Thursday, June 17, 2010

ABSURDITY: DISPROPORTIONATE USE OF FORCE

There are many countries that intermittently and consistently violate the fundamental human rights of citizens. The United States of America is not exempt from this breach of humanity: American history is replete with such denials and this country continues to wrestle with the manner it will relate to certain categories of people. When our nation criticizes another country for unjust treatment of its populace, it surely must take the brunt of criticisms about its own shortcomings with respect to human rights. But such reciprocity does not affect the validity of the criticisms we make of other countries for its repression. In other words, guilty silence is not an option when a country is clearly trouncing upon the dignity and worth of its citizens.

Were each country to keep silent when another country is unduly repelling its citizenry, we would individually and collectively be endorsing the inhumane treatment of persons. Equally absurd is when a nation seeks to condone its oppression by arguing that it is being singled out by the international community or by another country or by individuals while human rights are being violated all over the planet. The result of such a claim is to stifle any criticism whatsoever, regardless of its validity or veracity. This type of claim is a logical fallacy of the first degree, and it does not excuse the guilty party because of false conversions, equivocations, and hypotheses contrary to the facts.

A major tenet of international relations, from the United Nations Declarations of Human Rights to the classic just war theory, is proportionality. A person or group that has limited means of demonstrating its position should not be overwhelmed by an opposing person or group that has comparatively unlimited means. Simply put, it is not a fair fight. When a citizen throws a rock at a police officer and is met with bullet fire, a serious violation of this principle of reciprocity has occurred. No discussion of security or protection is sufficient to justify such a disproportionate use of force. It might be challenging to find options to deal with pesky opponents, but wiping them out with a use of force that obliterates them is immoral, offensive, and prosecutorial—regardless of the social arena.

What happened in Tiananmen Square where the demonstrator stood in from of a tank is a case in point. The tanker could have bulldozed or blasted the protestor while the world watched, but did not. Doing so would have been inhumane. The demonstrator in Arizona who was gunned down because of hitting a guardsman with a stone clearly breached proportionality. And the killing of defenseless Palestinians by Israeli soldiers is likewise unconscionable. No puerile logical fallacy erases the perniciousness of the atrocity. Period!

POLITICAL SPILLAGE

The unexpected BP oil spill fiasco of April 20 has placed the Obama Administration in a precarious position. Anything that does not stem the flow of oil, avoid environmental catastrophe, and make the oil company pay for damages would be interpreted as inaction that compares to FEMA and the Bush Administration’s dilatoriness at the brink and in the wake of Hurricane Katrina. These two situations were utterly distinct—given that the course of the hurricane was predictable and its potential damage knowable prior to its hitting land. The oil spill was not a natural disaster, but, rather, an accident that caught the country off guard, despite the fact BP had cut corners and was unprepared to act promptly if such an accident were to occur. Hence, the comparisons are unfair and injudicious toward President Obama.

But the political chicanery that is taking place regarding the oil mishap is to be expected, since this year involves an election cycle that will influence the national election campaign two years from now. So, Obama has to appear that he is in control, knows what is going on, cares about what is happening by frequently visiting the scene of the confluence of oil and the waters of the Gulf of Mexico, and is not going to let BP off the hook, so to speak, in order to salvage the gains the Democratic Party attained in 2008. His speech on Tuesday night, June 15, was such a political move and, on the whole, he succeeded in giving the impression that he was on top of things and was holding BP’s feet to the fire.

The speechifying was typical Obamaesque, but the results are yet to be determined. The plan to make BP set up a fund of $20 billion over the next four years to pay for claims made by citizens and to establish another account to compensate oil rig workers laid off because of the moratorium on deepwater drilling over the next six months has spawned much criticism over government takeover of industry and has also engendered solipsistic remarks about unleashing the juggernaut of socialism. It appears that our government, particularly the executive and legislative branches, is unable to come together amid crises to protect the lives of its citizens and to avert ecological ruin. We are so caught up in our partisanship and our ideology-based, ad hominem attacks that we cannot objectively ascertain the extent of the damage or discern what steps need to be taken to restore the Gulf, the bordering states, and the people adversely affected.

At this writing, the spillage and the political shenanigans continue while lives are deprecated, the Gulf is sullied, the wildlife is being destroyed, and families are hurt and increasingly at risk for further injury. Who’s accountable? We all are. This is not a time of division and cherry picking; it is time for salvific action, resolution, and the establishment of safeguards to ensure this devastation will never occur again!