Note: This article was written in 2001

Historical Background
Throughout history, the Gulf region has been rife with all kinds of coups, disputes, crises and wars. The overthrow of Mossadeq (1951), the Suez Crisis (1956), the Six Days War (1967), the Iran-Iraq War (1980-88) were some of the crises that marred the region since the Second World War.

The Gulf crisis of 1990 was the result of many long-standing disputes between Iraq and Kuwait, besides other causes such as the emergence of Iraq as a great military power after the Iran-Iraq War, Saddam’s ambitions in the absence of democratic ideals in the Arab world and the intra Arab-Gulf relations.

When Iraq became independent in 1932, it began to assert territorial claims against Kuwait. Iraq claimed that Kuwait has been under the Ottoman Empire as a district of Basra, and that since Iraq is the successor of the empire, Kuwait naturally becomes a part of Iraq. Before 1990, Iraq had attempted to incorporate Kuwait into Iraq on at least two occasions. The first occurred in the late 1930s when King Ghazi of Iraq made demands to unify Kuwait with Iraq. But that demand soon died down when King Ghazi mysteriously died in an accident on 4 April, 1939.

The second occasion occurred in 1961 when Britain and Kuwait formally terminated their relationship under the treaty of January 1899.[1] Iraq, under General Abdul K
FED using foreign banks to monetize debt behind closed doors

arim Qasim again made an attempt to incorporate Kuwait into Iraq. On 2 July, 1961, the United Nations Security Council met to discuss the problem. Under paragraph 2, Article 35 of the United Nations, both Iraq and Kuwait submitted their complaint to the UN. The UN Security Council, however, could neither diffuse the crisis nor pass any resolution due to the use of its veto by the Soviet Union. The Soviet Union went along with the Iraqi view and stated that, “The Security Council’s most immediate task in this situation is to condemn the actions of the colonial power and to take measures which lead to the immediate withdrawal of United Kingdom troops from Kuwait.”[2] In the absence of any proper agreements in the UN, the Arab League stepped in and came up with an alternative solution to the problem. It accepted Kuwait’s independence and vowed to defend Kuwait against any external threats or aggression. Iraq, however never really accepted Kuwait’s independence.

With the passage of time, the dispute simmered down. The outbreak of the Iran-Iraq War almost completely overshadowed the Kuwait-Iraq issue and the matter was laid to an uneasy rest during the war. Although several meetings were held between Kuwait and Iraq, the matter could not be settled and it continued until 2 August, 1990 when the dispute took a completely new turn.

In the months preceding the invasion, Saddam made several threatening charges against Kuwait among which are the extraction of Iraqi crude oil by Kuwait in the Rumailah oilfield and Kuwait’s illegal possession of Warba, Bubiyan and Failaka Islands. Saddam accused Kuwait of ‘overproduction’ of oil, which Iraq regarded as “… a kind of war against Iraq.” This overproduction, Saddam claimed, depressed oil prices and raised the revenue of Kuwait which did nothing to help Iraq. He warns Kuwait that its overproduction was “a poison dagger in Iraq’s back,” and that it was “an evil against Iraq… an American plot to deplete Iraq’s oil revenues…” Saddam also threatened to use force “… to put things right… cutting a few throats is better than cutting the means of living.”[3]

The Crisis
Things finally came to a head after the failed Jeddah meeting of 31 July and 1 August, 1990 between Iraq and Kuwait, when, on 2 August, 1990, 100,000 Iraqi troops and 300 tanks rolled into Kuwait with little resistance. Iraq announced soon after that it would withdraw when the situation stabilises and when the “Free Provisional Government of Kuwait” asks them to withdraw.[4] This announcement proved to be a complete sham because on 28 August 1990, Kuwait was formally annexed to Iraq and declared as the 19th Iraqi province. By 4 November, it was announced that Kuwait “no longer exists and that the world should forget about Kuwait’s independence.”

After several resolutions were passed by the UN Security Council condemning the action and imposing sanctions on Iraq, Resolution 678 was finally passed on 29 November 1990 that authorises the coalition forces to “restore international peace and security in the area” by the use of “all necessary means.” The Council, in what it termed a “pause of goodwill” gave Iraq until 15 January 1991 to end its occupation of Kuwait.

In the intervening period, many diplomatic efforts for a peaceful resolution to the crisis were undertaken. The Nonaligned Movement (NAM), the League of Arab States, the European Community, France and four permanent members of the Security Council (Colombia, Cuba, Malaysia and Yemen) forwarded their peace plans, but due to lack of international support, no viable solutions could be found. The 9 January 1991 talks between the US Secretary of State, James Baker and Iraq’s Deputy Prime Minister Tariq Aziz did not make any headway either. A last minute effort by the UN Secretary General was also “unfortunately unsuccessful.” As the Secretary General’s efforts yielded no results and as the deadline came to an end, he remarked, “No one, and no nation can, except with a heavy heart – resort to the other ‘necessary means’ implied by the resolution 678 (1990), knowing in advance that tragic and unpredictable consequences can follow.”

What followed next was the transformation of “Operation Desert Shield” to “Operation Desert Storm.” From 17 January, for the next six weeks, Iraqi military facilities and other installations were bombed. This had serious effect on Iraqi military strength, for, when the ground offensive began at 4am local time on 24 February 1991; the US-led coalition forces met little resistance and easily succeeded in liberating Kuwait on 27 February 1991.

The United Nations and the Gulf Crisis
Soon after the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait, the Security Council met in an emergency meeting to discuss the matter. The Council, at its 2932 meeting on 2 August 199o adopted Resolution 660. The resolution stated that the Security Council was “alarmed by the invasion of Kuwait… by the military forces of Iraq,” and it “condemns the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait” and demanded that “Iraq withdraw immediately and unconditionally.” This resolution was adopted with 14 votes with one abstention (Yemen). The League of Arab States (LAS), Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC), Organisation of Islamic Conference (OIC), Nonaligned Movement (NAM), Nordic States, Western European Union (WEU), NATO, OPEC, World Bank and ICAO have, in their own terms also condemned the invasion.

As Iraq failed to comply with the Security Council Resolution 660, the UN Security Council, on 6 August adopted Resolution 661 which imposes mandatory arms and economic sanctions on Iraq. Iraq, however, calls it “iniquitous and unjust,” “precipitous,” and aimed at starving the Iraqi people.[5] This resolution was adopted with Cuba and Yemen abstaining.

Iraq continued to stand defiant and on 7 August 1990 declared its “comprehensive, eternal and inseparable merger” with Kuwait. With no sign of Iraqi withdrawal or compliance with resolutions 660 and 661, Resolution 662 was adopted on 9 August 1990 which declared the annexation of Kuwait “null and void.” Two other resolutions were adopted by the end of the first month of the crisis. On 18 August the Security Council adopted Resolution 664 which demanded the release of foreign nationals held in Iraq. Resolution 665, adopted on 25 August, calls upon member states to cooperate with the exiled Kuwaiti Government and to stop and search all ships travelling to or leaving Iraq.

Resolution 666, adopted on 13 September 1990 addressed the humanitarian situation in Iraq. It directed the Sanctions Committee to pay particular attention to “children under 15 years of age, expectant mothers, maternity cases, the sick and the elderly” in the determination of food supplies among the civilian population.

The closure of all diplomatic missions in Kuwait by Iraq prompted the Security Council to adopt Resolution 667 on 16 September which expressed the Council’s outrage and its demands for “the immediate release of those foreign nationals as well as all nationals,” and “protect the safety and well-being of diplomatic and consular personnel and premises in Kuwait.”

Resolution 669 of 24 September 1990, “entrusts the (Sanctions) Committee… with the task of examining requests for assistance under the provisions of Article 50” of the UN Charter.[6] The very next day, on 25 September, Resolution 670 confirmed that the sanction against Iraq “applies to all means of transport including aircraft.” It called upon member states to impose an air embargo on Iraq and Kuwait.

On 29 October 1990, the Council, in its Resolution 674 demands that Iraq “desist from taking any third state nationals hostage” and to stop its mistreatment and oppression of either Kuwaitis or foreign nationals. On 28 November 1990, yet another resolution was adopted by the Council. Resolution 677 condemns the Iraqi attempt to alter the demographic composition of the Kuwait population and the destruction of population records.

Iraq’s refusal to comply with any of the Council’s resolutions finally led to the passing of Resolution 678 on 29 November 1990 which authorises the use of “all necessary means” to uphold and implement the resolutions. This resolution was adopted with 12 in favour, 2 against (Cuba and Yemen) and 1 abstention (China). Although the words “the use of force” were not used, it was clearly implied, as the United States maintained. The US said after the voting, “Today’s resolution is very clear. The words authorise the use of force.”[7] The Council gave “Iraq one final opportunity as a pause of goodwill” till 15 January 1991 to comply with the resolutions. This resolution was the first resolution since 27 June 1950 when the Security Council adopted a resolution that authorises the use of force in Korea.

What followed was a flurry of diplomatic activities undertaken by different countries and regional organisations. The UN Secretary General Perez de Cuellar’s last-ditch efforts to persuade Iraq to withdraw failed. Then, the dateline of 15 January 1991 expired. On 16 January, nothing happened; like the lull before a storm. Then all hell broke loose on 17 January with allied forces pounding Iraqi positions. The start of air campaigns was reported by the US to the Security Council on the same day.[8] Saddam Hussein announced on Iraq radio that the “Mother of all Battles” had started. On 22 January 1991, the UN Secretary General appealed to Iraq to comply with the Council resolutions. Later on, he urged Iraq to put “this tragic situation on the road to a peaceful solution.”[9] Several private meetings of the Security Council were held during February and March. But these meetings could not yield any fruitful results.

On the morning of 24 February 1991, ground offensive started and soon, on 27 February, Kuwait was liberated. On 27 February, Iraq announced that it agreed to comply with the UN Security Council Resolution 660 of 1990 and all other resolutions.[10] Iraq also informed the Security Council of the withdrawal of all Iraqi forces from Kuwait, while adding that “American and other pro-aggressor forces” are continuing their attack on the withdrawing Iraqi forces.[11] The coalition operations were stopped at midnight 27-28 February 1991. By 4 March 1991, the Kuwaiti Government resumed its functions in Kuwait City.

Looking back at Resolution 678, we can find some inconsistencies and discrepancies in its provisions. The wordings of the resolution – “use (of) all necessary means” was too vague in the first place, and this led to a number of interpretations. The US interpreted it as the authorisation of the use of force. It can be said that it was a US victory when the resolution was passed. In a speech before the resolution was put to vote, the US representative to the Security Council said, “If Iraq does not reverse its course peacefully, then other necessary measures, including the use of force, should be authorised.”[12] It can also be seen that the resolution was not in conformity with Chapter 7 of the UN Charter though the resolution stated that it acts “under Chapter VII of the Charter of the United Nations.” For instance, Article 42 (under Chapter VII) states that forces may be used only when the economic sanctions are inadequate. Article 46 states that “Plans for the application of armed force shall be made by the Security Council with the assistance of the Military Staff Committee.” These provisions were not followed at all under resolution 678. It did not give enough time for the sanctions to take effect. This was also the Indian view.[13] The resolution also did not mention any Military Staff Committee. Moreover, with the abstention of China from the resolution, it failed to have the required concurrence of the five permanent members.

On 27 February 1991, it was President Bush who ordered the ceasefire and who proclaimed ‘victory’. The Secretary General, on 28 February said, “We hope it is the beginning of the end of this terrible tragedy.”

On 2 March 1991, resolution 686 was adopted by a vote of 11 in favour, 1 against (Cuba) and 3 abstentions (China, India and Yemen). While reaffirming that all the resolutions adopted before continue to have “full force and effect”, it laid down several preconditions for the ceasefire which Iraq was obliged to immediately implement. It also recognised that during the implementation of resolution 686, the right to use “all necessary measures” under resolution 678 will “remain valid.”

Resolution 687 was adopted on 3 April 1991 which finally and formally declared a ceasefire. This resolution was adopted by 12 votes to one (Cuba) with two abstentions (Yemen and Ecuador). Some of the main provisions of the resolution included guarantee of boundary and allocation of islands between Iraq and Kuwait, deployment of a United Nations observer unit to monitor the demilitarised zone, destruction, removal, or rendering harmless, under international supervision, of all chemical and biological weapons and all ballistic missiles, UN inspection of Iraq’s biological, chemical and missile capabilities, return of all Kuwaiti property seized by Iraq, payment of compensation by Iraq, continuation of sanctions, repatriation of all Kuwaiti and third-country nationals, renouncement of the practice of terrorism and declaration of ceasefire.

Iraq called this resolution “unjust” and “iniquitous” and was “an unprecedented assault” on Iraq.[14] But Iraq, having no other choice, had to accept the resolution on 6 April 1991.[15] This resolution was also criticised in the following words: “It was not a negotiated agreement but a unilaterally formulated one, imposed on Iraq. The peace was dictated. The Council exceeded its powers because its Charter nowhere empowers the UN to impose a settlement on parties to a dispute.”[16] With the Iraqi acceptance of the resolution, the ceasefire formally came into effect.

Post-War Situation and the UN
Soon after the ceasefire, the UN took steps to actively participate in reconstruction and rehabilitation efforts in Iraq and Kuwait. Several UN missions and teams went to Iraq and Kuwait to assess the humanitarian situation there. Their reports highlighted hunger, thirst, disease, desolation, destruction and death. According to one report, 170,000 children under five would die in 1991 because of the war and economic sanctions. It was remarked, “The situation was absurd. While UN and other agencies were struggling with totally inadequate resources to meet the humanitarian needs of the Iraqi people, another UN body, the Security Council was insisting that Iraq be denied the opportunity to sell its own oil in order to buy food, medicines and other supplies.”[17]

A direct effect of the ceasefire resolution, particularly the continuation of sanctions was that “There now began a massive onslaught on the Iraqi civilian population – denied the means to rebuild a totally shattered social and industrial infrastructure, denied uncontaminated drinking water, denied medical facilities, and denied food in adequate quantities. The US policy represented one of the most comprehensive campaigns of biological warfare – denying relief to a diseased and starving people – in modern times.”[18]

Some more resolutions were adopted later that year – 688 (5 April); 692 (20 May); 697, 699 and 700 (17 June); 706 and 707 (15 August); 712 (19 September); 713 (25 September); 715 (11 October) – dealing with the post-war situation and reparation in Iraq.

In retrospect, it can be said that the Gulf War was not an UN war at all. The UN was marginalised on all occasions. It was the US that ran the whole operation. The US, it seemed, was clearly intent on using force right from the beginning. Even before the invasion of 2 August 1990, the US having knowledge of the threat did not warn the UN and made no efforts to stop it. It never directly negotiated with Iraq after the ‘storm’ nor was the UN asked to act as mediator.[19]

When the war finally came, the UN Secretary General remarked that “… the war in the Gulf is not UN war, and the World Body has no control over it… we are informed through the Security Council about military operation but after they have taken place.”[20] He also said, “We cannot consider it as an UN war in the sense that there is no UN flag. They are not in blue UN helmets. There is no UN control over military operations.”

Several peace plans came forward from different quarters, even from Iraq. However, none of them could succeed in bringing the war to an end, for; they are rejected by the US. The UN could do nothing. “The Americans had used the Security Council when it suited them, calling it into session again and again when Iraq invaded Kuwait and accepting resolutions critical of Iraq in order to ratify its own condemnation of Iraq. But once the war began, the Americans with enthusiastic British support, did all they could to stop the Security Council playing any part, and when they failed to hold the line, made sure its proceedings were in secret. Perez de Cuellar, who should have been a man at the centre of events, was never consulted and never informed of what was going on.”[21]

India and the Gulf Crisis
Historically, there have always been good relations between India and Iraq. Therefore when Iraq invaded Kuwait on 2 August 1990, India was in a big dilemma. Neither did India want to offend Saddam Hussein nor did it want to go against the UN. India decided to toe the middle line for sometime by making a statement that, “India was opposed to the use of force in any form of relations between states.”

The major policy objective of India under Prime Minister VP Singh was the repatriation of the 170,000-180,000 Indians stranded in Kuwait. From August, Air India started massive airlifting operations and by October, almost 160,000 Indians were returned home. The VP Singh government later denounced the Iraqi invasion and demanded the immediate withdrawal of Iraqi force from Kuwait. However, India did not take any further steps to resolve the crisis. After resolution 661 was adopted, India’s import of crude oil from Iraq stopped. This greatly affected India’s earnings and India had to as the UN for assistance.[22]

On November 1990, there was a change of government in India. VP Singh was replaced by Chandrasekhar of Janata (S). The Chandrasekhar government too remained a passive spectator to the Gulf Crisis. There were no active diplomatic efforts on the part of India to diffuse the crisis. However, there were some shifts in the Indian stand now. There was a general impression that India was toeing the US line. India now blamed Saddam Hussein and Iraq for the crisis.

Just before the air campaign, the Foreign Minister VC Shukla and the Deputy Foreign Minister Digvijay Singh visited several countries to bring about some solution to the problem, but to no avail. When the war finally came, India maintained a conspicuous silence. The Indian peace proposal fell on deaf ears. The late Rajiv Gandhi also put forward his peae-package while criticising the government for reducing India to a “hapless spectator.” His main focus was on the replacement of the US-led coalition by a UN force and the withdrawal of Iraqi forces.[23]

Adding to the confusion was the discourse that US planes were being refuelled at Bombay since 9 January 1991. It caused a great political turmoil in India, when major political parties started to point their fingers at each other. The Congress, the Janata Dal and the left parties severely criticised the government for being an ‘ally’ of the US. The BJP on the other hand, backed the government arguing that India must support the UN and extend all help to the coalition forces.[24]

Some analysis pointed out that the government’s decision to permit the refuelling was because of the improved relations between the US and India. Besides, the economic situation in India had forced it to ask an IMF loan of 1.8 billion dollars. Then, three days after the loan was sanctioned, the refuelling started. No one believed that this was a coincidence.[25]

Though the government resisted and dogged the salvo of criticisms for some time, the Congress’s threat to withdraw support led the government to stop the refuelling facility provided to the Americans.

The Nonaligned Movement also came in for a lot of criticisms for its actions (or more appropriately, inactions). Iraq and Kuwait are both members of the NAM. The first high-level meeting of NAM to discuss the Gulf Crisis was held on 11 September 1990. This meeting was attended by the Indian Foreign Minister IK Gujral. It was announced that NAM would set up a ‘catalyst group’ to bring the crisis to an end.

The Belgrade meeting of NAM on 11 February 1991 produced no desired results. But it was decided that they should send a team to both the sides. The team to visit Baghdad on 23 February was to be composed of the Foreign Ministers of India, Cuba, Iran and Yugoslavia. The beginning of the ground war however blew the plan into oblivion. NAM could no longer play any role as the focus was on the UN and the US.

India’s role through the war fared no better. When the Iraqi invasion took place, India was not a member of the Security Council; therefore it did not take part in any of the meetings of the UN Security Council and its resolutions. India however expressed its support to the UN. India’s dilemma began only after 1 January 1991 when it became a member of the Security Council. India abstained, along with China and Yemen in the first voting of the first resolution after 678 on 2 March 1991.

India voted for the ceasefire resolution (687) after certain clauses were changed with its insistence. India had reservations with some provisions relating to the boundary between Iraq and Kuwait and also with the provisions relating to the destruction of Iraqi nuclear weapons because India had apprehensions that they would have further implications on the Kashmir issue and India’s own nuclear programme.[26]

Throughout the war, India was criticised for not playing any decisive role, and seems to be only interested in the repatriation of the stranded Indians in Kuwait and in the continuation of its oil supplies. Besides, India did not take any decisive steps as a regional leader and as an important member of NAM to diffuse the crisis. The provision of refuelling facilities and its subsequent withdrawal also showed India’s indecisiveness and reluctance to play any pro-active role in international politics. It also seems that India’s role “… ended up in solving neither Iraq nor Kuwait and certainly not our own country.”[27]

However, to arrive at a balanced assessment of India’s role in the crisis, certain factors must be understood. In the first place, the government in India was a minority government. The Janata (S) had only 68 members out of 473 in the Lok Sabha. The Congress support with 193 members was vital to its survival. Thus, it was unable to act decisively. The subsequent shift in India’s foreign policy towards the US-led coalition should also be seen in the light of the economic situation in India. This shift may also have been caused by certain elements within the government that are pro-US. Moreover, India, through NAM could not act because of the attitudes of the coalition force under the US as well as that of Saddam Hussein.

Post-War Developments (up to 2001): a chronology
1992: The UN Security Council resolutions 706 and 712 (1991) had allowed Iraq to sell petroleum worth up to 1,600 million dollars over a six months period, the revenue from which was to be controlled by the UN. Iraq in 1992 rejected the terms of the resolutions and withdrew from all negotiations on this issue. Resolution 778 was adopted on 2 October 1992 to put pressure on Iraq to accept resolutions 706 and 712. Iraqi request to lift sanctions was rejected.

1993: In 1993, UN weapons inspectors arrived in Iraq. Another team abruptly left Iraq after Iraq refused the setting up of surveillance equipments at its missile testing locations. For the rest of the year, talks between the UN and Iraq remained inconclusive.

1994: In March 1994, another Iraqi request to lift sanctions was again rejected. With this, a division within the Council emerged. Russia, France and China are in favour of lifting the sanctions. On October, in an apparent move to draw attention to its plight, Iraq moved its forces towards Kuwait. Iraq announced later that it would withdraw. Prompted by this, the Council on 10 October passed resolution 949 that warns Iraq to desist from using its forces against its neighbours or the UN. By December, it was announced by the head of UNSCOM that he believed Iraq no longer have any nuclear or ballistic weapons.

1995: In 1995, another resolution (986) was adopted that was aimed at the partial resumption of exports of Iraqi oil. In the celebration of the 50th anniversary of the UN held at New York during 22-24 October 1995, the Iraqi Vice President Tariq Aziz said, “unipolarism” led to “hasty application of… sanctions and the use of armed force.” This has “deprived… people of their basic human rights…” and led to “the death of thousands of children, women and the elderly due to lack of food and medication.”[28]

1996: In early January 1996, Iraq indicated its willingness to enter into a dialogue on a ‘oil-for-food’ agreement with the UN. After several rounds of talks, it was finally agreed that up to 4000 million dollars worth of Iraqi oil would be sold a year to purchase food and medicine. On 27 March, the Council adopted resolution 1051 that established a system to monitor all exports to Iraq that could be used for the production of weapons of mass destruction. This was apparently prompted by the announcement made by the head of UNSCOM Rolf Ekeus that Iraq was in possession of missiles and biological weapons.

1997: After the deliberate violation of the air exclusion zone by Iraq in April and the subsequent remark of the US president that Saddam is the biggest threat and the refusal of Iraq to allow arms inspectors to work, the Council passed yet another resolution (1115) on 21 June 1997, warning Iraq that more sanctions may come. In October, the Revolutionary Command Council criticised the high proportion of Americans in UNSCOM. Resolution 1137 was adopted that warned Iraq to stop expelling US personnel. In December, Iraq suspended oil exports.

1998: Oil exports from Iraq resumed in January. Security Council resolution 1153 adopted on 20 February doubled the six-monthly income permitted to the Iraqi government to 5200 million dollars. Resolution 1175 of June continued the distribution plan of humanitarian supplies. Iraq was also permitted to improve its oil productions. Just when it seems that things will get better, the ‘discovery’ of VX spoilt it all. In December, the US and UK launched attacks on Iraq. This elicited widespread demonstrations across the Middle East.

1999: In January, after the French proposal of replacement of UNSCOM was opposed by the US, Iraq voted in parliament renouncing all previous commitments made to the Security Council. In March, reports came that the CIA has been using UNSCOM as a cover for operations in Iraq. New demands were made for the replacement of UNSCOM by a new system of monitoring. In December, the Council adopted Resolution 1284 that replaced UNSCOM by the UN Monitoring, Verification and Inspection Commission (UNMOVIC) which was charged with monitoring Iraq.

2000: In January, the IAEA inspectors went into Iraq. The sanctions imposed on Iraq had a deep impact on the civilian population. In February, the ICRC reported that infant mortality had trebled since 1990, and water supplies had deteriorated. Air strikes still continued.[29]

2001: In mid-January, the Iraqi Deputy Prime Minister Tariq Aziz, to mark the 10th anniversary of the Gulf War stated, “Kuwait deserved invasion” and warned that Baghdad would fight back if the US continued its anti-Iraq policy under the new US President George W. Bush.[30] On 16 February, about two dozen US and British warplanes bombed five “military targets” in and around Baghdad in the biggest strike against Iraq since 1998. In response, Iraq announced that “… their aggression will achieve nothing but failure.”[31] This strike came under criticisms from China, Russia, France, India, Egypt, Syria, Canada and Turkey who felt that the US and Britain had overstepped their line. They agreed that strikes must be sanctioned by the Security Council.
Prime Minister AB Vajpayee slams the US for its air raid and said that India was in favour of lifting sanctions, and that the no-fly zones “do not come within the framework of the UN Security Council resolutions.”[32]

Again on 22 February, US warplanes strike Iraqi’s air-defence targets in northern Iraq. These strikes were followed by large demonstrations with the demonstrators calling for jihad.

Conclusion
As the current process of sanctions, strikes, inspection, verification and the likes continue, it is very likely that Iraq could use it in his own favour. Using the “sympathy strategy”, Iraq can get oil deals from France, Russia and China. Moreover, with more frequent attacks on Iraq, more Gulf War allies are now siding with Iraq, Egypt and Syria had already signed trade agreements with Iraq. Even within the Security Council, the crack has become more vocal in their criticism of the embargo imposed on Iraq. The Iraqi people do not have much of a choice except to rally behind Saddam Hussein.[33]

However, the US and UK are still very firm in their commitment to contain Saddam Hussein who had been labelled by them as the most dangerous man in the world. On the other hand, Iraq is determined to stay defiant. Iraq now asserts that UN arms inspectors will never be allowed back into the country.[34] Meanwhile, the UN Secretary General Kofi Annan exhorted the Security Council to find a common ground on Iraq.

It is now very important that both the sides change their attitude before talking about peace. To assure any lasting peace, it is imperative to strike at the roots of instability. For this, the Persian Gulf countries need to be well integrated, embark on confidence building measures, create regional alliance and common security and build up non-offensive defence.[35]

Even after ten years, the crisis in the Gulf is still to be solved. One is left to wonder when it will be. For the moment, however, the end of the crisis is nowhere in sight.

June 2001

END NOTES

[1] Agreement between the British government and the Sheikh of Kuwait regarding the non-reception of foreign representatives and non-cession of territory to foreign powers or subjects, 23 January 1899 in Lauterpacht et al (eds) The Kuwait Crisis: Basic Documents (1991)

[2] Security Council Official Records (SCOR), sixteenth year, 958th meeting, 5 July 1961, paras 55, 65

[3] Iraq TV, 8pm (IST), 17 July 1990. Quoted in Gazi Ibdewi Abdulghafour, The Tragedy: Iraq’s Invasion of Kuwait. Genesis, Consequences and Conflict Resolution (New Delhi: Lancers Books, 1993) p. 67

[4] S/PV, 2932, 2 August 1990

[5] UN Document S/20503, 13 August 1990

[6]  Article 50 of the UN Charter states, “If preventive or enforcement measures against any State are taken by the Security Council, any other state, whether a member of the United Nations or not, which finds itself confronted with special economic problems arising from the carrying out of these measures shall have the right to consult the Security Council with regard to solution of the problems.”

[7] S/PV, 2963, 29 November 1990

[8]  UN Document S/22090, 17 January 1991

[9]  UN Document S/22172, 30 January 1991

[10]  UN Document S/22275 and S/22276, 27 February 1991

[11]  UN Document S/22274, 27 February 1991 and S/22288, 28 February 1991

[12] UN Document S/PV 2963, 29 November 1990

[13] JK Baral and JN Mahanty, “India and the Gulf Crisis: The Response of a Minority Government,” Pacific Affairs, Vol. 65, No. 3, Fall 1992, pp. 368-84.

[14] UN Document S/22496, 6 April 1991

[15] UN Document S/22480, 11 April 1991

[16] Gazi Ibdewi Abdulghafour, The Tragedy, p. 139

[17] Geoff Simons, The Scourging of Iraq: Sanctions, Law and National Justice,( Basingstoke; Macmillan, 2nd Edition, 1998) p. 52

[18] Geoff Simons, Iraq-Primus Inter Pariahs: A Crisis Chronology, 1997-1998 (Basingstoke; Macmillan, 1999) p. 54

[19] Pierre Salinger, “The United States, The nited Nations and the Gulf War,” Middle East Journal, Vol. 49, No. 4, Autumn 1995, pp. 593-613

[20] UN Secretary General Javier Perez de Cuellar in an interview to PTI-TV, 5 February 1991

[21] John Bulloch and Harvey Morris, Saddam’s War: The Origins of the Kuwait Conflict and the International Response (London; Faber and Faber, 1991) p. 200

[22] UN Document  S/21711, 5 September 1990

[23] The Times of India (New Delhi), 21 January 1991.

[24] JK Banal and JN Mohanty, “India and the Gulf Crisis,” p. 374-75

[25] Ibid. p. 377

[26] Ibid. p. 383

[27] Deccan Herald, 19 April 1991

[28] Address by Taha M. Marouf, Iraq Vice President in UN at 50: Statements by World Leaders, New York, 22-24 October 1995 (NY;UN, 1996)

[29] Middle East and North Africa 2001 (London, Europa Publications 2000, 47th Edition 2001, 2000) pp. 578-599

[30] Hindustan Times, (New Delhi) 16 January 2001

[31] Hindustan Times (New Delhi), 17 February 2001

[32] Times of India (New Delhi), 18 February 2001

[33] Times of India (New Delhi) 21 February 2001.

[34] Hindustan Times (New Delhi), 28 February 2001

[35] Farah Naaz, “Security in the Persian Gulf,” Strategic Analysis, Vol. XXIV, No. 12, March 2001, pp. 2257-2271

James R. Ruolngul

Technorati Tags: american, assets, banks, behind, ben, bernanke, bilderberg, bob, bullion, CB, chapman, china, chinese, closed, conference, cramer, debt, depression, dollar, don, doors, faber, FED, federal, foreign, geithner, going, gold, greece, Green, GSE, harrold, inflation, ivy, Jim, joseph, keiser, kitco, marc, max, Monetization, monetize, nuts, Peter, poison, price, reserve, rogers, Schiff, screaming, security, selling, Shoots, stiglitz, sylver, tbills, tim, treasuries, Treasury, US, vouliagmeni, Willie, yuan

For most of the past decade, a number of editorial writers, politicians, members of the clergy, and other pundits have described America as a nation in some sort of crisis. They point to a growing number of people who drop out of high school, who are living on probation, parole, or in prison, who are victims of domestic or criminal assault, who are addicted to drugs or alcohol, who are infected with sexually transmitted disease, who are having abortions, who are giving birth outside of marriage, who are getting divorced, or who are relying on Ritalin, Xanax or Prozac to make it through the day. They maintain these statistics are evidence something has gone terribly wrong with the American way of life.

As a practicing clinical psychologist, I work with people included in these numbers every day of the week. Monday I talk with a man on his way to prison for writing bad checks, a middle-aged mother struggling to quit drinking herself into a stupor every night, and a twenty-something single woman recently diagnosed with herpes. Tuesday I talk with a teenager dealing with an unintended pregnancy, a father court-ordered out of his house after assaulting his son, and a wife conflicted about whether to end her extramarital affair. On Wednesday I meet with an 11-year-old boy who doesn’t cooperate with his teachers, on Thursday with a woman who was devastated by the news that her husband has filed for divorce so he can marry his girlfriend, and, on Friday, with an adolescent who recently attempted suicide.

From this perspective, rather than being numbers, persons included in statistics are living, breathing, human beings. Each has a unique history and set of circumstances as well as very personal thoughts, emotions, ideals, regrets, hopes, and dreams. But despite their differences, all of these individuals have one thing in common—they are all, to some degree, unhappy, discontent, and dissatisfied with life.

Recognizing that all of these people are in some sense unhappy, it is possible to characterize the number of persons in all of the statistical groups referred to by the pundits as a global measure of unhappiness in the United States. Since the total number of people in each of these groups continues to rise, it is reasonable to infer that we are in the midst of an epidemic of unhappiness. Recognizing that this nation was designed to optimize the conditions f
Coast to Coast AM – 04 August 2009 – Vaccinations & Health Concerns part 1/12

or the personal pursuit of happiness, this epidemic of unhappiness can be referred to as the current crisis in the American way of life.

Attempts to Cope with the Crisis

One group of opinion leaders offers a simple explanation for, and solution to, this crisis. Presuming illiteracy, probation, incarceration, assault, addiction, sexually transmitted illness, unintended pregnancy, domestic violence, and divorce are consequences of dysfunctional behavior, conservatives maintain that the rising number of people who find themselves with these conditions is the result of poor decision-making. They contend that people could avoid these outcomes by making better choices when managing their personal lives.

Conservatives remind us that the basic structure of the American way of life is a legal system based on a foundation of moral principles—ideas about right and wrong. They cite Founding Fathers, such as John Adams, who, in 1798, wrote, “Our constitution was made for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to govern any other.” Or they refer to James Madison, who, in 1778, wrote, “We have staked the whole future of American civilization, not upon the power of government, far from it. We have staked the future of all of our political institutions . . . upon the capacity of each and all of us to govern ourselves, to control ourselves, to sustain ourselves according to the Ten Commandments of God.”

Conservatives point to the fact that, beginning with Colonial America and up until roughly forty years ago, the people of this country generally assumed the moral principles the Founding Fathers inherited from the Judeo-Christian tradition were a set of guidelines for making choices which would lead to real and lasting happiness in this world and the next. They note that since those advocating a separation of church and state began to succeed in removing all reference to religion from public schools there has been an increase in the number of people who are failing to finish high school, living on probation, parole, or in prison, victims of domestic or criminal assault, addicted to drugs or alcohol, infected with sexually transmitted diseases, having abortions, giving birth outside of marriage, getting divorced, and relying on antidepressants and other psychotropic medications. They argue that each of these undesirable conditions could be lessened if Americans, once again, began to act on the Ten Commandments and the teachings of Jesus Christ when making choices in daily life.

On the other side, liberals insist there are several problems with the conservative approach. First, the moral position of the Judeo-Christian tradition is far from clear. Although all believers root their morality in scripture, there are wide differences in how sacred texts are understood. While some Christians maintain using alcohol is a sin, others serve wine in church. Similar differences exist with respect to the Christian positions on gambling, divorce and homosexuality. Liberals point to the fact that people of faith can be found on both sides of abortion, capital punishment, and assisted suicide to demonstrate that religiously based moral reasoning is incapable of effectively dealing with the major moral controversies of our time.

Further, liberals maintain that religiously-based moral reasoning permitted many of the most outrageous injustices of the past. Thousands were slaughtered in the Crusades, tortured during the Inquisition, and died during centuries of European holy war. Many who settled the British colonies in North America were fleeing persecution at the hands of religious authorities intolerant of their beliefs. After the American Revolution, the Bible was used to justify the perpetuation of slavery and the subordination of women. Even today the Ku Klux Klan uses a Christian symbol to terrorize non-white Americans who are simply exercising basic rights.

Liberals also note that the American Revolution was as much a rebellion against religion as it was a military campaign. Instead of relying on the British notion that it was a citizen’s duty to God to obey a divinely enthroned king, the Founding Fathers based their declaration of independence on rational philosophy—the other source of moral authority which has shaped and influenced the course of Western civilization since its beginning in ancient Greece. They went on to establish a government explicitly based on philosophical rather than on religious ideals. Referring to the first amendment of the Constitution and the fact that America has become a nation of many faiths, liberals argue that it is now un-American to base public education or any type of public policy on a set of moral principles which belong to any particular religious tradition.

Beyond rejecting the conservative solution to the crisis, liberals offer a different analysis of the crisis itself. Although acknowledging that failure to finish high school, delinquency, crime, addiction, sexually transmitted disease, unintended pregnancy, domestic violence, divorce, and emotional disorders involve some type of dysfunctional human behavior, they deny these conditions have anything to do with moral reasoning or ideas about right and wrong. Drawing on the theory of human nature generally accepted within contemporary social science, they contend that this behavior is determined by instinctive drives, patterns of prior conditioning, imbalances in brain chemistry, socioeconomic circumstances, or some other, as yet, unidentified factor which involves something other than choice. They believe further scientific research will inevitably discover the causes of this dysfunctional behavior and that the results of this research will eventually lead to a reduction in the number of persons who behave this way.

A Need for a New Approach

Rather than attempting to work together in an effort to find some common ground, today’s conservative and liberal leaders invest their energies in attempting to win hearts and minds to their respective points of view. Their strategies are to affect public policy through opinion polls and the election process. Unfortunately, as the leaders of these ideologies engage in cultural civil war, the epidemic of unhappiness continues and the current crisis in the American way of life endures.

One means of moving beyond this quagmire begins with the realization that crises are events which have a structure and dynamics of their own. Crises occur when people are confronted with undesirable conditions which are unintended and unanticipated. They result from pursuing courses of action based on assumptions which are in some way inaccurate, ineffective, or inappropriate with respect to achieving an intended outcome. Crises persist as long as those attempting to achieve the intended outcome continue doing what they do without realizing their assumptions are in some sense flawed.

Crises are resolved when three events occur. First, the assumptions of those who end up with the undesired outcome are clarified. Next, these assumptions are evaluated with respect to the degree that they are actually accurate, effective, and appropriate with respect to achieving the intended goal. Finally, the results of this evaluation are used to develop a new course of action aimed at achieving the intended outcome based on assumptions which are more accurate, effective, and appropriate for achieving the desired result.

This insight into the structure of a crisis suggests that a resolution to the current crisis in the American way of life could be obtained by identifying the assumptions within the conservative and liberal traditions, evaluating their accuracy, effectiveness, and appropriateness, and then developing a new approach to dealing with the epidemic of unhappiness based on what this evaluation has revealed.

Identifying Existing Assumptions

The conservative approach is rooted in three assumptions about human nature deeply rooted in Western civilization. These assumptions were contained in the writings of British Enlightenment philosophers—Francis Bacon, Thomas Hobbes, and John Locke—who provided a theory of human nature for those who led the American Revolution and went on to write the Constitution of the United States. Today’s conservatives often make reference to George Washington, Thomas Jefferson and other Founding Fathers who made use of these philosophers’ ideas.

The first conservative assumption is known as a volitional theory of human nature. It asserts that human beings have the capacity to choose between alternative potential courses of action. It also includes the notion that, when confronted with a choice, people are naturally motivated to select the potential course of action they believe is most likely to make them happy in some way.

The second conservative assumption is a moral theory referred to as enlightened self-interest. This theory presumes that moral principles are a set of guidelines for making choices which are essential to obtaining an optimal quality of life. It also presumes that if individuals act on these principles when making choices in daily living they are doing what they can to maximize their potential to achieve happiness, emotional well-being, contentment, and satisfaction with life.

Finally, conservatives assume that moral principles are a matter of religion. This assumption is based on the belief that individual human beings are limited in their ability to distinguish between those courses of action which only apparently enhance a person’s quality of life and those which enrich it in actuality. Accordingly, conservatives maintain that an all-knowing God revealed this knowledge about how to become and remain happy to specific persons—Moses, the Prophets, Jesus, and the Apostles—and that the rest of humanity can find real and lasting happiness by utilizing this information when making choices in daily life.

The liberal approach to dealing with illiteracy, probation, incarceration, assault, addiction, sexually transmitted disease, unintended pregnancy, domestic violence, divorce, and a variety of emotional disorders is based on a set of assumptions about human nature which began to influence the Western world as the philosophy of the Enlightenment was replaced by a new set of ideas about the nature of human existence. While Enlightenment thinking was rooted in faith in God, a vision of heaven, and a fear of hell, the notions about human nature utilized by liberals developed as an atheistic, scientific worldview emerged.

The first liberal assumption is referred to as determinism. This is the theory of human nature advanced by Sigmund Freud, William James, and John Watson, seminal thinkers who set the foundations for contemporary social science. Determinism consists of the belief that human behavior is caused by instinctive drives, patterns of prior conditioning, genetics, changes in brain chemistry, socioeconomic status or some other process which has nothing to do with choosing between alternative potential courses of action.

Second, liberals assume that moral principles are irrelevant to dealing with dysfunctional behavior. This assumption is based on the belief that rather than religion, the great minds of Western philosophy are the proper source of moral authority and the belief that the French philosopher Auguste Comte, is the great mind Americans should turn to as the appropriate authority on morality. His theory, altruism, maintains that what’s right is that which enhances the welfare of other people, society, or humanity in general. Since altruism insists that moral activity consists of service to others, acting on principle is viewed by altruists as an obstacle to, or restriction on, the personal pursuit of happiness.

Third, liberals assume that religion is not a reliable source of knowledge about life or how to live. This assumption is rooted in their opinion that the quality of human life has improved in virtually every domain of human existence where scientific discoveries have replaced pre-scientific thought. Liberals maintain that it makes more sense to rely on science as a means of trying to figure out how to help people who engage in dysfunctional behavior than referring to religious texts which they view as outdated relics from a bygone era.

Evaluating Assumptions

Clearly, the traditional approaches to dealing with the current crisis in the American way of life involve a set of questionable assumptions about whether people are capable of making choices, as well as the purpose and source of ideas about right and wrong. While conservatives assume that people have the capacity to choose between alternative potential courses of action, that religion is the proper source of ideas about right and wrong, and that acting on moral principle is essential to becoming and remaining happy, liberals assume that human behavior has nothing to do with choice, that morality is irrelevant to the personal pursuit of happiness, and that science, rather than religion, is the appropriate source of knowledge for dealing with the dysfunctional behavior contributing to the epidemic of unhappiness. Now that these questionable assumptions have been identified, each can be evaluated in terms of the degree to which available evidence suggests it is accurate, effective, and appropriate with respect to attempting to resolve the current crisis in the American way of life.

Throughout the course of Western civilization and up until the establishment of social science, roughly one hundred years ago, all educated and thoughtful intellectual leaders recognized that people have the capacity of choice. Since the first philosophers of ancient Greece, every major philosopher in the Western tradition has maintained that, with respect to many behaviors, human beings are able to select between alternative potential courses of action. In addition, every known society has had a legal system based on the notion human beings actually make choices in the course of daily living.

These historical and sociological facts are consistent with observations human beings have made with respect to themselves and one another since the dawn of time. In everyday descriptions of human behavior, people have always regularly made reference to intentions, desires and choices when describing the activities of friends, family members and those whom they deal with in commercial and community affairs. Moreover, we have direct access to the process of choosing between alternative potential courses of action when we decide what to eat for breakfast, what color coat to purchase, and which program to watch on television.

Although the results of some animal studies can be used to argue for a deterministic theory of human nature, there is no conclusive evidence to suggest that this is an accurate means of describing many types of human behavior. Over the course of the Twentieth Century, scientists have attempted to identify a number of non-volitional processes such as instinctive drives, patterns of prior conditioning, genetics, changes in brain chemistry, and socioeconomic status which cause people to fail to acquire adequate vocational skills, commit crimes, become addicted to drugs or alcohol, engage in risky sexual behavior, abuse family members or get divorced. At best, these studies have produced only modest correlations. The results of thousands of these studies over nearly one hundred years reveal that although non-volitional processes may play some role in these dysfunctional behaviors, they do not actually cause people to behave in any of these ways. Based on all of this scientific evidence, it is reasonable to conclude that scientists have never been able to prove that human beings lack the capacity of choice.

One way of determining whether moral principles are relevant to the personal pursuit of happiness consists of looking at what research has revealed about the relationship between acting on principle and subsequent quality of human life. Statistics show that there is a correlation between personal reports of happiness, emotional well-being, contentment, and satisfaction in living with people who regularly tell the truth, keep their agreements, and refrain from theft. Research also reveals that there is a correlation between people who report they are unhappy, discontent, and dissatisfied with life and a tendency to frequently lie, cheat, and steal. What’s more, virtually all psychological research on the reasons people describe for acting on principle reveals that the vast majority of individuals who do what’s right act on principle because they believe they will personally benefit as a result.

Assuming that people have the capacity to choose between alternative potential courses of action and that moral principles can enhance a person’s potential for becoming and remaining happy, the next assumption which needs to be evaluated is whether it is more appropriate to assume that religion is the proper source of moral principles or whether to turn to philosophy for ideas about what’s right and wrong. In this respect, both conservatives and liberals assume there are only two sources of moral principles. Neither considers the fact that within the past decade a new source of moral principles has emerged. This source is science and what the scientific method has revealed about the relationship between choices people make and how those choices affect the quality of their lives. Given the fact that these principles were specifically formulated as a means of determining which potential courses of action maximize a person’s likelihood of becoming and remaining happy, scientifically formulated principles of morality provide a more effective means of dealing with the epidemic of unhappiness than continuing to operate on the assumptions about the source of moral knowledge contained in either the conservative or liberal approach.

Scientifically Formulated Principles of Morality

Scientifically formulated principles of morality were developed by following the same logic scientists used to come up with principles for achieving health and physical well-being. Researchers were able to formulate wellness principles by observing a correlation between certain types of voluntary human behavior and a number of serious illnesses. Studies revealed that people who regularly smoke tobacco often end up with cancer, emphysema, or heart disease. It also detected that a lack of exercise is correlated with diabetes, obesity, and stroke. Based on these and other correlations, scientists were able to formulate alternatives to unhealthy patterns of behavior which they then promoted as guidelines for making healthy choices in daily life. These principles for healthy living indicate that when we avoid tobacco, street drugs, and the excessive use of alcohol, obtain adequate amounts of rest and exercise, and eat a high fiber, low-fat diet, we are doing what we can to maximize our potential for becoming and remaining healthy.

Similarly, the search for scientifically formulated principles of morality began by determining which types of voluntary human behavior correlate with a loss of happiness, emotional well-being, contentment, and satisfaction with life. Once these correlations were determined, alternatives to these behaviors were identified. Conceptualized as principles, these guidelines for making choices in daily living maximize a person’s potential for becoming and remaining happy.

Research which led to the development of scientifically formulated principles of morality revealed that there are basic similarities between the voluntary behaviors of the majority of people who become, in one way or another, unhappy as a result of doing what they did. These patterns of behavior are referred to as self-defeating because they undermine a person’s effort at becoming and remaining happy. Research revealed that there are the following seven types of self-defeating behavior which lead to a loss of happiness, contentment, and satisfaction with life.

Heedless behavior consists of pursuing a course of action while knowing it poses a threat to something or someone essential to a person’s overall contentment and satisfaction with life. Examples include smoking cigarettes, using illicit drugs, driving while under the influence of consciousness altering substances and engaging in unsafe sex. Self-effacing behavior consists of regularly pursuing courses of action aimed at enhancing the happiness of others while failing to attend to what is essential to one’s own. Examples include a female adolescent who consents to unprotected sexual relations as a means of pleasing her boyfriend, a husband who constantly defers to his wife’s wishes on decisions which negatively affect his own quality of life, and parents who continue to provide for able-bodied adult children while neglecting what they need to do to prepare for retirement. Non-productive behavior involves spending time and energy on activities which have little or nothing to do with acquiring or maintaining what is required for contentment and satisfaction with life. Examples include teenagers who spend their time watching television, listening to music or talking on the phone rather than doing homework or studying for exams, employees who spend portions of their workday surfing the Internet rather than completing assigned tasks, and spouses who spend virtually all of their time in activities which have nothing to do with nurturing their partners in life. Unfaithful behavior consists of failing to fulfill agreements freely entered into at an earlier point in time. Examples include adolescents breaking curfews, salespersons who fail to honor warranties and married people who cheat on their spouses. Disrespectful behavior consists of pursuing a course of action which violates another person’s basic rights. Examples include physical or sexual assault, theft, or the disclosure of certain types of personal information. Deceptive behavior consists of attempting to create in another person’s mind an image of reality which does not correspond with actuality. It includes creating misleading audio or video recordings, filing falsified reports, or simply telling lies. Ill-considered interpersonal interaction occurs when people pursue a course of action which involves other persons whose behavior is heedless, nonproductive, disrespectful, unfaithful and/or deceptive. Examples include riding in an automobile with an impaired driver, continuing to employ an individual who does not put in a day’s work for a day’s pay, disclosing personal information to an individual who has demonstrated no respect for privacy, remaining in a marriage with a spouse who has an ongoing series of extramarital affairs, and trusting a person who frequently lies.

Once it was determined that these seven patterns of behavior are the ones which correlate with unhappiness, discontent and/or dissatisfaction in life, a set of alternatives was identified. The alternative to heedless and self-effacing behavior as well as ill-considered interpersonal interaction is referred to as self-respect. Self-respect consists of avoiding any course of action which clearly poses a threat to what is required for contentment and satisfaction with life. Industry is the alternative to non-productive behavior. Industry consists of investing the time and energy required to obtain and maintain what is essential for contentment and satisfaction with life. The alternative to unfaithful and disrespectful behavior is referred to as equity. Equity consists of honoring agreements and respecting the basic rights of others. Honesty, the alternative to deceptive behavior, consists of rendering an accurate description of reality. Like wellness principles, these guidelines for making choices only maximize the potential for achieving emotional well-being when they are combined and acted on consistently in the course of daily living. Given this reality, the combination and regular use of the four scientifically formulated principles of morality can be referred to as the formula for happiness.

Prevention and Dissemination

The potential that the formula for happiness has for reducing the epidemic of unhappiness becomes evident when the connection between acting on its principles and a person’s ability to avoid functional illiteracy, probation, incarceration, assault, addiction, sexually transmitted illness, unintended pregnancy, or divorce is clarified.

People who act on the principles of self-respect and industry can acquire adequate skills for competitive employment in today’s post-industrial economy. When those who are inclined to violate the rights of others act on the principle of equity, they avoid probation and incarceration which is frequently a consequence of murder, assault, and various types of theft. When those who are mulling over an opportunity to experiment with illicit drugs act on the principle of self-respect, they avoid future addiction. When people who have become addicted to drugs or alcohol act on the principles of self-respect, industry, and honesty, they enter into substance abuse recovery programs and invest the blood, sweat, and tears required to overcome their dependency. When interested in having casual and unprotected sexual intercourse, people who act on the principle of self-respect avoid sexually transmitted disease and unintended pregnancy. When people act on the principle of self-respect in choosing a spouse, industry for investing time and energy in working on a satisfying marriage, and equity in forsaking all others, there is a reduction in the number of people who live with marital disharmony, domestic violence, and divorce.

Scientifically formulated principles of morality only hold the promise of reducing the epidemic of unhappiness if people become aware of these ideas about what’s right and act on these principles as they go about their daily lives. This means that a reverse in the epidemic of unhappiness requires a general recognition of the value of acting on these principles to the individual and to society at large. Clearly, the most efficient and effective means of achieving this goal is through the process of education.

The first step in teaching a significant number of youth about scientifically formulated principles of morality began with The Facts of Life Seminar which was instituted in Westmoreland County, Pennsylvania in 1993. This program for character development was designed to teach the formula for happiness to teens who are on juvenile probation and to show them how to apply the formula in the course of daily living. All of the adolescents adjudicated delinquent in this county are currently required to complete The Facts of Life Seminar as a one of the conditions of their probation.

In The Facts of Life Seminars students learn that when they act on scientifically formulated principles of morality they get the tangible benefit of improving and maintaining the quality of their lives. Students are provided with mnemonic devices similar to those used in teaching principles of nutrition and health. They are equipped with decision trees and given several exercises to help them learn to recognize a context for principled decision-making and how to systematically employ scientifically formulated principles of morality to figure out which alternatives to pursue. In addition to learning about the principles themselves, students are trained in behavioral techniques such as imaging and self-talk as a means of enhancing self-control when confronted with temptation to engage in a self-defeating course of action.

Since its inception, hundreds of adolescents have gone through Facts of Life Seminars taught by juvenile probation officers, mental health treatment personnel, and a number of teachers in residential placement centers, day treatment programs, outpatient counseling centers, and alternative education schools. Outcome research reveals that of those who complete this program there is a 123% increase in the number likely to refrain from violence, a 92% increase in the number likely to refrain from theft, a 178% increase in the number likely to keep their promises, and a 160% increase in the number likely to tell the truth. In 2006, the Pennsylvania Center for Juvenile Justice Training and Research sponsored the first state-wide program to prepare youth workers to lead Facts of Life Seminars throughout the Commonwealth.

In addition, a number of public school administrators and guidance counselors who learned about The Facts of Life Seminar have expressed an interest in integrating the formula for happiness into classes on decision-making and self-awareness in public schools. They recognize that many of the youth on juvenile probation may have been able to avoid trouble with the law if they learned to use scientifically formulated principles of morality as part of their overall education. As a result of this interest Lessons on The Facts of Life have been developed. This is a set of lesson plans which can be integrated into existing curriculum on decision-making and self-awareness classes in both public and private schools.

When scientifically formulated principles of morality are taught within a public school, influential persons in the community need to be aware of their existence as well as their value in promoting personal responsibility and citizenship. Public meetings provide opportunities for parents and other community leaders to learn about the origin and nature of the formula for happiness as well as why and how it is effective in motivating adolescents to act on principle in daily life. These meetings also equip members of the community with a vocabulary and a set of concepts about right and wrong which they can share with other adults who are dealing with the challenge of character development in youth. This ability to speak a common language enables teacher, school administrators, parents, clergy, and other community leaders to coordinate their efforts in dealing with issues of responsibility and accountability at school, at home, and in the neighborhood. Clearly, this effort can only succeed if those involved in implementing programs for character education based on the formula for happiness are able to enlist support from community leaders who represent both conservative and liberal groups.

Conservative Support

Because scientifically formulated principles of morality are based on a volitional theory of human nature and because they are clearly relevant to the personal pursuit of happiness, many conservatives who learn about the formula for happiness recognize its value with respect to reducing the epidemic of unhappiness in the United States. But, since most conservatives believe that morality must be a matter of religion, some have difficulty supporting the idea that scientifically formulated principles of morality should be taught in public schools. They are frequently used to taking a position that it would be more appropriate to either return biblically-based moral principles to the classroom or to take all instruction in moral reasoning and action out of the schools, leaving this aspect of education to parents and to the clergy.

The conservative position that biblically-based morality should be brought back into public schools is rooted in the history of the United States. Conservatives remind us that when the Founding Fathers framed the Constitution they recognized democracy was a very fragile form of government. They knew it had only been tried twice before in the history of Western civilization and that each time it had collapsed into some form of dictatorship. In order to prevent this from happening in America, some of the Founding Fathers advocated for a system of public education so that citizens who are electing public officials would be able to make good choices when it came time to cast their votes. Benjamin Rush, one of the Founding Fathers, and the father of American psychiatry, was a chief architect of public schools in America. He maintained public schools should have two objectives. The first was to teach basic academic skills—reading, writing, and arithmetic. The second was to train students to act on the moral principles contained in the Ten Commandments and the teachings of Jesus.

Based on this mission, for nearly 200 years, public schools in America were one of three institutions which trained successive generations of Americans in moral reasoning and its relevance to daily life. Public school’s functioned in concert with the church and family in presenting an integrated and effective means of acting on principle at home, at school, at work, and in the larger community. History reveals that this combined effort at character development began to unravel when advocates for the separation of church and state were successful in requiring public schools to remove any reference to The Ten Commandments and the teachings of Jesus. Since most Americans view morality as a matter of religion, public schools rapidly and completely abandoned all formal teaching of moral reasoning based on a concern the school district would become the object of litigation by the American Civil Liberties Union.

Conservatives who cite this history as a means of arguing for a return of biblically-based moral instruction to the classroom can be reminded that given the political strength of those who advocate the separation of church and state, it is unlikely religion will be returned to public school classrooms in the United States anytime in the foreseeable future. What’s more, even if this were to occur, teaching moral reasoning based on scripture will do little to motivate a large number of students to act on principle because many Americans no longer understand the world in terms of Biblical descriptions of reality. Students who have no faith in God, who have no vision of heaven, and who have no fear of hell, have no reason to take seriously what the Bible has to say about life and how to live. Clearly, scientifically formulated principles of morality are much more powerful in motivating public school students who have no religious foundation to make use of them in daily living because these ideas about how to behave are consistent with the scientific worldview which pervades everything else they learn at school.

Those conservatives who maintain moral training should be kept out of public school and left up to the family and the clergy can be reminded that in America today millions of children have never seen the inside of a synagogue or a church. Millions more are being raised by parents who see no value in acting on moral principles in the course of daily living. Since public schools are the only place these children would have an opportunity to receive formal training on how to act on principle, failing to provide this type of education only perpetuates the epidemic of unhappiness in the United States. Persons of faith who have no problems using scientific discoveries which have led to vaccinating virtually all children in America against smallpox, diphtheria, and polio should be encouraged to recognize that teaching the formula for happiness is a means of inoculating children against functional illiteracy, probation, incarceration, addiction, sexually transmitted diseases, unintended pregnancy, marital disharmony, domestic violence, divorce, and a variety of problems with their mental health. It makes no more sense to deprive millions of children of the benefit of learning about scientifically formulated principles of morality than it would to limit the availability of vaccinations to the children of persons who believe in God and who take their kids to Sunday School.

Those conservatives who believe that acting on a secular set of moral principles may have a negative effect on fostering faith can be reminded that scientifically formulated principles of morality are in no way hostile to a belief in God or any traditional religion. While letting students learn about the formula for happiness at school, parents and religious leaders can combine this product of scientific research with their approach to religious education. Religious educators can show children how scientifically formulated principles of morality are compatible with many of the ideas about right and wrong contained in scripture as a means of providing further validation for the moral principles found in sacred texts. What’s more, religious teachers can demonstrate how combining Biblical instructions on how to relate to God with scientifically formulated principles of morality enables persons of faith to experience a greater degree of joy than the level of fulfillment people are able to find by simply following the formula for happiness

Liberals

Because the formula for happiness is a product of the scientific method, many liberals find the notion that it can be taught in public school to be an intriguing idea. Since they can also see how training youth to act on scientifically formulated principles of morality will go a long way toward reducing the epidemic of unhappiness, they generally recognize the value of encouraging this approach to teaching decision-making in public schools. At the same time, some liberals have difficulty supporting a program for character development which inspires students to act on principle by an explicit appeal to self-interest. This resistance can subside once these liberals recognize how following the formula for happiness results in a number of benefits to others and to society as a whole.

When an individual acts on the principle of self-respect that person is doing what he or she can to promote his or her overall physical and emotional well-being, thereby relieving healthcare and social service agencies of the need to provide for that individual and making their services available to other needy members of the community. When people acts on the principle of industry, they provide for the material needs of other people in the form of such tangible items as food, clothing, shelter, automobiles, appliance, electronic devices, and countless other meaningful material objects which enhance the quality of human life. When a doctor, nurse, attorney, banker, police officer, auto mechanic, building inspector, or custodian acts on the principle of industry, he or she is serving others by providing quality healthcare, legal representation, financial assistance, security, transportation, or safe and clean buildings, streets and parks, which enhance the lives of other members of the community. When a person acts on the principle of equity, he or she is enabling others to maintain their physical and emotional well-being while, at the same time, contributing to the freedom and security of other members of the community. When a person acts on the principle of honesty, he or she is providing others with accurate information which enables them to make informed and realistic decisions choices when faced with momentous decisions which will have a long-term impact on their future quality of life.

Beyond these benefits which result from acting on specific scientifically formulated principles of morality, persons who behave according to the formula for happiness tend to be those who support institutions which are central to the American way of life. Self-respecting, industrious, equitable, and honest people are those individuals who provide most of the contributions to charitable organizations in the United States. As taxpayers, they also provide service to others through government-funded health and welfare programs.

Self-respecting, industrious, equitable, and honest individuals build better families, neighborhoods, and communities. Working within these networks of interpersonal relationships they develop, support, and maintain quality education, healthcare institutions, libraries, and emergency services. They become politically informed and conscientious voters who support politicians and public policies which balance agricultural, mining and manufacturing interests with environmental concerns. They also support candidates and government officials who are ensuring fair law enforcement, protecting the integrity of the courts, and maintaining military readiness so that all citizens can benefit from a government designed to protect each individual’s right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

Assuming liberals are interested in a program for character development which can provide these benefits to society, it is important for them to recognize that these benefits only materialize when individuals are motivated to act on those principles which yield these results. Since character education based on the formula for happiness demonstrates that it is in the students’ interest to act on principle, this approach to character education is effective in inspiring them to make use of scientifically formulated principles of morality in the course of daily living. As such, teaching the formula for happiness is a much more reliable means of enhancing the welfare of others than simply requiring students in character development programs to engage in public service activities such as serving meals in a soup kitchen, picking up litter along the highway, or baking cookies for the residents of the local homeless shelter.

Resetting the Moral Foundation

In 1776, a group of British subjects declared their independence from royal rule and went on to design a blueprint for a way of life intended to optimize the conditions for the personal pursuit of happiness. Recognizing that the pursuit of happiness depends on individual self-control, they based the Constitution and the Bill of Rights on the assumption that Americans would continue to govern their personal lives with the moral principles they inherited from Judeo-Christian tradition. Although the Founding Fathers were aware that science was making impressive advances even in their day, they had no way of envisioning how that moral foundation would disintegrate when the Christian vision of reality gave way to the scientific worldview which characterizes America today.

“These are the times that try men’s souls” wrote Thomas Paine at the beginning of The American Crisis. Five months after the Continental Congress issued the Declaration of Independence, he wrote this essay to awaken Americans to the fact that the war for winning that independence was not yielding the intended, desired, and anticipated result. He urged the people of this nation to recognize that if they simply went about their daily lives assuming the war would be won without some effort on their part, they were pursuing a course of action which would have disastrous consequences with respect to the future of the American way of life. We now know that those who reevaluated this assumption and devoted themselves to the cause, were eventually successful in establishing the first nation on earth devoted to protecting each citizen’s right to the pursuit of happiness.

Like the Americans of his day, we are currently confronted with a crisis and with a soul-searching choice. One alternative involves continuing to flounder along, arguing about whether choices make a difference in the quality of human life, bickering over whether morality plays a part in the personal pursuit of happiness, and quarreling about whether morality must be a matter of religion or whether it should be based on some philosophy, while each year more and more children move into adult life with virtually no appreciation for the role morality plays in the pursuit of happiness. The other alternative consists of recognizing that the choices we make determine the quality of our lives, acknowledging that ideas about right and wrong are essential to the pursuit of happiness, and doing what we can to promote the notion that scientifically formulated principles of morality are an effective means of restoring moral reasoning and moral action to its proper place at the foundation of the American way of life.

Copyright 2006

Douglas R. Ramm, Ph.D.

Technorati Tags: "swine, 9/11, bioterrorism, camps, coast, concerns, experimental, fema, flu", health, national, NWO, risk, security, tamiflu, to, vaccination, vaccine