by Tony Smith
Ahmed is an eleven year old Iraqi boy. Don’t ask how he comes to be visiting the Australian Parliament in Canberra in early 2003. A Coalition that spends $75 billion on a military campaign must have overcome problems of time and space by now. Ahmed is in conversation with several MPs, each described here as ‘MP’.
MP: And what brings you to Australia, Ahmed?
Ahmed: I have come to talk about the war.
MP: You want to talk about the war. But you are only, what, ten years old?
Ahmed: I am eleven years old.
MP2: In Australia we try not to involve children in talk of war. It might frighten them too much.
Ahmed: All children in Iraq are frightened. Have you succeeded in protecting the children of Australia? How can you stop them from seeing death and terror? Do they have television here?
MP: Well, we try to be sure they are in bed before the war news is on television here. Now, what did you want to ask about the war?
Ahmed: First, I wanted to tell you something about the war. Although I am only eleven years old, I know about the war. My brother, Mohammed, was killed yesterday by a missile.
MP: It couldn’t have been one of ours.
Ahmed: What do you mean, ‘ours’?
MP: Well, it couldn’t have been an Australian one.
Ahmed: No. It was American. They have already apologised for the accident. I am interested however in the way that you use the word ‘our’. Are you not part of the one coalition of invaders?
MP: Well, it is the one liberation army.
Ahmed: Hmm. Then did you not encourage the Americans to carry out their ‘liberation’?
MP: President Bush knew he could rely on our support.
Ahmed: Then I do not understand why you bother to make this distinction between American missiles and Australian missiles. This seems like – what is it you say – hypocritism?
MP: Hypocrisy. No, look old boy. Ahmed. We are very sorry about your brother being killed but really, these things happen in a war.
Ahmed: Then it seems to me that war is a very bad thing. Killing my brother was a very bad thing indeed. My mother and father, their hearts are broken. Anyway, just because you give this murder the magic name of ‘war’ does not excuse what has happened. If my brother was killed at any other time, you would not shrug your shoulders and say ‘murder’ happens, would you? You would stop such an act if you could, and you would try to apprehend the culprits and bring them to justice, wouldn’t you?
MP: Ahmed. No-one wanted your brother to be killed.
Ahmed: I thought that you claim you are freer than our people. On television the Americans were saying that Iraqis were being forced to defend their country at gunpoint. If yours is such a free country, then you must do only those things you want to do. I still would like to know, why did you kill him?
MP: We didn’t.
MP2: I think he means that because we support the military campaign, we supported his brother being killed.
MP: Now that’s plain silly. No-one wanted Mohammed to be killed. No-one.
Ahmed: Perhaps you did not want him to be killed. That would be very evil. But you knew he would be killed, I think.
MP: No. That’s ludicrous. Why, we’ve never heard of him before. How could we know he would be killed?
Ahmed: It seems to be a very stupid thing to support a war and think that no-one will be killed. I am only eleven and I am not so stupid.
MP: Now hang on a minute.
MP2: He’s right. We knew that some people would die.
Ahmed: So. I came to ask why? Did he have to die so that you could have this war?
MP: But that’s absurd. Mohammed died because there is a war on and some bystanders are killed in all wars.
Ahmed: Then why did you want this war so badly?
MP: Well, it was the only way to get rid of that dictator in Baghdad.
Ahmed: You mean President Hussein?
MP: Eh? Oh yes. I’ve never heard him called that before, the old Saddam.
Ahmed: So, to get rid of President Hussein, you were willing to kill my brother.
MP: Look Ahmed, it’s difficult for a child to understand, but it is for the greater good. A much better Iraq will result from the removal of Saddam.
Ahmed: Perhaps you are correct. I do not really understand how things can be so much better that it is worth the death of my brother. Iraq will certainly not be better for him. He is dead.
MP: Fair go, Ahmed. We didn’t know this would happen.
Ahmed: But your Prime Minister has been talking about casualties and sacrifice and using relative words like ‘better’ and ‘more’ for months. I am afraid that I do not think that the utilitarian arguments are appropriate in these circumstances. Mill and Bentham were all right for their time, but the appeal to some good argument can be used to justify any extremist act at all. They would ask you to forget about the means used as long as everything comes out all right in the end. Except it won’t for my brother.
MP2: Where did you hear about Mill and Bentham?
Ahmed: At school. We study thinkers and ethics.
MP: I thought that your schools mainly taught hatred of western values.
Ahmed: No. We even study English books. Have you studied some books in Arabic?
MP: No.
Ahmed: I see. Then you cannot know much about Iraq’s history and culture either?
MP: Not much, no.
Ahmed: And yet you claim to know what is best for the future of Iraq. Best for the children of Iraq. Best for me. Best for Mohammed.
MP: Look, we are sorry about Mohammed. But he is just one person and millions of Iaqis will be better off.
Ahmed: How? Drinking coca-cola perhaps?
MP: Cheeky.
Ahmed: Forgive me. That did sound as though I am an Islamic fundamentalist, did it not? Let me assure you that I value much about western culture. I remember reading that story in the Bible where God promises he will not destroy a city if there is one just man within it. I know also that the key principle of British law is that the innocent not be punished. This is so important for justice that it is better to let nine guilty men go free rather than convict one innocent. I would be interested to know how you have calculated the ‘greater good’ that justifies my brother’s death. Are you more powerful than the God who would rather not punish wrongdoers if it meant the death of one innocent?
MP: I know it’s tough on the individuals that must make the sacrifice Ahmed.
Ahmed: Yes. But you are quite glad that it is not you, I think. You are glad it is not your brother. Tell me, if you could make Australia a better place by sacrificing your child, would you?
MP: This is blackmail!
Ahmed: I thought not. It is rather easier when the sacrifice is someone else. Especially if they are not of your race. Only partly human. They are expendable.
MP: Don’t forget Ahmed that Saddam Hussein has weapons that might fall into the hands of terrorists. Terrorists have killed thousands of innocent people.
Ahmed: Just like you have done.
MP: No. Not like we have done. That’s different because we have a just cause. The outcome will benefit everyone and make the world safer.
Ahmed: Mohammed would be pleased to know that he was killed by the shrapnel of justice and not some terrorist bomb. Let me say however, that I am rather more impressed with Immanuel Kant than with the utilitarians.
MP: I beg your pardon? Please explain.
Ahmed: If I remember correctly it was Kant who proposed the idea that for an act to be moral, then it should be moral if made into a law that would apply everywhere and at all times.
MP: Hmm. Yes. Could be. Something like that anyway.
Ahmed: So, if you say that it is correct and moral to kill as long as you are convinced your cause is just, then this becomes a principle that anyone can apply at any time.
MP: Well, that’s where you are wrong Ahmed. You see, it is not a matter of you being convinced that your cause is just, it actually has to be just. If all you needed was to be convinced, that would mean terrorists were acting morally and that’s ridiculous.
Ahmed: And you cause is actually just?
MP: Definitely.
Ahmed: Then I assume you have submitted the plan to some third party or held it up for discussion and criticism?
MP: Yes. We took it to the United Nations.
Ahmed: And so you secured approval there?
MP: Well, no, not exactly.
Ahmed: Then how do you differ from the terrorists? Are you not killing innocent people to achieve your end? And is this not what you object to in the behaviour of terrorists?
MP: Well….
Ahmed: I think it is time I returned to Iraq.
MP: You can’t go there. There’s a war on.
Ahmed: I have no alternative. You have convinced me that I must die so that Iraq will have a better future. If all the children left Iraq, then none of them would die. You told me that it is necessary for some children to die because this happens in every war. What I don’t understand is why you did not see this beforehand. If you had, then surely you would have seen that waging war is not the best way to achieve your aim.
MP: But, Ahmed, things will get better and you want to be part of that future, don’t you. Why don’t you stay here? We can give you asylum.
Ahmed: And perhaps, in time, I might even become an Australian?
MP: Quite possibly.
Ahmed: Please. What time is the next plane to Baghdad?
Commenti recenti