Are all lives equal?

Andre Glucksman of Le Figaro is quoted on Andrew Sullivan's blog...

On the scales of world opinion, some Muslim corpses are light as a feather, and others weigh tonnes. Two measures, two weights. The daily terrorist attacks on civilians in Baghdad, killing 50 people or more, are checked off in reports under the heading of miscellaneous, while the bomb that took 28 lives in Qana is denounced as a crime against humanity.... Why do the 200,000 slaughtered Muslims of Darfur not arouse even half a quarter of the fury caused by 200-times fewer dead in Lebanon? Must we deduce that Muslims killed by other Muslims don't count - whether in the eyes of Muslim authorities or viewed through the bad conscience of the west?

I can see the logic behind what he writes. It certainly does appear that the attention paid to the Qana attack, for example, would outweigh the daily attacks in Iraq that may kill as many people.

However, does the differential coverage really indicate that we don't care as much about the dead in Baghdad as in Qana? I'm not sure.

What I do believe, and I have mentioned before, is that a nation-state has a greater moral responsibility than an individual when it comes to the use of power. That does not mean we excuse the individual in any way, but we do judge the nation-state more harshly. For example, if an individual kidnaps and harms another individual, we would be outraged and would wish to see that person prosecuted. But, if a nation were to engage in the same sort of behavior- holding people and bringing them physical harm without due process of law- would we not judge this even more harshly? I think that we quite naturally do.

With power comes responsibility. In the modern military era, nations have seen a remarkable rise in the amount of military power they can impose upon an 'enemy.' As the power grows, so does the responsibility.

We have not see the exercise of responsibility keeping pace with the growth in power. From the times of WWI and earlier, the overwhelming majority of deaths in war were military deaths, with civilian deaths relatively few and far between. Since WWII we have seen a major shift in this equation, with, in many cases, modern war bringing civilian deaths that far outnumber military deaths.

I'm not convinced that nations are doing all they can in times of war to avoid civilian casualties. During the war in Iraq, for example, in an effort to kill Saddam Hussein- technically a command and control target- we dropped bombs in civilian areas knowing that civilians would be killed. Does the legitimacy of the target excuse the outcome? Maybe there are cases when it does, but I have not heard much soul searching in the US over this matter.

Of course it's much easier for some Americans to question the actions of Israel than to question the actions of our own military. But at least the question is being asked.

I saw someone from Amnesty International on CNN who said that in many wars now the casualties are up to 90% civilian and 10% military. This is an issue that needs to be closely examined and we need to begin to look at the military tactics that we could use in the place of the bombs that are not so precise as we would like to believe.

So, in response to the selection quoted- the deaths are no different as all are equally tragic. The method of the killing does, to some degree matter. After all, terrorist groups are evil organizations bent upon killing people. Do we wish to become like them? Should we not expect more from the leaders of governments around the world? Do we not want governments that seek to respect human life and protect civilian lives to the fullest degree possible?

We must remember that we must lead the world upward, not drift downward towards the lowest examples of morality.

GP