My last post regarding the work of BAE Systems Inc. and BAE Systems Australia has attracted an enormous amount of views, making it my second most viewed post ever. It's great to know that people are paying attention to the militarisation of our world.
Check out this video made by some peace activists in Melbourne to get a better idea of what we are trying to communicate to BAE Systems Australia. Let them know what you think here.
Tuesday, November 6, 2012
Wednesday, October 24, 2012
BAE Systems: Censoring the voices of the people
The site of the latest BAE Systems protest - with many more to come |
Why is it that a company like BAE Systems would not want a couple of Gandhi & Martin Luther King, Jr. quotes pasted around their Facebook page?
Why is it that a company like BAE Systems would censor any views which they disagree with, no matter how politely they are put?
Why is it that a company like BAE Systems who claims to be fighting the 'war on terror' would, in the most undemocratic fashion, silence the voices of the people?
Maybe it's because BAE Systems are one of the largest, if not the largest arms producer in the world. They sell weapons to over 100 countries including Israel. They are a threat to national security. They are a threat to human security. They are a waste of, what essentially is tax payer's money.
You don't need to do much research to find out about the instances of bribery and corruption within their ranks. BAE Systems have been caught breaching arms control regulations which aim to prevent weapons falling into the wrong hands.
Don't let BAE Systems fool you. They are not a civilian transport organisation. They are primarily involved in the arms trade.
They're not on a particular side of global conflicts. They are on every side of global conflicts.
They are in it for the money. If the wars stop, their profits go down. It's in their interest for people to keep blowing each other up.
I plan on posting more about BAE Systems. Fortunately here they cannot censor what I say, although I'm sure they will try. I hope to have a video from a recent protest outside their offices in Melbourne posted shortly.
Maybe it is time for us to stand up against this organisation. Post your city below - there is probably a BAE Systems office near you. Organise a protest, a blockade, a letter handout. Do something. Change the world.
Labels:
activism,
arms trade,
BAE Systems,
democracy,
events,
gandhi,
MLK,
nonviolence,
war
Friday, October 12, 2012
Leo Tolstoy: What To Do?
I thought I would upload some photographed quotes from Tolstoy's 'What To Do?' which is an incredibly challenging book. I recently finished reading it, and it has massively affected my outlook on the meaning and causes of poverty. I hope you enjoy!
Also, please post your thoughts.
Also, please post your thoughts.
Monday, October 8, 2012
The uninvited neighbour: A Christian response to modern refugee issues
I would like to thank Jessie Taylor & Gordon Preece for helping me to think about this issue in a clearer manner.
Refugees on Nauru during the 'Pacific Solution' era |
Biblical teaching suggests that Christians have a special duty to love those who are foreigners and refugees (Deuteronomy 10:19). How should this teaching be understood and applied by Christian citizens in Australia's current political context?
Introduction
This article seeks to examine if and to what extent
the normative elements of the Christian texts are relevant to the context of
the current debate surrounding uninvited asylum seekers in Australia. I begin
by providing a brief outline of the current political situation. Then, I
explore the relationship between the biblical narrative, Christian principles
of justice, and the politics of asylum. Finally I will consider the normative
implications of applying Christian principles of justice within the Australian
political context and what issues this may raise.
The Australian context
Many Australians will remember the famous words of
John Howard in 2001 when he declared ‘we will decide who comes to this country
and the circumstances in which they come.’[1]
Thus began, or at least brought to the surface, a nation’s fear of so-called
‘illegals’, ‘queue-jumpers’, ‘aliens’, or the all-inclusive term ‘boat people’.
In August of that same year, a small fishing boat called ‘Palapa I’ was discovered
by MV Tampa as it carried 433 asylum seekers who were ‘mostly Hazaras
escaping the Taliban.’ MV Tampa, the Norwegian fishing vessel proceeded
to take the asylum seekers to Christmas Island, However, the SAS forcefully
gained control of the vessel. On September 11, 2001, the Federal court ruled
that ‘the government was obliged to bring the asylum seekers ashore and assess
their claims.[2]
Later, that decision was reversed and the refugees recued by MV Tampa
were taken to Nauru. The ‘Tampa affair’ presented Howard with the perfect
opportunity to reassure Australians that the government was in control of the
nation’s borders.[3]
The offshore processing of the refugees discovered
by MV Tampa in the Indian Ocean marked the beginnings of the ‘Pacific
Solution’, which would a decade later be reinvented by the Gillard-Labour
government in response to political turmoil over an apparent ‘influx’ of ‘boat
people’. This costly endeavour of sending those who ask for our help to
offshore detention centres has been praised for its effectiveness, or more
precisely, its ability to ‘stop the boats’. The slogan ‘stop the boats’ has
been embraced by both major Australian political parties.[4]
Digging beneath the surface of such a slogan reveals the troubling normative
issues in deterring asylum seekers through what is effectively indefinite
imprisonment (or more diplomatically, detention). The costs associated with
offshore processing are not just financial but also moral, psychological, and
spiritual. I believe the Christian metaphysical underpinning that can operate
from a non-consequentialist basis has something unique to offer the ethical
discourse on this matter.
A biblical narrative
The narrative of the biblical texts are crucial for
developing a holistic understanding of what a biblical response to this
seemingly complex issue could look like. Rev. Dr. Gordon Preece emphasises that
‘we are all boat people,’ and that like us, ‘the Israelites needed repeated
reminding that they were originally refugees.’[5]
William Cavanaugh goes further in suggesting that the church itself is ‘already
constituted by refugees,’ not merely originally, but is continually a
body of refugees.[6]
The Old testament provides countless images of
refugee stories. The Hebrew word ‘ger’ appears 92 times in the text. The word is translated to mean ‘stranger’
(Gen15:13, 23:4), ‘sojourner’ (Exod 2:22, 1 Chron 29:15), ‘alien’ (Exod 12:19,
2 Chron 2:17), or ‘foreigner’ (1 Chron 22:2).[7] Nearly
all appearances of this word are accompanied by normative commands. Examples
of these normative commands can be found when God orders no preferential
treatment for the native-born over the alien (Lev 24:16, Num 9:14), when God
orders the Israelites to love the foreigners (Deut 10:19), and when God
commands the Israelites to leave enough food ‘for the foreigners, orphans, and
widows (Deut 24:20).[8] Rather than top down charity which
reinforces existing power relations, there is a strong emphasis on empathetic
solidarity in the biblical text.[9]
Furthermore, Jesus is presented
as a refugee who is fleeing a despotic dictator who gave orders ‘to kill all
the boys in Bethlehem and its vicinity who were two years old and under.’[10] As a
refugee King, Jesus recapitulated the normative themes explored in relation to
refugees in the Old Testament texts. In Matthew 25, for example, Jesus tells
his followers that we must view actions which are to the benefit of the least
advantaged members of society as our duties as people who claim to love God.[11] It is
in this crucial passage where Jesus explicitly states that there is no
difference between an act of commission and an act of omission. Not
doing something good, in Jesus’ ethical framework, is doing something bad. In
other words, ignorance is not bliss.
Christians are far from
united on the specific issue of ‘boat people’, perhaps even more so than other
modern political and ethical issues that the churches are tackling. Tony
Abbott, the leader of the federal Liberal party, when responding to a question
about ‘why his attitude to asylum seekers was unchristian’ responded by suggesting:
‘I don’t think it’s a very Christian thing to come in by the back door rather
than the front door.’[12] But as
Preece points out, there have been plenty of Christian Refugees at Maribynong,
Woomera, and Curtin detention centres.[13] Others,
such as the Anglican Archbishop of Sydney, Peter Jensen, have endorsed the
Houston and Aristotle reports, effectively supporting the reintroduction of the
‘Pacific Solution’ even though Jensen opposed offshore processing a decade
earlier, arguing that ‘illegal’ actions of asylum seekers were caused by
necessity.[14]
Normative issues
The consequences of a
policy of deterrence can be severe and the policy can cost lives. On the other
hand, the consequences of having no deterrence mechanism in place could also
cost lives. In a normative sense, all I have suggested thus far is that we
should be nice to refugees, which I presume is fairly uncontroversial. The next
section seeks to establish which moral theory is most compatible with a
biblical response to this issue.
The justifications
given in support of coercive deterrence mechanisms in regards to those seeking
asylum are largely utilitarian. The utilitarian perspective suggests that the means
can be compromised in order to achieve the desired ends. This means
that a utilitarian would find it acceptable to strive towards an ideal through
non-ideal means. This is the first and most obvious clash between Christianity
and utilitarianism. If Jesus wanted us to ‘love our neighbours’ or ‘love our
enemies’ only when it was effective, then the command itself is ruled invalid
by a greater command of ‘do what is most effective’. Martin Luther King, Jr.
noticed this contradiction between Christian thought and utilitarianism,
contending, ‘ultimately you can’t reach good ends through evil means, because
the means represent the seed and the end represents the tree.’[15]
Elsewhere he suggests that ‘the means represent the ideal in making and the end
in process ... So as you seek justice as an end, you use just methods to get
there.’[16] Paul writes
in Romans that the people who think the Christians are teaching ‘let’s do evil
so that good will come from it’ will be justly condemned.[17] Sending asylum seekers to
detention centres in third world countries is the most explicit example of
doing evil, in the hope that good will eventuate.
The second problem
associated with the utilitarian justification for sending asylum seekers to
places like Nauru is that it treats the individual asylum seekers who are sent
to Nauru as mere means rather than ends in themselves.[18] This is
a separate problem from the first issue raised which is specifically about the
inconsistency of the means. The second problem differentiates the common asylum
seeker from the common criminal. The common criminal has her liberty denied firstly
for her own sake (rehabilitation, inability to reoffend), and the secondly, as
a means to deter other people from committing that same crime.[19] For
example, I would agree to live in a society where if I murdered someone I would
then be incarcerated. Even if I am not rational at the time I murder someone, I
can say now that it would be in my best interests to be separated from
society for a time and to receive compulsory counselling and behavioural
training so that I can be rehabilitated. Whereas, the common asylum seeker
differs from the common criminal in that the asylum seeker has committed no
moral or legal wrong, does not need rehabilitation, and imprisonment,
(particularly in places like Nauru) and imprisonment is not in the asylum
seekers’ interests. Imprisoning people who have committed no crime in order to
deter other people from asking for our help treats the imprisoned people as a
means rather than an end and strips them of their personhood and equality under
God.
It is important to
remark, that even if the utilitarian framework is accepted, one still needs to
consider whether the empirical data shows that coercive deterrence leads to the
maximisation of welfare. In a similar way, a utilitarian would only support
torture in circumstances where welfare is maximised (eg., torturing one person
to save the lives of two others). Authors such as Andy Lamey point out that
Australia’s deterrence system causes asylum seekers to suffer from high stress
levels and an increased risk of committing suicide.[20] He also
points out that it gives them a status lower than criminals which is
detrimental to their identity.[21] This
shows that even from a utilitarian perspective (which does not generally synthesise
with biblical teaching) it is difficult to justify ‘stopping the boats’.
A common objection to
applying biblical principles to national security policies is the radical and
demanding outcomes they infer. Unfortunately Christian thinkers such as Preece
and Ralston have done very little to address the objection which asks: ‘at what
point ought we turn people away?’ Preece inaccurately suggests that ‘even the
most bleeding hearted, naive liberal is not saying ‘let everyone in’.’[22] Perhaps most liberals are not arguing this
approach, but some of them are, and they should be considered. Still, it is
unclear as to when Preece thinks we should begin to refuse asylum seekers
protection and what means we should use to keep uninvited asylum seekers out of
Australia. Ralston suggests that it is not necessary for the church to
‘advocate for a complete open-door policy to refugees,’ pointing out that the
break-even point may arise if resettling refugees has a negative outcome for
the ‘existing marginalised populations.’[23]
One suggestion would be
that our obligations begin at the point where we have to sacrifice something
significant, but they should not exceed the point where our self-care
diminishes. In regards to where our obligations begin, we should take seriously
Carens’s claim that ‘we have an obligation to open our borders more fully than
we do now,’ and especially more fully to those who are in need.[24] Carens suggests that ‘open immigration would
change the character of the community, but it would not leave the community
without character.’[25] We must avoid holding on to our ideals of a
static hegemonic culture when displaced people require our assistance. In
regards to the upper constraints of our obligations, we should not require of
ourselves more than God has called us to. God has called all believers to love
their neighbour as themselves, which requires a basic level of self-love
and self-care as a means to fulfil his work on earth.
Conclusion
In terms of acting upon
our obligations as Christians to care for the refugee, I will briefly note one
model which Ralston believes is compatible with a Christian understanding of
justice. Ralston suggests that one of the most effective ways of communicating
God’s ‘love and presence’ is through living with refugees, as exemplified by
the Jesuit Refugee Service (JRS). He believes that the church is lacking in
genuine encounters with refugees, and I am not inclined to disagree with him.
This same model is being replicated through the ‘First Home Project’ in Perth,
Australia. The Christian call is, however, not limited to one particular model
(which some may find too demanding in their current context). Political
activism and financial donations, or offerings of skills training and language
development are all ways that Christians can live out the community and
compassion they have been called to.
In conclusion, the
Christian narrative and principles of justice encourage Christians to treat
asylum seekers as humans who hold inalienable rights. This essay has shown the
incompatibility of utilitarianism and the Christian ethical framework. First,
coercive deterrence mechanisms severely compromise the commands which have been
given to us in regards to how we ought to treat our neighbours. Second, people
should not be treated as mere means due to their mode of transport and their
legal status. Therefore, the Christian cannot endorse a policy which seeks to
coercively use one lot of people purely as a means to deter others from asking
for our assistance.
Works Cited
ABC. “Seek and Ye Shall
Submit (Transcript).” Q&A, September 10, 2012. http://www.abc.net.au/tv/qanda/txt/s3581623.htm.
Biblos.com. “Online
Parallel Bible”, 2011. http://bible.cc/.
Burnside, Julian.
“Australians Don’t Fully Understand What Is Being Done in Their Name.” The
Age, August 26, 2011. http://www.theage.com.au/opinion/politics/australians-dont-fully-understand-what-is-being-done-in-their-name-20110825-1jcbn.html#ixzz28TZW5Dm7.
Carens, Joseph H.
“Aliens and Citizens: The Case for Open Borders.” The Review of Politics
49, no. 2 (April 1, 1987): 251–273.
Cavanaugh, William T.
“Migrant, Tourist, Pilgrim, Monk: Mobility and Identity in a Global Age.” Theological
Studies 69, no. 2 (June 2008): 340–356.
Clarke, Sarah.
“Liberals Accused of Trying to Rewrite History.” Lateline. ABC, November
21, 2001. http://www.abc.net.au/lateline/content/2001/s422692.htm.
Jensen, Peter.
“Interview with Amy Butler on Australia’s Treatment of Asylum Seekers and
Refugees”, 2001. http://sydneyanglicans.net/seniorclergy/archbishop_jensen/48a.
Kant, Immanuel. “The
Categorical Imperative.” In Ethics, edited by Peter Singer, 274–279.
Oxford University Press, USA, 1994.
King, Martin Luther. “A
Christmas Sermon on Peace” (n.d.).
———. Methodist
Student Leadership Conference Address. September 10, 2011. American
Rhetoric, 1964.
Lamey, Andy. Frontier
justice : the global refugee crisis and what to do about it. Canada:
Doubleday Canada, 2011.
Maccullum, Mungo.
“‘Stop the Boats’ Has Become Bipartisan Policy.” ABC, July 2, 2012.
http://www.abc.net.au/unleashed/4105116.html.
Mares, Peter. Borderline :
Australia’s Treatment of Refugees and Asylum Seekers. Sydney, Australia:
UNSW Press, 2001.
Preece, Gordon. “We Are
All Boat People: An Exposition of a Biblical View.” In Refugees : justice or
compassion?, edited by Hilary D Regan, Andrew Hamilton, Mark Raper, and
Australian Theological Forum. Hindmarsh, S. Aust.: Australian Theological
Forum, 2002.
Ralston, Joshua.
“Toward a political theology of refugee resettlement.” Theological Studies
73, no. 2 (June 2012): 363+.
“Report of the Expert
Panel on Asylum Seekers”, n.d.
http://expertpanelonasylumseekers.dpmc.gov.au/report.
The Australian. “Abbott
Slams Boatpeople as un-Christian”, n.d.
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/immigration/abbott-slams-boatpeople-as-un-christian/story-fn9hm1gu-1226422034305.
[1] Clarke, “Liberals Accused of
Trying to Rewrite History.”
[2] Burnside, “Australians Don’t
Fully Understand What Is Being Done in Their Name.”
[3] Mares, Borderline :
Australia’s Treatment of Refugees and Asylum Seekers.
[4] Maccullum, “‘Stop the Boats’ Has
Become Bipartisan Policy.”
[5] Preece, Gordon, “We Are All Boat
People: An Exposition of a Biblical View,” 73. I must thank Gordon for the time
he has spent with me discussing these issues.
[6] Ralston, “Toward a political
theology of refugee resettlement,” 373.
[7] Strong’s Hebrew: 1616 in
Biblos.com, “Online Parallel Bible”, see:
http://concordances.org/hebrew/strongs_1616.htm.
[8] Strong’s Hebrew: 1616 in ibid.,
see: http://concordances.org/hebrew/strongs_1616.htm.
[9] Cavanaugh, “Migrant, Tourist,
Pilgrim, Monk,” 352.
[10] Biblos.com, “Online Parallel
Bible”, Matt 2:16.
[11] Ibid., Matt 25.
[12] The Australian, “Abbott Slams
Boatpeople as un-Christian.”
[13] Preece, Gordon, “We Are All Boat
People: An Exposition of a Biblical View,” 82.
[14] Jensen, “Interview with Amy
Butler on Australia’s Treatment of Asylum Seekers and Refugees”; ABC, “Seek and
Ye Shall Submit (Transcript)”; “Report of the Expert Panel on Asylum Seekers.”
[15] King, “A Christmas Sermon on
Peace.”
[16] King, Methodist Student
Leadership Conference Address.
[17] Biblos.com, “Online Parallel
Bible”, Romans 3:8 and 6:1.
[18] Kant, “The Categorical
Imperative,” 279. Kant suggest that “every rational being exists as an end in
himself and not merely as a means to be arbitrarily used by this or that will.”
[19] At least, this is how one would
expect the legal system to function.
[20] Lamey, Frontier justice,
118.
[21] Ibid., 129.
[22] Preece, Gordon, “We Are All Boat
People: An Exposition of a Biblical View,” 70.
[23] Ralston, “Toward a political
theology of refugee resettlement,” 386.
[24] Carens, “Aliens and Citizens,”
270.
[25] Ibid., 271.
Friday, October 5, 2012
Rawls and the Abolition of the Family
...just a quick side note, I hope to have more peace podcasts out soon once I have finished my next two essays. Thanks for your interest. Stay tuned and leave lots of comments :)
Does justice as
fairness imply the abolition the family?
Justice as fairness has had a profound effect on
political theory. This essay seeks to establish whether justice as fairness
implies the abolition of the family or whether justice as fairness implies the
more modest action of reform. The essay begins with an explanation of the key
concepts such as the ‘basic structure’ and the ‘veil of ignorance’ in Justice
As Fairness: A Restatement by John Rawls. The ideas of Susan Moller Okin
and Veronique Munoz-Dardée will be discussed in order to go beyond Rawls’s
limited writings on the topic in order to consider more fully how his principles
of justice interact with the institution of the family. For this topic I will
attempt to separate the normative elements from the empirical elements while
acknowledging that one’s perspective on the empirical elements of the
institution of the family may influence their perspective of what justice as
fairness requires for the institution in a normative sense.
Rawls uses a device called the ‘veil of ignorance’
through which he suggests that risk-averse and rational participants would
choose the following two principles of justice to apply to the basic structure.
The two principles of justice are as follows
a)
‘Each person has
the same indefensible claim to a fully adequate scheme of equal basic
liberties, which scheme is compatible with the same scheme of liberties for
all; and
b)
Social and
economic inequalities are to satisfy two conditions: first, they are to be
attached to offices and positions open to all under conditions of fair equality
of opportunity and second, they are to be to the greatest benefit of the
least-advantaged members of society (the difference principle).’[1]
The basic structure, which Rawls seeks to apply
these principles of justice to, ‘is the way in which the main political and
social institutions of society fit together into one system of social
cooperation, and the way they assign basic rights and duties and regulate the
division of advantages that arises from social cooperation over time.’ The
basic structure consists of ‘the political constitution with an independent
judiciary, the legally recognised forms of property, and the structure of the
economy (for example, as a system of competitive markets with private property
in the means of production), as well as the family in some form.’ [2]
Rawls includes the family in the basic structure
because ‘one of its essential roles is to establish the orderly production and
reproduction of society and of its culture from one generation to the next.’[3] Rawls suggests
that ‘no particular form of the family (monogamous, heterosexual, or otherwise)
is so far required by a political conception of justice so long as it is
arranged to fulfil these tasks effectively and does not run afoul of other
political values.’[4] However, Rawls,
somewhat ambiguously limits the scope that the principles of justice have in
their affect upon the family by suggesting that ‘political principles do not
apply directly to its [the family’s] internal life but they do impose essential
constraints on the family as an institution and guarantee the basic rights and
liberties and fair opportunities for all its members.’[5]
One may question how the substance of this formal
equality can arise without directly affecting the internal life of the
institution. If the family, in its current and historical modes is perceived to
be moderately unjust and in need of minor reform, Rawls’s approach would seem
reasonable and remain consistent with values of liberty. Whereas, if the
family, in its current and historical modes is perceived to be severely unjust
and in need of major reform or abolition, then one would be more sympathetic to
an approach where the family is directly the subject matter of the principles
of justice.
In Justice, Gender, and the Family, Okin
provides a generally constructive critique of Rawls’s Justice As Fairness from
a feminist perspective. In her response to Justice As Fairness and
Rawls’s other works she suggests that Rawls uses sexist language and largely
ignores historical injustices directed towards women and their subjugation
within the family. This has led Okin to feel obliged to ask, ‘does this theory
of justice apply to women?’[6] Okin’s drawn
out critique of Rawls’s sexist language, while accurate and somewhat relevant, is
on the weaker side of her criticism. The strongest challenge that she presents
to Rawls is questioning what grounding he has to omit the institution of the
family from the direct impact of the principles of justice as they apply to the
rest of the basic structure.
Rawls suggests that the principles of justice apply
to broader political and economic institutions rather than to the internal life
of private groups and associations such as ‘firms and labour unions, churches, universities,
and the family.’[7] He uses the
example of a church being able to excommunicate heretics but not being allowed
to burn them. This, according to Rawls, is compatible with justice as fairness.
Although Rawls may not personally believe such an action is justified, he is
seeking to establish a system of political justice rather than a moral
framework such as utilitarianism which is significantly more comprehensive in
its scope. In the same way, Rawls sees the institution of the family as ‘bound
by the constraints arising from the principles of justice’, but only
‘indirectly from just background institutions within which associations and
groups exist, and by which the conduct of their members is restricted.’[8] He points out
that women and men ‘are equal citizens and have equal basic rights,’ and goes
on to state that ‘to establish equality between men and women in sharing the work
of society, in preserving its culture and in reproducing itself over time,
special provisions are needed in family law (and no doubt elsewhere) so that
the burden of bearing, raising, and educating children does not fall more
heavily on women, thereby undermining their fair equality of opportunity.’[9]
Rawls explicitly argues for reform as opposed to
more radical change such as abolition in securing justice for all peoples
including those who form part of a family institution. While Okin does not
directly call for the abolition of the family in Justice, Gender, And The
Family, she does believe that ‘a consistent and wholehearted application of
Rawls’s liberal principles of justice can lead us to challenge fundamentally
the gender system of our society.’[10] It is apparent
that this is not the purpose of justice as fairness as intended by Rawls.
However, if Okin is right in suggesting that Rawl’s principles of justice would
‘fundamentally change the gender system of our society’, then these same
principles would ultimately impact on the family which is an institution which
has historically been largely shaped through the gender system.
Another important analysis of what Rawls’s theory
means for the institution of the family is presented by Munoz-Dardé in Is
the Family to Be Abolished Then?. She makes several empirical claims as
background to her argument. The article begins with the assertion that ‘the
family is one of the main causes of morally arbitrary inequality. Moreover, it
is not inequality which makes everyone better off.’[11] This empirical
claim is directly appealing to Rawls’s ‘difference principle’ which was
explained earlier. The same claim could also be made about private property. It
seems likely that private property also does not satisfy the difference
principle in being of the ‘greatest benefit of the least advantaged members of
society.’[12]
In the same way, the author suggests that the difference principle should lead
us to question whether the family is to the greatest benefit of its lest
well-off members. To satisfy the ‘difference principle’ in this case, one may
need to consider whether the institution of the family benefits women and
children, or at least, whether the inequalities created by the institution are
to their maximum benefit. Such a broad empirical assertion cannot be made here,
but it will suffice to say that there are conceivable instances of the family
working to either the advantage or the disadvantage of its least well-off
members.
Munoz-Dardé views child rearing by elders within a
community as an essential function of the family and she describes the family
by this function. Understanding that children must still be cared for if the
family were to be abolished, she contrasts the institution of the family with a
well-run orphanage. In Marriage and Morals, Russel suggests the state
substitution of the family would come with both positive and negative
consequences. He argues that health and education have improved due to state
intervention in Western nations. However, he also point to ‘grave dangers’ in
trusting the state in the role of ‘parenting’ children. The main issue of
concern for Russell is that the state is likely to treat children as a means
rather than an ends, whereas, due to individual bonds between parents and their
children, parents are more likely to treat their children as an ends in
themselves. After referring to Russell’s argument, Munoz-Dardé concedes that
the abolition of the family in favour of a well run orphanage ‘would probably
pose such extreme threats to individual liberty and capacity for
self-determination, that it would defeat the very purpose that made us envisage
its substitution by a well-run orphanage.’[13]
Munoz-Dardé does suggest that state marriage should
be abolished because it ‘creates inequalities which are not beneficial to the
worst-off.’[14] However, she
does not see any need to intervene upon the institution as a ritual or
religious ceremony. Allowing the institution of marriage to continue yet
abolishing state recognition of marriage does not abolish the institution
itself. Therefore, the steps that Munoz-Dardé is proposing to take in regards
to both the family and marriage are closer to reform than abolition. While
either reform or abolition could be invoked to achieve justice in the
institution of the family, a Rawlsian political approach, both through
explication and implication, would suggest that reform would be the preferred
option.[15]
Rawls does not provide a strong and comprehensive
defence of the family in Justice As Fairness: A Restatement. Indeed
Rawls does not intend his political theory to be comprehensive and to
explicitly intrude upon the domains of the private sphere or the moral sphere
so long as his egalitarian political conception of the good can still be met.
However, several authors, such as Okin have noted similar sentiments as this:
‘the critical force of the original position becomes evident when one considers
that some of the most creative critiques of Rawls’s theory have resulted from
more radical or broad interpretations of the original position than his own.’[16] The Rawlsian
method has proved useful for both Okin and Munoz-Dardé in highlighting the
failures of the institution of the family. However, given the unattractiveness
of the alternative possibilities and their associated threats to liberty, I
will conclude by suggesting that justice as fairness does not imply the
abolition of the family but significant reform.
[1]
Rawls and
Kelly, Justice as fairness, 42–43.
[2]
Ibid., 10.
[3]
Ibid., 162.
[4]
Ibid., 163.
[5]
Ibid., 164.
[6]
Susan
Moller Okin, Justice, gender, and the family, 91.
[7]
Rawls and
Kelly, Justice as fairness, 10.
[8]
Ibid.
[9]
Ibid., 11.
[10]
Susan
Moller Okin, Justice, gender, and the family, 89.
[11]
Munoz-Dardée,
“Is the Family to Be Abolished Then?,” 37.
[12]
Rawls and
Kelly, Justice as fairness, 42–43.
[13]
Munoz-Dardée,
“Is the Family to Be Abolished Then?,” 216.
[14]
Ibid., 54.
[15]
Rawls and
Freeman, Collected papers, 600. Such an approach is discussed in
Collected Papers in direct response to authors such as Okin.
[16]
Susan
Moller Okin, Justice, gender, and the family, 101; see also: Okin,
“Political Liberalism, Justice, and Gender,” 42.
Munoz-Darde, Veronique.
“Is the Family to Be Abolished Then?” Proceedings of the Aristotelian
Society 99, no. 1 (1999): 37–56.
Okin, Susan Moller.
“Political Liberalism, Justice, and Gender.” Ethics 105, no. 1 (1994):
23–43.
Rawls, John, and Samuel
Richard Freeman. Collected papers. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University
Press, 1999.
Rawls, John, and Erin
Kelly. Justice as fairness : a restatement. Cambridge, Mass [u.a.]:
Harvard Univ. Press, 2003.
Susan Moller Okin. Justice,
gender, and the family. New York: Basic Books, 1989.
Saturday, September 22, 2012
The case for unilateral nuclear disarmament
What shapes the arms
control stance of Barack Obama’s Administration? How would you assess the
administration’s arms control policies?
Introduction
During Barak Obama’s
term as President of the United States of America he has taken several steps
towards the non-proliferation of nuclear weapons and nuclear arms control.
However, the practical actions taken by the administration in support of this
commitment have been less than admirable. To respond to the question I will
argue the following points: (i) nuclear weapons are highly ineffective and
unethical as deterrence mechanisms against the threats that the US and its allies
currently face, (ii) arms control is not an ultimate end in itself and there
must be a broader change in nuclear culture, (iii) although the Obama
administration appears to be ideologically committed to ‘a world without
nuclear weapons’, their spending priorities and desire to remain in a place of
dominance suggests otherwise, and (iv) there are several steps that the Obama
administration must take if they genuinely desire a world without nuclear
weapons and the threat of nuclear weapons.
Part I – Morality &
Utility
Before one can respond
to the question of the merit a particular nuclear arms control policy should
receive the value of nuclear weapons must be considered. If the value of
nuclear weapons is considered to be very high in all contexts, then there is
strong merit in abolishing nuclear weapons regulations. If the value of nuclear
weapons is very low in all contexts, or the negative consequences of their use
outweigh any good they could achieve, then it would follow that steps towards a
future free from nuclear weapons is and the threat they present is desirable.
From an egalitarian perspective there are no justifications to act from the belief that
nationality, religion, or other factors of this nature can make a person more
or less valuable. While other perspectives such as racial or religious
superiority are used in the political debate, I shall not entertain them here.
Nuclear weapons by their nature do not discriminate between civilian and
military targets. The collateral damage that is likely to occur from the use of
nuclear weapons against an enemy target is so great that the weapons themselves
already appear to have little moral standing. Arne Naess points out that
responding to a nuclear strike with nuclear weapons would create a situation
where ‘the chance of killing those really responsible for the disaster would be
slim.’ He goes on to state that ‘millions of nonbelligerents and innumerable
other beings would suffer, while people at the top of the power pyramids would
likely escape.’[1] The sheer military ineffectiveness in addition to the likely
excessive collateral damage of nuclear weapons compounds the immorality of the
use and investment into these devices.
The ineffectiveness and
immorality of nuclear weapons has been strengthened in the post-Cold War
context. Drell and Goodby suggest in their article Nuclear Deterrence in a Changed World that nuclear weapons ‘have little or no effect in coercing
states, insurgent groups, or terrorists to abstain from actions that threaten
international peace and security.’[2] They argue that although the mutually assured destruction
(MAD) strategy may have been a useful means of attaining security through
parity during the Cold War, in the vastly different current global context,
this strategy is futile. This is largely due to the decentralised structure of
groups like Al Qaeda. Terrorist groups usually have no central military training
base and do not identify themselves with uniforms which makes them a difficult
target to identify. Using nuclear weapons against targets that are difficult to
identify compounds the risk of error of judgement. These reasons would make a
state significantly less likely to use nuclear weapons against a terrorist
group. Understanding this, terrorists groups are significantly less likely to
respond to the fear of being attacked.
Both the Bush and Obama
administrations have expressed their awareness of the changed world context
from the Cold War era, but neither administration has gone far enough on acting
upon this understanding. In the 2002 National Security Strategy lead by the
Bush administration it was noted that ‘traditional concepts of deterrence will
not work against a terrorist enemy whose avowed tactics are wanton destruction
and targeting of innocents; whose so-called soldiers seek martyrdom in death
and whose most potent protection is statelessness.’[3] President Bush has reiterated this sentiment in a recent
speech at Hankuk University, suggesting that his administration’s ‘inherited’
nuclear arsenal ‘is poorly suited to today’s threats, including nuclear
terrorism.’[4] While both sides of politics in the United
States have recognised that nuclear weapons are not an appropriate means for
addressing contemporary conflict situations, the United States has still
managed to retain what Obama describes as a ‘massive nuclear arsenal.’[5] Moreover, the Obama administration has not shied away from
continuing to view nuclear weapons as a necessary part of the US’s national
security. The administration is investing more money into modernising these
weapons they seek to abolish.[6] In consideration of the futility and immorality of nuclear
weapons, political courage must be employed to ensure that the US takes a
genuine leadership role in the abolition of nuclear weapons.
Part II – Ends & Means
In the previous section
I have justified the importance of the reduction and (eventual) abolition of
nuclear weapons on normative and pragmatic grounds. In this section I will
argue that arms control is a means (rather than an end). I will also argue that
arms control is a necessary but not a sufficient condition of
achieving a world without nuclear weapons.
There have been several
bilateral and multilateral nuclear arms control treaties between Moscow and
Washington. These include the Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty (START) and the
New Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty (New START). The START verification regime
limited the aggregate number of Intercontinental Ballistic Missiles (ICBMs) and
Submarine Launched Ballistic Missiles (SLBMs) to 6000 for each party to the
treaty. The START treaty also limited the number of strategic delivery vehicles
to 1,600 for ‘deployed ICBMs and SLBMs and their associated launchers, and
heavy bombers.’[7] The START treaty was signed in 1991 and the 2001
implementation deadline was reached. However, the treaty expired in 2009, so
the Obama administration took the opportunity to pursue further bilateral
nuclear weapons reductions through the 2010 New START treaty.[8] The main development in this treaty was the planned
reduction of deployed ICBM, SLBM, and heavy bomber warheads to 1550 from 6000.[9]
These treaties are
useful and important as a means to a reduction in the nuclear stockpiles
of Russia and the US. They are a necessary aspect of the goal of abolishing
nuclear weapons and moving towards a demilitarised world. However, the treaties
alone are insufficient. Philosopher Arne Naess suggests that the threat of
rapid nuclear rearmament ‘would probably replace the present threats’ if
disarmament was achieved through international treaties and negotiations.[10] He suggests that ‘nuclear culture as a whole’ must
change in order to abolish the threat that nuclear weapons present to all
planetary life forms.[11]
Naess observes ‘that if
one of a pair of mutually hostile nuclear powers unilaterally disarms, little
motive remains for the other to use nuclear bombs.’[12] In order to reduce the threat of nuclear war Naess suggests step-by-step
unilateral disarmament to move beyond nuclear deterrence. Unilateral
disarmament, while it may seem extreme, manages to overcome the nuclear
deterrence paradox where both sides ‘are thus confronted by the dilemma of
steadily increasing military power and steadily decreasing national security.’[13]
While unilateral
nuclear weapon disarmament and consequential nuclear weapon abolition would
mean that a state has no nuclear deterrence mechanism in place, there
are other potential benefits. For example, in the Nuclear Posture Review
the United States committed to not using or threatening to use nuclear weapons ‘against
non-nuclear weapon states that are party to the NPT (non-proliferation treaty)
and in compliance with their nuclear non-proliferation obligations.’[14] There are 189 states who are signatories of the NPT. The
only states that have not become signatories are India, Israel, and Pakistan.
Although not every state has committed to this standard, and the US’ commitment
is conditional, their pledge lends support to the idea that a state who has
nuclear weapons becomes a greater target. Neighbouring states may be worried
that a state is making or buying nuclear weapons with a plan to use them. This
often creates further conflict even if the weapons are never used. Furthermore,
if the weapons ever were used it would likely be met with global condemnation.
Therefore, there is a strong case for unilateral disarmament as a means to
change nuclear culture as a whole.
Part III – Ideology and
Actions
Obama has stated his
desire to ‘seek the peace and security of a world without nuclear weapons’,
recognising that security may not be achieved through weapons of mass
destruction.[15] While Obama acknowledged that this goal ‘will not be reached
quickly’, he conveyed it as a serious goal with concrete steps that can be
taken by the US.[16] In a speech given in Prague in 2009, he said that ‘we will
reduce the role of nuclear weapons in our national security strategy, and urge
others to do the same.’[17] Presented in this order, Obama’s ideals would be compatible
with Naess’ suggestions of unilateral disarmament as a means to change nuclear
culture as a whole.
However, the approach
of the Obama administration has been closer to bilateral and multilateral
disarmament as local disarmament has been used as a bargaining chip to convince
others to reduce their nuclear stockpiles. This has been exemplified in the New
START treaty where the Obama administration and Moscow mutually agreed to
reduce their nuclear weapon stockpiles. While this type of disarmament should
not be condemned, one may argue whether it will achieve its intended purpose.
States may invest in the ‘technological race’ as a means to ‘rapid nuclear
rearmament’, defeating the purpose of international arms control treaties.[18] This leads us once again to Naess’ suggestion that ‘nuclear
cultures as a whole’ must change, not just treaties or policies.[19]
The signs of a positive
nuclear weapons cultural shift are ominous. A recent report by the nonpartisan
Stimson Centre estimates that ‘the US will spend between $352 and $392 billion
on strategic nuclear offensive forces over the next 10 years.’[20] Hans Kristensen from the Federation of American Scientists
described this as ‘somewhat of a schizophrenic nuclear policy.’[21] Since the Bush administration military spending in the US
has continued to grow in constant terms, whilst staying stagnant as a percentage
of gross domestic product (GDP).[22] These figures do not to represent a significant shift in
priorities by the Obama administration as compared to the priorities of the
Bush administration.
Part IV – A pragmatic
solution
The Obama
administration faces a deeply challenging political situation where progress on
the issue of nuclear arms control is difficult at best. The political agenda is
packed and there is a limit to what a president can achieve in their first term
in office. A recent article in Reuters suggests that the Obama
administration had some early achievements with New START. However, the author
also points out that ‘the administration had difficulty winning ratification in
the Senate.’[23] A great deal of the difficulty has come because support for nuclear
arms reduction policy is not bipartisan. Presidential candidate Mitt Romney has
expressed his disapproval of the New START policy, writing that it ‘could be
his worst foreign policy mistake yet’, suggesting that ‘the security of the
United States is at stake.’[24] This has been a critical factor in what has shaped Obama’s
arms control policies.
Given the challenges
that the Obama administration faces in realising its goal of a world without
nuclear weapons, and perhaps the even more ambitious goal of a world free from
the threat of nuclear weapons, it is understandable that progress has been
slow. However, there are several key steps that the administration can make to
achieving this goal.
First, the Obama
administration should cease all investment in nuclear weapon technology except
that which is specifically related to safety and weapon security. This will
give greater credibility to treaties such as New START and create greater trust
between hostile parties.
Second, the Obama
administration should lead the way by unilaterally reducing their nuclear
arsenal. This would achieve three things. First, it would demonstrate that the
moral decisions of the US are not contingent upon the decisions of another
nation. Second, it would demonstrate the type of leadership that is required
for a change in nuclear weapon culture that could eliminate the threat of
nuclear weapons. Third, it would demonstrate that even occupation would be
better than a nuclear war.
Third, the Obama
administration must stop using the fear, security, and deterrence rhetoric that
has paved the way for the public consent of massive amounts of funding for
nuclear weapon modernisation. This is also required for a significant change in
nuclear weapons culture.
Conclusion
In conclusion, it is
clear that nuclear weapons are in the first instance immoral, and in the second
instance, ineffective in countering modern security threats. Reducing the
number of nuclear weapons will not completely eliminate the threat of nuclear
weapon use, a broader change in culture must take place for this to happen.
Obama’s spending priorities have indicated that his interest in taking steps
towards achieving world without nuclear weapons is not a priority for his
administration in his first term in office. While this is partly due to the
difficult political situation the administration finds itself in, there are
several concrete steps that must be worked towards as indicated above. The
Obama administration has a great deal of work to do in order to take seriously
the threat of a global nuclear war.
Works Cited
Alexander, David.
“After Early Successes, Obama Struggles to Implement Disarmament Vision.” Reuters.
Washington, August 31, 2012.
http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/08/31/us-usa-nuclear-arms-idUSBRE87U06B20120831.
Arms Control
Association. “START I at a Glance”, 2009.
http://www.armscontrol.org/factsheets/start1.
Cohen, Avner, and
Steven Lee. Nuclear weapons and the future of humanity : the fundamental
questions. Totowa, N.J.: Rowman & Allanheld, 1986.
Department Of State.
The Office of Electronic Information, Bureau of Public Affairs. “Comparison of
the START Treaty, Moscow Treaty, and New START Treaty”, February 11, 2011.
http://www.state.gov/t/avc/rls/139901.htm.
Drell, Sidney, and
James Goodby. “Nuclear Deterrence in a Changed World”, 2012.
http://www.armscontrol.org/act/2012_06/Nuclear_Deterrence_in_a_Changed_World#Bio.
“Remarks By President
Barack Obama In Prague As Delivered | The White House”, n.d.
http://www.whitehouse.gov/the_press_office/Remarks-By-President-Barack-Obama-In-Prague-As-Delivered.
“Remarks by President
Obama at Hankuk University | The White House”, n.d.
http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2012/03/26/remarks-president-obama-hankuk-university.
Romney, Mitt. “Obama’s
Worst Foreign-policy Mistake.” The Washington Post, July 6, 2010, sec.
Opinions.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/07/05/AR2010070502657.html.
Rumbaugh, Russell,
Nathan Cohn, and Henry L. Stimson Center. Resolving ambiguity costing
nuclear weapons. Washington, DC: Henry L. Stimson Center, 2012.
http://www.stimson.org/images/uploads/research-pdfs/RESOLVING_FP_4_no_crop_marks.pdf.
Sagan S.D. “Shared
responsibilities for nuclear disarmament.” Daedalus Daedalus 138, no. 4
(2009): 157–168.
Stockholm International
Peace Research Institute. “Military Expenditure of USA.” Yearbook, 2012.
http://www.sipri.org/yearbook/2005/08.
United States. Dept. of
Defense. “Nuclear posture review report”, 2010.
http://purl.access.gpo.gov/GPO/LPS121566.
United States.
President. The national security strategy of the United States of America.
[Washington, D.C.]: White House, 2002. http://purl.access.gpo.gov/GPO/LPS90878.
Wiesner, Jerome B., and
Herbert F. York. “National Security and the Nuclear-Test Ban.” Scientific
American 211, no. 4 (October 1964): 27–35.
Footnotes
[2]
Drell and
Goodby, “Nuclear Deterrence in a Changed World.”
[3]
United
States. President, The national security strategy of the United States of
America, 15.
[4]
“Remarks
by President Obama at Hankuk University | The White House.”
[5]
Ibid.
[6]
United
States. Dept. of Defense, “Nuclear posture review report,” 7.
[7]
Department
Of State. The Office of Electronic Information, “New START.”
[8]
Arms
Control Association, “START I at a Glance.”
[9]
Department
Of State. The Office of Electronic Information, “New START.”
[10]
Cohen and
Lee, Nuclear weapons and the future of humanity, 426.
[11]
Ibid.
[12]
Ibid., 427.
[13]
Wiesner
and York, “National Security and the Nuclear-Test Ban,” 35.
[14]
United
States. Dept. of Defense, “Nuclear posture review report,” viii.
[15]
“Remarks
By President Barack Obama In Prague As Delivered | The White House.”
[16]
Ibid.
[17]
Ibid.
[18]
Cohen and
Lee, Nuclear weapons and the future of humanity, 426; Sagan S.D, “Shared
responsibilities for nuclear disarmament,” 158.
[19]
Cohen and
Lee, Nuclear weapons and the future of humanity, 426.
[20]
Rumbaugh,
Cohn, and Henry L. Stimson Center, Resolving ambiguity costing nuclear
weapons, 6.
[21]
Alexander,
“After Early Successes, Obama Struggles to Implement Disarmament Vision.”
[22]
Stockholm
International Peace Research Institute, “Military Expenditure of USA.”
[23]
Alexander,
“After Early Successes, Obama Struggles to Implement Disarmament Vision.”
[24]
Romney,
“Obama’s Worst Foreign-policy Mistake” Note: This was Romney’s response to the
policy as was drafted in 2010. There are no signs that his views have changed
considerably since then.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)