Nearly a year ago I wrote this post on the topic. I actually began the part 2, but let it lie for a while. Given the dramatic events in Iran and the pseudo-debate in the US about how Obama should react, I find it apt to finish up the topic now.
Given the points raised in the previous post, does this mean that humanitarian intervention via war is never justified? First I should point out that this is a separate question than is war ever justified? Although I am a great admirer of Ghandi I am not a pacifist. So let us look more closely at the moral issues.
The Rabbis pose the following moral dilemma: if you are on a desert with a friend, and you have only one canteen of water left, who should drink it? Should you give it to your friend to save his life, or drink it yourself. The answer they give is you should drink it yourself. Their justification is the rhetorical question: “Is his blood redder than yours?” Both your lives are equal, and you have the right to save your own life without guilt. This same arguments justifies self defense. If someone comes to kill me, I can kill him. After all, is his blood redder than mine?
While this principle might seem simple, the Rabbis do qualify it. If someone says to me “kill someone else or I’ll kill you” you would think the “redder blood” principle would apply here. The Rabbi’s themselves argue that in this case you should let yourself be killed, rather than become a murderer. In other words, self preservation has strict moral limits.
It is difficult to delineate the exact difference between this and the desert island case, but I believe the argument runs as follows, a variant of the categorical imperative. In the desert, assume we state that giving up the water is the morally superior alternative. We then enter an endless cycle. A tells B to take the water. B tells A to take it and so on forever. The “redder blood” principle clarifies the issue and breaks the cycle without any negative side effect. Similarly, if someone attacks me, defending myself does not create more harm, since one of us will die in either case, and the attacker has lost any moral protection by initiating the attack.
In the case of killed or be killed, the moral implications of my agreeing to kill someone else have profoundly negative implications. The commander needs the help of others in order to carry out his evil intentions. If self-preservation becomes the justification for “following orders” then evil has a free hand and many will die who wouldn’t otherwise. Only when people refuse to co-operate with immoral commands, will evil eventually be defeated. The practical truth of this approach is incontrovertible. Totalitarian regimes can only exist with the explicit and implicit co-operation of the broader population. When people adopt the principle of refusing to co-operate, these regimes collapse.
One might be tempted to argue that since resistence leads to bloodshed on the part of the regime, those who resist, even non-violently like Ghandi, are somehow complicit in the regime’s murder, since their actions may “trigger” the violence. However, the interpretation above of the rabbinical injunction can be expanded to provide a moral basis for active resistance as well. Given that collaboration (passive and active) is the main tool through which the minority retains power and oppresses the majority, collaboration makes the participant complicit in the regimes crimes. An oppressive regime will use violence in any case, so resistance is the superior moral alternative. The Bible provides another injunction which reinforces this idea: “Do not stand by idly when your neighbor’s life is at stake.” (Leviticus 19:16)
This discussion is not at all abstract and seems to be quite relevant to events now in Iran, or in any similar situation.Every Iranian is now faced with these questions: Should I co-operate with the regime and stay “safe” on the basis of “my blood is as red as my neighbors?” Or, has the regime’s illegitmate ways reached the point where co-operation means colluding with murder and therefore an immoral act?
I realize I am phrasing this as an either-or question, whereas the reality for each individual is far more complex. Each situation at any given moment raises a host of complex questions and I do not envy the people of Iran confronting these questions. It is easy to say from a distance that resistance is the morally superior option. But who can honestly say in advance how they might react, knowing that their actions might jeopardize their own life or the life of their loved ones? The same
As for the use of violent resistance, while my sympathies lie with Ghandi, nevertheless, given the complexity of human behavior, sometimes there may be no other alternative. The case of Rwanda comes to mind, where Kagame’s army stopped the genocide and brought a measure of stability to the country. As a moral argument for violence, one can say “is the blood of my oppressor redder than mine?” But certainly it should be an option of last resort. My admiration of the Iranian resistance is magnified by the dignity and generally non-violent behavior of the protestors, in the face of extreme provocation.
Given the complexities of these moral issues and the less than clear-cut costs and benefits of “intervention” (as discussed in the first part of this article), the choice of direct action lies solely in the hands of those immediately confronted by the challenge. We who watch from afar may express our admiration and support for those who make the heroic decision to resist. It is not our place to exhort them to do so, nor condemn those who are too afraid to stand up. We may condemn the violence of the oppressor and even condemn excessive violence on the part of those who resist.But our condemnations must be based on universal human values, not driven by ideology or political interests.
Which brings us back to the issue of “humanitarian intervention.” If the moral basis for resistance, non-violent or otherwise, is based on universal human values, then there are situations when an external intervention can be justified. viz. when there is universal agreement that such an intervention is necessary. (I’ll even settle for near-universal). I realize that such a position might infuriate those who disagree. They might say: “You know getting universal agreement on such intervention is nearly impossible. So you are arguing we should sit on our hands while innocents die? What about the biblical injunction you quoted earlier?”
My response is that the dichotmy between “doing nothing” and “humanitarian intervention” is a false choice, both for individuals and states. As individuals, we can act to mobilize world opinion to support intervention if it is truly justified. Our leaders can do the same at the diplomatic level. If the cause is indeed obvious and just, then some sort of consensus may be reached.
More importantly, oppressive regimes are armed by somebody. In this article one may see a list of these somebodies – the countries which are the major arms suppliers to the world. It is incredibly hypocritical for stateman and individuals in Western countries to demand intervention, even as these same countries are the lords of war, supplying the arms that support conflict and oppression world-wide. The well-worn phrase “an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure” applies here as well. Why wait for war, genocide or oppression to happen before acting? We need to act to prevent it from happening in the first place, by demanding effective controls and regulations of this horrific industry. A true peace movement should be fighting for disarmament, not intervention.
Tags: Empire, Feature, Human Rights, Hypocrisy, Nationalism