Libya – Page 2 – Engaging Peace

Are YOU guilty of a war crime?

Posted on April 7, 2014April 4, 2014 by kathiemm

To put the question differently: Do you pay taxes?

If you do, you may be committing a war crime.

Tax Rebellion, a group active in the United Kingdom, argues that “Under the international laws of war, it is a criminal offense to pay tax to a Government which is waging illegal war.”

The group goes on to argue that the wars against Afghanistan, Iraq, and Libya are all illegal, violating the Treaty for the Renunciation of War of 1928 (also known as the Kellogg-Briand Pact) and the United Nations Charter.

They quote the judges from the Nuremberg trials at the end of World War II:

“War is essentially an evil thing. Its consequences are not confined to the belligerent states alone, but affect the whole world. To initiate a war of aggression, therefore, is not only an international crime, it is the supreme international crime differing only from other war crimes in that it contains within itself the accumulated evil of the whole.”

The United States government is involved in acts of aggression around the world, with most of these kept successfully out of the awareness of ordinary citizens.

Iin the United States, one group that is devoted to educating the public concerning financial and human costs of aggression and promoting the use of tax money for peace, not war, is the Peace Economy Project. Visit their site and learn all kinds of things you probably didn’t know—including the “wide range of operations in Africa, including airstrikes targeting suspected militants, and night raids aimed at kidnapping terror suspects…”

Kathie Malley-Morrison, Professor of Psychology

Abuse of ethical standards? Experts in support of war

Posted on March 3, 2014March 26, 2014 by kathiemm

By guest contributor Michael D. Knox, Ph.D.

Since the end of World War II, the United States has bombed more than 25 countries. In these 68 years, no other nation has killed and injured more people living outside its borders. We have more nuclear weapons, more chemical weapons, and more soldiers than all other nations combined.

Nazi physician Karl Brandt sentenced at International Military Tribunal. — Nazi physician Karl Brandt is sentenced at International Military Tribunal. Image in public domain, from Wikimedia Commons.

In 2014, the U.S. continues drone and missile attacks on residential neighborhoods in Afghanistan, Pakistan, Iraq, Somalia, Libya, and Yemen. We use concentration camps, torture, assassination, threats of war, and spying on our own people.

The invasions, the killing of thousands of children, the suffering of the wounded, the torture, the environmental impact, and so on, occur only because of support provided by professionals, educators, and scientists whose ethical standards should preclude any involvement with war.

These specialized experts include university professors, scientists, healthcare providers, journalists, engineers, teachers, and the clergy. Modern U.S. wars could not be fought without the complicity of these respected groups. Such groups were also part of the German war machine.

If you are a member of a group with ethical standards, be aware of what contributions your colleagues may be making to the U.S. war efforts. Consider how ethical standards apply, hold violators accountable, and do what you can to get your profession out of the war business.

All Americans, regardless of occupation, should consider what they are doing to sustain war. Without citizen support there would be no U.S. warfare. Please consider what you might do to show your opposition to the bloodshed. Examples of what other Americans have done are recorded in the US Peace Registry.

Michael D. Knox, Ph.D., is distinguished professor emeritus at the University of South Florida, Tampa, and chair of the US Peace Memorial Foundation. He is also editor of the US Peace Registry. Dr. Knox’s work is now focused on recognizing Americans who have had the courage to publicly oppose one or more U.S. wars www.uspeacememorial.org/WorldPeace.htm.

“Humanitarian intervention?” Imperialism still stinks, Part 4

Posted on August 29, 2013August 26, 2013 by kathiemm

Final in the series by guest author Dr. Dahlia Wasfi

Gaza libera. Free Palestine — Photo from WikiMedia Commons, used under CC Attribution 2.0 Generic license.

The people of lands whose riches are coveted by imperial powers must endure an almost constant battle among those vying for external control. In addition, they must bear the burden of indigenous struggle for independence. Such is the history of much of Asia, Africa, and the Americas. Such is the root of much of the conflict in the Middle East today.

The colonial state of Israel continues to expand its borders with illegal settlements in the occupied West Bank. Israeli government maps suggest planned annexation of the majority of this land. Through their expulsion from the 1940s through today, Palestinians remain the largest refugee population in the world.

Countries like Iraq, Libya, and Syria finally gained their independence from foreign powers and took control of their oil industries. Along with Iran (following the Islamic revolution in 1979), these three countries were the major forces countering Western hegemony in the region. But those Western powers—and their multinational corporations—want their profitable colonial relationship back.

In the early 20th century, to honor “the spirit of the age” of national independence[1], the imperialists called their colonial possessions “mandates.” Now in the early 21st century, imperialists—armed with far more advanced weapons technologies—call their re-domination of these countries “humanitarian intervention for regime change.” These imperialists claim that we must save the indigenous people in the Middle East from their states, in particular, from the use of weapons of mass destruction by local powers.

Those claims proved false in Iraq and remain unproven in Syria. In Iraq and Libya, the people are much worse off today than before our “humanitarian interventions” via military assault. Bombing raids and the subsequent replacement of secular states with theocracies have resulted in death, destruction, and further loss of freedoms for the survivors. As Western oil companies and military industries reap the profits, the parasitic colonial relationships are re-established.

No matter what euphemism our government uses for its policy, it’s still imperialism. And it still stinks.

[1] Owen, Roger. “State, Power and Politics in the Making of the Modern Middle East, 3^rd Edition.” Routledge, New York. 2004. p.6

A just war against Assad?

Posted on March 1, 2012March 27, 2012 by kathiemm

By guest author Mike Corgan

Almost daily, we learn of massacres, indiscriminate shelling, and rocket attacks against civilian areas in and around Homs. The situation in Syria seems to offer the occasion for a just war against Bashir Assad and his army if ever there were one.

Government crackdown in Syria. Photo by Elizabeth Arrott, in public domain.

Most members of the United Nations and the Arab League, as well as many others, support some kind of action. But does this near-universal consensus add up to a just war occasion?

In international law it well might. But just war theory usually requires a a just peace–a condition only implicit, at most, in international law.

And what sort of peace might follow in Syria if Assad were removed by force? Assad’s ruling Alawite faction is also supported by various other minority groups who have been tolerated under the current regime as they well might not be under, say, a strict Sunni regime.

Opposition to Assad is also disparate. There is a high likelihood that scores would be settled in the aftermath of regime change. Just look at Libya, Iraq, and now Afghanistan in the face of the impending U.S. pullout.

A just war in Syria requires a just peace at its conclusion and that means providing order. Has anyone volunteered for that task?

Michael T. Corgan, Ph.D., Associate Professor and Associate Chair, Department of International Relations, Boston University