|
What guilt did Ethiopian Irobs do against Eritrea that the Court failed to render them Justice with their power of Jurisdiction? More value should had been given to human dignity by finding those abducted and disappeared innocent civilians instead of exchanging money! Even though we (Irobs) made continuous appeals reporting for 11 years (1998-2009), there are still over 95 Irob people (including 3 priests) missing and unaccounted for…
By Abba Hagos Woldu
August, 2009
Ethiopia was ordered to pay Eritrea and some Eritrean individuals $163.5 million for damages, including destruction of Eritrean buildings, the seizing of automobiles owned by Eritreans and for imprisoning Eritrean civilians under harsh conditions. Both sides were awarded damages against the other for failure to prevent the rape of women near the front. The Ethiopia-Eritrea war erupted in 1998 after disagreements between the two governments over border and trade matters. The fighting left an estimated 70,000 people dead and displaced 750,000 from their homes. The 2000 Algiers accords ended the war without agreement on a final border. Tens of thousands of troops remain dug in along the two countries’ 912 kilometer (567mile) frontier.
The net award to Ethiopia of about $10.5 million “is a very small amount given the gravity of the crime of aggression committed by Eritrea,” according to an e-mailed statement from Ethiopia’s Foreign Ministry in the capital, Addis Ababa. Ethiopia will continue to study the ruling, the ministry said. Eritrea said it accepted the decision “without any equivocation,” according to a statement posted on many media.
(THE POLITICAL, THE LEGAL CONSEQUENCES OF THE NEW INTERNATIONAL CRIMINAL COURT WITH REGARD TO ITS RECOGNITION, ITS JURISDICTION, AND ITS LIKELY FUTURE. PERSONAL ANALYSIS REGARDING TO CURRENT SITUATION IN AFRICA AND ELSEWHERE.
After the people are lost and still losing their lives, for whom to pay? Is it rendering justice after 11 years to reach this kind of decision? God bless the suffering people of Ethiopia and Eritrea everywhere, inside and outside the two nations! (See more about this analysis in the Article of Hagos Woldu, Articles in the website: www-irrob.org. See how it is developing the CRAZY IDEA ALWAYS CREATES A FRUITFUL DEVELOPMENT, which could be either negative or positive.)
NO REVENGE, NO ETHNIC CONFILICT – WE NEED PEACEFUL PLANET!
To understand your case, you need to contemplate upon similar historical or imaginary events. Intelligent people can formulate their issues and you have to imitate them in order to understand yourself and your case through such light. Because, all human beings' problems in the contemporary world are more or less the same; and through knowledge of self, you can understand others; and through realization of others' problem, also you can understand yourself. I can understand my neighbor more through myself than anybody else. Therefore, understanding each other in the light of morality, in the luminosity of fraternal eyes will be the only best solution of getting love instead of revenge.
In January 2000 a Pakistani man gave himself up to police, introducing himself by saying, “I am a man, killer of one hundred boys.” He had attracted the boys to his apartment, given them food and entertained them, taken snapshots, and then suffocated them, dissolving the bodies in large vats of acid which he poured into passageway drain. He was proud that he had committed these killings after having made a pledge to himself that he would take the lives of one hundred children as an act of “revenge against the police.”
He had two young servants who had beaten him badly. When he took a complaint to the police, they ignored him and instead accused him of sodomy, something he had been charged with before. He decided that the killing of children would be his means of retribution. “In this way I would take revenge from the world I hated,” he said of his six-month homicidal overdo: -“My mother cried for me. I wanted 100 mothers to cry for their children.”
Finally he was sentenced to death by Judge, who ordered that he should be strangled in front of his victims' parent and his body cut into 100 pieces and dissolved in acid. This was taking to extremes that the state would be involved in the same level of barbarity as the criminal himself. State human rights advocates complained that the sentence was barbaric and intended to support its appeal.
A moral case for Compensation?
Let us say that a victim sets out to get revenge against an offender, who brought serious harm to him. Suppose that the victim succeeds me this campaign. The other harmed him; now he has succeeded in retaliating and hurting back; he has harmed the other. He did something; he acted out his rage, personally making himself the agent of justice and achieving a kind of justice by “getting even.” It might seem that there are some worthy effects. First, the villain has been harmed, punished in a sense. He did not simply get away with wrongdoing: the wicked one was made to suffer and “pay” for his wrongdoing. So apparently justice has been done. Second, the victim has transcended passivity and suffering to assert some power; he has taken action and has “stood up for himself,” indication that he is aware what was done to him was wrong, and he deserved better.
Thus, the victim has acted to restore his honor and pride, communicating to others self- respect. He has acted to restore his honor and pride, communicating to others his ability to stand up for himself. Third, it appears that the victim has restored a kind of equity of agency and stature between himself and the villain. We might think of a victim who that he, the injured one, does count, that he is not one to be ill-treated. Contrary to heat the offender implied, he is a proud and morally considerable being, and he has shown this by the fact that he has been able to impose pain on the offender. Fourth, the victim will have a certain feeling of satisfaction a having settled accounts and ‘got even, got his revenge.’
Are not these good effects – justice due to the suffering of the villain, improved self-respect, restored moral equality, and satisfaction for the victim? Is it not then quite appropriate if we feel a sense of moral satisfaction when revenge is accomplished?
One might add to the above an argument form deterrence. If people seek revenge and undertake to ensure that wrongdoers pay for their misdeeds, one might suppose that their doing so will serve as a deterrent to wrongdoing. Suppose, for example, rape victims ware to rather frequently track down and castrate their victims. Along such lines, one might seek to defend revenge by appealing to its prospective deterrent consequences, arguing that if prospective criminals came to refold prospective victim as vigilantes with the power and intent to get back at them, they would be deterred from committing crimes in the first place. The same sort of argument might be used to justify taking revenge against terrorist acts; the idea would be that prospective terrorists, having seen the terrible pain that victim groups had been able to inflict, would hold back from future acts of terrorism.
Moral point of view about Compensation
Successful revenge might be argued to be a good thing because there is justice in the suffering of the wrongdoer the victim has restored self-respect, restored a kid of equality of status, and gained satisfaction. But this casa, apparently supportive of revenge, is plausible only superficially. Form a moral perspective it can be rebutted.
Hampton’s argument against the satisfactions off revenge may be criticized as too a priori; it is, perhaps, open to question on empirical grounds. A further consideration about such satisfaction is not empirically vulnerable, and this is that any satisfaction an avenging party might feel would be morally objectionable because it would amount to satisfaction at having brought about him suffering of another human being.
A campaign for revenge amounts to a deliberate effort to damage and diminish another person. Behind ever the most apparently successful case of revenge is the desire to deliberately bring harm to another human being, with a view to delighting in, or rejoicing about, that harm. Whatever the offender did to the victim, at its base this desire is spiteful and machos. The victim has responded by scheming of bring harm in another and has put his or her moral and psychological energies into scheming to achieve that harm. Re or she has done this instead of rallying of recover a sense of self-esteem or working to reassert moral principles and instead of attempting to gain understanding and a perspective on the broader conflict situation and the motivation and capacities of the wrongdoers. Consider the suffering of the wrongdoers. One who brings this about may think that it constitutes a positive achievement.
But why?
We might begin by saying that arresting suffering or an offender does not have a point if the only reason for it is the spiteful or malicious hatred of the victim who has managed to get revenge. However, one wishing in defend revenge might reply that after all this is the point, in pay for one wrong with another. One person’s suffering makes another feel better; a moral balance has been achieved because those who wrongly caused pains have rightly been made of suffer it. But the problem is that even granting the wrongness of the original offence, what must happen in any case of revenge is that the offender is made to suffer in order that another may take satisfaction in that result. In other words, the suffering of the offence is used to soothe the feelings of the victim. A fundamental moral objection here is that using the suffering of a person or persons to satisfy oneself is morally objectionable, because it amounts of the treatment of the wrongdoers as means only, failing to respect their human worth and dignity. This response to wrongdoing repeats it.
Secondly, consider the power of the victims
In acting out her desires for revenge, the victim shows that she has power and can assert herself, and these manifestations would seem to be morally positive. But it is the essence of the case that the injured person will have achieved them by carrying out plans to intentionally harm someone else, seeking and achieving revenge against an offender is not the only way to show one’s power. A victim can transcend passivity and show her awareness of her own moral status in other ways. For example, a rape victim need not organize a feminist vigilante squad to beat up rapists or in some other way seek revenge against her rapist. Instead, she might help raise funds for a women’s shelter, try to get her case before the courts, or campaign for better lighting in unsafe areas.
Revenge is often rationalized as a means of restoring a kind of moral equity, but there is a fundamental problem here. If moral equity, or “balance,” is achieved, it is achieved at the wrong moral level. In plotting and carrying out a campaign for revenge, the victim puts herself on the same leve1 as the offender, because she responds to the fact that she has suffered one wrong by committing another. In her pursuit of revenge, she has become willing to deliberately harm another human being for her own satisfaction, implying that that other human being is fit to be an instrument for her own satisfaction.
If a party commits the grievous wrong of murdering civilians in Country B, and Country B seeks revenge against Party A by murdering civilians who are (in some sense) its supporters, then both A and B will have committed serious wrongs. Wrongs have been multiplied by B’s response, not cancelled out. There is no way to argue that what B did is morally acceptable while what A did was terribly wrong. In fact, one could only “get even” for one wrong by committing another of equally serious magnitude.
One might insist on a moral distinction between A and B at this point on the grounds that when the scenario started, B was an entirely innocent group while A was not so. One might argue that the innocence of B gives B the right to respond in this way. But the reply is implausible for it assumes innocent parties are entities to commit wrongs. The fundamental fact is that the act that is “done back” and is supposed to “restore a balance” and “make things right” or “bring justice” is still, in the end, wrong. B was wronged, wronged grievously; B deserves every sympathy because the killing of civilians is terribly wrong. But B’s status as victim does not give it the right to commit, itself, a terrible wrong. If the acts undertaken are immoral, as they must be if the original act to be avenged was wrong, then the avenging party will have descended to the level of the wrongdoer.
Underlying the moral case for revenge is the assumption that it can sometimes be right for a person to be the agent of deliberate bringing harm to another person, for the sake of enjoying having brought that harm. It is this assumption that must be questioned - and when we reject it, we are led to the conclusion that the quest for revenge is fundamentally immoral.
Morality is based on obligations to respect other persons and to seek, so far as it is reasonably possible, to further human welfare and limit human suffering. There are profound moral reasons to boron the worth of persons, and to act with due consideration for their moral autonomy and their wellbeing.
To deliberately seek to bring suffering and harm to another. Revenge and other similar view, the desire to bring harm to another so that one may contemplate with satisfaction that harm and one’s role in bringing it about is an evil desire. When we seek revenge, we do so in order to take pleasure in the fact that the offender has been made to suffer and are we who have brought chirrs about, as a response to the fact that this person once wronged us. What is wrong with revenge is that to act as agents of revenge, we have to inc1ujgjind cultivate something evil in ourselves, the wish to deliberately bring suffering to another human being and contemplate that suffering for our own satisfaction and enjoyment.
Setting out to achieve revenge is frequently dangerous, bringing harm to oneself and innocent bystanders and leading to ongoing feuds or vendettas. It is often unproductive from a psychological point of view: the expected satisfaction simply is not felt. Still more seriously, the quest for revenge morally diminishes the victims, who though initially innocent have committed herself or herself to maliciousness and hate in the campaign against the other. But none of this is quite the core of the matter.
The fundamental objection to revenge is that it is founded on the cultivation in us of a desire which is morally evil. Hatred that goes so far as to include joy at the evil meted out to another person is a morally unworthy emotion; we should not fact positive joy in the fact that we have caused the suffering of another person.
Finally, we need the life and not a money; we need to live in peaceful planet and not USD, Above all we need peaceful planet instead of covered gift which eternally Dollar and internally poison cause for the continues war my age is over 40 and I never saw peace and peaceful land, but it Is not my fault and it comes externally by overriding on my human right and dignity, I have to decide myself what is good for me unless I cannot go far from the national and international law. — said one of the victims on the border village.
What we need is the give back the abducted people and live peaceful life by helping each other and not abusing each other. This is a meaning of the true revenge, not to exchange money, petroleum or other material advantages, but the innocent people’s life. We have right at least to ask our lost brothers and sisters. We need to know where they have been killed or living under what conditions. This is the right and democracy for the 21st century human beings. But we are living under the law which was founded in the 19th century of League of Nations.Before bread we need justice and right then we can create by ourselves or we can ask after according to our given right and justice. Please stop abuse and criminal discrimination, and anything should be done in the level of grass root level community in every country’s borders. The people should have right to say YES or NO, to accept or Reject, and it should not be like absolute decision.
The church should be voice for voiceless innocent people who are suffering under global political situations. This is the social doctrine of the Catholic Church main principles. (See: Gaudium et Spes, II -Vatican Council in detail). We are looking for abducted fathers, mothers and brothers from Iorbland in all 92 civilians of Irob and 3 Priests since (1998/1999)-2009. God may bless all powers to think for the common good of all human beings. We do not need money, but first we need human Life!
|
