#11: Wars Can Be Averted (PART 3)

【Solution 1: Voter Accountability】
Freedom of speech and freedom of the press are a hallmark of democracy. Yet they’re not always protected as they should be. Reporters Without Borders (RWB), founded in 1985 in France, is an international non-profit, non-governmental organization that promotes and defends freedom of information.

RWB compiles and publishes an annual ranking of countries based upon the organization's assessment of their press freedom records. In its 2017 World Press Freedom Index, US ranked 43rd, South Korea 63rd, Japan 72nd, Russia 148th, China 176th, and North Korea 180th (the lowest).
 
Japan’s ranking has plummeted ever since Abe administration took office in 2012 – from 22nd just before Abe was elected prime minister. RWB explains its reasons for Japan’s decline in ranking as follows: The threat from Shinzo Abe . . . growing self-censorships within the leading media groups . . . journalists have difficulty serving the public interest and fulfilling their role as democracy’s watchdogs. Many Journalists, both local and foreign, are harassed by government officials, who do not hide their hostility towards the media. Japan’s ranking is now considered Problematic.
 
What's more, Anti-Organized Crime Law (or Conspiracy Law) was pushed through the Lower House on May 23. Appointed by the United Nations Human Rights Council, UN Special Rapporteur released an open letter to the Japanese government slamming the state-backed Conspiracy Law that critics warn could erode privacy and free speech rights.

In particular I am concerned by the risks of arbitrary application of this legislation given the vague definition of what would constitute the "planning" and the "preparatory actions" and given the inclusion of an overbroad range of crimes ... which are apparently unrelated to terrorism and organized crime.
 
In response, Abe blasted that this open letter is inappropriate, one-sided, and extremely unbalanced. In a back-and-forth, UN Special Rapporteur fired back characterizing the administration’s protest as angry words with no substance. Unless and until corrected on any point of fact, I stand by every single word.
 
It’s up to the citizens to stand up with courage and conviction to fight for freedom and transparency, especially in troubling times, so not to succumb to an oppressive government.

Just 70 some years ago, Japan embraced Hitler and Nazi Germany as political and military ally. Japan withdrew from the League of Nations (predecessor to today’s UN) because it wanted to keep control over Manchuria – which Japan invaded and occupied – but was opposed by the LN. This preposterous action eventually led Japan into the depth of devastating war. We can’t help but ask what lessons Abe administration has learned from this dark chapter in its nation’s history, once again snapping at the UN's urge to protect human rights.
 
Wars are to deceive your own people that There’s no other way than to kill, it’s inevitable and unavoidable.
 
However, the honest truth is that wars can be averted.
 
Here, we’ll examine two fundamental frameworks to avert wars.
 
The first fundamental framework is to clearly define the war responsibility of Congressmen and citizens by changing laws and modifying the ballots.
 
The crucial first step is to clearly define in our law, that all wars and armed attacks, without exception, require a prior approval of Congress.
 
A law as simple as this has become ambiguous even in the US. Most legal scholars agree that the US Constitution requires prior approval of the Congress, except when the nation is already under an attack. However, presidents of both parties have a history of unilaterally ordering military strikes without Congressional authorization, especially since the end of World War II. This has created an ad hoc application of the Constitution, sometimes seeking prior approval of the Congress and at other times acting unilaterally.
 
For example, we saw an analogous situation just two months ago. Trump administration, without Congressional authorization, unilaterally ordered missile attacks against Syria for using chemical weapons. In 2013, Obama administration asked Congress to authorize a punitive strike against Syria for the same reason – which was denied. In 2003, Bush administration sought prior approval of Congress in waging Iraq War – which was granted amidst Weapons of Mass Destruction propaganda clouded the judgement of the Congress. And in 1986, Reagan administration unilaterally carried out airstrikes against Libya without Congressional authorization.
 
By its Constitution, Japan outlaws all wars. As such, there shouldn’t be any ambiguity here. However, Abe administration has sought to reinterpret the language and twist the spirit of the Constitution by proclaiming that Japan does not forbid all wars, it can engage in wars of self-defense.
 
Given such inconsistencies in the application and interpretation of constitutions and laws, it’s absolutely imperative for every nation to clearly define in its law, that All wars and armed attacks, without exception, require a prior approval of Congress. In order to prepare for the unexpected, this must be clearly written into law.
 
Next, the second step focuses on a potential circumstance in which Congress faces a decision over a war. To be sure, we wish to use every means to avert such potentially catastrophic situation.

As such, we must systematically formulate our strategy in advance, rather than waiting until such circumstance presents itself and then calling shots on the fly. To that end, the following language must be incorporated into the ballots for Congressional authorization to wage or avert a war:
 
--------------------------------------------------------
I, as an elected Congressman, will vote as follows in my decision to wage or avert this proposed war for our nation (mark ✔ next to your decision).
□  I vote “YES” to this war. I do so with a full and clear understanding that I will be 1st in line to be deployed to the frontlines upon declaration of this war.
□  I vote “NO” to this war. I wholly refuse to support this war in any capacity.
--------------------------------------------------------
 
It’s disgustingly irresponsible for Congressmen to wage a war but not go to war. It’s as disgusting as gambling away someone else's money while tucking away my own in a safe – but infinitely worse for we have lives on stake instead of money. Furthermore, it invites massive moral hazard when one who possesses the decision-making authority over a decision as destructive as war is not obliged to take responsibility of fighting on the frontlines.
 
As such, at the bare minimum, it’s only fair that those who decide to wage a war are those who fight on the frontlines.

And into the law must be clearly written that, as a result of the votes, if ayes have it, then Congressman who voted “YES” will be the 1st to fight on the frontlines. That is, to embroil so many innocent lives in A mass murder called war by gambling one’s own life instead of someone else's.

Each Congressman must earnestly face his/her real choice and make an honest decision affecting his/her own dear life. It’s a common sense for Congressmen – with a direct decision-making authority over a war and voting “YES” – to be the 1st to fight on the frontlines.

Of course, every life weighs the same. Therefore, absolutely no exceptions are allowed, even for those in power such as presidents and prime ministers. Exceptions of this sort will only invite hypocrites to run away and hide.

It’s very simple – those who decide to wage a war are those who will be the 1st to fight on the frontlines.  
 
If Congressman doesn’t want to be deployed to the frontlines, it’s real easy. S/he can simply vote “NO” to a war. Nobody can stop him/her from doing that. S/he can choose as s/he wishes.

And if s/he doesn’t want to fight on the frontlines, it can’t be right to send others to the frontlines, especially when those others aren’t allowed to choose for themselves. Shielded by exceptions and excuses, a person who doesn't lead by his/her own example isn't a true leader.
 
Finally, the third step focuses on the citizens - possessing indirect decision-making authority over a war. Citizens can indirectly decide to wage a war by electing a “war-friendly” Congressman. As such, just like the ballots for Congressional authorization over a war, the ballots for Congressional elections must incorporate the following language:
 
--------------------------------------------------------
I, as a responsible citizen, will vote for the following candidate (mark ✔ next to your choice). In so doing, if the candidate of my choice is elected a member of Congress, and subsequently this Congressman votes “YES” to wage a war, then I fully and clearly understand that I will be 2nd in line to be deployed to the frontlines upon declaration of this war.
□  Candidate A ("ABC" Party)
□  Candidate B ("XYZ" Party)
□  Candidate C (Independent)
--------------------------------------------------------
 
For example, assume Mr. T votes for Candidate A, who campaigns as an advocate for advancement of war capacity. And assume that Candidate A is elected into office. Subsequently, in midst of an escalating international conflict, a war proposal is brought before the Congress, and this Congressman A votes “YES.” In such case, Congressman A will be 1st in line, and Mr. T will be 2nd in line, to be deployed to the frontlines upon declaration of this war. This must be clearly written into law.
 
If Mr. T wishes not be deployed to the frontlines, it’s real easy. He can simply vote for Candidate B, who supports many issues that Mr. T feels strongly about and also advocates against advancement of war capacity.
 
With such changes in law, everyone will take voting more seriously – Congressmen and citizens alike. Voting will make an enormous difference to people’s lives.

And “anti-war” Candidate B will likely garner more votes, which in turn will encourage more and more “anti-war” candidates to emerge in each future election. Conversely, “pro-war” parties and candidates will likely suffer less and less votes in each future election.

Each and every one of us will vote more honestly, with intense sense of proximity to War, and facing genuine accountability.
 
“But if we make such changes in law, already low voter turnout will suffer even more,” some people may worry.
 
After all, wars destroy people’s lives across multiple generations. And Congressmen may potentially be called upon to make a decision over those wars. Given the colossal magnitude of their consequences, for the citizens to skip a vote in Congressional elections may be just too irresponsible in light of our civic duty. As such, a prudent law may state that citizens who skip a vote will be 3rd in line to be deployed to the frontlines. The spirit of such law is to strongly urge people to fulfill their voting responsibility as citizens of democracy.

If one wishes not be deployed to the frontlines, it’s real easy. S/he can simply vote for a candidate who supports many issues that s/he feels strongly about and also advocates against advancement of war capacity. Nobody can stop him/her from doing that. S/he can choose as s/he wishes.
 
And the those who will be exempt from fighting on the frontlines are Congressman B – who voted “NO” to a war – and the citizens who voted to elect Congressman B into office. Those who don’t want to fight on the frontlines may be motivated more than ever to cast a vote. In fact, voter turnout may actually improve. 
 
To be sure, all legal niceties require detailed attention prior to writing these rules into law. For instance, what happens if an “anti-war” candidate flip-flops after elected into office and votes “YES” to a war? How do we tackle the issues such as gender inequality, age limit, and physical disability from the perspective of deployment to the frontlines?
 
Nonetheless, the fundamental framework to focus on here is to clearly define the war responsibility of Congressmen and citizens. And the most imperative concept to be captured in this framework is for each and every one of us to vote more honestly, with intense sense of proximity to War, and facing genuine accountability. If we put our minds to it, this concept can be written into law.
 
And, this alone, may empower us to avert wars.
 
It’s because people who profess It’s inevitable and unavoidable have, for the most part, fallen for Me-First. It’s because most people who vote “YES” to a war only do so by gambling someone else's life without gambling their own.

It’s because people falsely allow themselves to believe that their own load of war responsibility is somehow magically reduced so long as they emphasize passive support through a mere process of elimination.
 
Nevertheless, somewhere between the layers of conscious and subconscious minds, people faintly but distinctly sense the wickedness in all this. As most people surely know that it’s wrong, pure and simple, to gamble away someone else's money while tucking away their own in a safe.
 
And, perhaps in places like this, we find signs of hope that Wars can be averted.

Read Next: Wars Can Be Averted (4)【Solution 2: Authority】
Read Previous: Wars Can Be Averted (2)【Problem B: Deliberate Choice】
 
Complete Series: Wars Can Be Averted (1)～(4)
[1]   [2]   [3]   [4]   
​
Read Theme: Violence/Peace