[Buddha-l] Buddhism and History

[James Ward]

Dear Joy,

You wrote:

[snip]

> <<The Dalai Lama said Wednesday (9/11/2005) that the U.S.-led war in 
> Afghanistan may have been justified to win a larger peace, but that is 
> it too soon to judge whether the Iraq war was warranted.
> "I think history will tell," he said in an interview with The 
> Associated Press on Wednesday, just after he met with President 
> Bush.>>

I did not check the context of the original English-language article 
(particularly "justified" and "warranted") to see if it is different 
from the French article you quoted, but based on what you have cited 
here, it is unfortunate that he did not come right out against the 
wars.  In Iraq, the use of uranium and chemical weapons, the 
implementation of the "Salvadoran solution" -- all those people who 
turn up dead in dumps, with their hands bound, with signs of torture, 
shot through the head, the ones they don't say a thing about in our 
television news in the States -- the torture in Abu Ghrayb and Baghram 
(etc.), the pre-emptive attack on a prostrate country based on a tissue 
of lies, the pig-headed prosecution of this attack in the face of 
unprecedented calls for peace (or at least closer analysis!) from 
millions of people in the US and around the world, the tens of 
thousands of dead innocents, the glorious war profits...  these things 
should be enough to indicate that in itself this war is unjustified and 
unwarranted, if these are the terms he had any uncertainties about.

(As for Afghanistan, the use of uranium weapons [and torture, 
_parenthetically_] in that country -- and wherever else the winds blow 
-- should be enough in itself to put the kabosh to any further trumpet 
fanfares about the just nature of our actions there.  Spreading 
radioactive dust around a country cannot be separated from our 
motivation for such warfare -- if some supposedly righteous idea is put 
into action in a criminal way, the only justifiable bit of flotsam left 
to us is the idea, intangible in the midst of horrendous consequences. 
[I'll avoid heresy and not question the causes for the war in 
Afghanistan here.])

However:

> In his declaration of 19/11/2005, he said: ""Pour les guerres 
> d'Afghanistan et d'Irak, il est trop tôt pour le dire. Seule 
> l'Histoire nous dira si elles ont apporté du positif ou du négatif. Je 
> ne sais pas. Il est trop tôt pour le dire", a-t-il ajouté." It is too 
> early to say for the wars in Afghanistan and in Iraq [whether they are 
> justified]. Only History (mark the capital H) will tell us whether 
> they brought about something positive or negative. It is too early to 
> tell."

Since he is here talking about positive and negative consequences, this 
is a somewhat different matter, and he was probably talking about the 
same thing in the English article.  It's possible that one of the 
consequences of these war-criminal acts will be the wariness of the US 
public (and perhaps even the legislature) when it comes to reposing 
trust in the war-making rationalizations of the US executive.  But our 
victims have paid a very high price for any awakening that may occur 
here.  Is it worth it?  Nonetheless, such a result could be said to be 
"positive."

> Where does that leave Buddhist morality, which uesd to be based on the 
> karma theory?
>
> It is the reference to history or History (I don't expect the capital 
> H was intended by HHDL) by a Buddhist leader as a moral justification 
> that seems to be a new element to me. Or has it been used before?

In English we say "time will tell."  It seems like this should be 
common to human thought around the world, so surely a Buddhist has said 
something like this too.  I'm not sure if he is using it as a moral 
justification for the Second World War _per se_ in the French article, 
though.  Isn't he just saying that some good came from it?

> As an aside the argument that History will be the ultimate judge for 
> the justification of those wars has been tirelessly advanced by the 
> pro-war faction, because it can't count on the current sittion for 
> that. And I have heard it used for the first time by HHDL since his 
> visit to Bush...

He is careful to state that in practice war always creates problems, 
even if it is at times theoretically justified, and that dialogue and 
compromise are the best avenues to solutions of our conflicts.  It 
seems to me that he means "later we'll see if any good comes out of 
these wars," which is defensible.  I'm certainly open to disagreement, 
though, if anyone reads this differently.  If he means they may be 
_justified_ by their eventual consequences, then I think he goofed.

All the best,

James Ward