| |
October 20, 2001
In the immediate wake of the attacks on the World Trade Center, residents of the
New York City area -- including many Carnegie Council staff and members --
collectively experienced the kind of emotions that, prior to this, had been
familiar mainly to individuals unfortunate enough to have been victims of
violent crime:
Anger and outrage. How dare someone else write us into
their script in the part of victim?
Disbelief. How could anyone hate
us so much?
Humiliation. New York, with its changed skyline, thousands
of victims, and large numbers of displaced people, could hardly deny that the
criminals had won the first round.
Distrust. Since it seemed so
amazing anyone could have done this, virtually everyone and everything became
suspect.
Sense of betrayal. Ordinary American citizens were on the
front lines of the attack. Our government and its intelligence operations had
manifestly failed to protect us.
Fears for personal safety. We wanted
to build a fortress around our airports, borders, bridges, and
tunnels.
Desperation to find meaning nonetheless. Had we done
something to promote this outrageous attack, or was it an act of unadulterated
evil?
Confusion over what to do next. The natural instinct was to seek
revenge, but would this be stooping to the level of our terrorist foe? Apart
from ethical considerations, there were also practical ones: since no one has
claimed responsibility for the attacks, it remains difficult to determine who,
exactly, is our enemy, hence what measures we are justified in taking. Some have
said that the September 11 attacks will serve as a "wake-up call" to Americans
who would prefer to ignore the rest of the world. Yet we have woken up to the
nightmare of ambiguous warfare (See transcript of
Anthony Lake's January 2001 Council talk).
As we launch this roundtable debate on the ethics of the "new
war," the American-led coalition against terrorism has begun bombing Taliban
targets in Afghanistan. Americans overwhelmingly support President Bush's
decision to take action against the government of the country harboring the
suspected ringleader of the September 11 attacks, Osama bin Laden. But will this
show of aggression achieve the desired aim, or will it merely provoke the
terrorists to commit further acts of violence? How can we avoid the trap that so
many countries of the world have fallen into as a result of attacks on their
civilians -- namely, an endless cycle of victimhood and revenge? I look forward
to hearing what our participants -- many of whom are experts on justice,
reconciliation, and the difficulty of achieving both -- have to say.
--Mary-Lea Cox, Web editor
Christian Barry frames a set of ethical questions raised
by the attacks that should help in evaluating the rights and wrongs of the U.S.
response.
Tony Lang accepts the idea of the United
States taking military action but thinks it should be coupled with diplomatic
efforts to resurrect its image in the Middle East.
Bahman
Baktiari supports a "measured and proportional" military response to the
terrorists' acts but fears that the United States faces an unceasing battle
against an elusive enemy.
Joel Rosenthal rejects
unequivocally the idea that American policies in the Middle East are mitigating
factors in crafting the U.S. response to the events of September 11. "Nothing
justifies terrorism, period," he writes.
William
DeMars, while recognizing that military force will be an essential component
of the U.S. response to September 11, warns that this can easily backfire in
ways that serve the terrorists' agenda.
George Lopez
argues that destroying the leadership and infrastructure of an entire nation as
punishment for a lack of cooperation in capturing terrorists would be
inconsistent with international law.
CHRISTIAN BARRY: In the immediate aftermath of the
events of September 11, the focus of the press was, understandably, on questions
about the scale of the atrocities, the identity of the perpetrators, and the
means by which they had so effectively achieved their gruesome ends. Indeed, in
the first few days after the attacks, even raising questions of any other kind
seemed, especially to those of us living in New York, uninteresting or
inappropriate. In the weeks since the attacks much of the coverage has continued
to stress these "what, who, and how" questions rather single-mindedly, but,
thankfully, there are also commentators who are responding to the tragic events
more reflectively.
Initial responses to the events of September 11 began by expressing justified
horror and compassion for the victims. But agreement in sharply denouncing the
attacks has now given way to sharp disagreement both about why they occurred and
what should be done in response.
Explanations have ranged from President Bush's claim that the attacks were
caused by envy and generally illiberal attitudes, to Robert Fisk's repeated
assertions in the Independent that the attack was caused by specific
U.S. policies in the Middle East.
Responses have run the gamut from the tough talk of Eliot Cohen of
The New Republic and Thomas Friedman of the New York Times --
who have called on us, respectively, to "make war, not justice," and to "fight
the terrorists as if there were no rules" -- to Richard Falk's advocacy of
pursuing justice for the victims of the attack within the framework of moral and
legal restraints offered by the criminal justice system (see his article in
The Nation, "Defining a Just
War").
I remain confused about how to interpret the events of September
11. I recognize that there is significant and justified anger towards the United
States in the Middle East (as elsewhere), but I do not feel sufficiently well
informed to assert why these particular attacks took place -- let alone the role
played by specific U.S. policies in provoking them. I am even less sure about
how explanations of the September 11 attacks should be deemed relevant to the
justification of America's potential responses.
But confusion, however frustrating, does not warrant a refusal to
address the questions surrounding the terrorist attacks and the U.S. response.
As I see it, the events of September 11 have raised four major ethical
questions:
1) What rules apply?
In domestic contexts, even the most heinous crimes do not
legitimate suspension of the rule of law. Killers and rapists are offered the
same legal protections as petty criminals, and strict rules apply to their
apprehension and trial. More specifically, we should ask:
What international
rules, if any, apply in the current context and what person or body has
authority over their interpretation and application?
Does characterizing
these acts of terrorism as, alternatively, "crimes", "acts of war", or even
"genocide" change the laws and moral norms that apply to it, and what practical
difference does this make?
Moreover, do the terrorist attacks suggest that
established international norms are inadequate and should be changed, or should
they reinvigorate our sense of their importance? Does, for instance, the current
crisis have any relevance to various proposals for new social arrangements such
as an international criminal court, the granting of universal jurisdiction to
national courts, and a reformed UN Security Council?
2) How is the past relevant both to explaining the recent
events and to justifying different policy responses?
In the wake of the attacks, many critics have claimed that the
United States and its allies have often adopted morally problematic policies in
the Middle East and that this allegedly troubled past is relevant both for
explaining why the attacks occurred and for determining a morally justifiable
policy response. Whether these accounts of the West's involvement in the Middle
East are correct, they raise important questions about the relevance of the past
in determining future policy action. Most agree that understanding the past
(both in fact and in the popular imagination) is strategically important in
order to avoid a self-defeating response to the attacks. But some assert -- or
at least imply -- that while the attacks themselves must be viewed as an
atrocity that cannot in any way be justified, historical injustices perpetrated
by the United States may have some relevance for explaining recent events and
for supporting particular policy responses.
3) Whom do the attackers represent?
Sometimes the Bush administration seems to be focusing on one
particular Islamic fundamentalist group, other times on a "swamp" of terrorist
groups. Other opinions expressed in the media seem to suggest that the
terrorists represent all the oppressed peoples of the Middle East or even the
global South -- granting these terrorists a voice for a much larger group of the
downtrodden. We thus need to ask:
To what extent do we take this attack as
representing something larger?
Whom do the terrorists "speak" for, if
anyone?
Do our answers to these questions affect what we may justifiably do
in response?
4) What impact will the "new war" have on global justice
priorities?
There is little doubt that the recent attacks will be invoked in
support of all sorts of competing political agendas. But this raises a number of
critical issues:
How, if at all, should the attacks of September 11 reorient
the priorities of activists and policymakers concerned with promoting global
justice?
How should addressing terrorism and other security threats be
balanced with goals such as the eradication of severe poverty and other
humanitarian initiatives such as conflict prevention and protection of human
rights?
Will the war on terrorism become the singular focus of U.S. foreign
policy and if so, what will be the ramifications?
To act responsibly, we must engage with each of these questions, even when
doing so raises issues that are sensitive to some, or draw attention to facts
that are uncomfortable for others. We must, moreover, focus our attention and
energies on the range of problems for which we are most able to influence
outcomes, and be courageous in our decisions about the crimes that we spend our
best efforts in addressing. Christian Barry is the commissioning editor
of the Carnegie Council's Ethics & International
Affairs journal. He is preparing a special section for the Spring
2002 issue on the aftermath of September 11, asking what rules apply in the
changed international arena.
TONY LANG: When I first heard about the September 11
attacks, I remembered a cartoon in the Egyptian newspaper Al-Ahram
showing an Uncle Sam about to checkmate the world -- but with a hand labelled
"terrorism" pulling him back. I took this to mean that the Arab world sees U.S.
unconditional support of Israel, its bombing and sanctioning of Iraq, its
bombing of Sudan and Afghanistan, and even its discourse about "clashing
civilizations" as all part of the same package -- a dominant world power with no
one to check it. Though I do not think that this attitude justifies the events
of September 11, I do believe that these events need to be placed in the wider
context of the abuse of power and mistaken policies of the United States in the
region. There is nothing inherent in Islam that is warlike, hostile, or
anti-progressive.
One could expand the above point to argue that the Bush
administration has crystalized a tendency of the United States since 1989 to act
unilaterally -- by pulling out of treaties, backing the creation of a missile
defense just for the United States, and failing to understand the concerns of
other nations. All of this reveals an imperialist mindset. The United States
stands for the right ideals (democracy, freedom, equality), but its power has
warped those ideals to the point of compromising their true meaning.
The Lutheran pastor and theologian Rienhold Niebuhr, commenting on the
hubris of American imperialism in his 1952 work The Irony of American
History, warned that in the Bible, the "builders of the Tower of Babel are
scattered by a confusion of tongues because they sought to build a tower which
would reach into the heavens." In light of recent events, Niebuhr's next words
seem chillingly prescient: "The possible destruction of a technical
civilization, of which the 'skyscraper' is a neat symbol, may become a modern
analogue to the Tower of Babel."
Thus while there is a strong moral justification for taking
military action in response to the September 11 attacks, the United States must
avoid behaving imperialistically. We should take extra care to ensure that our
actions conform to a set of moral criteria. In my view, just war theory
provides such a criteria, including avoiding harm to civilians and acting
proportionally. Just war theory also assumes that the result of such military
action will be a restoration of a just system: in other words, there must be a
"just peace" afterwards; and military planners need to understand the long-term
effects of their actions of taking out terrorist training camps in Afghanistan
and elsewhere. For example, our continual bombing of Iraq for the past ten
years, while perhaps morally justified -- forcing Iraq to conform to a policy of
disarmament -- demonstrates absolutely no understanding of long-term
consequences, hence is immoral in my opinion.
To ensure that justice is ultimately achieved, our military
response must be accompanied by a political and diplomatic campaign. We need to
work with the Palestinians and pull back from our unconditional embrace of
Israel. We need to help create an international system in which international
law is respected. We must tame our hubris and recognize that we are one nation
among many, not the "indispensable nation."
Tony Lang runs the Carnegie Council's Education department. He
is a former instructor at the American University in Cairo.
BAHMAN BAKTIARI: Tony Lang makes
an excellent point about the irony of American history. The American people
fervently believe in democracy and liberty as the hallmarks of their
governmental system. However, the conception of America as the leading democracy
does not include its behavior when it comes to dealing with Muslim countries.
Many ordinary Arabs, it might be added, would rather like some of that democracy
and freedom that Mr. Bush has been telling them about. Instead they have seen
over the past decades how many democratic movements in their societies were
crushed by despots supported by the West and using Western weapons. The memories
linger.
The United States has failed utterly to communicate its democratic
values to the dispossessed of the Muslim world. For too long, the poor and
uneducated of the Gaza Strip, Cairo, and Yemen have been more or less invisible
to the West, except as the incomprehensible stage army of a Middle East drama
without any narrative on television news. These people have become fertile soil
for the extremist ideology of demagogues. Having come to believe that the United
States is an anti-Muslim empire, bent on killing Muslim children and financing
Israel's theft of their holy land, they interpreted the appalling tragedy of
September 11 as a kind of vicarious justice.
Furthermore, I concur with Tony Lang that
Western policy towards Iraq has been designed without any consideration of how
that policy can be distorted and presented to impoverished, desperate, and
alienated people throughout the Arab world. It should be obvious to any
dispassionate observer that the sufferings of the Iraqi people are entirely the
responsibility of Saddam Hussein and his regime. Yet the United States has
received the blame for the thousands of Iraqi civilians who have died as a
result of the Gulf War and subsequent sanctions policy.
The people who organized and executed the outrages of September 11
were utterly indifferent to the sanctity of human life. For that reason, I am
supportive of a military response that is measured and proportional. However, I
fear that the cumulative anger in American society may push Washington into a
war that leads to a cycle of never-ending confrontation with an elusive enemy.
As we have seen so many times in the past, and as we witness today in the Middle
East, the terrorists can only truly be said to have won if civilized nations
abandon civilized values and themselves use indiscriminate violence against the
innocent. Lashing out indiscriminately against any state, group, or individual
the United States sees as an enemy (as advocated with chilling carelessness by
some columnists) will make terrorist outrages more likely. It would only help to
recruit a new generation of martyrs prepared to die in a holy war.
It is instructive in this connection to keep in mind the
Israeli-Palestinian example. An Israeli soldier shoots a Palestinian
stone-thrower. The Palestinians retaliate by killing a settler. The Israelis
then retaliate by sending a murder squad to kill a Palestinian gunman. The
Palestinians retaliate by sending a suicide bomber into a pizzeria. The Israelis
then retaliate by sending F-16s to bomb a Palestinian police station.
Retaliation leads to retaliation and more retaliation. War without end.
The only way for American military planners to avoid a war without end is to
elaborate the moral criteria for our actions. I, too, favor the just war
approach because it provides the context to act in a proportional manner. It
also calls for the restoration of a just system, meaning one that addresses the
grievances of people according to a universal standard. So when it comes to the
Middle East, the United States does not look the other way when Israel uses its
F-16s to bomb Palestinian police stations, or when Palestinians use suicide
bombers to kill Israeli teenagers in a pizzeria.
The Bush administration's apparent disengagement from the peace process,
coupled with Israel's use of sophisticated American weaponry to attack
Palestinians, has instilled a sense that America is no longer just Israel's
distant benefactor but an accomplice in Israeli crimes. The American government
needs to reverse the perception of its Middle East policies by adopting a more
even-handed approach.
Bahman
Baktiari directs the International Affairs Program at the University of
Maine, where he is also an associate professor of political science. Originally
from Iran, he has written a major book and several articles on revolutionary
Iran.
JOEL ROSENTHAL: As the U.S.-led coalition gathers its
forces for the new war, history itself has been put on trial. To explain how we
arrived at this point, grievances of the sort raised by Tony Lang and Bahman
Baktiari will be aired over American policies in the Middle East -- ranging from
the U.S. presence in Saudi Arabia to the U.S. role in the dispute between Israel
and the Palestinians.
But while this line of discussion is often illuminating, it should not lead
to the fallacy of moral equivalence. Nothing justifies terrorism, period. To
suggest that anti-American terrorism is merely the world pushing back at
American hegemony is to suggest that terrorism has a legitimate place in the
21st century.
For me, the more interesting ethical question is what kind of war this is
going to be. In the initial stages of the Bush administration's response, both
options were kept open: war was declared and the enemy was defined as a criminal
network that must be brought to justice. The great effort expended in building a
diverse international coalition suggested that the criminal justice response was
a viable strategic choice. The terrorists would be hunted down and punished. Yet
the Bush administration's decision to extend responsibility beyond the
terrorists and their informal networks to the states that harbor them suggests a
potential widening of the conflict. How wide should the circle of responsibility
be drawn?
President Bush says that this new war is brought to the United
States against its will, and that "it will end in a manner and at an hour of our
choosing." In getting to this final hour, let us judge the choices that are made
according to the values that represent the best in human civilization, not the
worst. Evil cannot be eradicated once and for all; it is intrinsic to human
nature and the human condition. But evil acts must be checked, punished, and
deterred. Can this be done in a manner that serves justice and security concerns
while avoiding excessive moral rhetoric and the dangers of a crusade? These are
the questions that define the new war and provide the criteria to judge those
who will fight it.
Joel H. Rosenthal has been president of the Carnegie Council on Ethics and
International Affairs since 1995. The above was excerpted from the Council's
newsletter.
BILL DEMARS: Terrorism
by its nature is designed to divide the target group against itself, spawn
panic, and provoke a misguided military response. We in American society are the
targets of these actions. We can most effectively resist manipulation by basing
our response on facts and principles informed by emotion, not on emotion alone.
I agree with the other commentators that military force will be an
essential component of an integrated policy that also employs law enforcement
and diplomacy. But force can backfire in several ways to serve the terrorist's
political goals. We can under-react, as we did three years ago in the cruise
missile strikes on Sudan and Afghanistan in response to bombings of two American
embassies. Our strikes projected weakness. They inflamed Arab and Muslim publics
worldwide who saw themselves as potential future targets, and failed completely
to damage the capacity of Osama bin Laden or other terrorists to strike again.
That is a losing combination for a war against terrorism.
In the current climate, the U.S. government is unlikely to make
that kind of mistake again. But we can also over-react militarily, inflicting
massive destruction on civilians and generating profound resentments that will
feed the recruitment of our opponents. In this kind of war, the principles of
discrimination and proportionality are also sound guides to effectiveness. We
must learn this early, because a general war against terrorism is a matter of
years and decades, not weeks and months. Our message to President Bush should
not be, "Strike hard and fast because I am angry and need emotional
closure." Instead we should tell him, "Do whatever is necessary, and take the
time to get it right." Not only our fears -- but also our anger -- can readily
play into the terrorists' hands.
William E. DeMars is visiting assistant professor at the
Department of Government and International Studies, University of Notre
Dame.
GEORGE LOPEZ: In a September 13 New York Times op-ed entitled
"World War III," Tom Friedman may have presaged the coming standard: "We have to
fight the terrorists as if there were no rules, and preserve our open society as
if there were no terrorists." Leaving aside for the moment whether the second
part of Friedman's assertion can be accomplished if we follow strictly the
first, do we want to engage in new foreign policy action and the use of military
force "as if there were no rules"?
I agree with Tony Lang that the "just war"
tradition should be cited as the appropriate criteria for guiding an ethical
analysis of the use of military force. But at a time when neither the lexicon of
war nor that of terrorism seems to reflect accurately the current state of
affairs, even the vibrancy of the "just war" tradition falls far short of our
needs. The moral compass to guide our best scrutiny of options may come in three
simple categories for governing the use of force in world affairs:
- that it adhere fully to the rule of law;
- that there be a logical relationship between means and ends; and
- that concerns with protecting civilians and limiting collateral damage be
paramount.
Is September 11 an act of war, thus governed by the laws and rules
of war, or is it a terrorist attack, a crime against humanity, undertaken by
transnational mass-murderers and criminals? This distinction, and the dialogue
regarding it, are critically important for setting the proper ethical parameters
of U.S. action.
We are now engaged in fact-gathering. In the event that the facts
reveal a network of terrorist perpetrators active within the boundaries of a
number of states that vary in their degree of toleration of such actors, then
the United States must present a series of demands for extradition and other
forms of cooperation to nations that harbor, train, aid, or abet in any form
those responsible for this massacre. If such demands are rejected, all force
used to apprehend these suspects and culprits will need to be proportionate to
the objective. Thus, destroying the leadership and infrastructure of an entire
nation -- thereby rendering it a chaotic, failed state -- as a punishment for
lack of cooperation in capturing terrorists would not be consistent with
international law. Nor would massive destruction of that nation's economic or
social infrastructure while in the process of destroying the headquarters and
training camps of 100 terrorists.
However inconvenient, these strictures are real and they are
serious. This is where popular opinion and advantageous military or political
outcomes on the one side collide head-on with ethics and the rule of law on the
other. How -- or whether -- the realities of international law shape appropriate
foreign policy behavior has never been a pleasant debate within the United
States. But before, not after, American responsive actions is when this debate
must occur. We cannot have the world agree with us that September 11 was an
unconscionable attack on the rule of law -- and then fail to uphold every aspect
of that same law in our response to the attack.
A U.S. policy response that has strong multilateral support
clearly strengthens its ethical legitimacy. Secretary of State Powell's early
overtures for all states to join in law-abiding action to locate and extradite
terrorists was a solid approach. The prompt and unprecedented policy decision by
NATO to invoke Article V provides another important foundation stone for a
strong moral policy steeped in the coordinated action of like-minded states.
Might not further steps include a serious engagement by the United States with
states from the Islamic world and the Middle East -- most likely in the form of
direct, quiet diplomacy -- with an international conference not out of the
question? The point would be to invite the national leadership of certain states
to design and then adhere to a new international regime for controlling
terrorism. In a short time, the U.S.-led coalition against terrorism should
assess compliance and, in the case of a U.S. response to September 11, assess
how far this has moved us toward our desired policy goals.
Finally, there is the rule of law as represented in the United
Nations Security Council. Certainly Council authorization for U.S. economic or
military actions will be discussed at some point within Washington inner
circles. But its primacy will comprise the sticking point. Some will dismiss the
need for UN backing as superfluous, probably citing U.S. action in Kosovo, where
the UN eventually "caught up" with a sound U.S. policy action. Others may resist
the need for UN support on technical grounds -- sustained UN debate compromises
the advantage that accrues to economic or military surprise. Few, unfortunately,
will debate UN action as powerful ethical or legal support for U.S. action.
Amidst the sea-changes brought about by September 11, long-tested
ethical concerns can be welcome anchors to our best national principles. But we
must have the courage and vision to inject such ethical inquiry into the policy
debate about response options. It will not occur automatically. We must choose
this decisional strategy because it is what people who believe in democracy,
decency, and the rule of law must do. Our memorial to the victims of the attacks
ought to be that the policies we will soon undertake in response to their
senseless slaughter be ones that are morally defensible and have passed the
toughest ethical scrutiny.
George A.
Lopez is the director of policy studies and senior fellow at the Joan B.
Kroc Institute for International Peace Studies at the University of Notre Dame.
His research concerns humanitarianism, violence and the use of force, economic
sanctions, and human rights issues. Currently, he is a senior research associate
at the Carnegie Council. The above was excerpted from a longer piece Lopez wrote
for America Magazine (10/8/01): "After September
11: How Ethics Can Help."
Related Links"A Hole in the
World"
Jonathan Schell's editorial for The Nation addresses the
aftermath of the terrorist attacks of September 11, asking how the perpetrators
can be brought to justice, and what the United States should do to safeguard
itself and its people against such attacks in future.
"Round
up the usual suspects"
This Salon article by Damien Cave asks
"How far should ethnic profiling go in the quest to nab the World Trade Center
terrorists?" Noting that, so far, the Arab-American community has been fairly
patient with law enforcement efforts that have included singling out
Arab-looking passengers on commercial flights, Cave wonders how long the
imminent threat represented by the hijacking attacks will outweigh the threat to
personal and civil liberties, beginning with this new wave of racial profiling.
"The
bloody Jordan River now flows through America"
Also in Salon,
Gary Kimiya points to America's continuing inability to wrangle with the
complexities of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict as a major sticking point in
Muslim perceptions of the United States. "For far too long, the United States
has pretended to stand on the sidelines of a conflict in which we are not
neutral, passively endorsing a situation in which bottled-up Palestinian rage
has grown and grown until it has exploded in a terrible paroxysm of violence,
bringing horror to Israelis and Palestinians alike." Kimiya believes that, in
the wake of 9/11, it is crucial for America to reevaluate its stance in this
conflict: "This is not appeasement, nor a surrender to our enemies. Moving
toward a just resolution of the Middle East crisis . . . is simply the right
thing to do."
"We Should Show Our
Human Face to the Nations of the World"
Elena Murphy argues on
commondreams.org that a violent response to the 9/11 terrorist attacks will be
"another blow to the human principles of value of the human life, it will be a
blow to the progress of humanity towards these common ideals, and it will be a
blow to the United States as a country that stands for these ideals." Instead,
she calls on Americans and their government to demonstrate a belief in the
sanctity of human life, the best antidote to acts committed by those for whom
life has no such value.
Did Journalism Measure
Up? Evaluations from Poynter Ethics Fellows (Part I) and (Part II)
"Reporting on
the terrorism and national tragedy takes journalists into the proverbial ethical
mine field," note half-a-dozen journalists who are currently fellows at the
Poynter Institute. Their group leader has written an article reporting the
findings of their evaluation of the extensive media coverage given to the
attacks. Has the coverage been fair, balanced, and well-sourced? To what extent
will prejudice against Muslims influence reportage on the need to protect their
civil rights?
"Terrorism:
Rights, Blame and Ethics"
The writer of an op-ed for kuro5hin.org notes
that "Only by pursuing justice, rather than revenge, and only by honestly
evaluating and rectifying our own country's behavior, can Americans regain any
ethical consistency and truly claim the right to condemn Tuesday's tragedy."
"Q&A:
Terrorism's ethical components"
Read this interview by the csmonitor.com
with Rushworth M. Kidder, founder of the Institute for Global Ethics. Kidder
stresses taking the long view in any response to terrorism, arguing that reforms
in American foreign policy, its educational system, and its national identity
will be, in the long run, both more ethical and more effective. "[T]he largest
moral hazard of all," he says, "would be to go on as we are, educating the next
generation of Americans with as much limited global understanding as we're
currently educating them." "Rational
Fanatics"
In an article originally published in the September-October
2000 issue of Foreign Policy, Ehud Sprinzak argues against the
"simplistic" belief that suicide bombers and fanatics "are ready to do anything
and lose everything." Instead, he insists, suicide bombers are "cold, rational
killers who employ violence to achieve specific political objectives." He goes
on to dissect the political, religious, and -- most importantly -- psychological
elements that go into the making of terrorists of the kind who perpetrated the
9/11 attacks.
"Justice
is a Dish Best Served Cold"
Writing in The Moscow Times, Nicholas
Berry says that, despite the rhetoric, the "War on Terrorism" cannot be a true
war. "War," he writes, "is the use of armed force to break an enemy's will to
resist [in which the] enemy's economy, population and political authority are
the focus of combat and psychological operations." Bin Laden's al Qaeda
and other terrorist organizations have no economy, no population besides their
members, and no political authority. Furthermore, when the so-called war has
ended and when the terms of peace are agreed on, the United States will not have
anything to offer. (Note: Login required; fee may also be required.)
"Thinkers Face
the Limits of a Just War"
Celestine Bohlen, writing in the New York
Times, reviews the work of ethicists in evaluating the moral consequences
of war. "As Americans reel from the enormity of the attacks," she writes, "a
moral equation hovers: what would be the appropriate, effective and just
response by the most powerful nation on earth?" In grappling with this question,
Bohlen calls on the work of St. Augustine, military historian Sir Michael
Howard, philosopher Michael Walzer, and Christian theologist Stanley Hauerwas.
The discussion highlights the fine moral distinctions necessary in acting
effectively without joining the evil forces you were originally fighting
against. (Note: Login required; fee may also be required.)
"Attacks on U.S.
Challenge Postmodern True Believers"
In this article for the New
York Times, Edward Rothstein pits postmodern and postcolonial theory of the
past several decades against the enormous evil of the World Trade Center attacks
and finds the theory wanting. "This destruction seems to cry out for a
transcendant ethical perspective," he writes, noting that "pomo" and "poco"
theory presents both sides of a conflict as morally symmetric, providing no
final criteria against which to judge a particular act -- in this case, the
murder of thousands of civilians -- as either right or wrong, just or criminal.
Surely we need some absolute criteria for facing crises of this nature?
Rothstein poses a provocative question.
"In
Response to Terror"
This article by James Turner Johnson, first
published two years ago in First Things, a journal of religion and
public life, reminds us of the efforts made in the wake of the Beirut marine
barracks bombing to bridge the gap between ethicists and philosophers on the one
hand, and military officers and policymakers on the other, urging us to renew
these efforts. Like many of our roundtable commentators above, Johnson turns to
the just war tradition, dating back to Thomas Aquinas, as a guide to dealing
with the moral consequences of terrorism and the government's response. "In just
war terms, there is just cause when force is used to defend against
attack, to retake something wrongly taken, or to punish evil," he writes, noting
that such force may be justified not only in response to terrorist attacks, but
also in an effort to prevent them.
The opinions expressed in this roundtable do not necessarily
reflect those of the Carnegie Council on Ethics and International Affairs. In
addition, we are not responsible for the content of external Internet sites.
|
|
