Letters for Sunday, March 6, 2022

On ‘total war’ and the Ukraine conflict

After World War I, Italian General Giulio Douhet theorized in 1921 that the distinction between soldier and civilian has been removed. He continued to write that in total war the population is the target. Leverage that target to end the war.

To give examples of limited war and total war: Japan’s attack on Pearl Harbor was against the U.S. Pacific Fleet. This is limited war, confined to a military objective.

In August 1945 America dropped atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, bombs aimed at civilians. End people’s desire to fight or die horribly. Total war. The bombs worked; Japan surrendered. But a huge anti-humanitarian act occurred.

Why write of Douhet, limited/total war? It is to help you understand what is occurring in Ukraine, and what could occur.

Europe has been a hotbed of war. In the 1860s some European countries decided to develop humanitarian rules to guide the conduct of war. It is like adopting rules for boxing or football. The first Geneva Convention adopted rules to protect wounded soldiers and civilians in a war zone. The first European effort to limit the excesses of war, the 1864 Geneva Convention, was followed by three more conventions designed to limit the excesses of war.

After World War I, Douhet said in his 1921 book that the next war will be against people. It will be total war. Did anyone pay attention?

Maybe. In the Washington Naval conference of 1922, nine nations agreed: “…bombardment for the purpose of terrorizing the civilian population, or destroying or damaging private property not of a military character, or of injuring non-combatants, is prohibited.” (Article 22, Part II) Britain, the United States and Japan signed this agreement to limit war.

On Dec. 7, 1941, Japan appeared to honor the agreement of limited war.

In August of 1945, the United States did not honor that agreement, and used total war upon Japan. War changes people. Some leaders will do anything to win.

In 1949, due to the inhumanity of World War II, a Geneva Convention caused 191 nations to agree to the protection of people. They limited war.

In 2022, Putin recognized the sovereignty of two breakaway regions in eastern Ukraine. Was he planning limited war? No, he invaded Ukraine, not just eastern Ukraine.

At first, Putin thought he could engage in limited war, but the Ukrainian people rose up against him. Putin ratcheted up the war. Civilian deaths are occurring because in total war, civilians are now targets.

Total war has collateral damage. To destroy people, you kill or block their means to survive. In destroying the means to survive you may destroy nuclear power plants and harm people all over the world.

To win, a leader could block a nation’s supply lines and cut off a nation’s people from their escape route from war. For Putin it is Poland.

Evaluate the news, think in terms of total war. Think of humanitarian conventions that have occurred in the past. Do not believe Putin. He wants to win and avoid a war-crimes trial. Humanity is in danger. Judgment at Nuremburg is my next story.

I wish to thank The Garden Island for permitting me to write these articles. My qualifications are: History major, Stanford University, a lifelong student of war and a judge accustomed to analyzing facts.

William J. Fernandez is a retired judge and Kapa‘a resident.

Not all kupuna are tech savvy

I am a kupuna writing this because of my own frustration with businesses, government offices and hospitals.

I’m sure that many other elderly and/or disabled, in fact, anyone who doesn’t have a computer or a smartphone, or who is not technologically savvy, would agree with my complaints. It seems the populations I just mentioned are routinely dismissed from being considered when policies are put in place for the public to get information.

Example: State tax forms are no longer available at the library in Lihu‘e. The doors to the State Building are locked to the public. The disorganized, tiny cart outside did not have any N-11 or N-311 forms in the mish-mash shoved into inadequate shelving. Elderly or disabled folk can not always bend as low as was needed to access what was there. And, if one is dependent on holding onto a cane, using one hand only is tricky. I gave up and went home.

After a telephone call to that office, I was instructed to go online, given a website to download forms, and I actually tried to do so, oh, foolish me. Pure frustration — and yet, not the information I needed — until I read through umpteen pages to find the site address I really needed…but could not understand how to fill it in online. They offered a telephone number to request forms be mailed. It was not yet 4 p.m. when they close, but all I got was a canned message to call another day.

Example: “My Chart” medical-information site requires a computer to access test results, check appointments, make appointments, contact our doctors, etc. If one is fortunate and can log on, there is yet another hurdle: a second identity check requires a code sent to — either one’s email address, which requires the participant to be tech savvy and know how to switch computer screens in order to get to the email to secure the code, and then back to that My Chart page before the allotted time to do this elapses. I don’t know how to do this. I tried but kept losing the My Chart page and having to start over from scratch. I gave up trying. The only other option offered is to get a text to a cell-phone number. Not everyone has a cell phone either! And not everyone, especially the elderly, text. Why isn’t another option given to have a landline number? I actually called Wilcox’s patient-relations department to suggest this, and to explain the difficulties their present system causes non-technical people. But I got a recording asking for my number and a message they’d call back. That was five days ago. No one called back!

Example: AARP volunteers are helping kupuna with taxes. But how does one find that out? Was it in the paper informing: when, times, locations, and the number to call to make an appointment? I didn’t see it, and I read the paper every day. I suggest it be in our paper every Monday and Friday until tax time is pau. A neighbor told me about it when I told her about my frustration. Seems it’s only one day a week in various locations across Kaua‘i by appointment. And I’m grateful for that. That number is 808-482-9062. Good luck.

I can go on and on, but I think I’ve made it clear. Wake up bureaucrats, managers and web designers. You need to also take all populations’ needs into account. It sometimes feels as though the elderly are being treated as though we’re already buried.

Thanks for letting me vent. Hope it does some good and creates some changes.

Aloha.

Judy Xenofos, Lihu‘e

Carbon cash-back works, benefits most families financially

House Bill 2278 is a very-important bill being considered by the state Legislature because it is a crucial tool to address the climate crisis we face.

The bill is designed to reduce the emissions of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases. The purpose of this letter is to clarify the bill and its beneficial effect on both reducing carbon emissions and helping to put more money in the pockets of the majority of Hawai‘i’s families.

HB2278 assesses a tax on the distributors of fossil fuels, for example, refineries, and returns the total amount of the tax revenue (less administrative fees) to households in Hawai‘i in equal shares. The allocation back to households would be made through refundable tax credits.

This bill applies the carbon fee and dividend model, which has been endorsed by thousands of economists, including 28 Nobel Laureate economists, four former chairs of the Federal Reserve, and 15 former chairs of the Council of Economic Advisors.

This model is the subject of a study by the University of Hawai‘i Economic Research Organization. The Legislature appropriated $150,000 for this study. Unlike other studies, this one is specific to Hawai‘i.

The UHERO study reports the economic results of allocating all of the tax revenue (or dividend) to households in equal shares. The study finds that for a carbon fee starting at $50 per metric ton in 2025, rising to $70 in 2045, the average household for the lowest four income quintiles would benefit, with the greatest net gain experienced by households in the lowest income quintile. The fifth and highest quintile would break even. For most households, the dividend would more than compensate for the increase in prices resulting from the carbon tax.

According to the study, the average household in the lowest income quintile would experience a net gain of $900 in the first year of the program. That net gain would decline to $700 in the last year (2045) due to declining tax revenue. The declining tax revenue is consistent with declining fossil-fuel consumption and declining greenhouse-gas emissions, which is the purpose of the tax. So rather than this decline being seen as a negative, it will show that the bill truly has made a difference, lowering our greenhouse-gas emissions substantially.

The UHERO study concludes that the carbon pollution fee along with existing legislation causes emissions to decline by 40% below 1990 levels. Since revenues are distributed to households in equal shares, the policy is progressive.

According to most climate scientists, new data show that we have less time than we previously thought to make the drastic changes needed to avoid a global climate disaster. HB2278 should grab our attention and support because it both effectively reduces greenhouse-gas emissions and benefits Hawai‘i’s families.

Last year the Legislature adopted state Senate Concurrent Resolution 44, which recognizes that we are facing a climate emergency. We need a multi-faceted solution to avert a global climate disaster. HB2278 is an important part of that solution.

Dr. Helen A. Cox is chair of the Kaua‘i Climate Action Coalition and co-lead of the Kaua‘i Chapter of Citizens Climate Lobby. Prior to her retirement, she served as chancellor of Kaua‘i Community College for over a decade.