At 17:30 30/09/01 -0700, you wrote: >In the context of your remarks, how is the attack on >the WTC any different from the sanctions on Iraq? > >tim
Andrew I to have to agree with Tim above. We live in a generally immoral world when it comes to state policies and responses to them. There are cases when civilians are targeted consciously as is the case of September 11 and cases when needless civilian suffering is the obvious byproduct of some other strategy. If we are to talk in moral terms then there is a clear need to make the distinction between the two. Condemn bin Laden for his conscious targeting of the innocent but is this really different from those who make plans with all the best resources available, have the means and employ them but choose to ignore that the major impact of such plans have on the innocent? I pose this very seriously and would add that the duplicity involved in this is confirmed when efforts are made to suppress the actual impact of such policies (such as in the case of Iraq and the Sudan). Can we really find that much distinction between a conscious plan targeting civilians and those that choose for convenience sake to ignore the obvious consequences of their actions despite having available all the means necessary for knowing what they are likely to be - I cannot draw such a distinction anymore than I can between the estimated 400,000 Iraq children that have died as a direct consequence of the never-ending sanctions based on Iraq, or the rather small amount of money needed to restore the production of vital medicines in the Sudan after the US attack and those that died on Sept 11. There is always the case in human affairs that doing one thing has unforeseen consequences, or as is more often the case the risk of such results is minimalized. We will never have a perfect world. I expect, however, when the consequences do manifest themselves we all have a duty to rectify and acknowledge - it is this that is the important moral distinction, not that hurt is done (for it will occur despite the best intentions), but that it has not been done recklessly in the first place, and regardless of any initial cause the hurt is acknowledged and efforts made to rectify it after the fact. If we are to draw moral lines then that to my mind is where it lies, not that bin Laden targets civilians as against others that virtually do so but will not admit it - that would not be a moral line but one of convenience. There is a moral line but it lies between those who consider civilian causalities at all times secondary to their other aims, and those who make every effort to avoid such causalities and when they do occur take on their responsibilities to make good the harm as best they can. Real morality is not about simply condemning some and thereby exonerating others but doing what is right in a complex world. For the US, as a state, to take the high moral ground is easy but it shows no sign whatsoever of doing so. All the US has to do is, as it girds its loins to do battle, to begin to rectifying some of the effects of its past policy - the two go hand in hand and no-one could argue it is beyond the resources of the US to do so even at this moment. Andrew I believe this is where you misread Chomsky, who is referring to that other side of the moral question. The US is acting amorally but not because it is attempting to deal with bin Laden but because it does so hypocritically. It is this hypocrisy which will engender more harm than any good obtained by dealing with bin Laden. Hypocrisy is no small moral failing, indeed it flouts the whole notion of morality and goes well beyond adopting different moral codes. Hypocrisy is not without real consequences in the world and the world will inevitably respond to it and not always in edifying ways (witness the full effect of September 11). There is no reason in the world why we should not talk in moral terms about such issues and I am glad you have introduced this dimension into discussion. My point is morality does not depend on drawing fine distinctions about what is acceptable or not, rather this is a form of immorality (ably illustrated I think by Jesus drinking with moral outcasts and saving a woman from stoning). It is not about breaches of regulations, but a much broader question of doing good which also knowing what doing "bad" entails. If September 11 can be seen as producing anything beneficial at all then one thing is that it should give us all a better moral understanding of the world and a better grip of what doing good is all about. On moral grounds alone I cannot follow you in your conclusion the difference between open disavowal and duplicitous disregard is all that clear, indeed bin Laden at least is making an honest statement of malicious contempt for human life unlike the sanctimonious hypocrisy we are more use to hearing. Again I suggest the whole thing is within the US hands to change, for all it has to do is openly start to rectify the on-going results of its past actions and change active policy which is daily resulting in needless innocent deaths. I do not expect all things to be done at once but it is reasonable to expect some to be done immediately. Imagine the effect of this on the world, imagine how much easier it would be to have bin Laden delivered and how many fewer deaths would result - military action may not even be required. Add to this that this could be started immediately with no more than a few announcements and also acknowledge that what stands as a barrier to this is an abstract and hypocritical rule created for convenience that "we should not give into terrorist demands" - let me be explicit - we should always do right regardless of who is articulating such a demand, this homily so often repeated of not giving in to such demands was created in order to persist in error (to place it squarely in folk wisdom - two wrongs do not make a right). Greg Schofield Perth Australia
