Religious Action Center :: RACBlog

The False Choice of Peace v. Justice

2008-07-22T16:28:56Z

The last month has been an important one for international war crimes proceedings. Monday night the "most wanted man in Europe," a Serbian war criminal was captured. Even more remarkable, on July 11, just six days before the 10th anniversary of the ratification of the Rome Statute which established the International Criminal Court (ICC) -- a treaty which the U.S. and Israel have still yet to become a party to -- Luis Moreno-Ocampo, the maverick Chief Prosecutor of the ICC, announced that he was brining charges against President Omar al-Bashir of Sudan. In indicting Bashir the ICC not only made a commitment to holding individuals responsible for the ongoing genocide in Darfur, it also sent a signal to all sitting world leaders that they would no longer have immunity from perpetrating unthinkable crimes simply because of their status as heads of state.

]]> While the Union for Reform Judaism and many others came out in strong support of this decision to indict President Bashir, the first sitting leader to be charged , some in the succeeding weeks have offered the critique that in pursuing international "justice," the ICC and the UN Security Council have actually placed a significant road block toward the creation of a lasting peace. In their view, efforts toward peace are inversely proportional to efforts of justice, because such charges simply strengthen the leaders resolve to stay in power and takes away the potential for a diplomatic end to the conflict. In academic literature this is known as the "peace v. justice" paradox.

However, as two powerful pieces written in the last two weeks point out this is simply a false choice. It is not peace v. justice, but rather justice as a part of peace. As the ENOUGH Project's excellent report on the subject explains "Holding people accountable for war crimes is not only the right thing to do from a moral perspective--it directly promotes peace and makes future such abuses less likely." Additionally as renowned Sudan academic and activist Eric Reeves explained in the Guardian Newspaper, "With its relentless and principled pursuit of those responsible for atrocity crimes, the ICC has created opportunities for political pressure that offer the people of Darfur their best chance for improved humanitarian conditions, security and a glimmering hope of peace."

Ultimately, if the UN Security Council decides that this warrant would put more people at risk it will be able to put the trial on hold. However, they have not yet chosen to do that. So while only time will tell, it remains our movement's firm belief that international criminal prosecutions are in fact a part of peace not antithetical to it.

Climate Prognosis

2008-07-16T21:59:11Z

For the past few days I have been pacing the marble of Capitol Hill. And while I know I was pacing the hallowed halls of Congress, I felt more like an anxious loved one pacing the hospital corridors awaiting the doctor's prognosis. An odd metaphor perhaps but allow me to explain...

]]>
I went to the Hill with both an interfaith coalition as well as a coalition of national Jewish organizations to talk with the 'climate doctors' - the climate and energy public policy experts - in the hope of hearing some assuring words. "We have the best medicine available, let's begin treatment right away." Even, "We're not sure it's serious but let's take precautions and start you on meds immediately" would have been a welcomed answer. Instead, the first - the lead - doctor (climate policy hill staffer) I spoke to did not seem to believe aggressive, science based, action was immediately necessary. Instead, symbolic treatment efforts will be made, slowly. And so, as one must always do when facing a serious ailment, I got a second, third, sixth opinion. All six opinions were resolutely discouraging. The prognosis: no strong climate legislation will be seeing the light of day on the floor of the House of Representatives.

Though there are many members of the House who are stellar advocates for climate issues, the vast majority are unwilling to commit to scientifically necessary reductions in US carbon emissions. As each meeting, and each hour, passed by I became increasingly nervous (the kind of nervous you can only experience in a hospital) about what a lack of climate action would mean for impoverished communities both at home and abroad. Can we condemn low income Americans to unaffordable energy bills because we refuse to mandate energy conservation policies? Can we shamelessly destroy bio-diversity and the native habitats of polar bears, black tail prairie dogs, or spotted owls because we'd rather reprocess those lands for our own suburban sprawl or drilling desires? Can we continue to pump millions of tons of CO2 into the atmosphere intensifying climate change and food and water competition in least developed nations? Where is the justice is that?

No doctor would sit idly by while his or her patient bleeds. No, they are bound to an oath to treat each individual to the best of their ability. Included in the modern Hippocratic Oath is the statement, "I will prevent disease whenever I can, for prevention is preferable to cure." Shouldn't Congress have the same mandate to act expeditiously to save lives that we know to be jeopardized by unmitigated climate change? To me, that is the prudent course. But until the prognosis on climate change improves under the direction of diverse congressional leaders, I will continue to pace the halls of congress fraught with hospital anxiety.

G-8, not so Gr-8

2008-07-09T20:52:19Z

Yesterday, in a tremendous show of global, ethical, and ecological leadership, the G-8 firmly committed to reducing international carbon emissions by the amount deemed scientifically necessary! Mazel tov world - we're finally headed down the proper path.

]]> "consider and adopt in the UNFCCC negotiations, the goal of achieving at least 50% reduction of global emissions by 2050." This plan wouldn't go into effect until the Copenhagen global climate change discussions at the end of 2009, of course. Well, considering the adoption of a plan to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 50% is global leadership, right? And that's the ethical and ecological thing to do when climate scientists worldwide are calling for a 65-85% reduction in emissions from developed nations (with a short term goal of at least 20% reductions by 2020), right?

Sorry guys, and gal. Our planet is facing rather unprecedented climate, energy, extinction, and food crises. Citizens in the developed world and those struggling to cope with harsh times in already underdeveloped nations are looking to you all for visionary and courageous leadership to drastically reduce carbon emissions. Now is not the time for more picturesque photo-ops. Now, more than ever, we are depending on you to make the necessary and immediate commitments, guided by science, to preserving our environment for generations to come.

For more on the G-8's disappointing climate commitments check out the BBC's piercing critique.

Aid to States: Sounds Good

2008-07-01T14:44:23Z

"Aid to states," despite its assonance, is not a sexy issue. With the economy in the tank and millions of low- and middle-income Americans struggling, the first remedy to come to mind is usually not fiscal relief to the 50 statehouses across the country.

Extending unemployment benefits, increasing food stamp assistance, or sending tax rebates all jump out first (think of the imagery: the unemployed worker, the hungry child, the check in the mail). And those are useful policy tools, don't get me wrong. But there's one missing: aid to states.

]]> In today's paper of record:

Squeezed by high inflation, dwindling tax revenues and a national economic downturn, states from coast to coast have struggled to close yawning budget gaps while bracing for another difficult fiscal year, which in most states begins Tuesday.

State tax revenues, adjusted for inflation and tax cuts, fell 5.3 percent in the first quarter of 2008 compared with the same time a year ago, according to a report to be released Tuesday; it was the third quarter in a row that total adjusted revenue declined. The first quarter revenues were the weakest among states since early 2003.

Sales tax revenues, the beating heart of many budgets, were essentially flat for the first time in six years. Corporate income taxes declined 5.1 percent from January to March compared with the same period the previous year -- the third straight quarterly decline. And 12 states showed a falling off in personal income taxes, though revenue from those taxes rose 4.4 percent nationwide.

The Center on Budget and Policy Priorities (CBPP) noted recently that 29 states plus the District of Columbia face total budget shortfalls of at least $48 billion in the coming year--threatening serious economic consequences.

Unlike the federal government, most states are required (by law or constitution) to pass a balanced budget. This means that state governments must either raise taxes or cut spending to fill the hole. Guess which one is more politically palatable. So unless the federal government steps in, vital services like public health programs, K-12 education, and programs for the elderly and disabled will be slashed. The CBPP has a detailed examination of the ills facing the most vulnerable members of our society if states do not receive fiscal relief from the federal government. Congressional leaders are now calling for a second economic stimulus, which may include such relief.

"Aid to states:" it rolls off your tongue--and should certainly come to mind.