Let's consider what makes this time slightly different than previous times of unrest. The essential facts are that most Americans are suffering through the deepest economic depression since the 1930s. We barely avoided a complete economic collapse and may still see an economic collapse if the euro fails. With so many homes worth less than the loans against them, the American consumer economy is simply upside down. This is unique in our history--unprecedented home ownership with unprecedented loss of value. Second, the disparity in wealth between the top 1% and rest of American society is huge. Although wealth disparity has occurred in the past, this time around it is highly noticeable because of the media. There is also a complete social disconnect between the elite wealthy segment of society and everyone else. The very wealthy just do not understand the economic pain of the average American.
In terms of distributive justice, America is out of balance. Distributive justice is based on a three-legged stool of equity, equality, and need. Equity says that we should be rewarded based on our contributions. The more profits I make, the more I should be paid. Equality says that as equal members of our society, we should all be entitled to an equal share of the benefits. Need says that there are some in our society-the young, the sick, and the elderly--who cannot take care of themselves and must therefore be supported. This idea of distributive justice is very basic. Imagine an extended family 150,000 years ago. You go out and slay the wooly mammoth and drag big parts of it back to the fire. Equity says that you get the first, choicest haunch because you undertook the effort and risk to kill the mammothand drag it back to the campfire. Equality says that each adult member of the tribe gets a fair share for being a contributing part of the group. Need says that the children, the elders, and the sick get a share because the well-being of the group requires it. As long as the wooly mammoth is divided with these ideas in mind, everyone feels a sense of justice. Unfettered capitalism gives equity primacy in policy making. Unfettered socialism gives equality primacy in policy making. Neither system works without controls to keep all three legs in balance. This is the essential truth missed by politicians--there has to be balance between equity, equality.If any of these legs gets out of balance, we experience a sense of injustice. That is what is occurring now in America. The wealthy and the anti-tax Republicans feel a deep sense of injustice that the profits they reap from their efforts are not being properly rewarded. The vast majority of Americans feel that, as equal members of society, they have been abandoned economically by the wealthy. All the money seems to flow to the top of the economic pyramid. Many Americans, wealthy and not, feel like the entitlement programs for the needy are taking up too much resource. So, the result is a feeling of deep and abiding injustice on all sides. There is no right or wrong answer here. What is needed is a recognition in Washington of this sense of injustice. The Republicans and Democrats should be engaging in a reasoned, civil dialogue that results in policy decisions that balance equity, equality, and need to the general satisfaction of the American people.In terms of the future of America, there are reasons for optimism. Fundamentally, as long as we maintain the Constitution without significant power imbalances and as long as we protect the Bill of Rights, we will prosper. We have huge resources, an innovative workforce, and a large protected land mass. The pressing needs for the future include making sure that every child has food, shelter and safety, is well-educated, and has economic and social opportunity. We must revert back to teaching critical thinking through science, mathematics, and language skills so that our children can deal with the ambiguity and complexity of the modern world.We have to tax ourselves to invest in infrastructure. We have to debate the need for a military that costs fifty cents out of every federal tax dollar we pay out. We have to make hard policy choices and compromise where we can.What will kill us is decisions driven by mindless ideologies, left or right, that focus on protecting power, position, and privilege. That attitude, now prevalent in political circles, will surely destroy us because we will not be able to respond to the rapidly changing world environment. The American people will have a choice in November 2012 between ideology and compromise. We shall see how they choose.The Occupy Wall St. protest movement is reminiscent of the social movements of the past. Beneath the headlines, however, there are deeper issues that deserve more thoughtful attention, including a consideration of the tension between distributive justice and the nature of capitalism. This tension, which is rarely, if ever, discussed, is at the core of the problem.
Distributive justice concerns how scarce resources are shared in a family, community, or society. Distributive justice has three components: equity, equality, and need.
Imagine we are in a clan 100,000 years ago. I go out one day and slay a woolly mammoth all by myself. I drag the carcass back to our encampment one hunk at a time. Around the fire that night, I get the first choice of wooly mammoth haunch. No one complains because I was the guy that brought home the bacon, so to speak.
This illustrates the first leg of the three-legged stool called distributive justice. It is about equity. Equity says that I should receive in proportion to what I contribute. If I contribute a lot, I should get a lot. If I do not contribute much, I should not get as much as the guy who contributed more.
Once I have my mammoth steak, all of the adults take their shares of the sizzling meat. We are all equal members of the clan and are entitled to equal shares of the meat. This illustrates the second leg of the distributive justice stool: Equality. Because we are equal members of the clan, we share equally. Being an equal member entitles me to an equal share of the group resources regardless of my contribution.
There is still some woolly mammoth meat cooking on the fire. Several of the adults cut off pieces and feed the children, the few who are sick, and the elders. This is the third leg of the stool: Need. In every group, there are members who cannot provide for themselves, but nevertheless have a claim on group resources. The young, the sick, and the elderly have a claim on the meat because of their need. Without the meat, they would starve. Because of their age or health, they cannot fend for themselves.
Distributive justice is therefore the delicate balance of equity, equality, and need. We each perceive that balance subjectively. Massive wars have been fought over perceived imbalances in equity, equality, and need. When someone claims unfairness around wealth, resources, or economic development, distributive justice is in play.
The Occupy Wall St. movement can be understood in the context of distributive justice as a massive feeling that the equation between equity, equality, and need is out of balance. The protesters feel that the corporate finance world has taken more than its fair share of resources, has set itself above the majority of society by garnering special tax breaks, bail outs, and de-regulation, and has failed to acknowledge and respond to the distributive justice demands of equality and need.
Capitalism and socialism are both mechanisms for attaining distributive justice. Capitalism emphasizes equity-you are rewarded based on your personal success. Socialism emphasizes equality and need-everyone gets a piece of the pie sufficient unto one’s self. Both mechanisms are deeply flawed if left unbalanced. Unrestrained capitalism leads to the kinds of distributive imbalances the Occupy Wall St. protesters are complaining about—the rich are getting richer while everyone else is suffering. Unrestrained socialism crushes the entrepreneurial behaviors needed to create wealth and leads to oppressive, repressive, and unproductive societies.
When conflicts arise over the distribution of resources, peacemakers ask the parties to explore the imbalances in the distributive justice equation. Solutions are found that help rebalance equity, equality, and need. In large social justice movements, however, this type of dialogue is impractical. Typically, the US government has had the responsibility to address large scale distributive inequity, inequality, and need through taxation, regulation, and redistribution policies. These policies have ebbed and flowed depending on economic conditions and demands of American society.
The problem today is that the US government is so polarized that it cannot act. This works to the advantage of the wealthy, who wish to see the status quo condition of distributive justice maintained. After all, it is the limited taxation and de-regulation of the financial industry that has brought about the huge aggregation of wealth on Wall St. Likewise, the wealthy would like to see re-distribution policies (Social Security and Medi-Care) deeply cut or eliminated.
Health care reform is a distributive justice policy designed to balance equality and need with the limited resources of the US health care system. Those who prefer equity argue vehemently against a national health care agenda. Those who are priced out of affordable health care argue just as vehemently for a system that treats people relatively equally and takes care of those in need. Both sides are right. The conflict is about what the balance should be.
Unfortunately, the political leadership in Washington, DC has no interest in finding compromise on basic distributive justice issues. As a result, a social protest movement has started and gained some momentum. If enough people find that the Occupy Wall St. movement resonates with their own sense of distributive injustice, the movement will translate into votes in 2012. Wise political leaders who value their positions should be taking note and not ignoring the demands to correct this fundamental sense of imbalance.
Douglas Noll, Lawyer Turned Peacemaker, is the author of Elusive Peace: How Modern Diplomatic Strategies Could Better Resolve World Conflicts (Prometheus Books 2011).
The media will be paying close attention to the Palestinian bid for statehood because that bid sets up a classic human conflict of little guy against Big Guy, of justice vs. injustice, of self-determination and self-rule against opression and autocracy. Moreover, the US, which will oppose the Palestinian bid in the Security Council will be made to look as a power-mongering hypocrite. The media loves this because it sells newspapers and magazines.
However, the legal technicalities will probably escape media attention, and those technicalities are important.They are not that difficult to understand so here's a primer on the process.
First, there is a difference between statehood and membership in the UN. They are not the same thing. For instance, Taiwan is not a member of the UN, but it is a state. The Vatican is considered a state but it is not a member of the UN. Kosovo is considered a state by major powers, including the US and the EU, but it is not a member of the UN. Switzerland only joined the UN in 2002, but it was a state long before then. During the Cold War, many states had their application for membership at the UN vetoed (such as Ireland, Jordan, and some Soviet republics) but this did not mean that they were not states. So the Palestinians may be granted membership in the UN, but that does not confer statehood upon them.
This is complicated by the fact that international legal scholars do not agree on what "statehood" means. Neither the Treaty of Westphalia (1648) or the Montevideo Convention (1936) define the process of the creation of a nation-state. There are two terms used to described the formation of a nation-state: constitutitve and declarative. Constitutive means that a nation-state is recognized as such by other nation-states. Looks like a duck, walks, like a duck, quacks like a duck, must therefore be a duck. Declarative means that in addition to recognition, the nation-state must demonstrate independence from other authority, have defined geographical borders, a defined population, and control over the internal affairs within the borders and with the population. The declarative standard would be difficult for the Palestinians to establish.
All of this makes for good law review writing, but is politically meaningless. The reality is that an international consensus has to form around recognition of a nation-state. When the consensus has formed, there are legal procedures in place to codify the consensus into a legal reality. Without consensus, forming a new nation-state, e.g., Palestine, is impossible.
I should probably mention that consensus, in this context, means that all of the major military/economic powers agree generally on statehood. This is not a majority-rule situation, which is key to understanding the legal and political dynamics of the Palestinian situation. If one major power says no, there is no consensus, and nothing that is legally effective is likely to happen. And having said that, in the 21st century, wielding that kind of veto power may be politically very, very costly if the veto is against the sentiment of the rest of the world.
The process of seeking admission to the UN as a member starts with a formal letter from the leaders of the region seeking recognition as a nation-state to the UN secretary-general asking for acceptance as a full member to the United Nations. (See Rules 134-138) The letter has to include a declaration that the nation-state accepts the principles of the UN Charter. I've search the Internet to see if I could find a copy of any letter. So far, I have been unsuccessful. I don't think the letter has been delivered yet, which is interesting in its own right. Is this whole thing a negotiation ploy by the Palestinians? As a side note, one wonders how President Abbas can speak for Hamas in accepting the UN Charter on behalf of all Palestinians. Since Hamas is dedicated to the destruction of Israel, which would seem to be a violation of the UN Charter, its hard for me to see how the letter can legally be received as a good faith declaration of intent of all Palestinians. But that is a side issue.
When the UN secretary-general receives the letter, he is required to forward it to the current president of the Security Council, which in this case, is Germany. The president must convene a committee to study the request and submit a report to the UN Security Council.
The UN Security Council, upon receipt of the request and the report, debates the issue and votes to approve it or not. In this case, the US, bowing to Israeli political pressure, will veto the request.
If, by some miracle, the Security Council approved the request, the matter would be referred to the General Assembly where the request must be approved by a two-thirds vote. As of early September 2011, that vote would seem assured as 135 out of 196 members have indicated approval of membership for the Palestinians.
If the Security Council does not approve the request, the UN Assembly may pass a resolution approving the request, but the resolution has no force of law.
In essence, the Palestinian application for membership into the UN is a legally futile act. Politically, however, it may require the US to exercise veto power against the will of the vast majority of the members of the General Assembly in favor of Israel. One must wonder about the wisdom of that strategy from both the Israeli and the Palestinian perspective. The US, which is the largest, most significant financial supporter of both regimes, will be the biggest loser.
In summary, if the Palestinians apply for membership in the UN, they will fail. The process will polarize the US Congress in an election year. It will alienate Israel. It will leave the Obama Administration with yet another foreign policy mess. And, it will do nothing to change the status in the region. This looks like another dollar auction situation being played out by President Abbas against the advice of his senior advisors. (See my September 5, 2011 post Libya Needs a New Diplomacy for a description of The Dollar Auction.)
One last interesting point that has escaped the media's attention: If the Palestinians were admitted to membership in the UN, they would have access to the International Criminal Court. Cables released by Wikileaks seem to indicate that Israel considers this possibility, indictment of senior Israeli officials for crimes against humanity, a significant security threat such that Palestinian pursuit of an indictment would "constitute an act of war" against Israel. The existential and primal fear implied by this statement suggests that peace is a distant prospect in the region.