Category: Peace and Conflict

The Responsibility to Protect

August 12, 2021

Meanwhile, the debate about intervention for human protection purposes has not gone away. And it will not go away so long as human nature remains as fallible as it is and internal conflict and state failures stay as prevalent as they are. The debate was certainly a lively one throughout the 1990s. Controversy may have been muted in the case of the interventions, by varying casts of actors, in Liberia in 1990, northern Iraq in 1991, Haiti in 1994, Sierra Leone in 1997, and (not strictly coercively) East Timor in 1999. But in Somalia in 1993, Rwanda in 1994, and Bosnia in 1995, the UN action taken (if taken at all) was widely perceived as too little too late, misconceived, poorly resourced, poorly executed, or all of the above. During NATO’s 1999 intervention in Kosovo, Security Council members were sharply divided; the legal justification for action without UN authority was asserted but largely unargued; and great misgivings surrounded the means by which the allies waged the war.

https://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/2002-11-01/responsibility-protect

Are drone strikes ever ethical?

August 12, 2021

The US, which deploys more drones than any other country, has exploited the gaps in international law to fight its war on terror.

The principle of humanity requires avoiding unnecessary harm to civilians. The fundamental rationale for drone use relies on this principle: drone capacity for precise targeting can save civilian lives. US Air Force General T Michael Moseley calls this the “true hunter-killer role” of drones. Given that there were, for example, two million civilian deaths in the Korean War alone, the precision of drone strikes offers a persuasive moral argument in favour of their use

https://www.newstatesman.com/world/north-america/2019/11/are-drone-strikes-ever-ethical

The Moral Logic of Humanitarian Intervention

August 12, 2021

Samantha Power made a career arguing for America’s “responsibility to protect.” During her years in the White House, it became clear that benevolent motives can have calamitous results.

The book inspired a generation of activists, helping to establish the doctrine of “responsibility to protect,” which held that the United States and other wealthy countries had an obligation to defend threatened populations around the world. It also made a star of its author, a charismatic, cracklingly smart presence who urged others to take up the cause. “Know that history is not in a hurry but that you can help speed it up,” she told Yale’s graduating class of 2016. “It is the struggle itself that will define you. Do that, and you will not only find yourself fulfilled but you, too, will live to see many of your lost causes found.”

https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2019/09/16/the-moral-logic-of-humanitarian-intervention

If Germany Atoned for the Holocaust, the U.S. Can Pay Reparations for Slavery

August 12, 2021

Calls for reparations in the U.S. are generally met with skepticism: What would reparations achieve? Who should receive them, and under what conditions?

Other countries have tackled these questions. In 1995, South Africa established its Truth and Reconciliation Commission and paid reparations to the victims of apartheid. Eight years before, the United States apologized to 82,000 Japanese Americans unduly imprisoned during World War II and paid them US$20,000 each to compensate for their suffering.

https://nationalinterest.org/blog/buzz/if-germany-atoned-holocaust-us-can-pay-reparations-slavery-82526

Principles of the Just War (and additional readings)

August 12, 2021
  • A just war can only be waged as a last resort. All non-violent options must be exhausted before the use of force can be justified.
  • A war is just only if it is waged by a legitimate authority. Even just causes cannot be served by actions taken by individuals or groups who do not constitute an authority sanctioned by whatever the society and outsiders to the society deem legitimate.
  • A just war can only be fought to redress a wrong suffered. For example, self-defense against an armed attack is always considered to be a just cause (although the justice of the cause is not sufficient–see point #4). Further, a just war can only be fought with “right” intentions: the only permissible objective of a just war is to redress the injury.
  • A war can only be just if it is fought with a reasonable chance of success. Deaths and injury incurred in a hopeless cause are not morally justifiable.
  • The ultimate goal of a just war is to re-establish peace. More specifically, the peace established after the war must be preferable to the peace that would have prevailed if the war had not been fought.
  • The violence used in the war must be proportional to the injury suffered. States are prohibited from using force not necessary to attain the limited objective of addressing the injury suffered.
  • The weapons used in war must discriminate between combatants and non-combatants. Civilians are never permissible targets of war, and every effort must be taken to avoid killing civilians. The deaths of civilians are justified only if they are unavoidable victims of a deliberate attack on a military target.

https://www.mtholyoke.edu/acad/intrel/pol116/justwar.htm

Are amnesties in Latin America always a bad idea? ($)

August 12, 2021

Any civilised society must try to punish such horrors. But in ending internal conflicts, peace, reconciliation and truth are as important as justice. There is often a trade-off. Rebels and dictators often refuse to give up unless they are promised amnesty. Moral imperative is thus tempered by political feasibility. And the politics is not getting much easier.

https://www.economist.com/the-americas/2019/06/29/are-amnesties-in-latin-america-always-a-bad-idea

Rwanda: A Poster Child for Development With a Dark Side

August 12, 2021

East African nation emerges from genocidal past with substantial growth, but critics question the numbers and what they say is President Paul Kagame’s authoritarian rule

Supporters and critics describe Mr. Kagame—a former rebel commander who now has 1.4 million followers on Twitter and hobnobs with Ellen DeGeneres and Bill Clinton —as a disciplinarian with little tolerance for the corruption that has plagued other African nations. In his early days in power, Mr. Kagame would go on drives through Kigali with the capital’s mayor, pointing out things that should be improved. The result is visible today on its palm-lined, trash- and pothole-free streets.

https://www.wsj.com/articles/rwanda-a-poster-child-for-development-with-a-dark-side-1541500201

Transitional Justice in South Africa

August 12, 2021

The term “transitional justice” describes a set of approaches that communities can use to move toward a lasting peace. Transitional justice typically has three key elements: ensuring accountability for crimes and atrocities, establishing truth, and fostering reconciliation. What does transitional justice look like in practice? Judicial actions, like trials for war crimes and crimes against humanity, are a key part of seeking justice; so are reparations. Official apologies, government reforms, memorials, and education also have roles to play. Since the 1970s, truth commissions have become one of the most widespread components of transitional justice. Of the more than 40 such commissions dealing with violence and abuses of human rights, South Africa’s Truth and Reconciliation Commission (TRC) is perhaps the best known.

https://www.facinghistory.org/holocaust-and-human-behavior/chapter-11/transitional-justice-south-africa

Iraq: Just War Revisited

August 12, 2021
Iraq: Just War Revisited

Could this be a ‘just’ war?

Originally devised by Greek and Roman philosophers, the “just war theory” was developed by Christian theologians. With some variations, it is widely cited and applied by various religions today.

Here we outline the six steps to a just war and square them with the issues at stake.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/politics/2724019.stm

Just War — or a Just War?

The war can be waged only as a last resort, with all nonviolent options exhausted. In the case of Iraq, it is obvious that clear alternatives to war exist. These options — previously proposed by our own leaders and approved by the United Nations — were outlined again by the Security Council on Friday. But now, with our own national security not directly threatened and despite the overwhelming opposition of most people and governments in the world, the United States seems determined to carry out military and diplomatic action that is almost unprecedented in the history of civilized nations. The first stage of our widely publicized war plan is to launch 3,000 bombs and missiles on a relatively defenseless Iraqi population within the first few hours of an invasion, with the purpose of so damaging and demoralizing the people that they will change their obnoxious leader, who will most likely be hidden and safe during the bombardment.