"How I Will Stop the War," by Chris Andrews

I came across this beautiful essay by Chris Andrews on the Matthew Good blog site, and I think it is very instructive in opposing war with an open mind, and being the peace you want to see in the world. Here is the essay on Common Dreams:

How I Will Stop The War
by Chris Andrews, written in March 2003

I wrote this last year before the war started, but somehow it seems more relevant now, people are more open to this type of thought. There's an awful lot of rhetoric and analysis out there, and I still think (like then) that people need to know what to do, themselves, at this moment. And something that reflects some different thinking, approaches. And unless "our side" proposes new ways to think and do, beyond countering the "evil right", I think the average person will stay in their comfort zone. Hope you agree, I wrote it to inspire people. I am convinced if people did this when I wrote this, we'd all be better off today. Not saying that from a place of ego, just from a place of truth, and what other people have told me.

I will limit the amount of war coverage I watch on TV to 10 minutes per day.
Because I know that watching something too closely makes you lose perspective.
Because the economic benefits of war will be lessened by watching TV less.
Because I have more important things to do, like read, think, reflect, discuss. And newspapers ain't bad!
Because I want to make a statement that I determine when and how I spend my time.

I will listen to every viewpoint, no matter how outrageous or destructive that viewpoint seems.
Because I need to understand outrageous and destructive viewpoints to make change.
Because then I can use new and innovative methods to defeat old destructive ways of thinking.
Because I can understand different people's motivations, so I help find new motivations to replace old ones.
Because our world has become too divided and segmented, and someone needs to think differently.

I will study new research and information on people, cultures, psychology, and groups.
So I can choose which viewpoint I want, and not just be the result of what I have been taught in the past.
So I can enlighten other people on ways to think and act, and these people may be "from the other side."
So I can have conversations at a very high level, with people who know that change is good and possible.
So I can truly understand the truth behind what is causing conflict in the world.

I will believe that anything is possible today.
Because war and total destruction are possible if I do not act and do something.
Because peace and prosperity are possible if I do something.
Because I know that it is always darkest before the dawn, and I want to see the dawn. Dawn is beautiful.
Because it is true, anything is possible. I will not forget this.

I will not let anyone stereotype me because of my thinking, nor will I stereotype anyone else.
Because I know I can be patriotic and still want to have peace.
Because using stereotypes is outdated, useless thinking.
Because I know that the opponent always tries to "put you in a box." Now the opponent can't do that.
Because then I will see things for what they are, and experience people for who they are.
I will make as many friends as I can outside the United States.
Because I know that this will be a good experience for them and for me.
Because the United States is ethnocentric, and I need to do something personally to break out of that.
Because I want to understand their viewpoints and cultures so we can really have a global village.
Because that is what life is all about isn't it? Growth, dialogue, passion, freedom. And more!

I will support the arts.
Because expression is very important to our culture at this moment in history.
Because America under appreciates and undervalues the arts.
Because the arts teach, provoke thought, gather people together, and they heal.
Because I know that there is more to life than making something faster, better, cheaper.

I will create peace around me. But I will also not be scared to have passionate discussions. Because I know my friends and family will appreciate that.
Because I can't expect others to do what I can't do.
Because I know that rigorous discussion and exchange of ideas is something needed in our society.
Because I am my own venn diagram, and I want my venn diagram to be peaceful and passionate.

I will believe that there really is something called "the truth."
Because I know that today it is fashionable to hide the truth, and that causes problems.
Because then I can help other people understand how and why to seek truth.
Because I know that understanding and accepting the truth is at the root of resolving conflict. Because the truth heals, if people have a context for understanding the truth. I know this.

I will understand the economics of war.
So I can understand better how I unknowingly contribute to the war.
So I can take a serious look at my own lifestyle, and see specifically where my consumerism is fueling this war.
So I can sit across the table from anyone, and debate this topic from an educated viewpoint.
So I can help to be part of the solution.

I will take a serious look at my own tactics for stopping the war, and question them.
Because I do not want to repeat old methods that never worked.
Because I think that the more creativity I have, the better I will help to solve problems.
Because my own contribution can be different than others.
Because I know that we have to find new strategies and methods for making real change.

I will understand history better by talking to older people, reading, and discussing historical topics.
Because I know deep down that this whole war needs to be looked at in a broader context. Because I do not want to contribute to history repeating itself, the destructive side of history. Because I have nothing to lose and everything to gain by understanding history.
Because I know that this war is rooted in previous wars and aftermaths, and I want to understand this.

I will spend more time with people of other cultures, near to where I live.
Because I know that "but I treat everyone equally" is no longer enough.
Because I know racism is institutional, and I do not want to contribute to it.
Because I want to form my own opinions about people, thank you very much.
Because it will be enriching in my own life to experience more people of different cultures.

I will spend at least 5 minutes per day in silence.
Because I know that this is important for people, while there is so much turmoil.
Because I know ideas will come to me about my own life.
Because I know that no one ever got hurt by spending 5 minutes in silence.
Because this will make me more focused and able to stop the war.

I will take a chance and send what I wrote here out to lots of people through the Internet. Because I know that at least it will make people think.
Because I know that it is important to express thoughts. Because I know that I wrote this in a manner that is supposed to cross "party lines."
Because I also want others to take a chance, and email this to their friends - as well as foes.

I will practice what I preach.
Not because of anything.
It's just the right thing to do.

Chris Andrews (chris@ChrisAndrews.com) lives in California and knows about the effects of war.

Horrible beyond words; UN resolution

Horrible beyond words, from Sudan.

Also, the UN as approved a watered-down resolution on Sudan, minus the word "sanctions." Economic and diplomatic measures are now threatened instead." In 30 days, Kofi Annan will issue a report on progress made by the Sudanese government toward disarming the Arab militias.

Love and Fear

Following up on my last post, I decided to publish this essay I recently wrote on what I consider to be the two primary motivators, and their relevance to the current state of the world.

There are two primary motivations, two primary sources for action. One is love, and the other is fear. Mahatma Gandhi was motivated by love. So were Martin Luther King, Jesus, Nelson Mandela, the Dalai Lama, and other great humanitarians. Adolph Hitler was motivated by fear. So was Mussolini, Joe McCarthy, Ernst Zundal, Richard Nixon, and others, as are currently, George W Bush and Osama Bin Laden.

Any solution to the world's problems must be motivated by love. Fear is the source of reaction. We react, lash out wild-eyed and defensively at the Other, without knowing exactly where we are lashing or where it will lead. It is not a productive or efficient use of energy.

Love is the source of proaction. We recognize not only what the Other is doing to us, but also how we are feeling, and the humanity in the Other. Love is purposeful, thoughtful, and compassionate. A response to an injustice based on love holds the Other to account, and presses for a fair resolution of the injustice, but does so nonviolently and while recognizing the humanity in the Other.

An action that lashes out in defensiveness and resorts to labeling of the Other is based on fear. An action,or lack thereof, to appease or avoid confrontation is also based on fear. An action that nonviolently and humanely challenges an injustice is based on love.

We all should have no air of superiority when it comes to moral quality. We all have within us the capacity for good and evil. Obviously, one of these qualities becomes more manifest that the other in most of us. There are extreme examples at both ends, such as Gandhi and Hitler. In fact, near the end of his life, after gaining independence for India, Gandhi said that the only the only devils we must conquer are those running around in our own hearts. We must always be vigilant to ensure that it is the good in us that triumphs.

I also think that it is humbling to be ever mindful of the duality of out moral nature. This duality belies those, including those currently in power in the US, who would attempt to simplify matters by attaching easy labels, such as "evil", to the Other, as opposed to acknowledging the moral complexity of a situation. If we have this duality in mind, so much easier will it be to see the humanity in those who serve injustice upon us, and to answer injustices with acts motivated by love. The Other says, "I loathe you," or "I want to hurt you." We say, "those feelings are part of the human experience, but there must be a better, more constructive way of relating to me. I know, I have felt those emotions before, as we all have, but we must not let them win. We must not let fear rule our lives. What are you afraid of? Maybe I can help.

The emotion of anger does not itself possess a moral quality. It can come from fear, or it can come from love. The moral quality is contained in the response inspired by the anger, which will be influenced by the motivation (i.e., love or fear.) Motivated by fear, anger will lash out defensively, indifferent to its effect on the Other. Inspired by love, anger will be constructively channeled into nonviolent opposition to the injustice which is triggering the anger.

I believe that a further word is required about fear. Sometimes, fear is natural and inevitable. If someone points a loaded gun at me, it would be natural to be afraid. Or, if I encounter a mountain lion while hiking in the woods, fear should instigate a flight response. This is related to the avoidant response I mentioned earlier. There are situations, such as interactions with other animal species, where it is the only sensible response. If you are faced with a choice between avoidance and certain death (i.e., becoming someone's dinner), choose the former. Nevertheless, anytime there is a hostile encounter with another human, we must overcome the fear in our hearts, and let love triumph.

Another form of fear occurs when faced with harm or death, due to some illness or bodily injuries. It is natural to experience fear, and it is psychologically important to acknowlege that. However, it is also an opportunity to love oneself and others as never before. It is a time to reflect on one's life, and to make the most of its remainder. This is proaction -recognizing the purpose of one's existence, and working to fulfill that purpose - and it is based on love.

It has been said before that the opposite of love is greed, or selfishness. While not a desirable quality, I don't believe that greed is at the core of the problem. I think it goes deeper than that. I have used the phrase "the fear in your heart." In the phrase, substitute "greed" for "fear." The greed in your heart." It doesn't work. What is in your heart is honest, pure, unadulterated. Fear is honest, it is real, it is what is at the core of reaction. Greed is often dishonest, required to be so by its self-consumed pursuits. Greed is a negative approach to social relations. However, if we strip away the surface, the pretenses, the show, the facades of greed, what do we find, purely there, the basest instinct, without having been given any time to think or scheme. I believe it is fear.

The kind of world we see in the future will depend on which human motivation dominates. Will fear continue to divide us according to race, religion, gender, etc? Or, will love bring us together; will the love we have for our fellow human beings overpower our fear? That is the question of the time.

Committee on the Present Danger

In an echo from the Cold War past, US neoconservatives have started a new Committe for the Present Danger.  Its :mission is to educate the American people about the threat posed by a global Islamist terror movement; to counsel against appeasement and accommodation with terrorists; and to build support for a strategy of decisive victory against this menace not only to the United States, but to democracy and freedom everywhere."

The problem with this, besides being racist, is that it is purely one-sided.  It takes a simplistic (me good, you bad) moral absolutist position, much like the moral absolutist position that bin Laden and his ilk take.  It will not end the war on terror; in fact, it will proliferate it. 

There is no moral high ground in the modern world.  Fundamentalists on both sides have attacked the other side without justification.  A hardening of the Western ideologues' psotion will ensure a hardening of the Islamic fundamentalists position.  This will not bring us closer to solution; it will exercerbate the problem.  The solution is global attempts to understand the other, and to try to heal and reconcile. 

See Jim Lobe's article on this new committee.

Pre-emption

George Bush and John Kerry and George Bush are prety much running neck and neck, and amazingly, Bush is getting relatively high marks from the populace for how he has handled the war on terror.  Only in the US could we see this.  I think people in the US actually believe that bin Laden and his ilk would actually cower at the though of George Bush at the helm in Washington. 

Actually, bin Laden would hope that Bush wins.  Just look what Bush has done for terrorism.  He has created a whole new hotbed for terrorists as a result of the war and occupation in Iraq.  Bin Laden has so much more to work with now.  The question now seems to be, what is Kerry's stance.  Some in the US seem to be saying that though he criticizes Bush on the war on terror, he must be prepared to use pre-emptive force if necessary.  Excuse me!!  What part of "illegal" do you not understand.  "Pre-emptive" and necessary are contradictory terms in this context.  If the US is being attacked, which would be the only reason for it to prepare  an immediate counterattack, the counterattack would not by definition be pre-emptive.  Pre-emption is illegal under international law, to protect countries from unprovoked invasion.  Pre-meption is by definition unprovoked, and therefore unnecessary.     

Canadian anger at Iran

Canada is irate, as am I, at Iran over the casual dismissal of the case of the  murdered Iranian-Canadian journalist Zahra Kazemi.  See the article from Agence France-Presse.  Nobel Peace Laureate and lawyer Shirin Abadi, who represents the victims mother, also condemned the court decision to dismiss the case and declare the case unsolvable.    

The nature of rights

This is an essay I right a while ago on the nature of rights. Enjoy.

The term 'rights' in the sense in the legal sense is clearly related to the more common use of the word as an adjective: 'just, required by morality or equity or duty; correct, true.' We mean it as a noun: 'justification, fair claim, being entitled to privilege or immunity; thing one is entitle to,' these definitions all according to my Oxford dictionary. There seems to be three key words here: justification, claim, and entitlement.

To my understanding there are different ways you can categorize different kinds of rights. One way is to say that there are two categories of rights. According to this analysis, first there are rights which are merely recognized constitutionally. They are rights because they are so recognized. Second, there are rights which are understood to be inherent, regardless of constitutional recognition. For example, First Nations people in Canada are widely considered to have an inherent right to self-government historically, by the fact that they were the founding peoples of this land. So, a right is something to which people have a claim either implicitly or by law.

According to my own thinking, I think there are three categories of rights. Rousseau talked of natural rights, the rights with which we are all born. By this, I extrapolate the meaning to be the basic necessities of life : life, food, shelter, clothing. This is, incidently, consistent with Maslow's hierarchy of needs. We also have political rights: these include the basic freedoms, expression, assembly, association, the right to vote, etc. Finally, we have equality rights. These are the rights which are designed to protect minorities. These include equality rights for women, gays, racial minorities, religious minorities, and protection against discrimination because of these.

There are other kinds of rights as well, but I think these are the important ones. How do we prioritize them?

The right to basic social welfare, the meeting of physiological needs and basic safety and security needs, I think, is most important. Our very survival depends on the meeting of these needs.

Beyond that, I think political rights are very important, especially expression, association, assembly, opinion, religion etc. To me, political rights are so important because without them, we have nothing, and we can fight (nonviolently of course) for nothing. This is where civil disobedience must be resorted to. If I had to choose between living in a society where freedom of speech is constitutionally guaranteed, and respected for the most part, but had no respect for minorities (i.e., the US), and living in a society where everyone is supposed to be equal, on paper anyway, but there was no freedom of speech (i.e., China)), I would have to choose the former. In the former scenario, at least changes can be fought for.

Then there are equality rights, which protect minorities.

The protection of minorities is very important. That is why Supreme Court justices must never be elected, so that minorities will not be subjected to the tyranny of the majority. By their very status in society, minorities are often very vulnerable to the majority, and as such a just society must protect them constitutionally.

If a theory of rights is going to be constructed, a calculus should be used to determine how rights are weighed. From time to time, different rights will conflict. Greater weight ought to be given to the one of the two rights which is most basic or fundamental. What also must be considered is the size of the potential violation of the right, if the other right is upheld. Thus, a less important right that faces the greater violation may be the one that ought to be upheld, and vice versa. This is of course, all highly theoretical and abstract, and I'm just throwing a few thoughts out there for consideration.

The upshot of this is that everything ought to be taken on a case by case basis. The Keegstra case is the most famous hate speech case in Canada, and I have absolutely no sympathy for the man or his case. There were some very aggravating circumstances in this case that make me much less disposed to make it a free speech case. He was a grade school teacher who conveyed his anti-Semetic propaganda to captive impressionable minds; he presented his opinion as fact within a school curriculum, while performing the social role of teacher. These elements of the case give me an even lower opinion of the man that I would have had were he spewing his venom in a setting where he was not expected to fulfill a social role.

more on Allawi

Here is Paul Mcgeough, the journalist who broke the Allawi murder spree story, being interviewed by Amy Goodman from Democracy Now:

AMY GOODMAN: Welcome to Democracy Now!.
PAUL MCGEOUGH: Good afternoon.
AMY GOODMAN: It's good to have you with us. Can you tell us exactly what you understand about the prime minister, Iyad Allawi's involvement -- alleged involvement, in the killing of six Iraqis?
PAUL MCGEOUGH: I have interviewed two witnesses -- two people who say they witnessed what happened in the courtyard at the Allam Riyadh police station. I interviewed them separately. Each did not know that I had spoken to the other. In getting to them, I used only personal channels, so there was no room for people involved in political, military or religious organizations to put a damaging story in place against Allawi. It was -- their stories were told reluctantly, they were told with fear and also they were also told with a pat on the back to Allawi for having done this, because both witnesses were -- they shared the widely-held view of Iraqis that this was a good thing in terms of letting the terrorists, as they call them, know what fate they had. The two stories as told by the witnesses were that Allawi made a surprise visit to this police station at about 10:00, 10:30 in the morning. All of the police on duty were called together. He gave them a pep talk, urging them on to be brave and strong and courageous in their work, go after the terrorists, fight for the new Iraq. All of this was because of the crisis of problems that confronts the police in Iraq these days. They're under-trained. They're under-equipped. They have a morale problem. They're under constant fire from insurgents. They don't know if they're going to be shot in their own homes or if their police stations are going to be blown up. As told to me, after the pep talk the prime minister went on a tour of the police complex. He -- his tour ended up in a small courtyard where the prisoners were lined up against a wall. They were handcuffed, they were blindfolded. While they were against the wall there was an exchange between the prime minister and the Iraqi interior minister, who was also present, and also between Allawi and the prisoners. He threw questions at them. You know, “Why do you do this? Are you with Saddam? Are you fighting with Saddam? Why do you kill Iraqis?” He turned to those around him and said, “These people are responsible for killing as many as 50 Iraqis each.” At that point, the interior minister said to have interjected saying that he thought that all of the prisoners should be killed on the spot. The prime minister replied, “no, they deserved worse than this,” but having said that, he pulled a pistol from his belt. Several of the witnesses -- several of the people who were present were of the view -- concluded that this was in fact a Belgian-made Browning pistol that he used. He stood in the one spot and – moved his outstretched arm through an arc left to right, pausing at each prisoner and shooting them in the head.
AMY GOODMAN: This is a story that has gotten front-page coverage in your paper, the leading paper of Australia, the Sydney Morning Herald. It's almost gotten no attention in this country or the British press. Can you explain?
PAUL MCGEOUGH: It's a difficult story to get into. The story has been reported quite widely as a story. "Newsweek" has followed it up. "The Toronto Star," ran everything in full that I wrote. Several of the British dailies have reported it as an account of my story, but to get into a story like this, you can’t do it overnight. It took three weeks of work by myself to get to the point where both I and my editors were satisfied that we could publish. To get to witnesses is not easy, so the notion that somebody could turn around and produce a publishable version of this story for a newspaper or a news bulletin in a 24-hour turn-around doesn't make sense. Nobody followed up on other massacres on day two. It just doesn't happen with a major story like this.
AMY GOODMAN: I only have minute, but why have you left Iraq?
PAUL MCGEOUGH: I discussed this with a few of my colleagues, and because of the incredible lack of security in Iraq for westerners even before you write something such as this, I took their advice and I agreed with it, that it was probably in my better interests not to be in Iraq when I published.
AMY GOODMAN: I want to thank you very much for joining us, Paul McGeough, correspondent for the Sydney Morning Herald, front-page story in Australia that the unelected prime minister Iyad Allawi shot dead six prisoners a few days before he was appointed to his position.

new UN agency for internally displaced persons

The UN has set up a new office to assist internally displaced persons (IDPs), 50 million people around the world who have been forced from their homes, but remain within national borders. 

The UN General Assembly has supported the ruling of the International Court of Justice advisory ruling against the barrier Israel is constructing in the occupied terristories.  The vote was 150 to 6, with 10 abstentions. 

The United Nations Industrial Development Organization has released a report indicating an increase in poverty in sub-Saharan Africa, from 42 percent in 1981 to 47 percent in 2001.  Solutions are suggested toward the Millenium Goal of halving the number of people living in extreme poverty by 2015. 

CIA misdeeds in Iraq

Here is more on various CIA misdeeds in Iraq (Allawi is former CIA), from various sources, including Robert Fisk and Robert Dreyfuss.

More on atrocities in Sudan

Amnesty International has put out a report and press release on how rape is being used as a weapon of war in Dafur, Sudan, relevant international law sections, and what must be done in response. 

Jouranlist backs up Allawi Story

The Australian journalist who reported that witnesses saw Iraqi Prime Minister Iyad Allawi shoot six prisoners backs up his story.   He said:
 
"In these two cases, these two men sat before me. They spoke reluctantly, they spoke carefully and considerately.
"When I tested parts of their story they didn't suddenly provide information where none was available.
"They seem to me to be telling what they had seen, they were believable too.
"I had an independent set of Iraqi eyes and ears (of an interpreter) listening and watching on these interviews and that person, whom I have worked with for some time and who I trust, he found the stories believable."
 
Also, former British foreign secretary Robin Cook has urged the International Committee of the Red Cross to investigate. 

More terrible news from Iraq

The new Iraq Prime Minister, Iyad Allawi, has been accused by witnesses of shooting and killing six prisoners with close shots to the head, just days before his interim government took power.  Not surprisingly, Allawi and other Iraqi officials, as well as US officials in Iraq, are denying the report.  Let's watch this one as well, very closely. 
 
Also, there are more horrifying reports of human rights abuses by US forces in Iraq.  The time, the accusation is sodomy, to be revealed by Seymour Hersh.     

The UN General Assembly has begun a debate on the legality (or lack thereof) of the barrier the government of Israel is putting up in the occupied territories.  Let's follow that one.
 
"Israeli Ambassador Dan Gillerman told the General Assembly today that the World Court opinion was the result of Palestinian attempts "to manufacture a virtual reality … in which there are Palestinian rights but no Palestinian responsibilities, in which there are Israeli responsibilities but no Israeli rights.""
 
How so?  Paelestinians have a right to not be restricted in their movement; that is unquestionable.  They have a responsibility to be civil in their actions, but the wall does not give them any responsibility for anything.  It is, if anything, paternalistic in its assumption that Palestinians as a whole cannot be responsible for their actions.  Israelies have a right to be free from fear.  That can be solved very easily and quickly by giving the Paelstinians what they want and deserve: The West Bank and Gaza Strip.  They do a have responsibility to treat their neighbours with respect and dignity.   

Loathe as I am to support Philippine president and US lapdog Gloria Arroyo in any way, I will give her kudos for agreeing to withdraw troops from Iraq in response to the kidnapping and threatened beheading of a Filipino working in Iraq.  Some will say in response that we must never negotiate with terrorists.  My response is that the troops shouldn't be there in the first place, not under US auspices anyway.  I am not defending those who behead, and threaten to behead.  They are guilty of grave crimes against humanity, and should be dealt with through the International Criminal Court.  However, it should be no surprise that terrorism has increased in Iraq since the war and occupation began.  We know they are there, what they want to accomplish, and what they are willing to do to accomplish.  Countries that send people top Iraq under US auspices are complicit in any injuries or deaths that result.  Speaking of blackmail, what would you call the US, with their other lapdogs Japan and Australia in tow, suggesting that the withdrawal of Filipinos will affect US Phillipine relations?  So kudos to Arroyo.  Then again, there's this.

The Red Cross has reported that it suspects that the US is holding detainees in undisclosed locations in many parts of the world.  Also, in a further injury to any semblance of virtuosity in reputation of the Government of Israel, the Israeli Army fired shots at a UN convoy carrying food aid to the "northern Gaza town of Beit Hanoun." 

AIDS conference

Read how trade agreements forced on weaker countries are forcing them to give up generic drug programs in the fight against AIDS. In the same article, Kofi Annan refers to AIDS as a form of terrorism, and wonders aloud where the response is.

I think that is a very astute observation. It makes one realize just how inapporopriate the priorities of the US and the Western world are right now. We have the terrorism that the US is battling in the middle east. There are much betters ways (eg look at root causes) it can be addressed than with war and occupation, and the breeding of new terrorists. Conversely, look at how pitiful our response to the global AIDS panemic is. Quite frankly, it smacks of racism. Some people of a different colour skin in very poor countries in the middle east need to be bombed and occupied, to "civilize" them. On the other hand, a disease that affects mostly black people in very poor countries in Africa means almost nothing to us, judging by our governments' response.

Scott Ritter on Iraq

"Regardless of the number of troops the United States puts on the ground or how long they stay there, Allawi's government is doomed to fail. The more it fails, the more it will have to rely on the United States to prop it up. The more the U.S. props up Allawi, the more discredited he becomes in the eyes of the Iraqi people – all of which creates yet more opportunities for the Iraqi resistance to exploit to their advantage."

Scott Ritter, on the current situation in Iraq.

International Court of Justice says no to Israel wall in occupied territories.

The International Court of Justice in the Hague has written an advisory opinion opposing the construction of a wall that is being built by Israel in the occupied Palistinian territory. The court, which settles disputes between states, pointed out a number of international law statutes which the wall violates, and called on Israel to respect the Palestinian people's right to self-determination under human rights law. I think it is important, so I will paste it below. See also Amnesty's support for the opinion.

9 July 2004

Legal Consequences of the Construction of a Wall
in the Occupied Palestinian Territory

Advisory Opinion

The Court finds that the construction by Israel of a wall in the Occupied Palestinian
Territory and its associated régime are contrary to international law; it states
the legal consequences arising from that illegality


THE HAGUE, 9 July 2004. The International Court of Justice (ICJ), principal judicial organ of the United Nations, has today rendered its Advisory Opinion in the case concerning the Legal Consequences of the Construction of a Wall in the Occupied Palestinian Territory (request for advisory opinion).

In its Opinion, the Court finds unanimously that it has jurisdiction to give the advisory opinion requested by the United Nations General Assembly and decides by fourteen votes to one to comply with that request.

The Court responds to the question as follows:

¾ “A. By fourteen votes to one,

The construction of the wall being built by Israel, the occupying Power, in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including in and around East Jerusalem, and its associated régime, are contrary to international law”;

¾ “B. By fourteen votes to one,

Israel is under an obligation to terminate its breaches of international law; it is under an obligation to cease forthwith the works of construction of the wall being built in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including in and around East Jerusalem, to dismantle forthwith the structure therein situated, and to repeal or render ineffective forthwith all legislative and regulatory acts relating thereto, in accordance with paragraph 151 of this Opinion”;

¾ “C. By fourteen votes to one,

Israel is under an obligation to make reparation for all damage caused by the construction of the wall in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including in and around East Jerusalem”;



¾ “D. By thirteen votes to two,

All States are under an obligation not to recognize the illegal situation resulting from the construction of the wall and not to render aid or assistance in maintaining the situation created by such construction; all States parties to the Fourth Geneva Convention relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War of 12 August 1949 have in addition the obligation, while respecting the United Nations Charter and international law, to ensure compliance by Israel with international humanitarian law as embodied in that Convention”;

¾ “E. By fourteen votes to one,

The United Nations, and especially the General Assembly and the Security Council, should consider what further action is required to bring to an end the illegal situation resulting from the construction of the wall and the associated régime, taking due account of the present Advisory Opinion.”

Reasoning of the Court

The Advisory Opinion is divided into three parts: jurisdiction and judicial propriety; legality of the construction by Israel of a wall in the Occupied Palestinian Territory; legal consequences of the breaches found.

Jurisdiction of the Court and judicial propriety

The Court states that when it is seised of a request for an advisory opinion, it must first consider whether it has jurisdiction to give that opinion. It finds that the General Assembly, which requested the opinion by resolution ES‑10/14 of 8 December 2003, is authorized to do so by Article 96, paragraph 1, of the Charter.

The Court, as it has sometimes done in the past, then gives certain indications as to the relationship between the question on which the advisory opinion is requested and the activities of the General Assembly. It finds that the General Assembly, in requesting an advisory opinion from the Court, did not exceed its competence, as qualified by Article 12, paragraph 1, of the Charter, which provides that, while the Security Council is exercising its functions in respect of any dispute or situation, the Assembly must not make any recommendation with regard thereto unless the Security Council so requests.

The Court further refers to the fact that the General Assembly adopted resolution ES‑10/14 during its Tenth Emergency Special Session, convened pursuant to resolution 377A (V), which provides that if the Security Council fails to exercise its primary responsibility for the maintenance of international peace and security, the General Assembly may consider the matter immediately with a view to making recommendations to Member States. The Court finds that the conditions laid down by that resolution were met when the Tenth Emergency Special Session was convened; that was in particular true when the General Assembly decided to request an opinion, as the Security Council was at that time unable to adopt a resolution concerning the construction of the wall as a result of the negative vote of a permanent member.

The Court then rejects the argument that an opinion could not be given in the present case on the ground that the question posed in the request is not a legal one.

Having established its jurisdiction, the Court considers the propriety of giving the requested opinion. It recalls that the lack of consent by a State to its contentious jurisdiction has no bearing on its jurisdiction to give an advisory opinion. It adds that the giving of an opinion would not have the effect, in the present case, of circumventing the principle of consent to judicial settlement, given that the question on which the General Assembly requested an opinion is located in a much broader frame of reference than that of the bilateral dispute between Israel and Palestine, and that it is of direct concern to the United Nations. Nor does the Court accept the contention that it should decline to give the advisory opinion requested because its opinion could impede a political, negotiated solution to the Israeli‑Palestinian conflict. It further finds it has before it sufficient information and evidence to enable it to give its opinion, and emphasizes that it is for the General Assembly to assess the usefulness of that opinion. The Court concludes from the foregoing that there is no compelling reason precluding it from giving the requested opinion.

Legality of the construction by Israel of a wall in the Occupied Palestinian Territory

Before addressing the legal consequences of the construction of the wall (the term which the General Assembly has chosen to use and which is also used in the Opinion, since the other expressions sometimes employed are no more accurate if understood in the physical sense), the Court considers whether or not the construction of the wall is contrary to international law.

The Court determines the rules and principles of international law which are relevant to the question posed by the General Assembly. The Court begins by citing, with reference to Article 2, paragraph 4, of the United Nations Charter and to General Assembly resolution 2625 (XXV), the principles of the prohibition of the threat or use of force and the illegality of any territorial acquisition by such means, as reflected in customary international law. It further cites the principle of self‑determination of peoples, as enshrined in the Charter and reaffirmed by resolution 2625 (XXV). As regards international humanitarian law, the Court refers to the provisions of the Hague Regulation of 1907, which have become part of customary law, as well as the Fourth Geneva Convention relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War of 1949, applicable in those Palestinian territories which before the armed conflict of 1967 lay to the east of the 1949 Armistice demarcation line (or “Green Line”) and were occupied by Israel during that conflict. The Court further notes that certain human rights instruments (International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights and the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child) are applicable in the Occupied Palestinian Territory.

The Court ascertains whether the construction of the wall has violated the above‑mentioned rules and principles. It first observes that the route of the wall as fixed by the Israeli Government includes within the “Closed Area” (between the wall and the “Green Line”) some 80 percent of the settlers living in the Occupied Palestinian Territory. Recalling that the Security Council described Israel’s policy of establishing settlements in that territory as a “flagrant violation” of the Fourth Geneva Convention, the Court finds that those settlements have been established in breach of international law. It further considers certain fears expressed to it that the route of the wall will prejudge the future frontier between Israel and Palestine; it considers that the construction of the wall and its associated régime “create a ‘fait accompli’ on the ground that could well become permanent, in which case, . . . [the construction of the wall] would be tantamount to de facto annexation”. The Court notes that the route chosen for the wall gives expression in loco to the illegal measures taken by Israel, and deplored by the Security Council, with regard to Jerusalem and the settlements, and that it entails further alterations to the demographic composition of the Occupied Palestinian Territory. It finds that the “construction [of the wall], along with measures taken previously, . . . severely impedes the exercise by the Palestinian people of its right to self‑determination, and is therefore a breach of Israel’s obligation to respect that right”.

The Court then considers the information furnished to it regarding the impact of the construction of the wall on the daily life of the inhabitants of the Occupied Palestinian Territory (destruction or requisition of private property, restrictions on freedom of movement, confiscation of agricultural land, cutting‑off of access to primary water sources, etc.). It finds that the construction of the wall and its associated régime are contrary to the relevant provisions of the Hague Regulations of 1907 and of the Fourth Geneva Convention; that they impede the liberty of movement of the inhabitants of the territory as guaranteed by the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights; and that they also impede the exercise by the persons concerned of the right to work, to health, to education and to an adequate standard of living as proclaimed in the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights and in the Convention on the Rights of the Child. Lastly, the Court finds that this construction and its associated régime, coupled with the establishment of settlements, are tending to alter the demographic composition of the Occupied Palestinian Territory and thereby contravene the Fourth Geneva Convention and the relevant Security Council resolutions.

The Court observes that certain humanitarian law and human rights instruments include qualifying clauses or provisions for derogation which may be invoked by States parties, inter alia where military exigencies or the needs of national security or public order so require. It states that it is not convinced that the specific course Israel has chosen for the wall was necessary to attain its security objectives and, holding that none of such clauses are applicable, finds that the construction of the wall constitutes “breaches by Israel of various of its obligations under the applicable international humanitarian law and human rights instruments”.

In conclusion, the Court considers that Israel cannot rely on a right of self‑defence or on a state of necessity in order to preclude the wrongfulness of the construction of the wall. The Court accordingly finds that the construction of the wall and its associated régime are contrary to international law.

Legal consequences of the violations found

The Court draws a distinction between the legal consequences of these violations for Israel and those for other States.

In regard to the former, the Court finds that Israel must respect the right of the Palestinian people to self‑determination and its obligations under humanitarian law and human rights law. Israel must also put an end to the violation of its international obligations flowing from the construction of the wall in the Occupied Palestinian Territory and must accordingly cease forthwith the works of construction of the wall, dismantle forthwith those parts of that structure situated within the Occupied Palestinian Territory and forthwith repeal or render ineffective all legislative and regulatory acts adopted with a view to construction of the wall and establishment of its associated régime, except in so far as such acts may continue to be relevant for compliance by Israel with its obligations in regard to reparation. Israel must further make reparation for all damage suffered by all natural or legal persons affected by the wall’s construction.

As regards the legal consequences for other States, the Court finds that all States are under an obligation not to recognize the illegal situation resulting from the construction of the wall and not to render aid or assistance in maintaining the situation created by such construction. The Court further finds that it is for all States, while respecting the United Nations Charter and international law, to see to it that any impediment, resulting from the construction of the wall, in the exercise by the Palestinian people of its right to self‑determination is brought to an end. In addition, all States parties to the Fourth Geneva Convention are under an obligation, while respecting the Charter and international law, to ensure compliance by Israel with international humanitarian law as embodied in that Convention.

Finally, the Court is of the view that the United Nations, and especially the General Assembly and the Security Council, should consider what further action is required to bring to an end the illegal situation resulting from the construction of the wall and its associated régime, taking due account of the present Advisory Opinion.

The Court concludes by stating that the construction of the wall must be placed in a more general context. In this regard, the Court notes that Israel and Palestine are “under an obligation scrupulously to observe the rules of international humanitarian law”. In the Court’s view, the tragic situation in the region can be brought to an end only through implementation in good faith of all relevant Security Council resolutions. The Court further draws the attention of the General Assembly to the “need for . . . efforts to be encouraged with a view to achieving as soon as possible, on the basis of international law, a negotiated solution to the outstanding problems and the establishment of a Palestinian State, existing side by side with Israel and its other neighbours, with peace and security for all in the region”.

Composition of the Court

The Court was composed as follows: Judge Shi, President; Judge Ranjeva, Vice‑President; Judges Guillaume, Koroma, Vereshchetin, Higgins, Parra‑Aranguren, Kooijmans, Rezek, Al‑Khasawneh, Buergenthal, Elaraby, Owada, Simma and Tomka; Registrar Couvreur.

Judges Koroma, Higgins, Kooijmans and Al‑Khasawneh append separate opinions to the Advisory Opinion. Judge Buergenthal appends a declaration. Judges Elaraby and Owada append separate opinions.

Jeffrey Sachs tells African countries to take a stand

Economist Jeffrey Sachs, world-renowned special advisor to Kofi Annan, has said that if the rich countries refuse to cancel the debts of poor African nations, they should refuse to pay them. "The time has come to end this charred." Indeed it has. It is outrageous that the poor countries in Africa, who probably collectively have less wealth than some of the richest men in the world, are expected to pay debts which were forced on them by paternalistic greedy rich countries which took advantage of their leverage in the matter. Meantime, their own people are suffering and starving from systemic poverty and AIDS. Why is the poverty systemic? It is so because loans were forced on them with huge interest rates, and strings attached related to the ideological bent of the lenders, resulting in the misuse of funds (look up market fundamentalism). To be fair, some African leaders have used the funds to serve their own interests as well, but that is not the fault of their citizens.

In Defense of Democracies -- A neoconservative front group

There are a number of organizations that in name sound quite appealing, but in reality, are actually fronts for right wing anti-peace, anti-human rights, or anti-environment organizations. Here is one example. the Foundation for Defense of Democracies descirbes itself as nonpartisan. Nice try. If you look at the names of the people behind the organization, a number of them, if not the majority, are neoconservatives, including Newt Gingrich, James Woolsey, Bill Kristol, and Richard Perle. Go to the biography page, then search for more info on these characters on google.

In support of Michael Moore

The people who gave us lies and innuendo in support of the Iraq war are now accusing Michael Moore of the same. There are number of articles I have come across defending Michael Moore's film Fahrenheit 9/11. Here are a few of them.

Fahrenheit 9/11: Firing Up the Choir
By Peter Y. Sussman, Pacific News Service. Posted July 2, 2004.

Framing Michael MooreBy Joel Bleifuss, In These Times. Posted June 29, 2004.

Moore's Public Service
By PAUL KRUGMAN, New York Times

Fahrenheit 9/11 Could Change History by Mark Weisbrot

Ray McGovern on selective ignorance.

Here is an excellent article by former CIA analyst Ray McGovern. He empathizes with an anonymous former CIA analyst, "Mike," who has gone public with his criticisms of the Bush gang. Here is an excerpt:

"It's not hatred of us as a society, it's hatred of our policies," Mike insisted. He gave pride of place to the neuralgic issue of Israel. With candor not often heard on American television, he emphasized "It's very hard in this country to debate policy regarding Israel," adding that bin Laden's "genius" is his ability to exploit those U.S. policies most offensive to Muslims – "Our support for Israel, our presence on the Arabian peninsula, in Afghanistan and Iraq, our support for governments that Muslims believe oppress Muslims."

Furthermore,

Here is where Mike's understated outrage shows through most clearly. The undercurrent in both interviews is that his analysis was offered well before the war but, as he told NBC, "senior bureaucrats in the intelligence community (were unwilling) to take the full truth, an unvarnished truth to the president...Whatever danger was posed by Saddam...was almost irrelevant...the boost that (the war) would give to Al Qaeda was easily seen."

We need the UN.

Some of this is from an online discussion I had, under another name, with an anarchist about the UN.

For too long, stronger countries have been imposing their will on weaker countries. We need a UN as an organization that can provide a check against unjust war and imperialism. In current reality, we have the most powerful country in the world set to take over the world, and the best way we can do that is to ensure that there is an international rule of law where everybody is equal. Furthermore, the UN as it is right now, and the UN as it should be are two different things. In the UN right now, the bigger countries, the ones with a veto, have too much power. We need UN reform, so that power is more equally spread.

It has been said that the UN has caused harm in many instances, such as being the source of millions of deaths in Iraq. The UN did in fact cause many deaths in Iraq through sanctions. The UN is not perfect, because it is composed of many countries, all with vested interests, and because the more powerful countries with more significant vested interests have vetoes on the Security Council. What we need is a stronger UN, capable of global governance, that is resistant to the vested interests of nations.

That said, sometimes, the UN does come up with some beneficent instruments, such as the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and other rights treaties, the Geneva Convention, and the Rome Statute. I don't want to imagine a world without these protections.

Voluntary boycotts have been suggested as methods to address human rights abuses. They can sometimes work with limited effect. However, if you have more than one approach you can take, why not take it. Right now, people around the world are suffering human rights abuses, because certain countries cannot be held legally accountable. It is urgent that we put aside our theoretical aspirations, and do everything that we can to help them NOW.

Some anarchists have talked about eliminating the UN as an institution, and replacing it with a voluntary association. My response to that is: What are your core values? What are the core values upon which your ideal society would be based? If they have anything to do with compassion or cooperation, then you have to recognize that in relentless uncompromising pursuit of the society which, in your opinion would attain those values, those same values will in fact be compromised by the lack of an institution to protect us from imperialism and human rights abuses.

Contrary to the opinion of some, US dominance and exercise of power is not the result of international dynamics, except to the degree that they see a weak country that they can invade, occupy, militarize, and make money in. It's sources are forces of greed and ideological fervor within the US. If the UN can to some degree check that power, we should encourage that. To me, the whole question of institutional power vs the freedom of groups and individuals is important, but secondary to immediate questions of war, peace, and human rights.

Now, for a clarification on the meaning of "the ends justifying the means." The ends justifying the means does not only happen in the pursuit of force and power. It can happen through the pursuit of the opposite. It occurs anywhere that an end, as benevolent or well-intended as it may be, is sought, and the means to that end are adhered to, regardless of negative consequences.

It has been suggested that I am saying that people can be complicit in violence by their inaction. I won't go that far Nevertheless, I am reminded here of a quote by one of my heroes, Martin Luther King, and I paraphrase: All it takes for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing. I am not asking for pacifists to be rounded up and put on trial. I am asking for an strong international framework to protect people from war and human rights abuses.

I do consider myself a pacifist, but for me, it isn't a passive pacifism, it is a pacifism that advocates taking action, any actions that are philosophically consistent with principles of nonviolence, in order to stop the threat of violence and oppression. That is the yardstick I go by, because to me, nonviolence trumps everything. Gandhi also believed in this. In my opinion, if Gandhi and King were both alive today, particularly given the current state of the world, they would support a stronger, more egalitarian UN. The Dalai Lama is one who is still alive, and he is on record as supporting such a reform of the UN.

I am not asking for pacifists to be rounded up and put on trial. I am asking for an strong international framework to protect people from war and human rights abuses.

I do think that we all should do our best to put our own ideological considerations aside (including me and mine), and if we're relatively socially aware, we should examine the consequences of our views and decisions. If we're not (and for each of us that is our own judgement to make), we should make the effort to increase our awareness (we all should anyway).

In my opinion, the concept of institutions is not an inherently violent one . It is not an inherently peaceful one. On that continuum, it is neutral. They can be developed to serve good, or to serve evil. They can be utilized and manipulated for good or evil, or peace or violence. It is the development and utilization of the institution that gives it its ethical character. With respect to the United Nations, it has been developed and used for both in different ways. Inequality among members is a negative aspect. On a much more fundamental level, however, its international legal instruments provide a positive based for human rights protection. It is an institution that needs reform, not a one-way trip to the trash bin.