Amos Would Have Condemned The Brutal Death Of Muammar Gaddafi Under the Unwritten International Code of Ethics
The death of Muammar Gaddafi (on the 20th of October 2011 during the Battle of Sirte) and the subsequent parading of his lifeless body on innumerable international television channels in the full glare of his nemesis and sympathisers will leave lasting images on many minds of the extent of barbaric human brutality and despicable unethical practices by nations in war situations.
It reflects how the rich and
powerful (and often victorious in war situations) show utter disdain for the
rights of weak and the poor (often on the losing end). Such condemnation
reverberated from the four corners of the globe despite the senseless and
heartless celebrations by the depraved west as this quotations by world leaders
from the depraved west including Hilary Clinton appearing in the Guardian of 20th
October 2011. Viewed from the perspective of Yahweh’s dealings with his people
Israel and Judah on one hand, and the other nations surrounding them on the
other hand, Amos would have condemned, in categorical terns, this brutal death (and
parading) of Muammar Gaddafi under the unwritten international code of ethics
(UICE). This paper will seek to justify this assertion and in the process
narrate in detail what the UICE entailed in the times of Amos’ prophetic
ministry and its relevance today.
This paper will start by discussing the
identity of Amos, his ministry and the milieu in which he executed it. Amos originated
from Tekoa and was an 8th Century prophet (Routledge 2008) who was a
contemporary of both Hosea and Isaiah and prophesied in the Northern kingdom. He
prophesied during the years of blooming prosperity for the Israelite nation
and, as always had been the case, this prosperity brought with it various
challenges to the nation. Such prosperity is attested to by Heschel (1999:27)
when he suggests that “…the Northern Kingdom, also called the Kingdom of
Israel, reached the summit of its material power and prosperity …” during this
time of Amos. This led to the inevitable emergency of social classes; the rich
and the poor. The rich (contrary to the D-historian’s theology of prosperity, blessings
and curses) were becoming richer through unscrupulous means and brazen exploitation
the poor who kept being impoverished. Such a status quo invited extreme, yet befitting, condemnation from Amos’
prophetic ministry.
These socio-economic factors did not
spare the religious life of the nation. The religious effect was not that of
neglecting Yahweism, but its perversion and syncretism. Yahweism in its purest
form had no sincere practitioners despite people who kept thronging the
national shrines of Israel (cf Amos 4v4, 5v21-24). It was being undermined by
the attraction (and inevitable embracing) of Baalism and other gods of
communities around the Northern kingdom. Amos, like other “Israel’s prophets
attacked the tolerant syncretism of the time and insisted on fierce devotion to
Yahweh” (Anderson 1966:222). Such was the amorous task that Amos had in his
prophetic assignment.
Amos’s message was not only limited to
the Northern kingdom; it also affected the nations surrounding the Northern
kingdom. There is disputation among scholars as to the authenticity of the
oracles proclaimed against foreign nations by Amos. There is a group of
scholars who argue against the Amonian nature of such oracles on various
reasons. One of the reasons proffered is that these oracles are conspicuous by
their omission of the prophetic formula “thus says the Lord” (Bullock 1986:65).
On the basis of that such scholars see the pen of a redactor, this paper
strongly dispute this claim and assert Amonian authorship and utterance of
these oracles as will be demonstrated below.
Sponsors
of the above-stated view seem to limit Yahweh’s ‘monotheistic governance’ to
the Northern and Southern kingdoms unfairly and unnecessarily. To the contrary,
Amos shows us that Yahweh is the God of all universe and therefore all nations
are accountable to him, this is reinforced by Anderson (1966:234). Further, Motyer
(2001) is very emphatic on Yahweh’s sovereignty when he introduces the concept
of “governmental monotheism”, he says “his (Amos) theology of ‘governmental
monotheism’ dominates his book. In 1:3-2:3 he reviews the surrounding pagan
nations and pronounces them answerable to Yahweh, the only God of all the
earth” (:91, insertion mine). The condemnation comes to these nations through
these oracles because ‘they are guilty of offending against universal divine
law that derives from Yahweh’s dominion over his creation” (Routledge
2008:317). This paper notes as does Hubbard (1989:128) that the crimes of these
non-Israelite nations are termed “acts of rebellion… suggesting that they, like
Israel and Judah, are so under the Lord’s authority that their wicked deeds
outrages against his rule”. Thus, these nations are part of Yahweh’s rulership
and dominion hence accountable to Him!
Another
point of contestation by many authors on the oracles against other nations is
the basis of the Lord’s judgement of these. For Israel, there was clearly
articulated covenant which according to the D-Historian, clearly spelt out the
blessings that resulted from obedience and the curses that emanated from
neglect of God’s covenant. The challenge with the other nations seems to
emanate from the fact that there was no written laws that could have been the
basis of dispensing of blessings or curses by Yahweh on these nations.
This
paper seeks to assert the fact that Yahweh does not act arbitrarily. His
message to these nations assumes the existence of what scholars refer to as the
“unwritten international code of ethics” (UICE) to which all nations subscribed,
as already alluded to above. Bullock (1986:66), citing Driver, calls these
“common and universally regarded dictates of morality”. Further, this can be
referred to as “human rights and human decency” (Hubbard 1989:128), whose
violation attracts the Yahweh’s judgement. These ethics governed the Ancient
Near East (ANE) communities in war times and such dictates are very much
relevant to today discourse on what is acceptable and not acceptable in war
situations. How did the nations come to have this code? Bullock supplies a very
candid response to this question in the citation below.
“Even
though foreigners did not enjoy the covenant privileges and responsibilities,
they nevertheless had knowledge, though indistinct, of the ethical demands of
Yahweh. The nations, therefore, were accountable, not because they had heard
the voice of God through law and prophets, but simply because they had heard
His voice through nature and social convention, what has come to be called
natural revelation” (1986:67).
Nations
had an obligation to observe these. Just the Israel’s covenant with Yahweh,
failure to observe these attracted Yahweh’s wrath expressed in judgement to
those nations. Such judgement is the judgement pronounced in oracles by Amos to
the other nations; it is judgement over their war crimes against humanity. Their
war atrocities, as will be illustrated below, betray “absence of loyalty and
the absence of pity” (Heschel 1999:27) or what Hubbard (1989:128) “acts of inhumanity”. Israel on the other hand, and in stark
contrast to the former, is judged “… because of atrocities committed in peace
and prosperity… (2:6-8)” (Anderson 1966:234).
In
the following paragraphs we now proceed to unravel the contents of the UICE or
the so-called common and universally regarded dictates of morality. To start
with, the use of disproportionate military force was a case in point in the
Gadhafi saga. Gadhafi’s opponents were superpowers who had cast weaponry and
advanced military hardware and technology at their disposal. They deployed such
weaponry without restraint and in disproportionate force against the
sub-equipped army of Gadhafi. These forces or superpowers like Syria, control
vast territories (directly and indirectly) by virtue of their military and
economic muscle in the same way Syria ruled from its capital in Damascus and
slaughtered the people of Gilead (Amos 1v3) “with threshing sledges of iron”
(Anderson 1966:29. Hubbard (1989:131)
suggests that these threshing sledges of
iron “are probably a figure of speech implying extreme cruelty… to those
who opposed Damascan invasion”. This is the same way America, a superpower
today (just like Damascus was a superpower then), handled the Gadhafi saga,
hence Amos would have condemned Gadhafi’s killing as violating norms and ethics
regulating the conduct of warfare in the ANE communities.
Gaza’s
behaviour of “taking the whole communities “(Amos 1v6f) into exile and forced
slavery was an affront to Yahweh and a clear violation of UICE. There were
rules that governed the treatment of prisoners of war or those defeated by a
mightier force. It was important that the entire population was not to be
killed or driven into exile to balance the ethnical scales of ANE communities.
There were communities in Libya that were evacuated in fear of the reprisals
and military attacks form the allied and their local gangs of ‘blood-thirsty’
militias who were using “weapons of mass destruction” and “unconventional means
of warfare”. Such forced evacuations by the allies and armed gangs (armed by
the allies) violated UICE and ultimately would have attracted unchecked
condemnation from Amos as well as the death of Gadhafi.
One’s
kindred were to be protected and not to allow one to turn against them in
situation of war. Loyalty to one’s family and relations was of utmost
importance (Amos 1v11f). Tyre and Edom stand out as nations committing such unheard-of-betrayal
of brotherhood in these oracles. Tyre’s charge according to Anderson (1966:29)
is that “Tyre had violated a treat, ‘the covenant of brotherhood’…” Further,
“…Edom had “pursued his brother with the sword, and cast off all pity, his
anger tore perpetually, and he kept his wrath for ever” (:29). This violation
of brotherhood was rampant in the Allies’ war in Libya. It is alleged that a
number of Libyans (including Gadhafi’s own blood relations) were paid by the
Allies to sell out information on the whereabouts of Gadhafi and the military
secrets of the state. These locals were used in the pursuit of their own
brother in violation of the covenant of brotherhood like Tyre. Those who
‘bought’ these locals were as equally guilty as the locals who “sold out”.
Hence Amos would have condemned the death of Gadhafi on such basis.
 |
| Amos Would Have Condemned The Brutal Death Of Muammar Gaddafi Under the Unwritten International Code of Ethics |
The
UICE made provisions for those who would escape from a war situation. Two gates
were left for them to escape and given an opportunity to seek refuge in other
friendly communities or states or to surrender. Gadhafi should have been
allowed an escape route to other Arab countries under the UICE. This did not
happen because the neighbouring states were under threat of sanctions or no
escape route was left open for him. Hence this would have attracted
condemnation from Amos.
Further,
the treatment of women and children in a war situation was of utmost
importance. They were to be protected. Scales escalated when it was a pregnant
woman, they were to be offered maximum security together with those with
various kinds of disability. The Ammonites (Amos 1v13) opened the wombs of
pregnant women with child in insatiable pursuit of territorial gains. USA in
particular will not be a stranger in condoning the treatment of women
(non-American) in this way. Their unconditional support of Israel in their
conflict against the people of Palestine is a case in point. Graphic images of
butchered defenceless women on channels like Al Jazeera will not find coverage
on Cable News Network (CNN) - America’s flagship news carrier nor will they get
the flimsiest of condemnation from the Congress let alone the presidency. There
are unverified reports of the violation of women (sexually and emotionally)
during the pursuit of Gadhafi. Such violations would constitute war atrocities
according to the UICE and hence attract Amos’s condemnation.
More
importantly, the treatment of kings killed in combat was very critical in the
ANE communities. The UICE demanded that such kings should be accorded respect
by way of being afforded decent burials. Denying them such would be an affront
to Yahweh and therefore attract his judgement on the offending party. The
humiliation of kings was not an option no matter the causes of the war or the hatred
of the victor against the deposed and killed king. Amos ends his pronouncement
of the oracles against foreign nations by reciting the judgement on Moab who
“…burned the bones of the king of Edom into lime. This act of vandalism had not
even the poor excuse of being profitable: it brought nothing but the
gratification of hate (1:3-2:3)” argues Heschel (1999:30). Such was the
humiliation of Gadhafi both during the raging military conflict and in death.
Such treatment would later visit Bin Laden at the hands of the Americans. Based
on Amos’s eight oracles against Israel’s neighbours (Bullock 1986), Amos would
have condemned in the strongest of terms the killing and humiliation of Gadhafi
by the Allies.
As
hinted in the introduction above, the condemnation of the killing of Gadhafi
was not as unanimous as one would have expected. There were sections of the
international community who wield so much power and authoritarian global
influence in the frame of Syria and the other condemned nations who were in
celebratory mood at the announcement of the news. The Guardian of 20th
October 2011 captures the following quotations
David Cameron: "People in Libya today have an even greater
chance, after this news, of building themselves a strong and democratic future.
I'm proud of the role that Britain has played in helping them to bring that
about and I pay tribute to the bravery of the Libyans who have helped to
liberate their country." Not to be out done was Ban Ki-moon, UN secretary general: "Clearly this day marks a
historic transition for Libya. Yet let us recognise immediately that this is
only the end of the beginning. The road ahead for Libya and its people will be
difficult and full of challenges." Finally Hillary Clinton, US secretary of state: "Wow" (on first seeing the
news on her BlackBerry). Later, she added it was a "new opportunity for
Libya to move forward" (The Guardian, October 20, 2011).
The above quotations are an illustration of the
depravity of humanity. Libya has not moved forward in the post Gadhafi
dispensation; chaos reigns supreme within its borders and it has become a haven
of ISIS and other extremists. Such depravity shown by these world leaders
characterised Amos’s day. However, Amos firma and resolute stood to remind
those nations including Judah and Israel, that Yahweh will certainly judge them
for such “indecency” and gross acts of “inhumanity”. Such should be the message
to these superpowers and opinion leaders of our time. Yahweh abhors such
atrocities against deposed kings like Muamar Gadhafi, Yahweh abhors the
violation of the treat of brotherhood, among others acts of indecency and
inhumanity.
This
paper has tried to show the relevance of Amos’s message well beyond his own time
(in the 8th Century) by illustrating how Amos would have treated the
death of Gadhafi in the hands of the allied forces (in the 21st
Century). This condemnation is based on the UICE reflected in the eight oracles
of condemnation to Israel’s neighbours. Their cries were that “they practiced
inhumane cruelty… betrayed brotherliness… outraged the unborn, the dead and the
helpless who deserve respectful protection” (Motyer 2001:91). Further, it has
illustrated that God would, in his sovereignty, have judged the Allied forces
(nations) the same way he through his prophet pronounced eight oracles of
judgment against the nations listed in Amos 1v1-2v3 (for Yahweh changes not).
Reference List
Anderson, B W 1966. Understanding the Old Testament- Second
Edition. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall.
Bullock, C H 1986. An Introduction to the Old Testament Prophetic Books. Chicago:
Moody.
Heschel, A J 1999. The Prophets. Massachusetts: Prince Press.
Hubbard, D A 1989. An Introduction & Commentary- Joel & Amos. Leicester:
InterVarsity.
Motyer, A 2001. The Story of the Old Testament. Michigan: Baker Book House Company.
Routledge, R 2008. Old Testament Theology- A Thematic Approach. Illinois:
Inter-Varsity.
The Guardian 20
October 2011. (http://www.theguardian.com/world/2011/oct/20/international-reaction-death-muammar-gaddafi)
No comments: