Acceptable Collateral Damage?

It is always easy to watch hostilities from afar and make one's judgments based on some ethical or moral code that is removed from the daily threat of violence and death. However, as I sit back and watch another round of Israeli and Palestinian violence, I wonder what is acceptable collateral damage in this time of sophisticated weapons and "surgical strikes".

I find myself wondering how Israel justifies killing women and children in order to kill a self-proclaimed terrorist. Is this as simple as killing them before they kill you. Is it a case of these children would have grown up to be terrorists and they would have been encouraged by their mothers to be so, therefore the best solution is to wipe them out before such a reality can eventuate?

I also find myself questioning the wisdom of firing rockets, homemade or otherwise, by Hamas into Israel.

The issue here is not one of whether Israel has a right to protect itself, it is not even a question in my mind of proportionality. Ask yourself this question, when are wars ever about proportionality? Your answer should highlight the silliness of the idea of proportional responses. To the victors go the spoils, and the victors are those that are left standing. Simply, the idea of proportional response will lead only to a series of ceasefires and temporary truces that never address the fundamental problems that lead to the hostilities in the first place.

The issue for me is what constitutes acceptable collateral damage. The recent Israeli attack that killed Nizar Rayan is an example of why this is a question that must be answered. There is little doubt that Nizar Rayan is a senior leader of Hamas. There is also little doubt that he advocates violence. It has been reported that he even sent one of his own sons on a suicide mission to kill Israelis. There is also little doubt that Israel classifies Hamas as a terrorist organization.

However, in order to kill Rayan, the Israelis decided the best method was to drop a rather large bomb on his house. This bomb was obviously large as it destroyed 12 surrounding house as well as the targeted house. The collateral damage issue here that I want to look at is not the property but the 18 people killed in addition to Rayan. Among the dead were his four wives, two daughters, and a son. This is what I wonder when I am wondering how to answer the question of acceptable collateral damage.

I wonder whether Israel could have put together covert Mossad teams and assassinate Rayan. This would have averted any unnecessary collateral damage. Perhaps questionable in international law however I would assert that killing innocent men, women, and children is also questionable under international law.

I am neither pro-Israel not pro-Hamas or Palestine. I am pro-peace and I am pro-humanity. I am against the killing of innocent men, women, and children in the furtherance of any cause.

So, I pose this question, "what is acceptable collateral damage in a time of conflict?"

Racial and Ethnic Discrimination -- Reviewed and Updated

Overview

The House of Representatives (DPR) passed the Bill on the Elimination of Racial and Ethnic Discrimination on 28 October 2008. The law has been in the process of being passed since 2005 when it first arose as a DPR Initiative. Indonesia already has a racial discrimination law, Law No. 29 of 1999, which is the enactment of Indonesia’s responsibilities and obligations as a signatory to the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination.

The premise of the law is that everyone is born the same in the eyes of God and that everyone is equal before the law irrespective of their ethnicity or race. Nevertheless, these aspirations now have a little more gravitas as they have been codified into law. The need for the codification is that all forms of racial and ethnic discrimination are contrary to the principles contained in Pancasila, the 1945 Constitution of the Republic of Indonesia, and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Therefore, it is the Government’s view that this provides a mandate that demands that Indonesia take all steps necessary to remove racial and ethnic discrimination from the Republic of Indonesia.

Challenges of Racial and Ethnic Discrimination
Indonesia as an archipelagic nation faces many challenges on the race and ethnicity front. These challenges stem from the bringing together of many racial and ethnic minorities under the flag of a unitary republic. Nevertheless, the differences between the multi-racial and multi-ethnic constituent parts of the Republic are often the trigger for violence.

The law simplifies this to one of differences or imbalance in social, economic, and power opportunities which ultimately lead to substantial losses to the communities where they occur. The violence that accompanies these conflicts is usually extreme and involves not only rioting and looting and destruction but rape and murder as well.

Basic Impacts
Aside from the suffering of the local communities, it is also clear that the suffering extends way beyond the local communities and negatively impacts on the short, medium, and long term development of the nation as a whole. These impacts arise because of many factors, for example, a reluctance of investors to invest in areas that are prone to racial and ethnic conflicts.

What’s Covered
The law stipulates that it regulates issues such as the following:
· The basis for the elimination of racial and ethnic discrimination;
· Actions that satisfy the elements of discrimination;
· Provide protections for those citizens that have suffered racial and ethnic discrimination;
· Protect citizens from racial and ethnic discrimination that arises from central and regional government actions and actions of the broader community;
· Supervision to ensure the elimination of racial and ethnic discrimination by the National Commission of Human Rights;
· The rights of citizens to receive equal treatment with respect to their civil, political, economic, social, and cultural rights;
· Obligations and the role of the community in ensuring the elimination of racial and ethnic discrimination;
· Claims for compensation for losses sustained as a result of racial and ethnic discrimination; and
· Criminalizing discriminative behaviour.

Definitions
The definition of what constitutes discrimination is broad and can be civil, political, economic, social, and cultural. Race and ethnicity are also defined. Race is defined simply as physical characteristics that distinguish one group of people from another and lines of ancestry. Ethnicity is defined as a group that can be distinguished based on beliefs, values, norms, cultural traditions, language, history, geography, and kinship.

The point of eliminating discrimination is to promote and ensure harmony, peace, and security, among others. Therefore, discrimination is defined as any action that seeks to distinguish or differentiate individuals or makes exceptions for individuals thereby holding the potential to upset the harmony, peace, and security apple cart.

The law and the Elucidations are either silent or less than clear on what impact this might have on any affirmative action programs that may arise in the future.

Objectives
The objectives of the law are to ensure the elimination of racial and ethnic discrimination. However, simultaneously the law is also seeking to establish equality, freedom, justice, and universal human norms.

The idea of establishing universal human norms is an interesting objective for many reasons. Most notably among these is that many have tried to distinguish between Asian and Western values and that some norms are not universal, particularly in the context that “Asian cultures” favour the group over the individual right. The former Prime Minister of Malaysia, for example, was a staunch advocate of the Asian values systems. One could be forgiven for thinking that perhaps the law is Indonesia’s attempt to repudiate this point of view by codifying that there are universal human values with respect to race and ethnicity that must be protected irrespective of where one resides in the world, as this does not seem to be the case.

The reality is that the above claims to universal values worthy of protection are moderated in Article 2(2) with the requirement that the values of equality, freedom, justice and universal human norms be determined within the contextual frame of prevailing religious, social, cultural, and legal norms of the Republic of Indonesia.

Discriminative Actions
The law broadly lists what a discriminative action entails as anything that:
· Differentiates;
· Provides exceptions;
· Restricts; or
· Chooses

The above would require that each of these actions was undertaken within the parameters of race or ethnicity. Furthermore, this would also require that the consequences of these actions include the revocation, or reduction in acknowledgment, or the inability to obtain, or implement a human right in any civil, political, economic, cultural, or social sense.

Racial and Ethnic Vilification
The law also regulates hate speech and vilification in Article 4(b). The provision states that the promotion of hate or feelings of hatred through the use of the following, among others, is strictly prohibited:
· Writings or graphic depictions (pictures), and
· Speeches.

Supervision
The supervision of the provisions of the law is to be done by the National Human Rights Commission (Komnas HAM). Supervision will be undertaken through means such as monitoring and evaluation of government policy, investigation and examination of available facts of alleged discrimination, provision of recommendations to government, monitoring and evaluation of programs designed to eliminate racial and ethnic discrimination, and the provision of recommendations to the House of Representatives (DPR).

The Role of the Community
The provisions as they relate to the role of the community also address matters related to citizen’s rights. Simply, every citizen has a right to not be discriminated against based on their race or ethnicity. Every right gives rise to an obligation. Therefore, every citizen is also under an obligation not to make racial and ethnic distinctions and as such play a positive role in preventing racial and ethnic discrimination, and ultimately play a significant role in the process of eliminating racial and ethnic discrimination altogether.

Compensation
The law provides for compensation claims in the event that a citizen has been discriminated against. The claim can be either as an individual or as a class action where there are multiple claimants. Claims are to be lodged at the District Court.

Criminal Provisions
The criminal sanctions in the law allow for terms of imprisonment of between 1 and 5 years and fines of between IDR 100 million and IDR 500 million. The penalties for corporations attract a premium of 1/3.

Closing Provisions
Once the Law enters into force all current racial and ethnic discrimination laws remain in place unless they contradict the provisions of this law. If they do, then the provisions of the law will prevail.

Operation
The Law came into immediate force once it is enacted.

Conclusion

It is clear that the government through the enactment of this bill into law is intent on removing the scourge of racial and ethnic conflict and violence from the Indonesian scene. The law will clearly be complementary to other existing discrimination laws and consolidates and strengthens the overall anti-discrimination regulatory framework.

Nevertheless, there are parts of the law that need further work to clarify matters such as affirmative action programs to ensure balance where natural balance does not occur.

The reality is that enforcement will be the key. If there is lax enforcement of the provisions, simply the government refuses to take action where it can to eliminate racial and ethnic discrimination then the underlying issues that trigger racial and ethnic conflict will remain, and remain unchecked.