Home – The Conversation |
- Many Ukrainians face a future of lasting psychological wounds from the Russian invasion
- Deer have horns, walruses have tusks – here’s why so few birds have weapons of their own
- SEC is considering climate disclosure rules for U.S. companies – and facing threats of lawsuits
- Russia is blocking Security Council action on the Ukraine war – but the UN is still the only international peace forum
- Battles over book bans reflect conflicts from the 1980s
- How do Russia's reasons for war stack up? An expert on 'just war' explains
| Many Ukrainians face a future of lasting psychological wounds from the Russian invasion Posted: 07 Mar 2022 05:20 AM PST  "Polina came to our bedroom awakened by the sound of explosions. I didn't know and still don't know what to tell her. Her eyes today are full of fear and terror; eyes of all of us." Alina, a family friend who is a marketer and mother of two children from the Ukrainian capital of Kyiv – which is under seige by Russian forces – shared this reflection on her Instagram story. Her daughter Polina is 7 years old. The unprovoked assault by Russian President Vladimir Putin's army on the sovereign nation of Ukraine has left the world in disbelief. While it is painful to see the direct impact of this war on human lives and livelihoods, this invasion will also produce less invisible psychological wounds that could linger for generations. I am a psychiatrist with expertise in post-traumatic stress disorder, or PTSD, and stress. I research trauma and treat trauma-exposed civilians, refugees, survivors of torture and first responders and veterans. Civilians, the defenselessUntil very recently, Ukrainians lived a normal life. But that changed abruptly when, over the course of a few weeks, they witnessed their country being circled by Russia, armed by one of the world's most lethal armies, directed by an unpredictable authoritarian leader. This fear and uncertainty was followed by direct threats to their lives and their loved ones when the full invasion began on Feb. 24, 2022. As Ukrainian cities came under attack, civilians saw explosions and death firsthand and began experiencing immediate disruptions to basic resources like electricity, food and water, and problems with reliable communication with loved ones. Ukrainians are also experiencing agonizing feelings of injustice and unfairness as their hard-earned democracy and freedom are being unjustifiably threatened, leaving some feeling insufficiently supported by their allies. There is abundant research that such difficult experiences can lead to severe consequences including PTSD, depression and anxiety. PTSD symptoms include terrifying and realistic flashbacks of war scenes, intrusive memories of the trauma, panic, inability to sleep and nightmares, as well as avoidance of anything that resembles the trauma. Prevalence of these conditions is higher in human-caused catastrophes than, for example, natural disasters. For example, a third of U.S. civilians exposed to a single incident of a mass shooting can develop full-blown PTSD.  As of now, about 1 million Ukrainians have fled their homes, cities and jobs for safety to Poland and other Eastern European countries. A larger number of people have been internally displaced. They have limited resources as refugees and are uncertain about the future – chronic stresses that are detrimental to their mental health. Research from our group and others shows that PTSD affects between a third to one half of adult refugees. In one study I led, published in 2019, more than 40% of adult Syrian refugees resettling in the United States experienced high anxiety, and nearly half had depression. Another study in 2019 found a high prevalence of PTSD – 27% – and depression – 21% – among the 1.5 million internally displaced Ukrainians due to the last invasion of Russia and rebels in east Ukraine in 2014. Children are specifically vulnerable. Imagine the terror that a child faces in a dark basement, watching the faces of their parents praying that the next missile will not hit their building. Parents can shield their children against trauma to some extent, but they can only do so much. In my team's research on Syrian and Iraqi refugees resettled in Michigan, we found that about half of the children experienced high anxiety. Up to 70% of refugee children that our team surveyed experienced separation anxiety after arrival in the U.S. These children often are so scared that they cannot leave their parents' sides even when they are no longer in direct danger. Trauma can also be transferred from parents to their current and future children via subtle but heritable shifts to the genome and by way of exposure to their parents' continuous anxiety caused by the war experience. In this way, the suffering can be passed along for generations. Childhood trauma also increases the likelihood of many mental and physical health problems in adulthood like depression, PTSD, chronic pain, heart disease and diabetes. Importantly, unpublished data from our research shows that especially for war trauma, many people do not recover for up to three years after the trauma unless adequate support and mental health care are available. Not all of those who endure trauma will develop PTSD, of course. Individual genetic differences and environmental support, as well as personal past experiences and proximity and severity of a trauma, all factor into who is most affected. Some people do recover, and some come out stronger and more resilient psychologically. But human tolerance for horrific experiences is limited.  Those who go headlong into danger to save othersPolice, firefighters, dispatchers and paramedics face firsthand the ugliest results of wars. They endure long hours of physically and emotionally intense work and frequently see scenes of death and suffering, while having the same concerns of other civilians about their own families. Research shows that PTSD affects between 15% to 20% of firefighters and other first responders during peacetime. For the Ukrainian first responders, who still have to attend to the injured civilians and extinguish burning buildings, it is much harder to go through their highly challenging job while being under fire themselves. Combat veterans also face unthinkable traumas; in the U.S., some 12% to 30% of combat veterans experience PTSD. In Ukraine, the disproportionate lack of protection and firepower of Ukrainian forces against the aggressor increases the risk of harm and casualties, and can exacerbate mental health consequences of their trauma exposure. Putting human suffering into numbers as I've done here is not in any way meant to convert a human tragedy into a cold statistical concept. The purpose is to show the enormous impact of such calamity. Each life or livelihood lost is a tragedy in and of itself. "The most difficult for me is to accept that I am a refugee," wrote a Ukrainian woman on Instagram. "My apartment is in Kyiv, and my family is in Kyiv. All my life and my work is there, … I left for vacation with my daughter. I left without anything. All documents of my child except her passport and birth certificate are in Ukraine, and this is hard to accept." But the resilience and determination of the Ukrainian people are formidable. She wrote of her focus, and that of many others who had fled, on returning home to clean up and rebuild. "I want very much to go home."  Arash Javanbakht does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment. |
| Deer have horns, walruses have tusks – here’s why so few birds have weapons of their own Posted: 07 Mar 2022 05:19 AM PST  Mating season in the animal kingdom can be dramatic, and sometimes violent. As an example, take deer clashing their antlers during the rut – nostrils flaring, hooves hammering the ground, grass flying everywhere, and that eerie silence before the thunderous collision. The winning buck gets access to the harem, while the loser must find other females to fight for. Many other animals also have formidable weapons. They range from rhinoceros beetles' pointy horns to fiddler crabs' proportionally gigantic claws and the long tusks of walruses and narwhals. Birds also need to compete for their mates, which often involves fiercely defending a territory. But most birds don't sport impressive weapons; we know them better for their colors, dances and songs. As evolutionary biologists primarily interested in birds and weapons, respectively, we couldn't help but wonder: Why do most birds lack their own version of antlers? The answer, which we present in a recent study, likely lies in a trade-off between flying and fighting. It's all about weightFor anything that flies, whether it's a bird or an airplane (or even Superman), flight demands more energy – in the form of burned fat or fuel – than moving on the ground or in the water. And the amount of energy required increases with weight. How stark is this trade-off? Several years ago, United Airlines started printing its inflight magazine on lighter paper to reduce the weight of a typical flight by about 11 pounds, or 0.01% of an airplane's empty weight. Through this tiny decrease, the company cut its annual fuel use by 170,000 gallons, saving US$290,000 yearly.  If you fly a lot, like an airline that operates 4,500 daily flights or a swift that flies 10 months out of every year, every reduced ounce counts. And consequences are harsher for the swift. Animals can't buy energy in the form of fuel – they have to find food and consume it, which itself requires energy. On the other hand, if you are a rooster that only barely flies, you might be able to afford a bit of extra weight in the form of a weapon.  In other words, given the cost of flying, it makes sense that birds should be able to afford weapons only if they don't depend too much on flight. This trade-off is supported by mathematical flight models and measurements of the cost of flight in real birds, which show that carrying avian weapons such as leg or wing spurs in flight costs more "fuel" the more a bird flies and the lighter the rest of its body is. Avian spursTo be sure, some birds do have weapons specialized for fighting – just not very many species. And the weapons that birds do carry aren't as big, heavy or flashy as in other animals. Rooster spurs, a classic example, are about as antlerlike as bird weapons get. About 170 species – less than 2% of all existing avian species – possess spurs on their legs or wings. Spurred legs are only found on landfowl – birds that mostly feed on the ground – including turkeys, pheasants, peacocks and many of their relatives. Wing spurs are less common and more dispersed across bird species. Examples include lapwings, jacanas, sheathbills and some ducks, geese and doves. Wing spurs are typically located on the bird's wrists and vary in form from blunt knobs to sharp spikes. For the purpose of testing the fight-or-flight idea, it's good news that some species carry weapons. This allows us to analyze our expectation that spurs should be found more often in species that depend less on flight than on those that fly frequently.  Luckily, we were able to draw on a global data set of the hand-wing index – a metric of wing shape that scientists use to quantify how well various bird species are adapted for flight and hence, presumably, how much they depend on it. This information was recently made available for every living bird species. Our findings showed clear connections across bird species between the presence of spurs and flight behavior. On average, species that depend more on flight have fewer or no spurs. Among species that do have spurs, longer spurs tend to appear in larger-sized species. Using evolutionary models, we also looked back at the historical process that led to this current fight-or-flight situation. We found that species that depended more on flight were more likely to lose spurs over time than species that flew only occasionally. In other words, the absence of spurs on most birds today is likely the result of species that were frequent flyers losing spurs, not occasional flyers gaining them. To fight or not to fightOur findings show that flight is a very good explanation for why birds don't impress much in the weaponry department. But that doesn't necessarily translate to peace and love. For example, hawks use their talons as weapons in violent fights, and toucans do the same with their bills. [Over 150,000 readers rely on The Conversation's newsletters to understand the world. Sign up today.] We shouldn't expect these cases to be the rule, though. That's because claws and bills are essential for other tasks like foraging, feeding, thermoregulating, preening and anchoring. In contrast, spurs' and antlers' only function is to fight. Using claws and bills in combat can mean compromising other essential functions. For example, in 2017, Chinese engineers designed a titanium alloy bill for a captive crane that broke its bill during a fight and consequently lost the ability to feed without human help.  If most birds can neither bear spurs because they compromise flight nor risk features such as their bills because they are essential for other tasks, the solution may be to avoid physical combat as much as possible. Indeed, many birds defend territories primarily by singing or showing off ornaments. Flight preventing the evolution of weapons may thus help explain the striking colors, dances and songs that we find across birds. The next time you're outdoors and hear two birds screaming their lungs out at each other instead of fighting, remember that peace might be the only option evolution gave them.  Alexandre V. Palaoro receives funding from NSF, grant number IOS-2042937. João C. T. Menezes receives funding from the University of Massachusetts Amherst. |
| SEC is considering climate disclosure rules for U.S. companies – and facing threats of lawsuits Posted: 07 Mar 2022 05:19 AM PST  Better information leads to better decisions – this is the idea behind a regulatory device known as "mandated disclosure." Mandated disclosures are all around you, from calorie counts on fast food restaurant menus to conversations with doctors around informed consent. But the biggest experiment yet in mandated disclosure may be an expected U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission proposal to extend these ideas to climate impacts facing U.S.-listed companies. The disclosure rule, expected to be proposed soon, would require publicly traded companies to release information to investors about their emissions and how they are managing risks related to climate change and future climate regulations. While it is easy to spot risks facing companies like ExxonMobil, which produces and sells fossil fuels that contribute to global warming, more hidden vulnerabilities exist for businesses across the U.S. economy. Largely in response to investors clamoring for more information about climate risks, as well as pressure from green groups that believe disclosure will drive climate-conscious investing, SEC Chair Gary Gensler announced in 2021 that the commission would use its statutory authority to require climate-related disclosures. As law scholars, we work on legal issues involving businesses and regulation. Here's what you need to know about climate disclosures and some of the challenges the SEC faces in adopting them. What investors want to knowInvestor pressure for better information about climate impacts comes from two directions. First, some investors want to avoid companies that will be affected by climate change. The company's products may be regulated in the future because of their impact on the climate, or its supply chains may get more expensive over time. Investors want to know which businesses will be able to adapt and preserve profitability. Second, many investors are interested in ESG investing, which involves assessing companies' commitments to environmental, social and governance factors. Today, ESG investing accounts for US$17.1 trillion — or 1 in 3 dollars — of the total U.S. assets under professional management. The challenge for the SEC is to ensure that claims being made about the sustainability of a company are based on reality. The trend toward ESG investment has led to an outpouring of voluntary disclosure: About 90% of companies in the S&P 500 publish voluntary reports disclosing statistics on things like carbon emissions and how much renewable energy they use. Some large investors require disclosure. For example, BlackRock, a multinational asset manager with around $10 trillion under its control, requires companies it invests in to disclose certain climate information. The United Kingdom plans to require climate disclosure starting in April 2022, and the European Union has reporting rules in place. But the U.S. has been slow to impose mandatory climate disclosure requirements. Public companies have only been subject to a more general legal standard that they not materially mislead investors. The SEC released guidance in 2010 to encourage climate disclosures, but it was unenforced and failed to prompt standardized disclosures. Rule benders and the effectiveness of disclosureResearch on the broader use of mandated disclosure, such as for home mortgage lending and consumer product labeling, shows that crafting effective disclosure regulations is difficult. One reason is that the companies can easily evade disclosing useful information while still complying with the letter of the law. These "rule benders" can be very creative. Consider the restaurant in New York City that was subject to a health inspection grading regulation and managed to disguise its "B" rating by simply adding "EST" to its display of its grade. Disclosure regulations can also fail when they don't effectively communicate valuable information. A study of one type of climate disclosure – emissions labels on consumer products – found mixed evidence as to whether consumers altered their behavior in response. Rule benders can exploit human tendencies to discount or filter out warnings by providing an avalanche of unnecessary information that confuses and overwhelms the intended recipient. Expect court challengesOne challenge the SEC has grappled with is whether it has statutory authority to require companies to disclose their "Scope 3" emissions. These are emissions that a company doesn't directly control, such as emissions from the use of its products or emissions in its supply chain. A company like Amazon may have extensive upstream Scope 3 emissions in its suppliers' transportation networks. General Motors would have extensive downstream emissions when people drive its gas-powered vehicles.  The SEC's three Democratic commissioners, who make up a majority of the commission, have reportedly split on whether certain Scope 3 emissions can be viewed as "material" to investors and therefore subject to disclosure. "Material" is defined as information that a reasonable person would consider important in making an investment decision. Some critics of climate disclosures, including several Republican state attorneys general, suggest that the SEC has no authority to require disclosures that are not financially material. Missouri's attorney general wrote that requiring climate reporting would impose "large costs and administrative burdens" on publicly traded companies. A group of senators suggested greenhouse gas-related assets would shift to private companies. West Virginia's attorney general threatened to sue the SEC. The costs of disclosure would vary. Some companies already intensely monitor emissions. Others would likely face high costs if Scope 3 emissions were included. An oil company, for example, might have to measure emissions from all the vehicles using its fuel. The Administrative Procedure Act allows courts to vacate SEC rules that are deemed arbitrary or capricious because the agency failed to offer sufficient justification for choosing the proposal over alternatives. The SEC is acutely aware of this risk. A prior oil and gas extraction disclosure rule was invalidated by a court in 2013 as arbitrary and capricious. Proceeding with cautionThe SEC's forthcoming climate risk disclosure rule will not be the final effort to use information to shape the private sector's response to climate change. What the SEC does now will affect those future moves. No wonder it is taking its time and proceeding cautiously. [More than 150,000 readers get one of The Conversation's informative newsletters. Join the list today.]  The authors do not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and have disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment. |
| Posted: 07 Mar 2022 05:18 AM PST  When Russian President Vladimir Putin announced a "special military operation" in Ukraine on Feb. 23, 2022, the U.N. Security Council was conducting an emergency late-night meeting chaired by Russia on the mounting crisis. Western powers expected the invasion to happen, but Putin's timing marked an unprecedented rebuke to the U.N., the global body uniquely tasked with maintaining international peace. The political move also resurfaced a recurring question. Is the United Nations, a 77-year-old international institution, still relevant? As a research professor on human rights and the law, I believe that despite the limitations of the Security Council this war exposes, international law and the U.N. remain essential to humanity's survival. How does the Security Council work?The U.N. is the only international organization that has membership of 193 countries. It has various ways countries can meet and agree to action on international challenges. The U.N.'s offices and agencies are tasked with everything from outer space affairs, human rights and nuclear nonproliferation to women's health, education and climate change. The U.N. Security Council is the U.N.'s most powerful political body. The council is made up of representatives of 15 countries that consult and vote on international security decisions. Five countries with proven nuclear powers – China, Russia, France, the United States and the United Kingdom – hold permanent seats on the council. These countries, called the P-5, gained these spots when the U.N. was established shortly after World War II, given their perceived importance in preserving world peace. P-5 countries can veto the council's proposed decisions. But if approved, these resolutions are binding under international law and can, for example, establish sanctions regimes, deploy a U.N. peacekeeping mission in a country or authorize use of force, as the council did in Libya in 2011. Without its own military, the council's use of armed force to restore peace has a fraught and complicated history. NATO is often engaged in carrying out the few military interventions the council has authorized, as during the Bosnian war in 1992. The U.N. also has 70,000 military peacekeeping personnel. But these peacekeepers primarily monitor cease-fires or peace agreements, with the consent of the countries concerned. As expected by international observers, Russia vetoed a Security Council resolution on Feb. 25, 2022, that deplored its invasion of Ukraine and called for it to withdraw military forces. Russia was the only country on the council that blocked the resolution, exposing the limited leverage the U.N. has over the world's most powerful countries. As a result, the U.N. faces heightened criticisms of its inability to act on the crisis.  What could the UN actually do, then, about the Ukraine war?Even if the Security Council cannot easily authorize action on Ukraine, the U.N. can influence the war in other ways, as through political pressure, legal decisions and investigations, and humanitarian assistance. During the Korean War, U.N. countries foresaw the problem that P-5 members might not be able to jointly act during a conflict. The General Assembly – another U.N. decision-making body that includes all member countries – can also approve resolutions on conflicts. But the General Assembly lacks the legal authority the Security Council holds. The General Assembly approved a resolution in 1950 that grants it the authority to act, based on a referral from the Security Council, if the council cannot reach a decision on the use of armed force or other issues. The council's referral is a procedural matter, so the veto does not apply. Using this mandate for the first time in 40 years, the General Assembly adopted its own resolution on Ukraine on March 2, 2022. The resolution calls for Russia to withdraw its military troops from Ukraine. The General Assembly's action demonstrates Russia's diplomatic isolation. The U.N.'s Human Rights Council is one other body with potential leverage during the Ukraine war. But this council cannot legally require countries to take action on their decisions. A range of countries with egregious human rights records, like Saudi Arabia and Russia, are also members of the council. The Human Rights Council launched an investigation of potential human rights violations in Ukraine on March 4, 2022, as evidence mounts that Russia's military appears to be targeting civilian infrastructure and committing war crimes. The U.N. also has a pivotal role to play in crisis response and humanitarian assistance. The U.N. refugee agency and other U.N. groups are documenting the intensifying refugee crisis and [providing food, medicine and other lifesaving aid] to help more than 6 million Ukrainians in need. Ukraine is also seeking a decision by the International Court of Justice, the main judicial organ of the U.N. Notably, enforcement of its rulings depends on countries' agreeing to uphold them domestically.  What can be done about the Security Council?This crisis has raised new questions about whether Russia has a legitimate role on the Security Council. Ukraine has asked whether it was legal for Russia to take over the Soviet Union's seat when the USSR collapsed in 1991. But a push to eject Russia from the Security Council faces formidable challenges. Such a decision would be subject to the P-5 veto, as would any move to suspend Russia from the U.N. entirely. Even though Russia is very unlikely to lose its spot on the Security Council, expanding the council's permanent membership to more countries could potentially change the playing field. Security Council reform has been under consideration at the U.N. since 2005. But proposals for change have not garnered enough countries' support to actually move forward to gain approval at either the General Assembly or the council. The Ukraine crisis will likely strengthen arguments for expanding the council. Such reform, however, might be slow in coming. Uncharted territoryExperts point out that the price to pay for operating a complicated, international system like the U.N. is accepting some limits. But it is difficult to overcome critiques that the U.N. is often just talk when diplomacy fails to avert an unjustified war of this scale. The Security Council's track record on maintaining peace and deescalating conflicts has had some success, as in El Salvador, Nicaragua, Namibia, Mozambique, Sierra Leone, Cambodia and East Timor. Conflicts between countries have overall declined notably since the end of the Cold War. There is no competing legitimate forum to which countries can go to theoretically maintain international peace and security. And the overwhelming majority of countries view Russia's invasion of Ukraine as also an attack on the international community itself. Now, the question is whether the U.N. will emerge ultimately stronger, not weaker, from this crisis. [Like what you've read? Want more? Sign up for The Conversation's daily newsletter.]  I previously worked for the U.N. |
| Battles over book bans reflect conflicts from the 1980s Posted: 07 Mar 2022 05:18 AM PST  A conservative leader found fault with how "respect for our nation's heritage" had been mostly stripped from the textbooks of public schools. "From kindergarten right through the total school system, it almost seems as if classroom textbooks are designed to negate what philosophies previously had been taught," the conservative leader lamented. "[M]any textbooks are actually perverting the minds of literally millions of students." A teachers organization shot back, saying the underlying motive for some attacks against books has "unquestionably been racial." This might sound like a back-and-forth from recent debates over removing books from school classrooms and libraries. Often, critical race theory – an academic framework for understanding racism – has been at the center of these debates. But in reality, both quotes are more than 40 years old. Religious influence on politicsThe first quote came from a 1981 book by the Rev. Jerry Falwell titled "Listen, America!" Falwell, founder of the Moral Majority, was one of the leaders of the book-banning efforts of the 1980s. It was during this period – with Ronald Reagan in the White House – that Christian fundamentalists became a growing influence in conservative American politics. The second quote comes from a 1981 publication of the National Council of Teachers of English, "The Students' Right to Read." The council was one of the major groups opposing Falwell and other conservatives. The attacks on books in the 1980s bear similarities to the current attacks. Both object to the critical teaching about race and racism, historical as well as contemporary. Both accuse schools of tearing down America and weakening patriotism. Both object to teaching about gender roles, sexual orientation and alternative models of the family. Conservative institutions like the Heritage Foundation have been involved in both periods. There are also important differences between the two periods. The 1980s bogeyman was secular humanism, because it argued that human beings can define their own morality without the use of religion. Falwell and others claimed that public schools were anti-Christian because they taught students that they didn't have to use the Bible as a standard for right and wrong. Chaos would result, the Christian fundamentalists asserted, if everyone had to determine their own morality. In a way reminiscent of the so-called Scopes Monkey Trial in 1925, conservatives objected to the teaching of evolution as a fact, rather than a theory. Instead, they wanted biology textbooks to give equal space to the so-called scientific theory of creationism, which holds that God created the universe. A new bogeymanIn 2022, of course, the bogeyman is critical race theory. Emerging from critical legal theory taught in law schools, critical race theory argues that white supremacy has been embedded in American legal and educational institutions since the time of slavery. Right-wing critics have made a number of erroneous allegations about critical race theory: that it is taught in public schools; that it is Marxist; that it is intended to make whites feel guilty; and more. The Heritage Foundation has published "How to Identify Critical Race Theory" as a guide to help parents evaluate books and curricula by looking for words like "systemic racism," "white privilege" and "social construction or race." In fact, these concepts predated critical race theory, which came on the scene in the late 1970s and 1980s. Activist Stokely Carmichael – also known as Kwame Ture – and political scientist Charles V. Hamilton discussed institutional racism in "Black Power: The Politics of Liberation in America" in 1967. "Institutional racism" and "structural racism" are very similar to "systemic racism." "White privilege" was discussed by W.E.B. Du Bois in the early 20th century and by civil rights activists in the 1950s and 1960s. Another term associated with critical race theory, "the social construction of race," was used by anthropologists like Franz Boas back in the 1950s. New interpretationsCritical race theorists took these and other concepts, reinterpreted them and applied them to the American legal system. Scholars in education have done the same in trying to understand education as an institution. After 40-plus years of teaching and writing about race and diversity, I know that it is impossible to accurately discuss American racial conflict without using these concepts. But that's what many lawmakers would have American educators do. According to a Pen America report, a nonprofit that advocates for freedom of expression in literature, 156 "educational gag order" bills in 39 states have been introduced since January 2021. Twelve have become law in 10 states, and 113 are pending in 35 states. As of March 2022, at least seven states specifically ban the teaching of critical race theory. "Cumulatively," says the Pen report, "they represent a national assault on our education system, censoring both what teachers can say and what students may learn." Of course, some white students – and other students, too, for that matter – will feel uncomfortable upon learning not only about the history of American racism but also its present manifestations. Reality is sometimes uncomfortable. That's where good teaching comes in. Good teaching means taking the students' age into account. It also means being supportive of students who may feel uncomfortable or guilty about certain events in American history. I always tell students: "You are not responsible for what happened in the past. You are responsible to decide what you plan to do in the present and the future." [Science, politics, religion or just plain interesting articles: Check out The Conversation's weekly newsletters.]  Fred L. Pincus does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment. |
| How do Russia's reasons for war stack up? An expert on 'just war' explains Posted: 05 Mar 2022 05:39 AM PST  War is always a tragedy. It sometimes seems inevitable. But is it ever justified? Philosophers, theologians, politicians and military leaders have wrestled with this question for millennia. And to a large degree, they've come to some basic agreements about what makes a war morally defensible: a set of ideas known as the "just war tradition." That's not to say that they always agree on how to apply just war principles to an actual conflict. Given the Kremlin's attempts to justify its invasion of Ukraine, including its groundless accusations of genocide, it's worth analyzing Russia's position through the lens of the just war tradition – the focus of my work as a political scientist who studies the ethics of conflict. Many religions, including Judaism, Islam and Hinduism, have traditions about when war might be justifiable. Although many contemporary approaches are secular, they have been particularly influenced by Christian thinkers. This tradition dates to the fourth century, when Augustine of Hippo, also known as St. Augustine, grappled with how people could reconcile their beliefs about nonviolence with political and military service to their country. Ultimately, the tradition evolved to encompass six principles to evaluate the justness of a war: legitimate authority, just cause, proportionality, likelihood of success, last resort and right intent. 1. Legitimate authorityHistorically, just war analysis began by asking about legitimate authority. Had the war been declared by a responsible sovereign? In the classical just war tradition, the right to wage war was limited to the highest secular authority in a particular political community. Today, some scholars suggest that only the United Nations holds this authority, since the U.N. charter has outlawed the use of force except in self-defense. And Vladimir Putin's legitimacy can certainly be questioned, given the lack of free and fair elections in Russia. However, classical just war thinkers were deeply concerned about civil disorder. Thirteenth-century scholar Thomas Aquinas went so far as to caution against overthrowing a tyrant if the community would suffer "greater detriment from the ensuing disorder than it did from the tyrannical government itself."  2. Just causeTo be justifiable, a war must also be fought with the aim of accomplishing a just cause. Traditionally, two motives were considered just: self-defense and righting wrongs. Aquinas defined a just war as one fought to "avenge injuries, if some nation or state … has neglected to punish a wrong committed by its citizens, or to return something that was wrongfully taken." These are slippery definitions, and the Kremlin has argued for war in Ukraine on both counts. First, does Russia have a legitimate self-defense claim? Russian officials have repeatedly claimed that Ukraine poses a threat to Russian security because of its potential admission to the NATO alliance. But joining NATO is a lengthy, complicated process that requires significant reforms within the aspiring member state and unanimous agreement from the existing members. Many member countries have been resistant to the idea of enlarging NATO to include Ukraine, although the nation has been cooperating with the alliance for decades. Putin has also claimed that Ukraine seeks to "bring war" to Crimea, which Moscow annexed in 2014, and that it has "laid claim to several other Russian regions." Yet the Ukrainian government denies any plan to forcefully retake the occupied territories. What's more, Ukraine's standing army is just a quarter of Russia's, and its air force, less than a tenth. What about Russia's justice concerns? The Kremlin claims that Ukraine is committing genocide against Russian-speakers in the self-proclaimed Luhansk and Donetsk People's Republics, where separatists supported by Moscow have been fighting Ukrainian forces since 2014. That conflict has killed more than 14,000 people, including more than 3,000 civilians from both sides, though the scale of violence had decreased dramatically in recent years. But the conflict in this region, known as the Donbas, fails to meet the legal definition of genocide, which separates tragic but unintended civilian casualties in war from deliberate attempts to destroy a people. There is simply no evidence corroborating Russia's claims. Nor is Ukraine a fascist state, despite Putin's claims. 3. ProportionalityMoscow's concerns that Ukrainian-language policies discriminate against Russian speakers, who make up about a third of the country, have some validity. Still, the new law does not ban the use of Russian, despite Kremlin media reports to the contrary. Even if protecting language rights were a just cause, justifying war would be difficult because of another principle: proportionality. All wars cause harm, but a justifiable use of force cannot cause more harm than the good it hopes to promote. Russia's war has already led to significant damage to civilian areas in major cities. As of March 3, 331 civilians had been killed, according to the U.N., and deaths will likely rise as Russian forces increase their attacks on cities. One million people have already fled the country. The weakness of Russia's claimed just cause means that this war cannot be considered proportional. As Catholic philosopher Francisco de Vitoria put it in the 16th century, pursuing "trivial offenses" by military means is wrong because of the "cruel and horrible" effects of war.  4. Likelihood of successThe logic of proportionality also requires considering the probability of success. As one contemporary ethicist put it, "'probability' is considerably more likely than a mere 'hope,' 'chance,' or 'possibility.'" There must be a real chance that the use of force can actually accomplish the war's stated aims. At first glance, this principle might seem biased against the weak. Some scholars have argued that countries should be allowed to defend themselves from aggression, even if the chances of success aren't high. If the Kremlin's war aims could not be achieved, any war it initiated would be inherently unjust, as lives would have been sacrificed to no avail. And as Western pundits and at least one retired Russian general have warned, Russian attempts to take over all of Ukraine would likely generate a drawn-out insurgency. 5. Last resortThe principle of "last resort" demands that all other reasonable means of resolving the conflict must be exhausted before going to war. The day before the invasion, Putin claimed to be willing to negotiate. Yet as alarm spread in early February about Russia's force buildup, the Kremlin spurned cooperation with the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe, an intergovernmental institution that aims to reduce military tensions by fostering transparency. Ukraine asked for clarification about Russia's forces near its border, as OSCE members must give prior notification for exercises involving at least 9,000 troops. But Russia refused to attend joint sessions on the matter. Security analysts have argued that Russian draft agreements presented to NATO and the United States in December 2021 seem to have been intended for rejection, though the U.S. and NATO responded by suggesting talks on nuclear disarmament and missiles. By contrast, as late as the day before the war, Ukraine was still calling for a diplomatic solution while responding to increasing threats with significant restraint. 6. Right intentFinally, the principle of right intent asserts that the attackers' stated cause must be the actual motivating cause. This principle is difficult to weigh. Putin's rhetoric is preoccupied with the supposed glories of the Russian Empire and the Soviet Union, and even his own legacy It's impossible to know with certainty what someone is thinking, but measuring people's actions against their claims is one way to evaluate intent. Claims about protecting Russian speakers ring hollow as escalating violence endangers Russian-speaking Ukrainian soldiers and civilians. The Kremlin's fast-track process of giving Russian citizenship to Ukrainians in the Donbas jars with claims that Russian citizens must be rescued. The Kremlin clearly sought a plausible moral justification for its war. Failing to find one, it will likely find itself even more isolated on the world stage. [Over 150,000 readers rely on The Conversation's newsletters to understand the world. Sign up today.]  Valerie Morkevicius does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment. |
| You are subscribed to email updates from Home – The Conversation. To stop receiving these emails, you may unsubscribe now. | Email delivery powered by Google |
| Google, 1600 Amphitheatre Parkway, Mountain View, CA 94043, United States | |
No comments:
Post a Comment