Ethics Newsline®

War is always a moral issue. However quick the operation or noble the cause, war typically involves taking human life, invading sovereign nations, turning noncombatants into refugees, and destroying personal property and infrastructure. All of these are normally regarded as wrong. If, however, these immediate wrongs produce long-term good or defend a higher principle, the world generally says, “That was a just war.”

In the end, the public may still say that about the war in Iraq. That will depend in part on some grim statistics on killed and wounded troops and civilians on both sides. If these are low — particularly the civilian death toll — world opinion will be more favorably inclined.

Another shaper of opinion will be evidence of the sort of regime Saddam Hussein has been running. Until now, that evidence has lain hidden. As coalition troops advance, more of that evidence will come to light — in intelligence from captured officers, in testimony from civilians, and through incriminating documents and materials. Of crowning importance will be evidence of weapons of mass destruction. Even without that, however, firm evidence of wholesale, recent atrocities and oppression by Saddam of his own people will have a powerful impact on attitudes toward this war.

But perhaps the most important determinant will be the evidence that the coalition partners are obeying the morality of combat — that the fighting itself is governed by a code of self-regulated ethical action. Such a code goes well beyond legal regulation. It’s not about what an army can do, but rather about what an army ought to do — how it should behave itself within well-understood canons of behavior.

In a short, swift war, those canons are hardly tested. When war gets drawn out — as this one appears to be — those moral issues will loom larger. Even at this juncture, with the war less than two weeks old, three moral questions have surfaced:

• How should the coalition forces respond to unethical combat? In violation of the Geneva Conventions, Iraqi forces have adopted strategies that appear to constitute war crimes: fighting in civilian clothes, ambushing troops after pretending to surrender, using civilians as human shields, and engaging in suicide bombings and other terrorist tactics. Coalition forces have a moral imperative against the use of such tactics. As the war bogs down, that imperative may come to seem artificial. Is the coalition fighting with one arm tied behind its back? Is a moral standard limiting the coalition’s ability to prosecute an effective war? Or is it still true — as the old adage has it — that if, to defeat the beast, you yourself become bestial, then the beast has won?
• How strong is the obligation to protect civilian life? This last week has thrown up a classic moral conundrum concerning the city of Basra. United Nations Secretary General Kofi Annan has suggested that Basra may be on the verge of a humanitarian crisis. But Saddam’s irregulars, using urban guerilla tactics, are still holding the city — and are even firing on their own civilians trying to flee the city. On one hand, it is right for coalition forces to fight a careful, slow war of attrition, seeking to drive out Saddam’s forces with few civilian casualties — although that delay could cause thousands of civilians to die of starvation, disease, or atrocities. On the other hand, it is right to invade now, sharply and strongly, to prevent that civilian tragedy — although that invasion itself could cause numerous civilian casualties. Is it right to cause the death of some innocent civilians in order that many more may live? Or is it right to stick firmly to the principle that insists on protecting noncombatants?
• Who should be responsible for humanitarian aid? Few doubt that, at some point, Saddam will be gone and the country will be rebuilt. But with each passing day the needed amount of aid increases. What ought to be the response of other nations that have resisted the war? Should they rush in to supply aid? That could cast them as crass opportunists, reaping thanks for a victory they refused to support. On the other hand, should they say to the coalition, “This wasn’t our war — you take care of feeding the hungry?” That could cast them as harsh and unfeeling critics, more interested in salvaging their principles than helping the needy.

These are not easy issues and they have no simple answers. In a short war, they would not have surfaced. As the war lengthens, watch for new and difficult moral choices ahead.

(c)2003 Institute for Global Ethics

“This is an administration that was already tending toward greater secrecy before 9/11…. This is a matter of theology for them. They really do believe in their hearts that we the people have made the White House too open and too accountable.”

– Thomas Blanton, executive director of the National Security Archive, discussing a new order from President Bush last week delaying the release of millions of government documents. The material, scheduled for release on April 17 under a directive from President Clinton, will now be held secret for three more years. While Bush’s order leaves in place an appeals panel to settle disputes over document secrecy, it broadens the government’s ability to exempt information from declassification laws currently in place. The government says such expanded powers are needed to keep the nation safe. (”Release of Documents Is Delayed,” Washington Post, Mar. 26.)

NEW YORK
As the U.S.-led war on Iraq dominates the headlines, a number of U.S. lawmakers last week urged the U.S. government and pro-war public to remember that citizen dissent is a vital part of the nation’s democracy.

But even though there are sharp divisions among the U.S. public, those holding opposing views seem to be remaining on speaking terms, according to a New York Times/CBS news poll. According to the survey, 61 percent say Americans who oppose the war should be allowed to hold protest marches and rallies. Only 29 percent think that such activity is detrimental to the war effort.

Widespread protests against the war spread last week through many nations, particularly in the Arab world. While most protests were tolerated or sometimes encouraged by various governments, human-rights groups charged that some administrations are suppressing dissent with violence. The watchdog group Human Rights Watch claims that antiwar protestors in Egypt have been imprisoned, beaten, and tortured, the Washington Post reported.

Other reports indicated that some governments appear to be escalating their attacks on domestic dissent, perhaps taking advantage of the war developments and the world’s distraction from free-speech issues.

Among developments last week:

Cuban leaders arrested at least 65 dissidents in a three-day sweep of the island’s pro-democracy activists and thinkers, saying they were conspiring with U.S. diplomats to subvert the Castro government. The Bush administration denounced the move as “an appalling act of intimidation,” reported the Washington Post.

Belarus last week arrested about 50 protestors who gathered for an unsanctioned rally celebrating the 85th anniversary of the short-lived Belarusian state. Three leaders of opposition groups were arrested by police acting on behalf of the nation’s authoritarian president, Alexander Lukashenko, reported the Associated Press.

Myanmar was accused last week of bugging interviews between a UN human rights envoy and political prisoners. UN envoy Paulo Sergio Pinheiro of Brazil halted the interviews and demanded that Myanmar make amends, threatening to scrap the monitoring program if no progress is made, according to the Reuters news agency. Myanmar is accused of jailing and torturing political dissidents and critics.

WASHINGTON
The U.S. Supreme Court last week refused to consider a complaint filed by civil-liberties groups accusing the government of violating the Constitution and going too far in its hunt for terrorists.

The complaint, filed by the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers, and two Arab-American groups, focused on provisions of the USA Patriot Act, passed in 2001 after the September terrorist attacks.

U.S. Attorney General John Ashcroft says the Patriot Act necessarily expands his rights to secretly investigate U.S. citizens and foreigners alike, collecting evidence that can be used in prosecution.

Unlike standard law enforcement, such surveillance can be instigated without any suspected criminal activity and can be kept secret permanently, according to the Justice Department.

The ACLU and others challenged that view in court, saying it insulates the government’s activities from warranted oversight and put the constitutional rights of citizens at risk.

Since the Patriot Act was passed, the Justice Department has asked for more than 1,000 secret surveillance warrants, which are issued by the U.S. Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court, or “spy court.” Ashcroft has personally issued more than 170 “emergency” domestic spying warrants — three times the number used in the spy court’s previous 23 years, reported the Associated Press.

Under the spy court’s mandate, only the government can file appeals — against itself — on behalf of those targeted by the secret surveillance.

These matters “should not be finally adjudicated by courts that sit in secret, do not ordinarily publish their decisions, and allow only the government to appear before them,” plaintiffs said in their complaint.

The filing was an unusual maneuver by the plaintiffs, who filed their complaint on behalf of people who don’t know they are being monitored.

The organizations asked the Supreme Court to intervene on behalf of U.S. citizens who have no avenue to appeal their secret monitoring — a request the court rejected without comment.

According to the AP, the Supreme Court’s refusal to act was a procedural matter, not based on the merits of the case, which is expected to eventually reappear before the court.

NEW YORK
The New York Stock Exchange (NYSE) last week barred reporters from Al Jazeera, the largest Arab satellite television news network, from its floor, citing security concerns.

“We have a finite number of camera locations and a finite number of opportunities,” NYSE executive vice president Robert Zito told Bloomberg News. “The CNBCs and CNNs and the Bloombergs are reaching people who want to know about the market more than do those watching Al Jazeera.”

Citing “security concerns,” the NYSE has begun curtailing media reports from its floor, saying access would be restricted to organizations focusing on “responsible business coverage.”

Zito said the NYSE also has revoked broadcasting licenses for one other Middle East organization and a Web-based newscaster, but declined to name them, reported Bloomberg.

Al Jazeera, which has been broadcasting from the NYSE for roughly five years, said the ban was in retaliation for its coverage of the U.S.-led war on Iraq, which has included the controversial airing of images of U.S. prisoners of war.

Following the NYSE’s move, the nation’s second-largest stock exchange, the NASDAQ, followed suit, barring Al Jazeera, but declining to explain why, reported the Reuters news agency.

Ghazi Khankan of the Council on American-Islamic Relations called the moves a mistake. Al Jazeera is “one of the very few independent Arab media, and to cut them off is a loss to the stock exchange,” Khankan told the Associated Press.

NEW YORK
After one week of war with Iraq failed to force the quick capitulation of Saddam Hussein, the U.S. media last week peppered military and government leaders with questions about how long the war might actually last.

Similar questions are being asked by a handful of Web sites taking bets on the date of Saddam’s ouster, the fall of Baghdad, and other military concerns — sparking a debate about the ethics of betting on war.

“These are questions we ask each other at breakfast, lunch, and dinner, on the street or hanging out at the office,” Eddie King, a spokesman for Costa Rica-based Betonsports.com, told the Reuters news agency. “Now people have the option to bet on it.”

Betonsports.com and Ireland-based rival Tradesports.com both are take bets ranging from $5 to $500, with over $1.3 million currently wagered on the fate of Iraqi war events, reported Reuters.

Most major gaming outlets have eschewed such bets, saying they are in poor taste.

“This is far too serious and involves the loss of lives and, therefore, shouldn’t be seen as a trivial or sporting event,” Alan Feldman, a spokesman for MGM Mirage, the second-largest U.S. casino operator, told Reuters.

Tradesports.com chief executive John Delaney denies that such gaming should be taboo, but admits there are lines he will not cross. “We’ve gotten requests that we wouldn’t consider listing,” he added, declining specifics.

LAGOS, Nigeria
Western oil firms last week shut down their operations in the Niger Delta, evacuating staff and local villagers seeking escape from ethnic violence targeted by the Nigerian military.

By the start of last week, oil giant Shell had closed 14 facilities, citing safety concerns. ChevronTexaco joined in the massive pull-out, closing all of its production facilities in the area, reported Dow Jones.

The companies have become caught between two warring ethnic groups — the Ijaw and the Itsekiri — and the Nigerian military, which has been sent in to put a stop to the violence.

Instead, the Ijaw and Itsekiri say the military is spraying villages with gunfire, randomly killing innocent people. In retaliation, the groups have begun seizing foreign-owned oil facilities, threatening to blow them up unless the government stops its raids and enacts electoral reforms before late-April elections.

The Nigerian government has denied the charges.

The violence has shut down 40 percent of Nigeria’s daily oil exports, according to press reports. The oil-rich nation is the sixth largest oil exporter, and the fifth-largest supplier of petroleum products to the United States, reported the Associated Press.

The Western withdrawal has put a kink in companies’ supply lines, cutting off about 7 percent of ChevronTexaco’s worldwide production. Shell and TotalFinaElf also are facing restricted supplies.

ChevronTexaco has airlifted out of the area all of its local employees, as well as 1,600 local villagers who sought refuge at the firm’s facilities.

“The safety of people is our absolute priority,” the company said in a statement.

WASHINGTON
The United States acted illegally when it raised tariffs on imported steel one year ago, the World Trade Organization (WTO) ruled last week in a victory for foreign competitors.

The Bush administration slapped foreign steel imports with stiff tariffs — from 8 to 30 percent — last March, arguing that competitors were dumping steel on the United States at below-market prices.

Such unfair pricing, the administration argued, was undercutting U.S. businesses and imperiling the nation’s steel industry, making protectionist tariffs an urgent and valid remedy, reported the Washington Post.

Last week, the WTO rejected that reasoning as bogus and the consequent tariffs as illegal, noting that instead of being flooded by cheap foreign steel, U.S. imports had actually been dropping for several years.

Last week’s defeat marks the latest in a growing list of U.S. losses — 13 out of 15 cases brought by the United States since 2001 — at WTO hearings, noted the New York Times.

The preliminary decision, expected to be formally adopted next month, marks a victory for the European Union, which filed a legal challenge against the tariffs. Brazil, China, and Japan joined that suit.

While the tariffs successfully have curbed competition, insulating steel producers and giving firms badly needed breathing room to restructure, they have come under fire domestically for costing jobs in the manufacturing sector.

The Bush administration has promised to appeal the WTO ruling.

WASHINGTON
California’s crippling power crisis two years ago was partly caused by widespread market manipulation by a handful of energy companies, federal investigators said last week after awarding the state $3.3 billion in refunds.

After two years of investigating California’s 2000-2001 energy crisis, a judge with the U.S. Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) recommended $1.8 billion in fines and refunds late last year.

Last week, FERC upped the award to $3.3 billion, fingering seven subsidiaries of Enron and five other firms, including Reliant Energy and BP, for “significant market manipulation” that bled dry California’s coffers in 2000 and 2001, threatening the state with insolvency.

While the firms did not instigate the crisis, they engaged in price gouging and fraud that exponentially worsened the situation, reported the Reuters news agency.

FERC, angry over the widespread manipulation, last week ordered Reliant and BP to justify why they should not be barred from wholesale energy trading due to their behavior during the crisis.

While last week’s $3.3 billion award pins much of the blame on energy traders who hiked prices illegally, FERC also criticized California for crafting a naïve and poorly designed framework for deregulated energy.

“There’s plenty of blame to go around for this crisis,” FERC commissioner William Massey acknowledged last week. “This agency must never again approve a market design that is so utterly flawed.”

Last week’s refunds will only marginally offset the $3 billion owed to producers by California, leaving only $300 million to pass from cheating firms to the state, noted Reuters.

For its part, California political leaders remain embittered by the crisis, claiming that FERC has dragged its feet in pursuing the state’s $9 billion in claims against the energy industry.

“It took two years for FERC to confirm what we knew all along: There was widespread market manipulation and a massive rip-off of California ratepayers,” Governor Gray Davis said. “Now the question is whether the FERC commissioners will have the grit to order the remedies that are necessary.”

That seems unlikely, according to a report last week from the New York Times, which notes that two of the three FERC commissioners seem opposed to tearing up expensive energy contracts California was compelled to sign at the height of the energy crisis.

California has argued that market manipulation pushed the state to sign the high-cost contracts with firms and should therefore be allowed to redraft the deals. Only FERC commissioner Massey appeared inclined to support that move, noted the Times.

COLORADO SPRINGS
The U.S. Air Force Academy last week said it will replace its four top officials following widespread publicity and criticism over the mishandling of nearly 60 alleged sexual assaults by male cadets.

The academy, which integrated in 1979, has become the focus of intense debate over the treatment of its female cadets and what is characterized as a blame-the-victim culture in the case of alleged rapes.

In recent weeks, investigators say they have uncovered 56 reports of sexual assaults since 1993. In many cases, victims say academy officials ignored, downplayed, or twisted rape allegations against them.

Much of the criticism has focused on Brig. Gen. Sylvanus Taco Gilbert, the academy’s second-in-command, who graduated from the academy one year before women joined its ranks.

Some of the alleged victims say Gilbert often cast blame on them for inviting sexual assault, essentially victimizing them a second time.

Top military officials have rejected such claims, insisting that the academy’s problems were not Gilbert’s fault, reported the Reuters news agency.

“Still, change must occur and a new leadership team to implement these changes is in the best interest of the academy and the Air Force,” said Secretary of the Air Force James Roche.

Along with Gilbert, those being removed include vice commandant Col. Robert Eskridge, commander of cadet training Col. Laurie Slavec, and academy superintendent Gen. John Dallager, who will be allowed to retire in June.

The replacements are expected to include at least two women, reported the Associated Press.

U.S. Rep. Tom Tancredo (R-Colo.) last week criticized the military’s decision to reassign Gilbert instead of forcing him to retire. “Retirement would … be a testament of how serious the Air Force is about dealing with this issue,” Tancredo told the New York Times.

Three military investigations, congressional hearings, and at least one investigation by a local county’s district attorney, which previously had ceded jurisdiction to the academy, are under way, noted the Times.

Along with personnel changes, the Air Force Academy last week said it will take steps to protect its female cadets and reform its culture.

“They need to change the entire culture,” Susan Barnes, a Denver-area attorney who frequently represents military victims of sexual harassment, told USA Today. “The whole thing about regulations and process is fine, but unless it is supported by a strong change in the culture, which can only be led from the top of the Air Force, it isn’t going to happen.”

Special to Newsline from Canadian correspondent Errol P. Mendes

TORONTO
With the largest city in Canada, Toronto, in the grip of the fast-spreading deadly virus called severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS), there is extreme concern as to how people and governments should react, ethically or otherwise, to the outbreak that has already killed three Canadians.

Thousands are facing home quarantine periods of up to ten days as ordered by city health officials. At the site of one of the major SARS outbreaks, the Scarborough Grace Hospital, officials are urging anyone who entered the hospital premises since March 16, including medical, nursing, and maintenance personnel and their families to place themselves under the quarantine period.

The number of suspected SARS-infected individuals has climbed to 62. People coming out of the hospital and police personnel assisting in the quarantine are wearing surgical masks, taxi drivers are refusing to pick up fares near the hospital, and a nearby school chose to close for several days when three children exhibited high fever and coughs, which could be symptomatic of SARS. Some parents want the school to remain shut for an even longer period.

There are reports that customers have been avoiding Chinese and other Asian restaurants in Toronto and elsewhere after the media reported that the first cases of this mysterious and so-far-untreatable disease originated in Guangdong Province, China, and then spread to Hong Kong. Suspected cases have also been reported in Vancouver, Edmonton, and Ottawa. The print and television media have started giving priority to this outbreak over the blanket coverage of the war in Iraq.

From Harris Interactive:

“The public continues to be deeply concerned about the influence that power and money can buy in Washington. Very large majorities of the public believe that big companies (80 percent), political action committees (PACs) that give money to candidates (78 percent), the news media (72 percent), and political lobbyists (69 percent) all have too much power and influence in Washington.

“Equally large majorities of the public also believe that small business (88 percent) and public opinion (69 percent) have too little power and influence in the nations capital. Many people seem to feel that the publics interest loses out to rich and powerful special interests.

“A more modest 59 percent majority believes that racial minorities have too little power and influence. Also, a 53 percent majority feels that churches and religious organizations have too little influence. Conversely, a majority (54 percent to 29 percent) believes that TV and radio talk shows have too much political clout….

“While the numbers for most of the groups measured have not changed much since a year ago, four have changed significantly:

• “While big companies still top the list as having too much power and influence, those who believe that is true have declined seven points from 87 percent to 80 percent.
• “There has been a five-point decline, from 83 percent to 78 percent in those who believe that ‘political action committees, which give money to political candidates,’ have too much power and influence.
• “Last year a 47 percent to 29 percent plurality believed that TV and radio talk shows have too much power and influence. That has now increased to a 54 percent to 29 percent majority.
• “This year a 59 percent to 20 percent majority believes racial minorities have too little power, a big increase from a 51 percent to 27 percent majority last year….”

“You will do the greatest service to the state if you shall raise, not the roofs of the houses, but the souls of the citizens: for it is better that great souls should dwell in small houses rather than for mean slaves to lurk in great houses.”

– Epicetus (Greek philosopher, ca 55 - ca 132)