International Relations and War Essay

Mankind has condemned the war for a long time. All religions condemn the war. Both the Buddhist principle of compassion and the Christian commandment to love own enemies exclude the war, because favorite enemy ceases to be an enemy, and there is no necessity to fight with him. Even warlike religion of Islam looks at war as only a temporary need, condemning it in theory. Public review suggests that the peace is the norm, something that should be, and the war is an anomaly, something that should not be. Thus, it is necessary to discuss the theories, causes, and need for a human behavior called ‘war’; analyze the theories of just and unjust wars; and express own opinion about demand to fight in an unjust or unnecessary war.
Let us examine what does the concept ‘war’ mean? How we can to comprehend the war philosophically? Using superficial knowledge about the war we see that it is the movement and collision of the mass of material, physical violence, killing, maiming, mechanical action of the monstrous guns. It seems that war is an exceptional immersion into the matter and has no relation to the spirit. People of the spirit sometimes can easily turn away from the war, as from something external or material, as an alien evil, forcibly impose, from which we can and must go into the higher spheres of spiritual life. But it is not right position because, according to Page we see that “war is the most colossal and ruinous social sin that afflicts mankind today; that it is utterly and irremediably unchristian; that however armed conflict in times past may have served an evolutionary purpose it has now become not only futile but suicidal, and that recognition of this fact is necessary to the continuance of civilization; that the war system means everything which Jesus did not mean and means nothing that he did mean; and that it is a more blatant denial of every Christian doctrine about God and man than all the theoretical atheists on earth ever could devise.” (Page, 1923).
How many times mankind gave a vow not to shed blood, but to this day here and there break out new wars and die new people. It is also seems that the World War II continues flowing from one country to another, and does not want to stop. War sucks power out of the state for arms race and concern for children out of mothers’ hearts. But what we know about winners of different wars… Has any war the winner? It seems that yes, we cancel the annexations and war indemnities, but it can not compensate equally significant murders, devastations and human losses. Can the money compensate a person’s death? The question is hard and the answer is ‘no’.
Discussing the theories, causes, and need for a human behavior called ‘war’ we see that war conflicts have not only social, but also biological character. According to observations of ethologists, who study the behavior of animals and insects, we see that rivalries and conflicts, which can be called ‘the beginnings of the war’, are very familiar to monkeys and ants. And despite the fact that we are humans and we are considered to be highly organized beings, and moreover, it seems we have all chances and characteristics to live peacefully, such as intelligence and ability to negotiate, but we can not avoid wars.
Sometimes it seems to us that the war is nothing more than a conflict between two parties, two people, and behind these people we can find not only their ambitions but also millions of deaths. But if we think that only they are guilty in deaths of innocent civilians, then we will make a mistake. Any head of state, no matter how independent he is in own actions and opinions, is the product of a society and depends on the environment. And nature affects people in such a way exactly through their natural surroundings. Why is it so?
When we will study and understand the laws of the universe, when we will learn to see the nature beyond our tiny material world, then we will get a response on the question ‘why?’. After all, now we do not ask why a person should to die when he falls from the seventh floor, or sinks in a river if he does not know how to swim. It seems normal because we have learned several irrevocable physical laws and have no complaints to nature on this occasion.
Mankind has suffered enough and should examine laws governing the universe – as irrevocable as the physical laws of our world – and learn them as well as the law of gravity. And we are very late in the mastering of these laws, we break them, being in ignorance, and are outraged when drowning, dying, burning and fighting. But this information for today’s humanity is more important than the law of gravity. It affects not only our existence in this world, here and now, but the entire future path of humanity.
If the person looks into the general scheme of the universe, he realizes that his whole life – is a continuous struggle with his inner evil, it gradually ousting and replacing it in human soul on the properties of nature – goodness. And as long as all the evil will not be replaced by the good, the struggle is inevitable. Even moreover, the more good actively displaces evil and triumphs over it, the more manifestation of evil become intense, relentless. And the reason is in fact that the higher we climb the ladder, the more powerful forces of good and evil are in us. Opposing forces of good and evil – is a permanent condition of the person on the way to balance with nature.
It turns out that the war is really going on inside a single person, every one of us. And everything what we see around us and pass through – the suffering, tragedy and disaster – is a reflection of us, a consequence of our uncorrected properties, uncorrected at the right time and in own efforts. The whole world is inside every person and how to do it better depends on everyone.
Dwelling on the question of just and unjust wars it becomes understandable that it is the central point of politics since the middle ages. It becomes especially acute in the conditions of new balance of forces at the global arena. Therefore, there is no coincidence that a surge of interest to a problem of the moral component of any war was found at the beginning of the XXI century. Traditionally, the concept ‘just war’ is usually associated with three main components – the cause of war, the method of warfare and, finally, the consequences of war.
The main criterion for assessment of the war as just and unjust is the second component of this triad, namely, the method of warfare. Two major rules that determine warfare are associated with separation of the military and the civilian population. The requirement of humane treatment of civilians extends, on the one hand, and the requirement to minimize the possibility of violence between opposing parties, on the other hand.
Many people, ranging from the ancient Greek historian Thucydides and the Prussian military theorist Carl von Clausewitz and ending with novelist Leo Tolstoy and U.S. President Abraham Lincoln, drew attention to the fact that the war requires a person of special mental state, which manifests itself in hatred of the enemy and willingness to fight with him a war to the death. For the purpose a man to come into such state, it is necessary to overcome the constraints in his soul, and the surest way to achieve this goal is the moral demonization of the enemy, allowing to wage ‘war of annihilation’ against him with no regret and remorse. Once this happens, the war gets into a vicious circle of hatred. Hatred breeds violence, which in turn generates a reciprocal brutality, and so on to infinity. According to Clausewitz, this means that war is always striving for extreme forms. And this, in turn, implies that the so-called ‘horrors of war’ are not at all its random or fleeting moments, but refer to its very nature. (Page, 1923).
It is considered that exactly the desire to make war less destructive and misanthropic, to neutralize their hidden and explosive potential to self-destruction was the main motive in encouraging even the medieval intellectuals towards the concept of just and unjust wars. While the concept of just and unjust wars continues to maintain a specific value, it is of little help in determining the moral justification of contemporary wars. Such situation is caused by the fact that this classic moral-legal doctrine is full of contradictions and inconsistencies, which make its use very problematic and difficult.
Let us consider war efforts in Iraq with an aim to understand the true reasons of this war and define it as just or unjust war.
The most famous contemporary social theorist, engaged in developing the concept of just and unjust wars, is an American philosopher Michael Walzer. In his prominent book “Arguing About War” Walzer uses the concept of “just war” for the consideration of such wars and conflicts, both the first and second war in Iraq, Yugoslavia, the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, as well as so-called war of the Bush administration against international terrorism. (Walzer, 2004). The centerpiece of the book, of course, is discussion of the moral legitimacy of the war in Iraq. The person familiar with the earlier work of Walzer, might get the impression that he will favor in support of this war. After all, he considered fair preventive “six-day” Israel’s war against the Arab states in 1967 and Israeli Air Force attack on the Iraqi nuclear reactor in 1981, as well as the Gulf War in 1991 and the NATO intervention in Kosovo. However, in the book Walzer rejects the thesis of moral justification for war against Iraq. In his opinion, this war from the United States side was unfair in the causes of war, and in the way of its management and consequences. (Walzer, 2004).
He points out that one of its main causes was the failure of the Bush administration to agree to the continuation of inspections under the auspices of the UN search for weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. If the inspectors remained in Iraq, there would be no justification for the invasion to this country for the U.S. Administration. In addition, the claim that for a good reason for the war could serve the U.S. desire to punish Saddam Hussein for the massacre of Kurdish and Shiite populations in northern and southern Iraq after the war ended in 1991, also rejected by Walzer. Indeed, in recent years, Saddam Hussein’s regime had neither possibility nor the intention to carry out mass killings or ethnic cleansing, so the desire to punish him for past acts can be explained solely by revenge rather than the moral and legal considerations in the strict sense. Considering the progress of war, Walzer stresses that the army invaded Iraq, not having verified the strategy of warfare. (Walzer, 2004).
As for the outcome of the war and ensuing occupation of Iraq, Walzer finds no reasons that would justify the behavior of the Bush administration. The mere distribution of contracts for rebuilding Iraq in favor of companies that are closely connected with the White House and key figures of this administration indicates that the declared goals towards Iraq, such as the restoration of democracy in this country are nothing more than a smokescreen behind which lurk commercial interests of the largest U.S. corporations. All these facts give Walzer foundation to declare that the Bush administration’s policy towards Iraq is unjust. (Walzer, 2004).
The main question that the book invites to be thinking on – is a question of who ultimately has a crucial right to declare war. Until recently it was assumed that the problem was solved in modern times, when formed nation states of substantial core of which is the supreme authority of the sovereign, put this right on them. But as far as in a democratic state the people is the supreme bearer of sovereignty, it is quite naturally that the following question arises: whether it should participate in determining the legitimacy of the war, and if so, in what forms.
Modern government, formally recognizing the political and legal status of the people as the ultimate bearer of sovereignty, in fact, are trying to reduce to a minimum its impact on decision-making on matters of war and peace. In particular, it has gone down this path the administration of J. Bush, who, seeing the broad opposition to the Iraq war from the various strata of American society, tried to exclude the democratic will of citizens from the process of making a decision on declaring the war.
Therefore, in no small measure the repeal of conscription contributed to this, which, according to Walzer, leads to the fact that individuals are becoming more loyal to their other civic duties. (Walzer, 2004). The statement of the apologists of the war in Iraq that the war of a new type, based on the widespread use of precision of modern weapons makes it possible to avoid the risk of large losses and end the military campaign in the short term, and it is morally ambiguous, as to kill other people with extremely low risk to be killed himself stuck rather murderer than a professional soldier.
The best way to keep people away from the pressing issues of war and peace is a veil of secrecy that traditionally “wraps” such facts and events at the behest of the authorities. As a result, citizens are cut off from accurate information about current events, and the concept of “just war” is seldom applicable to international realities due to lack of court of first instance competent and endowed with the authority, which could declare war. It seems that Walzer’s merit is precisely in the fact that he raised these concerns with the theory of just war, and looked into the center of contemporary political debate without any fear.
In my opinion unjust or unnecessary war is a pain of our society. Ordinary people are not guilty that they should become participants of such wars and, moreover, their heroism should be respected. I think that we should not hurry with accusations against those who participated in the unjust wars of conquest. Soldiers are always soldiers: they are required to comply with order of the commander. It seems that regardless of whether we have war or not, there is always a place to feat of arms in it. And heroism of civilian persons during the war can be considered double feat. If to be honest, I do not want to participate in any war, because I am convinced that the war – is a relic of the past, a phenomenon which should disappear in a civilized society of the future. And the examples of heroism, which demonstrated our compatriots a few decades ago, only proves that the war goes against common sense. But today’s events show us that the common sense is not inherent to all politicians and statesmen. Let us recall the once-popular slogan “No war!” Unfortunately, it is still relevant …
Thus, basing on the above stated information it is possible to come to the conclusion that every war has a definite influence on the development of human society. The historical significance of the war depends on its political content, which determines the progressive or reactionary role of war in public life. Depending on this, every war is either just or unjust. Our time – is unique historical crossroads. Now we have the opportunity to hear the scalding truth about many wars and make own conclusions on their base. To sum up, it is necessary to say that all wars are alike. Other wars are not happen, there is only another time and another place. The soldiers of any war are the same too. And it is a true, regardless of the justice or injustice of war. There is no difference between them, no matter what time and space separate them. Death is always death; life is always life, and courage is always courage. It has always been and always will be in such a way. I strongly believe if people in all countries genuinely love the whole humanity, there would be no war, no sufferings and there would be peace everywhere on the earth and every country would be happy. The world need peace and every citizen of every country should remember these words and try to make them true.