Recovering from the Violence Done

323 Kennington Rd, London. Afrikan Emancipation Day Reparations March. Annually on the 1st August, which marks emancipation for the abolishment of slavery in the Caribbean, The Afrikan Heritage Community come together to stand in solidarity and March to Parliament, where laws of slavery were made. This file is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 4.0 International license. Author: Jordiferrer.

By Kathie MM

Violence is oozing its way steadily into our daily lives — into our theaters, churches, homes, and schools. It’s happening right here in the US, but also around the world with a little help from Uncle Sam. If anyone wants to make America great, they should start by reifying nonviolence.

A tremendous effort was made to promote and preserve peace after the two vicious 20th-century World Wars. Countries in Africa and elsewhere were released from the bondage of colonization, a universal convention on human rights was adopted, and international peacekeeping groups were created.And two superpowers emerged — the USSR and the US — and the Cold War began, played out in lots of deadly proxy wars, comfortably away from the nations trying to rebuild their lands and their budgets.

During the Cold War, the Soviet Union shrank, and the United States extended its greedy military fingers into all corners of the globe. People primarily of different hues and faiths than the US power elite suffered in untold ways, and the nation’s defense budget expanded, effectively robbing the poor (and increasingly the middle class) to make the rich richer.It’s time for a change.

On one level, the change must be a major political and social rebellion against the military-industrial complex that profits so highly from the death and destruction they impose most obviously on civilians elsewhere, but also on the people at home who bear the burden of the war machine’s costs.

But it’s not enough to resist evil; we must also devote ourselves to particular reactions — to redressing the harm that the nation’s violence has caused civilians in countless (mostly poor) countries around the world, reconciling with the people in countries we have identified as enemies or have raped of resources, repairing the damage our pursuit of profit has inflicted on the environment, and making reparations for the harm our country has done.

In the next two posts, guest author Ross Caputi focuses on reparations.

 

From Star Wars to weaponized drones

In the midst of the Cold War nuclear arms race in 1983, President Ronald Reagan proposed a Strategic Defense Initiative aimed at mounting defensive weapons in space to shield the United States from a Soviet nuclear attack.

Map of the fictional Stars Wars galaxy
Map of the fictional Stars Wars galaxy by W.R. van Hage. Used under CC Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 Unported license.

Perhaps in part because of Reagan’s own publicly-stated conviction that Armageddon, as predicted in the Bible, was at hand, the proposed initiative raised anxiety levels around the world and was promptly labeled “Star Wars.”

Some of these anxieties were relieved by the signing of the first Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty (START) by the U.S. and U.S.S.R. in 1991 and the subsequent Strategic Offensive Reduction Treaty with Russia in 2001, requiring reductions in nuclear weapons in both countries.

Despite the fact that the sanity of the nuclear arms race was challenged around the world, technological junkies and arms manufacturers have been busy on another Star Wars adventure. This time, it’s developing weaponized drones (euphemistically called unmanned aerial vehicles). [In our next post we will consider Autonomous Weapons Systems (AWS).]

Nuclear weapons were terrifying in part because they were likely not only to vanquish any “enemies” almost immediately but also to leave in their wake destruction and contamination that could destroy life on earth. In contrast, weaponized drones and other modern “miracle” weapons are touted for their ability to zero in on individual bad guys.  What could be more precise? More humane?  More just?

Our own President has said that their use will be guided by just and moral principles but national and international anxiety is once again high.  A recent study indicates that drones have killed more civilians than manned aircraft in Afghanistan.

Kathie Malley-Morrison, Professor of Psychology

War’s chance of success (Just war, part 6)

[Note from Kathie Malley-Morrison: Today we once again welcome guest contributor Dr. Michael Corgan, for the sixth in his ongoing series on just war.]

The just war principle of “chance of success” demonstrates a significant divergence between the notions of when it is “legal” to resort to war and when it is “just.” One case illustrates the point very well.

Finland Coat of Arms
Finland Coat of Arms

In 1940 The Soviet Union invaded Finland for various reasons having to do with the (well-founded) fear of a Nazi attack. By any legal standard, including international law as it was understood at the time, Finland had a right to defend itself.

But this was a war that Finland could not and did not win. Just war theory holds that Finland should not have even tried to resist such a blatant act of aggression against it. Although it was clearly the wronged party and the harm done by invading Soviet troops was immense, Finland could only add to the killing by its resistance.

Finland of course could and did contend that its resistance would later on be useful. Indeed post-war treatment of Finland by the Soviet Union was more considerate than it was to other bordering countries of the USSR. Nonetheless just war requires that war has some probability of success other than making a “statement” of resistance or defiance.

The US is involved in several war efforts now but Afghanistan is the biggest. How does it measure up to “chance of success?” We are “nation building” with a governing ruler who despises us openly and many of whose own people think is unacceptably corrupt.

Even our forces that are performing heroic and selfless efforts to help the Afghans build a national consciousness are irredeemably hampered by the fact that they are, of course, foreigners, infidels, and don’t speak the language. We can train soldiers and police but we can’t make Afghans.

Chance of success: nil.

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