In August 2001, US President George W. Bush told Americans that he worried about "a culture that devalues life," and that he believed that, as US president, he has "an important obligation to foster and encourage respect for life in America and throughout the world."
That belief lay behind Bush's denial of federal government funds for stem cell research that could encourage the destruction of human embryos. Although the Bush administration acknowledged that some scientists believe stem cell research could offer new ways of treating diseases that affect 128 million Americans, this prospect evidently did not, in Bush's view, justify destroying human embryos.
Last month, the military forces that this same president commands aimed a missile at a house in Damadola, a Pakistani village near the Afghanistan border. Eighteen people were killed, among them five children.
The target of the attack, al-Qaeda's No. 2 man Ayman al-Zawahri, was not among the dead, although lesser figures in the terrorist organization reportedly were.
Bush did not apologize for the attack, nor did he reprimand those who ordered it. Apparently, he believes that the chance of killing an important terrorist leader is sufficient justification for firing a missile that will almost certainly kill innocent human beings.
Other US politicians took the same stance. Conservative Republican Senator Trent Lott -- a prominent opponent of abortion -- said of the attack: "Absolutely, we should do it."
Republican Senator John McCain, though often ready to disagree with Bush, expressed regret for the civilian deaths, but added: "I can't tell you that we wouldn't do the same thing again."
Indeed, it would be hard for the current administration to say that it wouldn't do the same thing again, because it has done it many times before.
On Nov. 1, 2001, US planes bombed Ishaq Suleiman, a group of mud huts, because a Taliban truck had been parked in one of the streets. The truck left before the bomb hit, but 12 local villagers were killed and 14 were injured. There are many more such stories of innocent lives being lost in the war in Afghanistan.
In Iraq, too, US attacks have taken the lives of many civilians. Again, one of many examples will suffice. On April 5, 2003, a civilian neighborhood in Basra was bombed. The target was General Ali Hassan al-Majid, known as "Chemical Ali" because of his use of chemical weapons against Iraqis. One bomb hit the home of the Hamoodi family, a respected, educated family, none of whose members belonged to the ruling Baath Party.
Of the extended family of 14, 10 were killed, including an infant, a two-year-old baby, a 10-year-old boy and a 12-year-old girl. Four months later, Majid was captured alive; the bombs had missed their intended target.
This consistent pattern of readiness to inflict civilian casualties -- often when striking targets that are not of vital military significance -- suggests that Bush and other pro-life US leaders have less concern for the lives of innocent human beings in Afghanistan, Iraq and Pakistan than they have for human embryos. This is a bizarre set of priorities.
No parents grieve for a lost embryo in the way that they would grieve over the death of a child. No embryos are capable of suffering, or have hopes or desires for the future that are abruptly cut off by their death.
It might be possible to justify the loss of innocent human life in Damadola by a utilitarian calculation that killing al-Qaeda's leaders will, in the long run, save a larger number of innocent human beings. After all, if they remain at large, they may succeed in carrying out further terrorist attacks that take hundreds or even thousands of innocent lives. Bush, however, cannot rely on that argument, for it is precisely the kind of justification that he rejects when it comes to destroying embryos in order to save, in the long run, those dying from diseases for which we currently have no cure.
Other moralists will say that the difference between destroying embryos for research purposes and killing civilians in military attacks is that the former is deliberate killing, whereas the latter deaths are "collateral damage" -- unintended, if foreseeable, side-effects of a justifiable act of war.
We can grant that it was not the primary intention of those who planned and authorized the attack on Damadola to kill innocent people. We can also accept that al-Zawahri is undoubtedly a dangerous foe, still active in a terrorist movement, and that he is a legitimate military target. Perhaps this particular attack can be justified on those grounds.
Nevertheless, the doctrine that it is acceptable to take actions that will foreseeably kill innocent people can have the effect of leading us to treat more lightly than we should the deaths of those killed. That, it seems, is what has happened somewhere in the US chain of command. The presence of a Taliban truck does not justify bombing a village in which civilians are going about their daily lives.
Killing innocent people in order to bring a kind of rough justice to "Chemical Ali" -- a particularly nasty member of the former Iraqi military elite, but one who at the time of the raid was no longer in command of military forces -- is wrong.
A culture that allows -- and even endorses -- such tactics is not one that is genuinely committed to encouraging respect for life. We can be quite sure that US forces would not have acted in the same way if the civilians nearby had been other Americans.
Peter Singer is professor of bioethics at Princeton University.
Copyright: Project Syndicate
French firm DCI-DESCO in April won a bid to upgrade Taiwan’s Lafayette frigates, which has strained ties between China and France. In 1991, France sold Taiwan six Lafayette frigates and in 1992 sold it 60 Mirage 2000 fighter jets. To prevent arms sales between the nations, China negotiated an agreement with France and in 1994 in a joint statement, France promised that there would be no future arms sales to Taiwan. From China’s point of view, the DCI-DESCO deal constitutes a breach of the agreement, but the French stance is that it is not selling Taiwan new weapons, but instead providing a
President Tsai Ing-wen (蔡英文) in her inaugural address on May 20 firmly said: “We will not accept the Beijing authorities’ use of ‘one country, two systems’ to downgrade Taiwan and undermine the cross-strait status quo.” The Chinese government was not too happy, and later that day, an opinion piece on the Web site of China’s state broadcaster China Central Television said: “While Tsai’s first inaugural address four years ago was read by Beijing as an ‘unfinished answer sheet,’ the one she presented this time was even more below-par.” Speaking to the China Review News Agency, Shanghai Institutes for International Studies vice president
The COVID-19 pandemic continues to wreak havoc worldwide. Despite countries being under pressure economically and from the novel coronavirus, China’s National People’s Congress last month passed national security legislation for Hong Kong, a decision that has shocked the world. Let there be no doubt: This move is the beginning of the end of China’s plans for “one country, two systems” in Hong Kong and Taiwan. Proposed amendments to extradition laws last year ignited massive protests in Hong Kong, with millions of participants, shocking the world and making confrontation between government forces and those who opposed the change a permanent part of Hong
Protecting domestic workers Ms Heidi Chang’s (張姮燕) article (“Employers need protections too,” May 24, page 6) made the case that “migrant workers’” rights had improved in Taiwan, but employers’ rights had not, going so far as to complain that all employers are treated equally under the law — as though this was not how the law was supposed to work. The truth is that the rights of foreign blue-collar workers have still not caught up with the rights their employers have always enjoyed. This segment of the foreign community in Taiwan is more likely than other groups to encounter abuse. Recently, a care