So, CattyNebulart, what do you think about the Japanese government and its treatment of history textbooks covering the Japanese war in China and, oh, just to
narrow it down a bit, the Rape of Nanking? Should the Chinese be using "historical wrongs" to justify their current unfriendly attitude towards
Japan? Before you answer, I'll remind you that European colonisation of Africa was still in existence within the lifetime of many people currently alive
(indeed, it is more recent than anything Japan did in China). What's the statute of limitations on atrocities, or on theft of natural resources, or on
fomentation of conflict? Incidentally, the Israel-Palestine conflict is also primarily based on events in the relatively recent past, within the lifetimes of
many of those involved. It has very little to do with anything historical beyond the fact that Israel exists where it is due to historical reasons (but not
only due to that by any means).
Historical wrongs don't "justify" the present. But they certainly go a long way towards explaining it. I already said I think the piracy should
be stopped and the pirates should not keep their gains. I am not a "supporter" of the pirates. But the developed world (and several less-developed
nations) are primarily responsible for the situation they are in and therefore also has a responsibility to try and improve it, which also attacks the root
cause of the problem instead of its symptoms (and would assist in the ending of a massive humanitarian crisis, and therefore would be laudable even without the
responsibility aspect). This is largely ignored in the media, in favour of unabashed cheering of military efforts to stop the pirates and a studious lack of
examination as to why precisely there are so many Somalian pirates to begin with.
Incidentally, you are completely incorrect in that there were not laws preventing other countries from fishing in Somalia's territorial waters. There are
(indeed, they are implicit in the very concept of "territorial waters"). The problem was that those laws were ignored because the government did not
have the power to enforce them (or much of anything else). There has not been a functional Somali government since the early 90s.
I'll also point out that an International Criminal Court does exist, and does have significant power provided you're not lucky enough to be a citizen
of a great power (although. Also, "justice instead of laws" is a completely meaningless phrase. Who defines "justice", exactly?
Finally, I'll remind you that the Somali pirates have by and large treated their prisoners more humanely than the United States has. They're not
generally nice people, but armed robbery doesn't carry a death penalty in your country, let alone elsewhere in the developed world. So what exactly is your
ethical justification for killing them (I'm not including situations where people would be defending themselves or where the imminent death of a prisoner
seems likely)? What did they do for which they would deserve to be responded to with lethal force?
If they do deserve such a response for their relatively minor crimes (and I will note that this hardly characterises every encounter with them, but you
certainly seem to be supporting it with your "respond in kind" reasoning), why shouldn't that also apply to Americans? I'll remind you every
soldier in Iraq, for instance, is a volunteer who went there of their own free will. What should be done to them? Your John Doe American (presumably) took part
in the illegal unprovoked invasion and occupation of a foreign country. He would also have been carrying lethal weaponry. He has likely at least attempted to
kill people, and quite possibly has succeeded in killing people, maiming them, and so forth. He is indirectly responsible for starvation and poverty, and an
official representative of torturers and murders of prisoners. So are his captors justified to "respond in kind" (which would be, at the very least,
summary execution)? Or does your standard of summary justice, and lack of sympathy, only apply to Africans who extract ransoms from corporations?
narrow it down a bit, the Rape of Nanking? Should the Chinese be using "historical wrongs" to justify their current unfriendly attitude towards
Japan? Before you answer, I'll remind you that European colonisation of Africa was still in existence within the lifetime of many people currently alive
(indeed, it is more recent than anything Japan did in China). What's the statute of limitations on atrocities, or on theft of natural resources, or on
fomentation of conflict? Incidentally, the Israel-Palestine conflict is also primarily based on events in the relatively recent past, within the lifetimes of
many of those involved. It has very little to do with anything historical beyond the fact that Israel exists where it is due to historical reasons (but not
only due to that by any means).
Historical wrongs don't "justify" the present. But they certainly go a long way towards explaining it. I already said I think the piracy should
be stopped and the pirates should not keep their gains. I am not a "supporter" of the pirates. But the developed world (and several less-developed
nations) are primarily responsible for the situation they are in and therefore also has a responsibility to try and improve it, which also attacks the root
cause of the problem instead of its symptoms (and would assist in the ending of a massive humanitarian crisis, and therefore would be laudable even without the
responsibility aspect). This is largely ignored in the media, in favour of unabashed cheering of military efforts to stop the pirates and a studious lack of
examination as to why precisely there are so many Somalian pirates to begin with.
Incidentally, you are completely incorrect in that there were not laws preventing other countries from fishing in Somalia's territorial waters. There are
(indeed, they are implicit in the very concept of "territorial waters"). The problem was that those laws were ignored because the government did not
have the power to enforce them (or much of anything else). There has not been a functional Somali government since the early 90s.
I'll also point out that an International Criminal Court does exist, and does have significant power provided you're not lucky enough to be a citizen
of a great power (although. Also, "justice instead of laws" is a completely meaningless phrase. Who defines "justice", exactly?
Finally, I'll remind you that the Somali pirates have by and large treated their prisoners more humanely than the United States has. They're not
generally nice people, but armed robbery doesn't carry a death penalty in your country, let alone elsewhere in the developed world. So what exactly is your
ethical justification for killing them (I'm not including situations where people would be defending themselves or where the imminent death of a prisoner
seems likely)? What did they do for which they would deserve to be responded to with lethal force?
If they do deserve such a response for their relatively minor crimes (and I will note that this hardly characterises every encounter with them, but you
certainly seem to be supporting it with your "respond in kind" reasoning), why shouldn't that also apply to Americans? I'll remind you every
soldier in Iraq, for instance, is a volunteer who went there of their own free will. What should be done to them? Your John Doe American (presumably) took part
in the illegal unprovoked invasion and occupation of a foreign country. He would also have been carrying lethal weaponry. He has likely at least attempted to
kill people, and quite possibly has succeeded in killing people, maiming them, and so forth. He is indirectly responsible for starvation and poverty, and an
official representative of torturers and murders of prisoners. So are his captors justified to "respond in kind" (which would be, at the very least,
summary execution)? Or does your standard of summary justice, and lack of sympathy, only apply to Africans who extract ransoms from corporations?