directs exile (Contra) invasions, plants harbor mines against revolution.
LEBANON l982-84 Naval, bombing, troops Marines expel PLO and back Phalangists, Navy bombs and shells Muslim positions.
GRENADA l983-84 Troops, bombing Invasion four years after revolution.
HONDURAS l983-89 Troops Maneuvers help build bases near borders.
IRAN l984 Jets Two Iranian jets shot down over Persian Gulf.
LIBYA l986 Bombing, naval Air strikes to topple nationalist gov't.
BOLIVIA 1986 Troops Army assists raids on cocaine region.
IRAN l987-88 Naval, bombing US intervenes on side of Iraq in war.
LIBYA 1989 Naval jets Two Libyan jets shot down.
VIRGIN ISLANDS 1989 Troops St. Croix Black unrest after storm.
PHILIPPINES 1989 Jets Air cover provided for government against coup.
PANAMA 1989 (-?) Troops, bombing Nationalist government ousted by 27,000 soldiers, leaders arrested, 2000+ killed.
LIBERIA 1990 Troops Foreigners evacuated during civil war.
SAUDI ARABIA 1990-91 Troops, jets Iraq countered after invading Kuwait. 540,000 troops also stationed in Oman, Qatar, Bahrain, UAE, Israel.
IRAQ 1990-91 Bombing, troops, naval Blockade of Iraqi and Jordanian ports, air strikes; 200,000+ killed in invasion of Iraq and Kuwait; large-scale destruction of Iraqi military.
KUWAIT 1991 Naval, bombing, troops Kuwait royal family returned to throne.
IRAQ 1991-2003 Bombing, naval No-fly zone over Kurdish north, Shiite south; constant air strikes and naval-enforced economic sanctions
LOS ANGELES 1992 Troops Army, Marines deployed against anti-police uprising.
SOMALIA 1992-94 Troops, naval, bombing U.S.-led United Nations occupation during civil war; raids against one Mogadishu faction.
YUGOSLAVIA 1992-94 Naval NATO blockade of Serbia and Montenegro.
BOSNIA 1993-? Jets, bombing No-fly zone patrolled in civil war; downed jets, bombed Serbs.
HAITI 1994 Troops, naval Blockade against military government; troops restore President Aristide to office three years after coup.
ZAIRE (CONGO) 1996-97 Troops Marines at Rwandan Hutu refugee camps, in area where Congo revolution begins.
LIBERIA 1997 Troops Soldiers under fire during evacuation of foreigners.
ALBANIA 1997 Troops Soldiers under fire during evacuation of foreigners.
SUDAN 1998 Missiles Attack on pharmaceutical plant alleged to be "terrorist" nerve gas plant.
AFGHANISTAN 1998 Missiles Attack on former CIA training camps used by Islamic fundamentalist groups alleged to have attacked embassies.
IRAQ 1998 Bombing, Missiles Four days of intensive air strikes after weapons inspectors allege Iraqi obstructions.
YUGOSLAVIA 1999 Bombing, Missiles Heavy NATO air strikes after Serbia declines to withdraw from Kosovo. NATO occupation of Kosovo.
YEMEN 2000 Naval USS Cole, docked in Aden, bombed.
MACEDONIA 2001 Troops NATO forces deployed to move and disarm Albanian rebels.
UNITED STATES 2001 Jets, naval Reaction to hijacker attacks on New York, DC
AFGHANISTAN 2001-? Troops, bombing, missiles Massive U.S. mobilization to overthrow Taliban, hunt Al Qaeda fighters, install Karzai regime, and battle Taliban insurgency. More than 30,000 U.S. troops and numerous private security contractors carry our occupation.
YEMEN 2002 Missiles Predator drone missile attack on Al Qaeda, including a US citizen.
PHILIPPINES 2002-? Troops, naval Training mission for Philippine military fighting Abu Sayyaf rebels evolves into combat missions in Sulu Archipelago, west of Mindanao.
COLOMBIA 2003-? Troops US special forces sent to rebel zone to back up Colombian military protecting oil pipeline.
IRAQ 2003-? Troops, naval, bombing, missiles Saddam regime toppled in Baghdad. More than 250,000 U.S. personnel participate in invasion. US and UK forces occupy country and battle Sunni and Shi'ite insurgencies. More than 160,000 troops and numerous private contractors carry out occupation and build large permanent bases.
LIBERIA 2003 Troops Brief involvement in peacekeeping force as rebels drove out leader.
HAITI 2004-05 Troops, naval Marines land after right-wing rebels oust elected President Aristide, who was advised to leave by Washington.
PAKISTAN 2005-? Missiles, bombing, covert operation CIA missile and air strikes and Special Forces raids on alleged Al Qaeda and Taliban refuge villages kill multiple civilians. Drone attacks also on Pakistani Mehsud network.
SOMALIA 2006-? Missiles, naval, troops, command operation Special Forces advise Ethiopian invasion that topples Islamist government; AC-130 strikes, Cruise missile attacks and helicopter raids against Islamist rebels; naval blockade against "pirates" and insurgents.
SYRIA 2008 Troops Special Forces in helicopter raid 5 miles from Iraq kill 8 Syrian civilians
YEMEN 2009-? Missiles, command operation Cruise missile attack on Al Qaeda kills 49 civilians; Yemeni military assaults on rebels
LIBYA 2011-? Bombing, missiles, command operation NATO coordinates air strikes and missile attacks against Qaddafi government during uprising by rebel army.
NOTES: Does mot include:
• Mobilization of the National Guard
• offshore shows of naval strength
• reinforcements of embassy personnel
• the use of non-Defense Department personnel (such as the Drug Enforcement Administration)
• military exercises
• non-combat mobilizations (such as replacing postal strikers)
• the permanent stationing of armed forces
• covert actions where the U.S. did not play a command and control role
• the use of small hostage rescue units
• most uses of proxy troops
• U.S. piloting of foreign warplanes
• foreign or domestic disaster assistance
• military training and advisory programs not involving direct combat
• civic action programs
• and many other military activities.
SOME SUGGESTIONS
How can we stop US from going to war? A blogger has suggested the following (Is America the world's bully? May 1, 2005
http://alspolitics1.blogspot.com/2005/05/is-america-worlds-bully.html):
1. Do not appoint a bully (John Bolton) as ambassador to the U.N. That's just stupid.
2. Stop invading, bombing and 'regime changing' small countries that have not attacked us or invaded their neighbors.
3. Join the international community as one member of the family of nations, rather than as the biggest bully.
4. Dismantle our global military empire, withdrawing our troops from other countries and giving up the notion that we should exert military control of the entire world.
5. With some of the money saved on the military, put our expansionist energy into large scale colonization of space. Compared to controlling the Earth, space offers hundreds of times more real estate, thousands of times more materials, and millions of times more energy. Vigorous colonization of space promises far more power than military domination of Earth. Space colonization also does not invovling killing or oppressing people, or deciding what regime they shall have. See http://lifesci3.arc.nasa.gov/SpaceSettlement for details.
It won't be easy and it will take a long time. The alternative is greater and greater military expenditure trying to run everything. This will eventually fail and we will suffer the same fate as past international bullies. Christ once said something like "Those who live by the sword shall perish by the sword." I'm not a Christian, but you gotta respect a guy with that kind of insight. Perhaps we should listen.
DEMOCRATIC WAY TO CONTROL WAR
We can reduce the incident of US foreign wars and invasions of other countries by amending the US Constitution in the following ways:
(1) US will not go to war unless US is physically attacked. REASON: This makes war justifiable, at least staying away from unwarranted wars.
(2) US will not go to war unless there is a referendum on war (when US spend over 100 millions on military operations overseas). This can be done by giving the taxpayers an affirmative choice of NOT using their tax dollars on any ONE item of federal expenditure they disapprove. (The taxpayers must pay the same tax.)REASON: This makes war democratic. No taxation without representation.
(3) US will not go to war unless the Vice President serves in the war zone. REASON: The executive branch must lead in battle, per spirit of US Constitution, and military doctrine.
(4) US will not go to war unless the 25% of the elected officials who voted for the war (selected by random) are deployed to the frontline for at least a year. REASON: The representatives of the people must not only decide to go to war, but serve in war. They them know what war is like. The elected officials must also make sacrifice, if the war is just and necessary.
(5) US will not go to war unless all the eligible elected officials’ children are drafted. REASON: The Congress must not only send other people’s kids to war, and not their own.
(6) US will not go to war unless US pay compensation to all civilians killed and property damaged as a result of US war actions, whether they are intentional, accidental or collateral. US will pay the same amount we would have to pay if the war in conducted on US soil. REASON: US must pay the costs of war, with money, not words of condolences. (“US regret the killing of innocent life in war due to collateral damages.”)
The above proposals are based on one simple principle: when US decides to go to war, the decision must be made carefully, such that the costs of war are equally distributed and personally felt.
MYTH OF DEMOCRATIC ACCOUNTABILITY?
One caveat before I end. There is a myth that democratic government can do no wrong. I do not subscribe to that view. Democratic governance, good or bad, ultimately depends on the collective wisdom of the people. For example, if the people of a country is ill informed then the nation's choice of going to war is not likely to be enlightened.
There are increase evidence that the reason why US (as the world's leading democracy) has been able to start wars year in year out is because:
(1) The people do not know any better, the ignorant mas thesis. This is the case with Bush's war in Iraq. Since the people do not have to pay for the war (Iraq was fought with borrowed money, chiefly from China and Japan) or fight in the war (many of the soldiers are foreign nations and more than a few are mercenaries (private contractors), the costs of war are borne by the next generation, in higher taxes, lower standard of living and broken families.
(2) The people do not care as much. Since the war is fought on TV in a foreign land, not on the main streets of USA. People are not vested, materially and emotionally. Iraq to many is just a war game. The apathy thesis.
(3) People are adversarial and violent prone. American people love a good fight. They enjoy settling scores through physical fights. They adore action heroes. The violent culture thesis.
Simply put, democracy does not necessarily mean less war!
Hopefully, my proposition of Constitutional amendments would put a barrier between ignorant, apathetic, and belligerent people in check.
Let me make my intent very clear before I start this commentary. I am not against war. I am against unjust wars and unnecessary invasions by the US, esp. into weaker and smaller counties, from Vietnam to Iraq to Libya. If there is to be a war or invasion by the US, I would like it to be conducted in a democratic way.
THE PROBLEM – TOO MANY WARS
US have fought many wars. (Timeline of United States military operations
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_United_States_military_operations)
Wars are costly. The war against Osama bin Laden alone costs trillions. (The Cost of Bin Laden: $3 Trillion Over 15 Years, Atlantic, May 7, 2011.) The war with Libya is costing the us close to a billion) (“Cost of Libya war for US at $608 million: Pentagon,” AFP, April 11, 2011)
Wars are wasteful. They kills people, damages properties and cost money. What do we get for destroying Libya's infrastructure? Or for the matter, killing scores of innocent Iraqis? Both countries are not likely, if ever, to change to be a democratic state, or transformed culturally.
List of countries US invaded include (1890 to 2011) (Dr. Zoltan Grossman, A CENTURY OF U.S. MILITARY INTERVENTIONS, http://academic.evergreen.edu/g/grossmaz/interventions.html:
COUNTRY OR STATE Dates of intervention Forces Comments
SOUTH DAKOTA 1890 (-?) Troops 300 Lakota Indians massacred at Wounded Knee.
ARGENTINA 1890 Troops Buenos Aires interests protected.
CHILE 1891 Troops Marines clash with nationalist rebels.
HAITI 1891 Troops Black revolt on Navassa defeated.
IDAHO 1892 Troops Army suppresses silver miners' strike.
HAWAII 1893 (-?) Naval, troops Independent kingdom overthrown, annexed.
CHICAGO 1894 Troops Breaking of rail strike, 34 killed.
NICARAGUA 1894 Troops Month-long occupation of Bluefields.
CHINA 1894-95 Naval, troops Marines land in Sino-Japanese War
KOREA 1894-96 Troops Marines kept in Seoul during war.
PANAMA 1895 Troops, naval Marines land in Colombian province.
NICARAGUA 1896 Troops Marines land in port of Corinto.
CHINA 1898-1900 Troops Boxer Rebellion fought by foreign armies.
PHILIPPINES 1898-1910 (-?) Naval, troops Seized from Spain, killed 600,000 Filipinos
CUBA 1898-1902 (-?) Naval, troops Seized from Spain, still hold Navy base.
PUERTO RICO 1898 (-?) Naval, troops Seized from Spain, occupation continues.
GUAM 1898 (-?) Naval, troops Seized from Spain, still use as base.
MINNESOTA 1898 (-?) Troops Army battles Chippewa at Leech Lake.
NICARAGUA 1898 Troops Marines land at port of San Juan del Sur.
SAMOA 1899 (-?) Troops Battle over succession to throne.
NICARAGUA 1899 Troops Marines land at port of Bluefields.
IDAHO 1899-1901 Troops Army occupies Coeur d'Alene mining region.
OKLAHOMA 1901 Troops Army battles Creek Indian revolt.
PANAMA 1901-14 Naval, troops Broke off from Colombia 1903, annexed Canal Zone; Opened canal 1914.
HONDURAS 1903 Troops Marines intervene in revolution.
DOMINICAN REPUBLIC 1903-04 Troops U.S. interests protected in Revolution.
KOREA 1904-05 Troops Marines land in Russo-Japanese War.
CUBA 1906-09 Troops Marines land in democratic election.
NICARAGUA 1907 Troops "Dollar Diplomacy" protectorate set up.
HONDURAS 1907 Troops Marines land during war with Nicaragua
PANAMA 1908 Troops Marines intervene in election contest.
NICARAGUA 1910 Troops Marines land in Bluefields and Corinto.
HONDURAS 1911 Troops U.S. interests protected in civil war.
CHINA 1911-41 Naval, troops Continuous occupation with flare-ups.
CUBA 1912 Troops U.S. interests protected in civil war.
PANAMA 1912 Troops Marines land during heated election.
HONDURAS 1912 Troops Marines protect U.S. economic interests.
NICARAGUA 1912-33 Troops, bombing 10-year occupation, fought guerillas
MEXICO 1913 Naval Americans evacuated during revolution.
DOMINICAN REPUBLIC 1914 Naval Fight with rebels over Santo Domingo.
COLORADO 1914 Troops Breaking of miners' strike by Army.
MEXICO 1914-18 Naval, troops Series of interventions against nationalists.
HAITI 1914-34 Troops, bombing 19-year occupation after revolts.
TEXAS 1915 Troops Federal soldiers crush "Plan of San Diego" Mexican-American rebellion
DOMINICAN REPUBLIC 1916-24 Troops 8-year Marine occupation.
CUBA 1917-33 Troops Military occupation, economic protectorate.
WORLD WAR I 1917-18 Naval, troops Ships sunk, fought Germany for 1 1/2 years.
RUSSIA 1918-22 Naval, troops Five landings to fight Bolsheviks
PANAMA 1918-20 Troops "Police duty" during unrest after elections.
HONDURAS 1919 Troops Marines land during election campaign.
YUGOSLAVIA 1919 Troops/Marines intervene for Italy against Serbs in Dalmatia.
GUATEMALA 1920 Troops 2-week intervention against unionists.
WEST VIRGINIA 1920-21 Troops, bombing Army intervenes against mineworkers.
TURKEY 1922 Troops Fought nationalists in Smyrna.
CHINA 1922-27 Naval, troops Deployment during nationalist revolt.
HONDURAS 1924-25 Troops Landed twice during election strife.
PANAMA 1925 Troops Marines suppress general strike.
CHINA 1927-34 Troops Marines stationed throughout the country.
EL SALVADOR 1932 Naval Warships send during Marti revolt.
WASHINGTON DC 1932 Troops Army stops WWI vet bonus protest.
WORLD WAR II 1941-45 Naval, troops, bombing, nuclear Hawaii bombed, fought Japan, Italy and Germany for 3 years; first nuclear war.
DETROIT 1943 Troops Army put down Black rebellion.
IRAN 1946 Nuclear threat Soviet troops told to leave north.
YUGOSLAVIA 1946 Nuclear threat, naval Response to shoot-down of US plane.
URUGUAY 1947 Nuclear threat Bombers deployed as show of strength.
GREECE 1947-49 Command operation U.S. directs extreme-right in civil war.
GERMANY 1948 Nuclear Threat Atomic-capable bombers guard Berlin Airlift.
CHINA 1948-49 Troops/Marines evacuate Americans before Communist victory.
PHILIPPINES 1948-54 Command operation CIA directs war against Huk Rebellion.
PUERTO RICO 1950 Command operation Independence rebellion crushed in Ponce.
KOREA 1951-53 (-?) Troops, naval, bombing , nuclear threats U.S./So. Korea fights China/No. Korea to stalemate; A-bomb threat in 1950, and against China in 1953. Still have bases.
IRAN 1953 Command Operation CIA overthrows democracy, installs Shah.
VIETNAM 1954 Nuclear threat French offered bombs to use against seige.
GUATEMALA 1954 Command operation, bombing, nuclear threat CIA directs exile invasion after new gov't nationalized U.S. company lands; bombers based in Nicaragua.
EGYPT 1956 Nuclear threat, troops Soviets told to keep out of Suez crisis; Marines evacuate foreigners.
LEBANON l958 Troops, naval Marine occupation against rebels.
IRAQ 1958 Nuclear threat Iraq warned against invading Kuwait.
CHINA l958 Nuclear threat China told not to move on Taiwan isles.
PANAMA 1958 Troops Flag protests erupt into confrontation.
VIETNAM l960-75 Troops, naval, bombing, nuclear threats Fought South Vietnam revolt & North Vietnam; one million killed in longest U.S. war; atomic bomb threats in l968 and l969.
CUBA l961 Command operation CIA-directed exile invasion fails.
GERMANY l961 Nuclear threat Alert during Berlin Wall crisis.
LAOS 1962 Command operation Military buildup during guerrilla war.
CUBA l962 Nuclear threat, naval Blockade during missile crisis; near-war with Soviet Union.
IRAQ 1963 Command operation CIA organizes coup that killed president, brings Ba'ath Party to power, and Saddam Hussein back from exile to be head of the secret service.
PANAMA l964 Troops Panamanians shot for urging canal's return.
INDONESIA l965 Command operation Million killed in CIA-assisted army coup.
DOMINICAN REPUBLIC 1965-66 Troops, bombing Marines land during election campaign.
GUATEMALA l966-67 Command operation Green Berets intervene against rebels.
DETROIT l967 Troops Army battles African Americans, 43 killed.
UNITED STATES l968 Troops After King is shot; over 21,000 soldiers in cities.
CAMBODIA l969-75 Bombing, troops, naval Up to 2 million killed in decade of bombing, starvation, and political chaos.
OMAN l970 Command operation U.S. directs Iranian marine invasion.
LAOS l971-73 Command operation, bombing U.S. directs South Vietnamese invasion; "carpet-bombs" countryside.
SOUTH DAKOTA l973 Command operation Army directs Wounded Knee siege of Lakotas.
MIDEAST 1973 Nuclear threat World-wide alert during Mideast War.
CHILE 1973 Command operation CIA-backed coup ousts elected marxist president.
CAMBODIA l975 Troops, bombing Gas captured ship, 28 die in copter crash.
ANGOLA l976-92 Command operation CIA assists South African-backed rebels.
IRAN l980 Troops, nuclear threat, aborted bombing Raid to rescue Embassy hostages; 8 troops die in copter-plane crash. Soviets warned not to get involved in revolution.
LIBYA l981 Naval jets Two Libyan jets shot down in maneuvers.
EL SALVADOR l981-92 Command operation, troops Advisors, overflights aid anti-rebel war, soldiers briefly involved in hostage clash.
NICARAGUA l981-90 Command operation, naval CIA directs exile (Contra) invasions, plants harbor mines against revolution.
LEBANON l982-84 Naval, bombing, troops Marines expel PLO and back Phalangists, Navy bombs and shells Muslim positions.
GRENADA l983-84 Troops, bombing Invasion four years after revolution.
HONDURAS l983-89 Troops Maneuvers help build bases near borders.
IRAN l984 Jets Two Iranian jets shot down over Persian Gulf.
LIBYA l986 Bombing, naval Air strikes to topple nationalist gov't.
BOLIVIA 1986 Troops Army assists raids on cocaine region.
IRAN l987-88 Naval, bombing US intervenes on side of Iraq in war.
LIBYA 1989 Naval jets Two Libyan jets shot down.
VIRGIN ISLANDS 1989 Troops St. Croix Black unrest after storm.
PHILIPPINES 1989 Jets Air cover provided for government against coup.
PANAMA 1989 (-?) Troops, bombing Nationalist government ousted by 27,000 soldiers, leaders arrested, 2000+ killed.
LIBERIA 1990 Troops Foreigners evacuated during civil war.
SAUDI ARABIA 1990-91 Troops, jets Iraq countered after invading Kuwait. 540,000 troops also stationed in Oman, Qatar, Bahrain, UAE, Israel.
IRAQ 1990-91 Bombing, troops, naval Blockade of Iraqi and Jordanian ports, air strikes; 200,000+ killed in invasion of Iraq and Kuwait; large-scale destruction of Iraqi military.
KUWAIT 1991 Naval, bombing, troops Kuwait royal family returned to throne.
IRAQ 1991-2003 Bombing, naval No-fly zone over Kurdish north, Shiite south; constant air strikes and naval-enforced economic sanctions
LOS ANGELES 1992 Troops Army, Marines deployed against anti-police uprising.
SOMALIA 1992-94 Troops, naval, bombing U.S.-led United Nations occupation during civil war; raids against one Mogadishu faction.
YUGOSLAVIA 1992-94 Naval NATO blockade of Serbia and Montenegro.
BOSNIA 1993-? Jets, bombing No-fly zone patrolled in civil war; downed jets, bombed Serbs.
HAITI 1994 Troops, naval Blockade against military government; troops restore President Aristide to office three years after coup.
ZAIRE (CONGO) 1996-97 Troops Marines at Rwandan Hutu refugee camps, in area where Congo revolution begins.
LIBERIA 1997 Troops Soldiers under fire during evacuation of foreigners.
ALBANIA 1997 Troops Soldiers under fire during evacuation of foreigners.
SUDAN 1998 Missiles Attack on pharmaceutical plant alleged to be "terrorist" nerve gas plant.
AFGHANISTAN 1998 Missiles Attack on former CIA training camps used by Islamic fundamentalist groups alleged to have attacked embassies.
IRAQ 1998 Bombing, Missiles Four days of intensive air strikes after weapons inspectors allege Iraqi obstructions.
YUGOSLAVIA 1999 Bombing, Missiles Heavy NATO air strikes after Serbia declines to withdraw from Kosovo. NATO occupation of Kosovo.
YEMEN 2000 Naval USS Cole, docked in Aden, bombed.
MACEDONIA 2001 Troops NATO forces deployed to move and disarm Albanian rebels.
UNITED STATES 2001 Jets, naval Reaction to hijacker attacks on New York, DC
AFGHANISTAN 2001-? Troops, bombing, missiles Massive U.S. mobilization to overthrow Taliban, hunt Al Qaeda fighters, install Karzai regime, and battle Taliban insurgency. More than 30,000 U.S. troops and numerous private security contractors carry our occupation.
YEMEN 2002 Missiles Predator drone missile attack on Al Qaeda, including a US citizen.
PHILIPPINES 2002-? Troops, naval Training mission for Philippine military fighting Abu Sayyaf rebels evolves into combat missions in Sulu Archipelago, west of Mindanao.
COLOMBIA 2003-? Troops US special forces sent to rebel zone to back up Colombian military protecting oil pipeline.
IRAQ 2003-? Troops, naval, bombing, missiles Saddam regime toppled in Baghdad. More than 250,000 U.S. personnel participate in invasion. US and UK forces occupy country and battle Sunni and Shi'ite insurgencies. More than 160,000 troops and numerous private contractors carry out occupation and build large permanent bases.
LIBERIA 2003 Troops Brief involvement in peacekeeping force as rebels drove out leader.
HAITI 2004-05 Troops, naval Marines land after right-wing rebels oust elected President Aristide, who was advised to leave by Washington.
PAKISTAN 2005-? Missiles, bombing, covert operation CIA missile and air strikes and Special Forces raids on alleged Al Qaeda and Taliban refuge villages kill multiple civilians. Drone attacks also on Pakistani Mehsud network.
SOMALIA 2006-? Missiles, naval, troops, command operation Special Forces advise Ethiopian invasion that topples Islamist government; AC-130 strikes, Cruise missile attacks and helicopter raids against Islamist rebels; naval blockade against "pirates" and insurgents.
SYRIA 2008 Troops Special Forces in helicopter raid 5 miles from Iraq kill 8 Syrian civilians
YEMEN 2009-? Missiles, command operation Cruise missile attack on Al Qaeda kills 49 civilians; Yemeni military assaults on rebels
LIBYA 2011-? Bombing, missiles, command operation NATO coordinates air strikes and missile attacks against Qaddafi government during uprising by rebel army.
NOTES: Does mot include:
• Mobilization of the National Guard
• offshore shows of naval strength
• reinforcements of embassy personnel
• the use of non-Defense Department personnel (such as the Drug Enforcement Administration)
• military exercises
• non-combat mobilizations (such as replacing postal strikers)
• the permanent stationing of armed forces
• covert actions where the U.S. did not play a command and control role
• the use of small hostage rescue units
• most uses of proxy troops
• U.S. piloting of foreign warplanes
• foreign or domestic disaster assistance
• military training and advisory programs not involving direct combat
• civic action programs
• and many other military activities.
SOME SUGGESTIONS
How can we stop US from going to war? A blogger has suggested the following (Is America the world's bully? May 1, 2005
http://alspolitics1.blogspot.com/2005/05/is-america-worlds-bully.html):
1. Do not appoint a bully (John Bolton) as ambassador to the U.N. That's just stupid.
2. Stop invading, bombing and 'regime changing' small countries that have not attacked us or invaded their neighbors.
3. Join the international community as one member of the family of nations, rather than as the biggest bully.
4. Dismantle our global military empire, withdrawing our troops from other countries and giving up the notion that we should exert military control of the entire world.
5. With some of the money saved on the military, put our expansionist energy into large scale colonization of space. Compared to controlling the Earth, space offers hundreds of times more real estate, thousands of times more materials, and millions of times more energy. Vigorous colonization of space promises far more power than military domination of Earth. Space colonization also does not invovling killing or oppressing people, or deciding what regime they shall have. See http://lifesci3.arc.nasa.gov/SpaceSettlement for details.
It won't be easy and it will take a long time. The alternative is greater and greater military expenditure trying to run everything. This will eventually fail and we will suffer the same fate as past international bullies. Christ once said something like "Those who live by the sword shall perish by the sword." I'm not a Christian, but you gotta respect a guy with that kind of insight. Perhaps we should listen.
DEMOCRATIC WAY TO CONTROL WAR
We can reduce the incident of US foreign wars and invasions of other countries by amending the US Constitution in the following ways:
(1) US will not go to war unless US is physically attacked. REASON: This makes war justifiable, at least staying away from unwarranted wars.
(2) US will not go to war unless there is a referendum on war (when US spend over 100 millions on military operations overseas). This can be done by giving the taxpayers an affirmative choice of NOT using their tax dollars on any ONE item of federal expenditure they disapprove. (The taxpayers must pay the same tax.)REASON: This makes war democratic. No taxation without representation.
(3) US will not go to war unless the Vice President serves in the war zone. REASON: The executive branch must lead in battle, per spirit of US Constitution, and military doctrine.
(4) US will not go to war unless the 25% of the elected officials who voted for the war (selected by random) are deployed to the frontline for at least a year. REASON: The representatives of the people must not only decide to go to war, but serve in war. They them know what war is like. The elected officials must also make sacrifice, if the war is just and necessary.
(5) US will not go to war unless all the eligible elected officials’ children are drafted. REASON: The Congress must not only send other people’s kids to war, and not their own.
(6) US will not go to war unless US pay compensation to all civilians killed and property damaged as a result of US war actions, whether they are intentional, accidental or collateral. US will pay the same amount we would have to pay if the war in conducted on US soil. REASON: US must pay the costs of war, with money, not words of condolences. (“US regret the killing of innocent life in war due to collateral damages.”)
The above proposals are based on one simple principle: when US decides to go to war, the decision must be made carefully, such that the costs of war are equally distributed and personally felt.
MYTH OF DEMOCRATIC ACCOUNTABILITY?
One caveat before I end. There is a myth that democratic government can do no wrong. I do not subscribe to that view. Democratic governance, good or bad, ultimately depends on the collective wisdom of the people. For example, if the people of a country is ill informed then the nation's choice of going to war is not likely to be enlightened.
There are increase evidence that the reason why US (as the world's leading democracy) has been able to start wars year in year out is because:
(1) The people do not know any better, the ignorant mas thesis. This is the case with Bush's war in Iraq. Since the people do not have to pay for the war (Iraq was fought with borrowed money, chiefly from China and Japan) or fight in the war (many of the soldiers are foreign nations and more than a few are mercenaries (private contractors), the costs of war are borne by the next generation, in higher taxes, lower standard of living and broken families.
(2) The people do not care as much. Since the war is fought on TV in a foreign land, not on the main streets of USA. People are not vested, materially and emotionally. Iraq to many is just a war game. The apathy thesis.
(3) People are adversarial and violent prone. American people love a good fight. They enjoy settling scores through physical fights. They adore action heroes. The violent culture thesis.
Simply put, democracy does not necessarily mean less war!
Hopefully, my proposition of Constitutional amendments would put a barrier between ignorant, apathetic, and belligerent people in check.
Thursday, May 5, 2011
Bruce Lee Movie and Special Force Operations
As a young man I loved Bruce Lee movies. In the movie, Bruce Lee is always righteous and forever fearless.
Bruce Lee’s is righteous. His action against his nemesis is always just. After all, he was always pushed against the wall before fighting back, reluctantly, and apologetically. I remember saying to myself, as I watched “Fist of Fury”: “Quick, do something, anything, to show the Japanese that Chinese are not "Sick Men of East Asia" (東亞病夫).” In every Bruce Lee movie I cheered him on. In every movie Bruce Lee would take his time, with insult after insult from the bad guys, before he fought back, and won, at the very end. What a gentleman!
Bruce Lee is fearless. He can take on 10, 100 people with a fist, leg and at times a pair of Nunchuck. His moves are fast. His kills are clean. He never walks away from a good fight. He is full of bravado. His body posture and hand gestures always send off the message: “Bring it on, if you dare." What a hero!
Years later, I became a black belt karate instructor and riot platoon commander. I started to learn about martial art and military operations, from inside out and not outside in. That was when I started to realize that Bruce Lee’s movie as imaged has nothing to do with reality as lived.
In reality, there are few (if any) completely good guys or totally bad guys. People just do not get along. One thing leads to anther, instead of talking, people get into fights. Marriage couples are good examples. As a divorce lawyer for a number of years, I have heard enough of such a saying: “It is all is his/her fault.” In fact, with any human relationship, there is enough blame to go around, for both sides. In US, there is this saying: "It takes two to tangle." (We cannot fight with ourselves, alone. In actuality, when we get into a fight, we are fighting our internal demon. In the US, we are always fighting a war with someone - we need to show our goodness by attacking badness!) There is an age old Chinese saying: “The most wise judge cannot begin to sort out a family dispute.” (This means that human relationship are reciprocal, full of gives and takes.) The point here is that in real life, as distinguish from a Bruce Lee movie, everyone are righteously disposed, but not everyone is free of blame.
In reality, there are few (if any) heroes. As a karate practitioner and police commander, I am both competent and confident. I know how to handle myself/my troops. If I am in a fight, I am sure I would win, in the end. But I am always fearful of the fighting process. I am fearful of getting into a fight for any number of reasons. What if I make a wrong move? What it I have read my opponent wrong? What if luck is not on my side? What if there is a freak accident?
As I get into a fight, I always know I would get hurt. What I do not know is when, where, how and how seriously I will be hurt.
Through the years, I learn to have a lot more respect for my adversaries. In my victory, I always hope that I did the least harm to others. Sometimes when fatality happened or injury occurred, I always wonder out loud whether I could have avoided or minimized the harm, even with risk to my own well being. To a martial expert, fighting a good fight does not necessary need to be a mean and demeaning process. A fearless warrior takes on a whole new meaning. There are all kinds of fear and apprehension in anything we do, that is of consequences! In stead of being fearless we need to be fearful; luck running out or doing the wrong thing. One thing that “intelligent” fear teaches us is not to get into a fight at all. And, if we have to fight, we have to fight to save life, not to pile up damages.
I wrote at length about Bruce Lee movie and my experience with martial art to make a point – do not believe what the media say about the special force. More pointedly, do not fantasize about righteous killings and fearless warriors. They do not exist in real life. (Every time Bruce Lee movie is in town, I have 100 people lining up at my dojo wanting to be the next Bruce Lee. I fear the same for special force.)
I am sure the special force is a superlative trained and well prepared fighting force that our country cannot do without. However, I know from life experience that the invasion of Pakistan and execution of Osama bin Laden did not happened like a Bruce Lee movie: a righteous kill by fearless warriors in a picture perfect engagement.
For example,
. there is little righteousness in invading another sovereign nation (Pakistan)
. there is little righteousness in killing an unarmed terrorist
. there is a lot more fear to go around if one of the two special force choppers went down and the elite Pakistan arm force training site is just around the corner
There is every indication - few weapons, slight resistance, no firefight - that the nation is fed a special force movies script that is not real. (As I write, the story line of the special force operation is still changing.) There is also plenty of evidence that the people want to see a special force reality show, as imagined, more so than wanting to know what really happened.
AFTERWORD
I write this commentary not because I want to belittle the special force. As a martial artist, I have great respect for them.
I write this commentary to make people know that special force operations are not like Bruce Lee movie with righteous and fearless warriors, fighting a picture perfect war – make for prime time.
The nation and public is put on notice – war is messy, operations are bloody, and killing people are never fun.
Lastly and most importantly, the Osama bin Laden execution is not a Bruce Lee movie certainly for entertainment and adoration!
If you do decide to join the special force, please leave the Bruce Lee movie at home. Otherwise, you will be disappointed…
Bruce Lee’s is righteous. His action against his nemesis is always just. After all, he was always pushed against the wall before fighting back, reluctantly, and apologetically. I remember saying to myself, as I watched “Fist of Fury”: “Quick, do something, anything, to show the Japanese that Chinese are not "Sick Men of East Asia" (東亞病夫).” In every Bruce Lee movie I cheered him on. In every movie Bruce Lee would take his time, with insult after insult from the bad guys, before he fought back, and won, at the very end. What a gentleman!
Bruce Lee is fearless. He can take on 10, 100 people with a fist, leg and at times a pair of Nunchuck. His moves are fast. His kills are clean. He never walks away from a good fight. He is full of bravado. His body posture and hand gestures always send off the message: “Bring it on, if you dare." What a hero!
Years later, I became a black belt karate instructor and riot platoon commander. I started to learn about martial art and military operations, from inside out and not outside in. That was when I started to realize that Bruce Lee’s movie as imaged has nothing to do with reality as lived.
In reality, there are few (if any) completely good guys or totally bad guys. People just do not get along. One thing leads to anther, instead of talking, people get into fights. Marriage couples are good examples. As a divorce lawyer for a number of years, I have heard enough of such a saying: “It is all is his/her fault.” In fact, with any human relationship, there is enough blame to go around, for both sides. In US, there is this saying: "It takes two to tangle." (We cannot fight with ourselves, alone. In actuality, when we get into a fight, we are fighting our internal demon. In the US, we are always fighting a war with someone - we need to show our goodness by attacking badness!) There is an age old Chinese saying: “The most wise judge cannot begin to sort out a family dispute.” (This means that human relationship are reciprocal, full of gives and takes.) The point here is that in real life, as distinguish from a Bruce Lee movie, everyone are righteously disposed, but not everyone is free of blame.
In reality, there are few (if any) heroes. As a karate practitioner and police commander, I am both competent and confident. I know how to handle myself/my troops. If I am in a fight, I am sure I would win, in the end. But I am always fearful of the fighting process. I am fearful of getting into a fight for any number of reasons. What if I make a wrong move? What it I have read my opponent wrong? What if luck is not on my side? What if there is a freak accident?
As I get into a fight, I always know I would get hurt. What I do not know is when, where, how and how seriously I will be hurt.
Through the years, I learn to have a lot more respect for my adversaries. In my victory, I always hope that I did the least harm to others. Sometimes when fatality happened or injury occurred, I always wonder out loud whether I could have avoided or minimized the harm, even with risk to my own well being. To a martial expert, fighting a good fight does not necessary need to be a mean and demeaning process. A fearless warrior takes on a whole new meaning. There are all kinds of fear and apprehension in anything we do, that is of consequences! In stead of being fearless we need to be fearful; luck running out or doing the wrong thing. One thing that “intelligent” fear teaches us is not to get into a fight at all. And, if we have to fight, we have to fight to save life, not to pile up damages.
I wrote at length about Bruce Lee movie and my experience with martial art to make a point – do not believe what the media say about the special force. More pointedly, do not fantasize about righteous killings and fearless warriors. They do not exist in real life. (Every time Bruce Lee movie is in town, I have 100 people lining up at my dojo wanting to be the next Bruce Lee. I fear the same for special force.)
I am sure the special force is a superlative trained and well prepared fighting force that our country cannot do without. However, I know from life experience that the invasion of Pakistan and execution of Osama bin Laden did not happened like a Bruce Lee movie: a righteous kill by fearless warriors in a picture perfect engagement.
For example,
. there is little righteousness in invading another sovereign nation (Pakistan)
. there is little righteousness in killing an unarmed terrorist
. there is a lot more fear to go around if one of the two special force choppers went down and the elite Pakistan arm force training site is just around the corner
There is every indication - few weapons, slight resistance, no firefight - that the nation is fed a special force movies script that is not real. (As I write, the story line of the special force operation is still changing.) There is also plenty of evidence that the people want to see a special force reality show, as imagined, more so than wanting to know what really happened.
AFTERWORD
I write this commentary not because I want to belittle the special force. As a martial artist, I have great respect for them.
I write this commentary to make people know that special force operations are not like Bruce Lee movie with righteous and fearless warriors, fighting a picture perfect war – make for prime time.
The nation and public is put on notice – war is messy, operations are bloody, and killing people are never fun.
Lastly and most importantly, the Osama bin Laden execution is not a Bruce Lee movie certainly for entertainment and adoration!
If you do decide to join the special force, please leave the Bruce Lee movie at home. Otherwise, you will be disappointed…
Wednesday, May 4, 2011
Who has the right to Osama bin Laden’s photo, dead or alive?
Who has the right to Osama bin Laden’s photo, dead or alive?
TAKING ISSUE WITH OSAMA DEAD IMAGE
Osama bin Laden (OBL) was killed unarmed (executed?) in front of his family without putting up a fight. An issue is raised as to whether his dead photo, with a shot in the head, taken by the US special force, should be released.
US PRESIDENT HAS DUTY TO DECIDE
President Obama, after serious internal discussion and long personal deliberation, decided not to release the photo to the OBL family, US public, or the world community.
When asked in a CBS “60 minutes” interview (May 3, 2011), President Obama gave the following reason for non-release: "It is important for us to make sure that very graphic photos of somebody who was shot in the head are not floating around as an incitement to additional violence."
I agree that the President, as the chief executive of the nation and Commander-in-Chief of the arm force, has the ultimate responsibility and legal authority to decide. I support his decision as a US national. However, with all due respect, I disagree with his decision, on legal and humanitarian grounds.
OBL HAS PRIVACY RIGHTS TO HIS IMAGE
First, photo(s) of OBL, dead or alive, might have been taken by the US special force, but OBL’s image belong to him and him alone. A fugitive might give up his life, not his privacy, still less copyright interest to his own image.
To begin with, it must be remembered that the dead by shooting photo was taken at OBL’s home and without his consent. Since that is the case, I do not see how the US government can claim that it has a right to first take the photo and later to disposal of it.
In terms of legal analysis, the question of right to take the photo should be separated from the right to invade OBL’s home and kill OBL. The US might be justified to kill OBL as an act of justifiable defense in time of war, it nevertheless has no right to take the photograph, and later dispose of it, as it deems fit. This is particularly the case with the dead photo of OBL. OBL might deserve to die, but he is entitled to his privacy (control of his own personal information).
If the US now argues otherwise, that the US government has a right to the dead image of OBL, where does such a right derive? If we follow President Obama’s suggestion and keep OBL’s photo, what is to stop the US government from selling the OBL’s dead photo to the highest bidder, fo a gain. I am sure OBL’s dead photo is worth millions of dollars. As an example, I do not suppose the US government has the right to take pictures of executed prisoners and sell them for a profit to deflate the cost of execution?
IT IS OK TO KILL, BUT NOT BE SEEN TO HAVE KILLED?
Second, President’s decision to not release OBL’s photo is based entirely on strategic – tactical grounds, i.e., the photo is too inflammatory; it might excite emotions and incite riots, to the detriment of national security. In this the President has learned from Abu Grab. This I understand and concur: a picture is worth a thousand words. However this kind of argument has one major flaw – it place the cart before the horse. The killing, not the photo is the inflammatory act.
In declining to publish OBL’s dead photo, what the President is actually saying is that it is OK to kill people, but it is not OK to show people how we kill people. More simply, US government is willing to kill people but US is not willing to face up to the consequences, of public opinion, of collective emotions, of damaging blow back.
If that should be the logic, what is to stop the President to take it one step further and order secret killing of adversaries and enemies of the state. Surely, there is everything to lose and nothing to be gain by letting people know that the US government is in the business of killings people, without judicial process or without law.
US PUBLIC HAS A RIGHT TO KNOW
Third, OBL’s dead photo was taken by US paid personnel with the use of government equipments. It belongs to the American people. In a democracy, the people have an absolute right to know, all the facts, not “managed” (manipulated or sterilized) facts. While I agree that the people’s right to know might at times be subject to countervailing considerations, e.g., impede investigation, but that should not include adverse consequential impact of the photo, to our enemies, on our people. This is particularly the case when the details of OBL execution was vividly described, highly publicized, widely known, in and around the world.
IT IS THE HUMANE THING TO DO
Finally, President Obama in making his decision did not consult the OBL family nor were their sentiments considered. This raises the issue of whose vales and interests the President should be taking into account in the disposition of OBL’s body and photo.
I would like to think that in deciding on when and how to capture/kill OBL, US values and interests should be of the most concern. However, in bringing closure to OBL’s death, the family of OBL should have the ultimate say. The President seems to agree. President Obama was heard saying the US respect the tradition of Islam in burying OBL at sea in 24 hrs. after cleaning. But the President never once asked PBL’s family what they want to do with his body or photo!!
I would like to think the family of OBL would like to obtain OBL’s remains, including his photos, such that they can of remember him by. It is inhumane to deny the OBL family members of their wish to the last photo of OBL.
In the US we routinely return bodies of executed prisoners to the family for proper burial, why not OBL!? Is it because a dead terrorist leader is less a human being? Or is it because a dead Islamic terrorist is less deserving of respect than as an American criminal?
TAKING ISSUE WITH OSAMA DEAD IMAGE
Osama bin Laden (OBL) was killed unarmed (executed?) in front of his family without putting up a fight. An issue is raised as to whether his dead photo, with a shot in the head, taken by the US special force, should be released.
US PRESIDENT HAS DUTY TO DECIDE
President Obama, after serious internal discussion and long personal deliberation, decided not to release the photo to the OBL family, US public, or the world community.
When asked in a CBS “60 minutes” interview (May 3, 2011), President Obama gave the following reason for non-release: "It is important for us to make sure that very graphic photos of somebody who was shot in the head are not floating around as an incitement to additional violence."
I agree that the President, as the chief executive of the nation and Commander-in-Chief of the arm force, has the ultimate responsibility and legal authority to decide. I support his decision as a US national. However, with all due respect, I disagree with his decision, on legal and humanitarian grounds.
OBL HAS PRIVACY RIGHTS TO HIS IMAGE
First, photo(s) of OBL, dead or alive, might have been taken by the US special force, but OBL’s image belong to him and him alone. A fugitive might give up his life, not his privacy, still less copyright interest to his own image.
To begin with, it must be remembered that the dead by shooting photo was taken at OBL’s home and without his consent. Since that is the case, I do not see how the US government can claim that it has a right to first take the photo and later to disposal of it.
In terms of legal analysis, the question of right to take the photo should be separated from the right to invade OBL’s home and kill OBL. The US might be justified to kill OBL as an act of justifiable defense in time of war, it nevertheless has no right to take the photograph, and later dispose of it, as it deems fit. This is particularly the case with the dead photo of OBL. OBL might deserve to die, but he is entitled to his privacy (control of his own personal information).
If the US now argues otherwise, that the US government has a right to the dead image of OBL, where does such a right derive? If we follow President Obama’s suggestion and keep OBL’s photo, what is to stop the US government from selling the OBL’s dead photo to the highest bidder, fo a gain. I am sure OBL’s dead photo is worth millions of dollars. As an example, I do not suppose the US government has the right to take pictures of executed prisoners and sell them for a profit to deflate the cost of execution?
IT IS OK TO KILL, BUT NOT BE SEEN TO HAVE KILLED?
Second, President’s decision to not release OBL’s photo is based entirely on strategic – tactical grounds, i.e., the photo is too inflammatory; it might excite emotions and incite riots, to the detriment of national security. In this the President has learned from Abu Grab. This I understand and concur: a picture is worth a thousand words. However this kind of argument has one major flaw – it place the cart before the horse. The killing, not the photo is the inflammatory act.
In declining to publish OBL’s dead photo, what the President is actually saying is that it is OK to kill people, but it is not OK to show people how we kill people. More simply, US government is willing to kill people but US is not willing to face up to the consequences, of public opinion, of collective emotions, of damaging blow back.
If that should be the logic, what is to stop the President to take it one step further and order secret killing of adversaries and enemies of the state. Surely, there is everything to lose and nothing to be gain by letting people know that the US government is in the business of killings people, without judicial process or without law.
US PUBLIC HAS A RIGHT TO KNOW
Third, OBL’s dead photo was taken by US paid personnel with the use of government equipments. It belongs to the American people. In a democracy, the people have an absolute right to know, all the facts, not “managed” (manipulated or sterilized) facts. While I agree that the people’s right to know might at times be subject to countervailing considerations, e.g., impede investigation, but that should not include adverse consequential impact of the photo, to our enemies, on our people. This is particularly the case when the details of OBL execution was vividly described, highly publicized, widely known, in and around the world.
IT IS THE HUMANE THING TO DO
Finally, President Obama in making his decision did not consult the OBL family nor were their sentiments considered. This raises the issue of whose vales and interests the President should be taking into account in the disposition of OBL’s body and photo.
I would like to think that in deciding on when and how to capture/kill OBL, US values and interests should be of the most concern. However, in bringing closure to OBL’s death, the family of OBL should have the ultimate say. The President seems to agree. President Obama was heard saying the US respect the tradition of Islam in burying OBL at sea in 24 hrs. after cleaning. But the President never once asked PBL’s family what they want to do with his body or photo!!
I would like to think the family of OBL would like to obtain OBL’s remains, including his photos, such that they can of remember him by. It is inhumane to deny the OBL family members of their wish to the last photo of OBL.
In the US we routinely return bodies of executed prisoners to the family for proper burial, why not OBL!? Is it because a dead terrorist leader is less a human being? Or is it because a dead Islamic terrorist is less deserving of respect than as an American criminal?
Who has the right to Osama bin Laden’s photo, dead or alive?
Who has the right to Osama bin Laden’s photo, dead or alive?
TAKING ISSUE WITH OSAMA DEAD IMAGE
Osama bin Laden (OBL) was killed unarmed (executed?) in front of his family without putting up a fight. An issue is raised as to whether his dead photo, with a shot in the head, taken by the US special force, should be released.
US PRESIDENT HAS DUTY TO DECIDE
President Obama, after serious internal discussion and long personal deliberation, decided not to release the photo to the OBL family, US public, or the world community.
When asked in a CBS “60 minutes” interview (May 3, 2011), President Obama gave the following reason for non-release: "It is important for us to make sure that very graphic photos of somebody who was shot in the head are not floating around as an incitement to additional violence."
I agree that the President, as the chief executive of the nation and Commander-in-Chief of the arm force, has the ultimate responsibility and legal authority to decide. I support his decision as a US national. However, with all due respect, I disagree with his decision, on legal and humanitarian grounds.
OBL HAS PRIVACY RIGHTS TO HIS IMAGE
First, photo(s) of OBL, dead or alive, might have been taken by the US special force, but OBL’s image belong to him and him alone. A fugitive might give up his life, not his privacy, still less copyright interest to his own image.
To begin with, it must be remembered that the dead by shooting photo was taken at OBL’s home and without his consent. Since that is the case, I do not see how the US government can claim that it has the right to first take the photo and later to disposal of it, at will.
In terms of legal analysis, the question of right to take the photo should be separated from the right to invade OBL’s home and kill OBL. The US might be justified to kill OBL as an act of justifiable defense in time of war, it nevertheless has no right to take the photograph, and later dispose of it. This is particularly the case with the dead photo of OBL. OBL might deserve to die, but he is entitled to his privacy (control of his own personal information).
If the US now argues otherwise, that the US government has a right to the dead image of OBL, where does such a right derive? If we follow President’s Obama’s suggestion and keep OBL’s photo, what is to stop the US government to sell OBL’s dead photo to the highest bidder, for a gain. I am sure OBL’s dead photo is worth millions of dollars. As an example, I do not suppose the US government can now take pictures of executed prisoners and sell them for a profit to deflate the cost of execution?
IT IS OK TO KILL, BUT NOT BE SEEN TO HAVE KILLED?
Second, President’s decision to not release OBL’s photo is based entirely on strategy – tactical grounds, i.e., the photo is too inflammatory, it might excite emotions and incite riots, to the detriment of national security. In this the President has learned from Abu Grab. This I understand and concur: a picture is worth a thousand words. However this kind of argument has one major flaw – it places the cart before the horse. The killing, not the photo is the inflammatory act.
In declining to publish OBL’s dead photo, what the President is actually saying is that it is OK for US to kill people, in a gross fashion), but it is not OK to for the US to show people that it is killing people, grossly. More simply, US government is willing to kill people but US is not willing to face the consequences, of public opinion, of collective emotions. If the US government believe that it is doing the right thing, it should stand tall and be be prepare to deal with the consequences, in a forthright and courageous manner.
If that should be the logic, what is to stop the President to take it one step further and order secret killing of adversaries and enemies of the state. Surely, there is everything to lose and nothing to be gain, in covering ones "right" doing.
US PUBLIC HAS A RIGHT TO KNOW
Third, OBL’s dead photo was taken by US paid personnel with the use of government equipments. Thus the photo belongs to the American people. In a democracy, the people have an absolute right to know, all the facts, not “managed” (manipulated or sterilized) facts. While I agree that the people’s right to know might at times be subject to countervailing considerations, e.g., impede investigation, but that should not include avoid adverse impact of the photo release, on our people. This is particularly the case when the details of how OBL execution was vividly described, highly publicized, widely known, in and around the world.
IT IS THE HUMANE THING TO DO
Finally, President Obama in making his decision did not consult the OBL family nor consider their sentiments. This raises the issue of whose vales and interests the President should be taking into account in the disposition of OBL’s body and photo.
I would like to think that in deciding on when and how to capture/kill OBL, US values and interests should be of most concerns. However, in bringing closure to OBL’s death, the family of OBL should have the the ultimate say. The President seems to agree. President Obama was heard saying that the US respect the tradition of Islam in burying OBL at sea after cleaning. But the President never once asked PBL’s family what they want to do with his body or photo!!
I would like to think the family of OBL would like to obtain OBL’s remains, including his photos, such that they can remember him by. It is inhumane to deny the OBL family members' wish to share in OBL's last moment.
In the US we routinely return bodies of executed prisoners for proper family burial, why not OBL!?
TAKING ISSUE WITH OSAMA DEAD IMAGE
Osama bin Laden (OBL) was killed unarmed (executed?) in front of his family without putting up a fight. An issue is raised as to whether his dead photo, with a shot in the head, taken by the US special force, should be released.
US PRESIDENT HAS DUTY TO DECIDE
President Obama, after serious internal discussion and long personal deliberation, decided not to release the photo to the OBL family, US public, or the world community.
When asked in a CBS “60 minutes” interview (May 3, 2011), President Obama gave the following reason for non-release: "It is important for us to make sure that very graphic photos of somebody who was shot in the head are not floating around as an incitement to additional violence."
I agree that the President, as the chief executive of the nation and Commander-in-Chief of the arm force, has the ultimate responsibility and legal authority to decide. I support his decision as a US national. However, with all due respect, I disagree with his decision, on legal and humanitarian grounds.
OBL HAS PRIVACY RIGHTS TO HIS IMAGE
First, photo(s) of OBL, dead or alive, might have been taken by the US special force, but OBL’s image belong to him and him alone. A fugitive might give up his life, not his privacy, still less copyright interest to his own image.
To begin with, it must be remembered that the dead by shooting photo was taken at OBL’s home and without his consent. Since that is the case, I do not see how the US government can claim that it has the right to first take the photo and later to disposal of it, at will.
In terms of legal analysis, the question of right to take the photo should be separated from the right to invade OBL’s home and kill OBL. The US might be justified to kill OBL as an act of justifiable defense in time of war, it nevertheless has no right to take the photograph, and later dispose of it. This is particularly the case with the dead photo of OBL. OBL might deserve to die, but he is entitled to his privacy (control of his own personal information).
If the US now argues otherwise, that the US government has a right to the dead image of OBL, where does such a right derive? If we follow President’s Obama’s suggestion and keep OBL’s photo, what is to stop the US government to sell OBL’s dead photo to the highest bidder, for a gain. I am sure OBL’s dead photo is worth millions of dollars. As an example, I do not suppose the US government can now take pictures of executed prisoners and sell them for a profit to deflate the cost of execution?
IT IS OK TO KILL, BUT NOT BE SEEN TO HAVE KILLED?
Second, President’s decision to not release OBL’s photo is based entirely on strategy – tactical grounds, i.e., the photo is too inflammatory, it might excite emotions and incite riots, to the detriment of national security. In this the President has learned from Abu Grab. This I understand and concur: a picture is worth a thousand words. However this kind of argument has one major flaw – it places the cart before the horse. The killing, not the photo is the inflammatory act.
In declining to publish OBL’s dead photo, what the President is actually saying is that it is OK for US to kill people, in a gross fashion), but it is not OK to for the US to show people that it is killing people, grossly. More simply, US government is willing to kill people but US is not willing to face the consequences, of public opinion, of collective emotions. If the US government believe that it is doing the right thing, it should stand tall and be be prepare to deal with the consequences, in a forthright and courageous manner.
If that should be the logic, what is to stop the President to take it one step further and order secret killing of adversaries and enemies of the state. Surely, there is everything to lose and nothing to be gain, in covering ones "right" doing.
US PUBLIC HAS A RIGHT TO KNOW
Third, OBL’s dead photo was taken by US paid personnel with the use of government equipments. Thus the photo belongs to the American people. In a democracy, the people have an absolute right to know, all the facts, not “managed” (manipulated or sterilized) facts. While I agree that the people’s right to know might at times be subject to countervailing considerations, e.g., impede investigation, but that should not include avoid adverse impact of the photo release, on our people. This is particularly the case when the details of how OBL execution was vividly described, highly publicized, widely known, in and around the world.
IT IS THE HUMANE THING TO DO
Finally, President Obama in making his decision did not consult the OBL family nor consider their sentiments. This raises the issue of whose vales and interests the President should be taking into account in the disposition of OBL’s body and photo.
I would like to think that in deciding on when and how to capture/kill OBL, US values and interests should be of most concerns. However, in bringing closure to OBL’s death, the family of OBL should have the the ultimate say. The President seems to agree. President Obama was heard saying that the US respect the tradition of Islam in burying OBL at sea after cleaning. But the President never once asked PBL’s family what they want to do with his body or photo!!
I would like to think the family of OBL would like to obtain OBL’s remains, including his photos, such that they can remember him by. It is inhumane to deny the OBL family members' wish to share in OBL's last moment.
In the US we routinely return bodies of executed prisoners for proper family burial, why not OBL!?
Tuesday, May 3, 2011
Killing Osama Bin Landen – Lessons Learned?
JUSTICE BEING DONE
On May 1, 2011 Osama Bin Laden (OBL) is killed. The nation rejoiced. There are good reasons to do so.
First, OBL is responsible for killing 3000 innocent people on September 11, 2011, and many more afterward. Justice is done.
Second, OBL declared war on America. He is an enemy of the United States. Enemy deserves to die.
Third, OBL has openly humiliated America. OBL, and others, must pay for his defiance, arrogance. America will not be humiliated.
Fourth, OBL is the titular head of an Islamic terrorist organization that promises to kill Americans and destroy US’s way of life. Terrorist leadership must be neutralized. Future terrorists must be stopped. America must be secured.
Fifth, OBL is the iconic leader of a (fanatic) Islamic movement against the free world. Islamism is against the core Western values - freedom, democracy and Christianity. Fanaticism challenges Western ideological hegemony and threatens America’s political dominance, with force. Militarized Islamism has to be stopped. Western (economic/ cultural/ military) dominance must be secured, and unquestioned.
Which of the reasons above are the real reason for killing OBL?
MORE QUESTIONS THAN ANSWER
Now some sobering and nagging questions. There are four:
First, can we trust the US at its words, to tell the truth, to reveal all facts? Can we trust the US in telling the OBL story as it happened? There is no reason to think so, looking back on history and as a matter of necessity.
US has a history of lying, for convenience. Not long ago, US military honored a fallen hero – Pat Tillman – an NFL player turned Rangers was awarded a silver star for being killed under enemy fire. It was found out later that President Bush lied. (Bush also lied about WMD to invade Iraq, torture of suspected terrorists, and Internet surveillance of all Americans.) Tillman was killed by friendly fire, in a most careless and unwarranted way.
US has a need not to tell all. If truth be known, it is SOP at CIA and operational doctrine with special force to conceal its ways and means, source and methods, and understandably so. President Bush and VP Cheney have used that excuse to detain and torture people without due process, and in secret. Why do people think it should be any different with the OBL operation?
Americans do not want the truth. The US public wants to be entertained. The US media want market share. The President wants to be reelected. No one want the truth, which more often than not, is disturbing (Abu Ghraib), controversial (Nixon tapes), and embarrassing (Wilkii leaks). People cannot deal with inconvenient truth (Gore).
The truth lies somewhere, and perhaps will never be known. (We have yet to sort out the truth behind 9/11 attack – 17 of the 19 hijackers were Arabs. Arabs in the US were allowed to leave the country without properly vetted by the FBI, or held as persons of interest, within days of 9/11.)
Second, why is there no attempt to capture OBL, alive? It is reported that the special force operation is a kill, not capture, military venture. (This story changed within 24 hours. Now the story is while OBL has no weapon and did not put up a fight, his wife was coming to his rescue and made a furtive move.) If the US is truly concerned with defeating terrorism and protecting the homeland, OBL is certainly a most priced intelligence source. (The SEAL team 6 did seize documents and computer for intelligence, but not OBL. Strange indeed - cold data without interpretation is useless.) An interrogation of OBL might yield a treasure trove of information, e.g., where is OBL’s deputy Ayman al-Zawahir? How does OBL command control works? What is the next terrorist’ plot?
Third, what right do US have to mount a kill or a capture military operation in Pakistan, without authorization or notice to Pakistan leadership? According to General/Secretary Powell, it is because Pakistan cannot keep a secret. According to Clinton, Pakistan (ISI) aids and abets Bin Laden. Whatever the reasons, is this not a military invasion of another sovereign country? Rhetorically, would US stand for such an attack by Mexico on US soil to stop drug lords in the US, killing (innocent) people and destroying (valuable) property in the process?
What does that tell us about US’s respect for international law? What does it tell us about US as a “rule of law” and “peace loving” country?
(A) If US can attack other nations’ at will to do “American” justice, why is US not attacking China for imprisoning Chinese dissident Liu Xiao, the Nobel winner and denying freedom of speech to millions, as in Google. Could it be the case that China is economically strong and military prepared? If so, what does it tell us about US’s conviction and capacity to fight for justice, at all costs and in every situations?
(B) If US will ONLY attack the militarily weak and economically dependent countries to seek justice, does this not amount to “might make right”? What are the lessons to other countries? In order to preserve national sovereignty, a country needs to be military strong (Iran, Korea – nuclear) and economically dominant (Saudi Arabia – oil, China – US bond), not morally superior and spiritually uplifting!
Fourth, if it is right and proper for US to invade another country (Pakistan) who is deemed to have given aids and comfort to OBL, a terrorist and a murderer, what of the thousands of innocent people US killed from Vietnam to Iraq to Afghanistan, as a result of collateral damages or due to war crime, from Blackwater indiscriminate killing of dozens in Iraq to CIA (Davis) agent cold blooded murder of two people in Pakistan. In both cases, the offenders never face justice in foreign soils? Should Pakistan mount a operation to attack the US to vindicate many drone attacks deaths on its soil?
SOME REFLECTIONS
As US celebrate the killing of OBL, US need to take the opportunity to reflect on lessons learned, such as what does US action reflects and portents? What do the rest of the world thinks about America after the OBL killing? It is foolhearted to believe, as US do, that what is just to the US is also right by other countries.
In taking out OBL by invading another country, America is teaching by example (after all that is what true leadership is all about) what other countries should never do, i.e., invade other country to seek justice for its own people, even if it is against international law and involve killing of innocent people (with regret and compensations notwithstanding). That is what OBL preaches to a generation of Islamic followers – it is defensible to kill innocent people for a just cause; after all that is what terrorism is all about.
Other counties should not behave like the US, i.e., when a country’s national interests or cultural values are being challenged, they should use whatever force at their disposal to neutralize their enemies of choice, including killing of innocent people or invading another sovereign nation. Simply put: might does not make right, and shoot to kill first and talk about humanity later (respect Islamic tradition by burying OBL at sea within 24 hours without consulting OBL’s family!) is not the way to go.
The bottom line – military might not moral power is the language of the world, by US account and example.
If that is the message and lesson, the world can expect more violence ahead, and indiscriminately so.
In historical terms, that is the ultimate lesson of OBL killing – a small step for American justice, a huge jump for global disorder!
AFTERWORD
As I write this commentary, my heart and prayer (in different denominations) goes out to the 3000 global citizens killed on 9/11, and many others after. To do them justice, we must defeat terrorism by standing tall and insist on treating other as we would like to be treated, with respect and humanity.
On May 1, 2011 Osama Bin Laden (OBL) is killed. The nation rejoiced. There are good reasons to do so.
First, OBL is responsible for killing 3000 innocent people on September 11, 2011, and many more afterward. Justice is done.
Second, OBL declared war on America. He is an enemy of the United States. Enemy deserves to die.
Third, OBL has openly humiliated America. OBL, and others, must pay for his defiance, arrogance. America will not be humiliated.
Fourth, OBL is the titular head of an Islamic terrorist organization that promises to kill Americans and destroy US’s way of life. Terrorist leadership must be neutralized. Future terrorists must be stopped. America must be secured.
Fifth, OBL is the iconic leader of a (fanatic) Islamic movement against the free world. Islamism is against the core Western values - freedom, democracy and Christianity. Fanaticism challenges Western ideological hegemony and threatens America’s political dominance, with force. Militarized Islamism has to be stopped. Western (economic/ cultural/ military) dominance must be secured, and unquestioned.
Which of the reasons above are the real reason for killing OBL?
MORE QUESTIONS THAN ANSWER
Now some sobering and nagging questions. There are four:
First, can we trust the US at its words, to tell the truth, to reveal all facts? Can we trust the US in telling the OBL story as it happened? There is no reason to think so, looking back on history and as a matter of necessity.
US has a history of lying, for convenience. Not long ago, US military honored a fallen hero – Pat Tillman – an NFL player turned Rangers was awarded a silver star for being killed under enemy fire. It was found out later that President Bush lied. (Bush also lied about WMD to invade Iraq, torture of suspected terrorists, and Internet surveillance of all Americans.) Tillman was killed by friendly fire, in a most careless and unwarranted way.
US has a need not to tell all. If truth be known, it is SOP at CIA and operational doctrine with special force to conceal its ways and means, source and methods, and understandably so. President Bush and VP Cheney have used that excuse to detain and torture people without due process, and in secret. Why do people think it should be any different with the OBL operation?
Americans do not want the truth. The US public wants to be entertained. The US media want market share. The President wants to be reelected. No one want the truth, which more often than not, is disturbing (Abu Ghraib), controversial (Nixon tapes), and embarrassing (Wilkii leaks). People cannot deal with inconvenient truth (Gore).
The truth lies somewhere, and perhaps will never be known. (We have yet to sort out the truth behind 9/11 attack – 17 of the 19 hijackers were Arabs. Arabs in the US were allowed to leave the country without properly vetted by the FBI, or held as persons of interest, within days of 9/11.)
Second, why is there no attempt to capture OBL, alive? It is reported that the special force operation is a kill, not capture, military venture. (This story changed within 24 hours. Now the story is while OBL has no weapon and did not put up a fight, his wife was coming to his rescue and made a furtive move.) If the US is truly concerned with defeating terrorism and protecting the homeland, OBL is certainly a most priced intelligence source. (The SEAL team 6 did seize documents and computer for intelligence, but not OBL. Strange indeed - cold data without interpretation is useless.) An interrogation of OBL might yield a treasure trove of information, e.g., where is OBL’s deputy Ayman al-Zawahir? How does OBL command control works? What is the next terrorist’ plot?
Third, what right do US have to mount a kill or a capture military operation in Pakistan, without authorization or notice to Pakistan leadership? According to General/Secretary Powell, it is because Pakistan cannot keep a secret. According to Clinton, Pakistan (ISI) aids and abets Bin Laden. Whatever the reasons, is this not a military invasion of another sovereign country? Rhetorically, would US stand for such an attack by Mexico on US soil to stop drug lords in the US, killing (innocent) people and destroying (valuable) property in the process?
What does that tell us about US’s respect for international law? What does it tell us about US as a “rule of law” and “peace loving” country?
(A) If US can attack other nations’ at will to do “American” justice, why is US not attacking China for imprisoning Chinese dissident Liu Xiao, the Nobel winner and denying freedom of speech to millions, as in Google. Could it be the case that China is economically strong and military prepared? If so, what does it tell us about US’s conviction and capacity to fight for justice, at all costs and in every situations?
(B) If US will ONLY attack the militarily weak and economically dependent countries to seek justice, does this not amount to “might make right”? What are the lessons to other countries? In order to preserve national sovereignty, a country needs to be military strong (Iran, Korea – nuclear) and economically dominant (Saudi Arabia – oil, China – US bond), not morally superior and spiritually uplifting!
Fourth, if it is right and proper for US to invade another country (Pakistan) who is deemed to have given aids and comfort to OBL, a terrorist and a murderer, what of the thousands of innocent people US killed from Vietnam to Iraq to Afghanistan, as a result of collateral damages or due to war crime, from Blackwater indiscriminate killing of dozens in Iraq to CIA (Davis) agent cold blooded murder of two people in Pakistan. In both cases, the offenders never face justice in foreign soils? Should Pakistan mount a operation to attack the US to vindicate many drone attacks deaths on its soil?
SOME REFLECTIONS
As US celebrate the killing of OBL, US need to take the opportunity to reflect on lessons learned, such as what does US action reflects and portents? What do the rest of the world thinks about America after the OBL killing? It is foolhearted to believe, as US do, that what is just to the US is also right by other countries.
In taking out OBL by invading another country, America is teaching by example (after all that is what true leadership is all about) what other countries should never do, i.e., invade other country to seek justice for its own people, even if it is against international law and involve killing of innocent people (with regret and compensations notwithstanding). That is what OBL preaches to a generation of Islamic followers – it is defensible to kill innocent people for a just cause; after all that is what terrorism is all about.
Other counties should not behave like the US, i.e., when a country’s national interests or cultural values are being challenged, they should use whatever force at their disposal to neutralize their enemies of choice, including killing of innocent people or invading another sovereign nation. Simply put: might does not make right, and shoot to kill first and talk about humanity later (respect Islamic tradition by burying OBL at sea within 24 hours without consulting OBL’s family!) is not the way to go.
The bottom line – military might not moral power is the language of the world, by US account and example.
If that is the message and lesson, the world can expect more violence ahead, and indiscriminately so.
In historical terms, that is the ultimate lesson of OBL killing – a small step for American justice, a huge jump for global disorder!
AFTERWORD
As I write this commentary, my heart and prayer (in different denominations) goes out to the 3000 global citizens killed on 9/11, and many others after. To do them justice, we must defeat terrorism by standing tall and insist on treating other as we would like to be treated, with respect and humanity.
Tuesday, April 26, 2011
Can US be Trusted?
Can United States be Trusted?
THE FACTS
George Bush manufactured a war with Iraq on an unsubstantial claim that Saddam has WMD. The war costs the nation $3 trillions and more (“The true cost of the Iraq war: $3 trillion and beyond," Washington Post, 9/5/2010), with thousands deaths and injuries (“The documents record 109,032 deaths broken down into "Civilian" (66,081 deaths), "Host Nation" (15,196 deaths),"Enemy" (23,984 deaths), and "Friendly" (3,771 deaths”)
Bernie Madoff perpetrated the world’s largest Ponzi scheme, defrauding his clients of $65 billions (Diana B. Henriques, The Wizard of Lie $65 billions (2011), all because of greed and vanity.
The US financial industry sold worthless sub-prime mortgage papers, with intent to defraud, costing the world trillions of dollars (“US subprime crisis costs global 7.7 trillion dollars: bank,” AP Feb. 14, 2008), and wrecking the life, and livelihood, of thousands, young and old, rich and poor.
State and governments from California (Oakland) to Illinois to Michigan (Detroit) are seeking to cut millions dollars off public employees’ pension (“Public Pension Plans Face Billions in Shortages,” NYT August 8, 2006) in order to balance the budget. In so doing governments breaches contracts with retiring officials, who need the pension to retire , and have worked for it all their life! (“Public Pensions, Once off Limits, Face Budget Cuts,” NYT April 26, 2011).
High schools and colleges are practicing deceptions to conform with No Child Left Behind Law (“Federal authorities begin fraud investigation of Atlanta Public Schools,” Georgia Defense Lawyer Blog, Dec. 27, 2010), or comply with Title IX rules (“College Teams, Relying on Deception, Undermine Gender Equity,” NYT April 26, 2011). Educators engage in such unethical and illegal conduct in order to gain tax benefits or avoid statutory penalty.
Finally we were told that the US government might not be able to pay its bills because of deficit spending, e.g., fighting four wars (Pakistan, Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya) (2012 - $553B on defense, $118B on war) (“US default could be doomsday option for economy,” AP Aril 23, 2011). For example, social security has been borrowed by the federal government to fill budget gaps (“Pay Back the Money Borrowed From Social Security,” HuffingtonPost, April 5, 2011).
THE IMPLICATIONS
What conclusion can we draw from the above media reports of Americans’ breach of faith, individually and as a nation?
As a nation, America is in deep, deep trouble: US have lost one of the most valuable things a nation must process, i.e., showing trustworthiness to others and being honest to itself, in order to survive global competitions, in order to earn peer respect.
Talk is cheap. Action is real. When we tell others to respect human rights, fight corruption or safeguard democracy, we must not only talk the talk but be ready to walk the walk.
It is clear that we, as a nation, love to lecture/preach others about our exceptional values and good intentions, but we seldom carry out the lofty principles we preached to others. (“US should not preach India on human rights: Modi” PTI March 22, 2011).
DOUBLE TALK
Examples of US double talk are everywhere in evident:
. US want Iran to come clean with her nuclear program, yet US does not pressure Israel to do the same. Israel is known to have undisclosed amount of nuclear weapons. (Federal American Scientists, http://www.fas.org/nuke/guide/israel/nuke/) Lesson: Friend is more important than principle.
. US wanted Saddam to stand trial for war crimes, and he did. Should Bush be not be held accountable for war crimes (“Bush and Saddam Should Both Stand Trial, Says Nuremberg Prosecutor,” Common Dreams, August 25, 2006.) After all, Bush admitted to ordering the torture terrorists in US custory. (George W. Bush Admits Torture, Says He Would 'Do It Again'” Guardian, June 3, 2010). Lesson: Might make right.
. US objected to China detaining dissidents in secret and without trial (“Wen Jiabao urges everyone to speak the truth, but the police arrests those who do,” AsiaNews.It, April 19, 2011). But “Wikileaks files reveal scandal of 150 Guantanamo Bay prisoners who US knew were innocent” (Daily Record. April 276, 2011). Lesson: Expediency is more important than morality.
If you have a friend - leader who behave like the US – friendship over principle, might over right and expediency before morality – can you count on him to protect – help – lead you in life and death situations?
Abraham Lincoln famously said: “You can fool all the people some of the time and some of the people all the time but you cannot fool all the people all the time?" (The Collected Works of Abraham Lincoln, vol. 3, p. 81 (ed. Roy P. Basler).
WHAT TO DO?
The US of America has a good set of values – freedom, democracy, human rights, equality, etc.. It has to stop preaching and start living such dreams (and within our means).
In order to do so, I offer up Kant’s simple “categorical imperative”:
The concept of the categorical imperative is a syllogism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Categorical_imperative):
“The first premise is that a person acts morally if his or her conduct would, without condition, be the "right" conduct for any person in similar circumstances (the "First Maxim").
The second premise is that conduct is "right" if it treats others as ends in themselves and not as means to an end (the "Second Maxim").
The conclusion is that a person acts morally when he or she acts as if his or her conduct was establishing a universal law governing others in similar circumstances (the "Third Maxim").”
THE FACTS
George Bush manufactured a war with Iraq on an unsubstantial claim that Saddam has WMD. The war costs the nation $3 trillions and more (“The true cost of the Iraq war: $3 trillion and beyond," Washington Post, 9/5/2010), with thousands deaths and injuries (“The documents record 109,032 deaths broken down into "Civilian" (66,081 deaths), "Host Nation" (15,196 deaths),"Enemy" (23,984 deaths), and "Friendly" (3,771 deaths”)
Bernie Madoff perpetrated the world’s largest Ponzi scheme, defrauding his clients of $65 billions (Diana B. Henriques, The Wizard of Lie $65 billions (2011), all because of greed and vanity.
The US financial industry sold worthless sub-prime mortgage papers, with intent to defraud, costing the world trillions of dollars (“US subprime crisis costs global 7.7 trillion dollars: bank,” AP Feb. 14, 2008), and wrecking the life, and livelihood, of thousands, young and old, rich and poor.
State and governments from California (Oakland) to Illinois to Michigan (Detroit) are seeking to cut millions dollars off public employees’ pension (“Public Pension Plans Face Billions in Shortages,” NYT August 8, 2006) in order to balance the budget. In so doing governments breaches contracts with retiring officials, who need the pension to retire , and have worked for it all their life! (“Public Pensions, Once off Limits, Face Budget Cuts,” NYT April 26, 2011).
High schools and colleges are practicing deceptions to conform with No Child Left Behind Law (“Federal authorities begin fraud investigation of Atlanta Public Schools,” Georgia Defense Lawyer Blog, Dec. 27, 2010), or comply with Title IX rules (“College Teams, Relying on Deception, Undermine Gender Equity,” NYT April 26, 2011). Educators engage in such unethical and illegal conduct in order to gain tax benefits or avoid statutory penalty.
Finally we were told that the US government might not be able to pay its bills because of deficit spending, e.g., fighting four wars (Pakistan, Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya) (2012 - $553B on defense, $118B on war) (“US default could be doomsday option for economy,” AP Aril 23, 2011). For example, social security has been borrowed by the federal government to fill budget gaps (“Pay Back the Money Borrowed From Social Security,” HuffingtonPost, April 5, 2011).
THE IMPLICATIONS
What conclusion can we draw from the above media reports of Americans’ breach of faith, individually and as a nation?
As a nation, America is in deep, deep trouble: US have lost one of the most valuable things a nation must process, i.e., showing trustworthiness to others and being honest to itself, in order to survive global competitions, in order to earn peer respect.
Talk is cheap. Action is real. When we tell others to respect human rights, fight corruption or safeguard democracy, we must not only talk the talk but be ready to walk the walk.
It is clear that we, as a nation, love to lecture/preach others about our exceptional values and good intentions, but we seldom carry out the lofty principles we preached to others. (“US should not preach India on human rights: Modi” PTI March 22, 2011).
DOUBLE TALK
Examples of US double talk are everywhere in evident:
. US want Iran to come clean with her nuclear program, yet US does not pressure Israel to do the same. Israel is known to have undisclosed amount of nuclear weapons. (Federal American Scientists, http://www.fas.org/nuke/guide/israel/nuke/) Lesson: Friend is more important than principle.
. US wanted Saddam to stand trial for war crimes, and he did. Should Bush be not be held accountable for war crimes (“Bush and Saddam Should Both Stand Trial, Says Nuremberg Prosecutor,” Common Dreams, August 25, 2006.) After all, Bush admitted to ordering the torture terrorists in US custory. (George W. Bush Admits Torture, Says He Would 'Do It Again'” Guardian, June 3, 2010). Lesson: Might make right.
. US objected to China detaining dissidents in secret and without trial (“Wen Jiabao urges everyone to speak the truth, but the police arrests those who do,” AsiaNews.It, April 19, 2011). But “Wikileaks files reveal scandal of 150 Guantanamo Bay prisoners who US knew were innocent” (Daily Record. April 276, 2011). Lesson: Expediency is more important than morality.
If you have a friend - leader who behave like the US – friendship over principle, might over right and expediency before morality – can you count on him to protect – help – lead you in life and death situations?
Abraham Lincoln famously said: “You can fool all the people some of the time and some of the people all the time but you cannot fool all the people all the time?" (The Collected Works of Abraham Lincoln, vol. 3, p. 81 (ed. Roy P. Basler).
WHAT TO DO?
The US of America has a good set of values – freedom, democracy, human rights, equality, etc.. It has to stop preaching and start living such dreams (and within our means).
In order to do so, I offer up Kant’s simple “categorical imperative”:
The concept of the categorical imperative is a syllogism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Categorical_imperative):
“The first premise is that a person acts morally if his or her conduct would, without condition, be the "right" conduct for any person in similar circumstances (the "First Maxim").
The second premise is that conduct is "right" if it treats others as ends in themselves and not as means to an end (the "Second Maxim").
The conclusion is that a person acts morally when he or she acts as if his or her conduct was establishing a universal law governing others in similar circumstances (the "Third Maxim").”
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)