Hassan,
I wish you had taken the time and thought over my arguments before responding. But, as the saying goes, "if wishes were horses, beggars would ride." Let me respond to the points you raised, as briefly as possible so the "Jargbay" Ritchard Konteh would find the time to read it and address the philosophical black hole inherent in your initial proposition, which I will restate for the sake of clarity:
The Konteh-Koroma-Siosay (KKS) Proposition: "It is immoral for one to favor the use of force in the affairs of the nation-state unless one participates in the actual use of force."
Here are my reasons why that proposition is philosophically untenable.
1) The nation-state itself is organized on the principle of delegation of power. Thus, those who make the decision to wage war, the peoples' elected representatives, are not the same one who fight the wars. If KKS is taken to its logical conclusion, then the nation-state itself, which raises an army and declares and fights wars, is immoral.
You feebly respond thus:
The American colonies, as far as the British and American loyalists were concerned, were part and parcel of England. King George was head of state of the American colonies. The colonists were mostly citizens of England. Hence, at least from the viewpoint of the British and their loyalist friends, the so-called American war of Independence was a mere mutiny. This is why treason charges were drafted against the likes of Thomas Jefferson for their part in the "revolution."
I continue to believe that the legally constituted government of Sierra Leone is still in force and the surrender of the RSLMF to the RUF without the expressed order of their Commander-in-Chief was a mere mutiny. Hence, the comparison is very apt here.
Hassan, this is exactly the point of my argument. If it is immoral to favor a war if one does not take part in the actual fighting, the elected representatives would be acting immorally if they declare a war in which they do not fight. This would make the whole concept of a "social contract" in which the governed voluntarily give up their rights to defend themselves to the state, with the understanding that the latter would protect them from their internal and external enemies, immoral. To pass your litmus test for morality, the people would have to reserve to themselves the right to declare and fight their own wars. And the state would wither away, as in the last stage of Marx's communism.
Hassan, you truly do not mean to say that only elected representatives have a moral justification for supporting or opposing public policy. Because if you do, you would just be putting yourself into an ethical minefield. Like me, you are not an elected representative of the people of Sierra Leone. Yet, you have consistently pushed a viewpoint (with which I disagree) that force should not be used to resolve the current crisis in Sierra Leone. If you truly believe that only those who are elected representatives of the people have any moral right to take a position of public-policy issues, then, my brother, you are guilty of violating your own ethical code.
And, if we were to take your ethical code seriously, we would have to get rid of representative government because when people vote for their representatives, they are actually making public-policy decisions. But they are not elected representatives of the people. (They only represent themselves.) Hence, it would be immoral for them to reveal their preferences on public policies.
Furthermore, if you truly believe in the new ethical proposition you are offering, you would be loudly and clearly denouncing the Armed Fools and Recreants Caboodle because they too are not elected representatives of the people. Yet, like you, they are revealing their (and your) preference for a consultative conference, which is a public policy issue. Moreover, if you truly believe your new ethical proposition, you would support the deployment of ECOMOG in Sierra Leone because it was done at the behest of the legally constituted government of Sierra Leone. Hence, it passes your ethical litmus test. And if President Kabbah were to use his executive powers today to nationalize the civil defense militia and order them to resist the AFRC, you should support it also because it passes your ethical standard.
>
Hassan, the above belies a total misunderstanding of the concept of comparative advantage. I might be better at both raising funds and throwing grenades than the average militia member. But if my advantage in raising funds over the typical militia member is much greater than my advantage in throwing grenades, then the cost to our cause of my throwing grenades would be higher, in terms of funds I would not be raising to support the war effort, than if the average militia member threw the grenades. So, for the sake of efficiency, which in this case is reducing the time it would take to send Johnny back to his prison cell, it is better that I raise the funds and let the average militia member throw the grenades. In the end, fewer Sierra Leoneans would have to die from the slow death that starvation and AFRC violence is unleashing on them.
I support your efforts to hold your consultative conference among yourselves and convince Johnny and co to restore the legitimate government of Sierra Leone. And if you succeed, I would proclaim all throughout our beutiful land that you were right and I was wrong. The ball is in your court, my brother.
On a personal note, I must state that of all the people who are singing the "peace" hymns now, I respect you more than any because you suggested that we talk peace a couple of years ago when you received word that your uncle (or some other close relative) had perished in an RUF attack. You said then that it was not necessary for other Sierra Leoneans to die. I respect that philosophical position you took for peace when you were confronted with the loss of a relative. But, just as I disagreed with you then, I still disagree with you that we should appease all and sudry who choose to hold us hostage because we are afraid to fight. I also disagree with the new (un)ethical position you are framing in the form of the KKS. But I respect you more immensely than those who are become overnight pacificist just because the big guns are closer to their homes.
Much regards,
Kelfala M. Kallon