WORLD_ Is there a moral distinction between providing guns that deal death directly, and phones that help the process?_ COMMENTS

Is there a moral distinction between providing guns that deal death directly, and phones that help the process?

By David Blair World Last updated: August 10th, 2012

259 Comments

(David Blair David Blair is the Chief Foreign Correspondent of the Daily Telegraph.)

Giving these chaps phones will help them gain access to guns


Suppose a rebel army mounts a raid on government forces that ends with the cold blooded execution of prisoners. Country ‘A’ donated the satellite phones that were used to organise the operation, while the weapons came from country ‘B’. Inadvertently, these two nations jointly gave the insurgents the means to commit a war crime. But are they equally responsible? Or is the government that handed over the satellite phones less culpable than the one that supplied the lethal weapons?

First things first: this is a theoretical scenario which I offer purely for the sake of argument. I’m not suggesting that anything like this has actually happened.

But it’s just possible that William Hague’s statement in the Foreign Office earlier today could make it a real issue. He announced that Britain will escalate its "non-lethal" backing for Syria's opposition, giving them extra supplies worth £5 million. The specific items he mentioned included mobile and satellite phones, radios, surgical instruments and body armour. The idea is to help the unarmed opposition and the “political wing” of the rebel Free Syrian Army (FSA).

The difference between the FSA’s “political wing” – which appears to be a very recent creation – and the FSA itself seems to be of the Sinn Fein/IRA variety. In other words, it’s a matter of branding, not of reality.

Hague was quite categorical that Britain has not given – and will not give – weapons or military advice. His justification for this restraint was very clear. “It would be hard to guarantee how that equipment would be used,” he said, before adding: “There have been reports of atrocities on the opposition side.”

That’s where my scenario comes in. Once satellite phones have been given to the “political wing” of the FSA, suppose they find their way into the hands of rebels inside Syria, who then employ them to organise an attack that includes an atrocity of some kind? Is there a moral distinction between providing the guns that directly inflicted death, and the phones that allowed the whole operation to take place?

I’m not sure there is. To my mind, the moral dilemma is this: when rebels are fighting a brutal dictatorship, do you help them in any way, or do you steer clear altogether? If you choose the former option, the precise category of help that you give – or whether you choose to channel your aid to the rebels who call themselves the “political wing” or not – is less important than your decision to support the insurgents in the first place.

In the end, the purpose of a rebel army is to fight. The distinction between “lethal” and “non-lethal” capabilities is artificial. A gun might fire a fatal bullet, but the order to shoot may come over a satellite phone. The phone, in turn, might have been given to the rebel army's “political wing”, but this is interchangeable with the armed outfit. The government that donated the gun and the one that supplied the phone are both engaged in the same exercise, namely building the capabilities of an insurgent force. I see no moral distinction between the two actions.

None of this suggests that Hague’s decision is wrong. Britain faces an impossible dilemma over how to respond to Syria’s crisis. If you back the rebels, you are part of their enterprise. If you walk away, you risk allowing Assad to win a bloodsoaked triumph over his opponents, or – more likely – you help create a vacuum into which a variety of malign players will inevitably step and support the rebels in your absence. And I’m sure Hague is alert to the scenario that I’ve posed, hence the Foreign Office is keen to stress that any British support will go to the “political wing” of the FSA, rather than the FSA in the field (whether that’s a real distinction is another matter).

So Hague’s response to his intractable problem is reasonable. But the moral distinction between providing “lethal” and “non-lethal” help – and between giving it to the “political arm” of the rebels or the insurgents in the field – is a great deal muddier than he makes out.

*** 259 comments

_____________

What do you think ?




Chân thành cám ơn Quý Anh Chị ghé thăm "conbenho Nguyễn Hoài Trang Blog".
Xin được lắng nghe ý kiến chia sẻ của Quý Anh Chị trực tiếp tại Diễn Đàn Paltalk: 1Latdo Tapdoan Vietgian CSVN Phanquoc Bannuoc .
Kính chúc Sức Khỏe Quý Anh Chị .



conbenho
Tiểu Muội quantu
Nguyễn Hoài Trang
13082012
___________
Cộng sản Việt Nam là TỘI ÁC
Bao che, dung dưỡng TỘI ÁC là đồng lõa với TỘI ÁC