3. Justifying war

While the nature of war and warfare have changed enormously over time, debates about whether, and in what circumstances, war can be justified have a much more enduring character, dating back to Ancient Rome and including medieval European philosophers such as Augustine of Hippo (354-430) and Thomas Aquinas. Three broad positions have been adopted on this issue. These are as follows:

• Realpolitik - suggesting that war, as a political act, needs no moral justification.

• Just war theory - suggesting that war can be justified only if it conforms to moral principles.

• Pacifism - suggesting that war, as an unnecessary evil, can never be justified.

Realpolitik

The defining feature of political realism, sometimes referred to as realpolitik, is that matters of war and peace are beyond morality, in that they are - and should be - determined by the pursuit of national self-interest. In this view, war is accepted as a universal norm of human history; although war may be punctu¬ated by possibly long periods of peace, peace is always temporary. For practi¬tioners of realpolitik, the bias in favour of fighting and armed conflict derives usually either from innate human aggression or the aggressiveness that arises from the mismatch between unlimited human appetites and the scarce resources available to satisfy them. Either way, this implies, at best, a belief in negative peace, defined by the absence of its opposite, namely war or (more generally) active violence.

Nevertheless, it would be a mistake to portray political realists as warmon-gers, who are unconcerned about the death and devastation that war can wreck. Carl Schmitt (1996), for example, argued against just wars, on the grounds that wars fought for political gain tend to be limited by the fact that their protagonists operate within clear strategic objectives, whereas just wars, and especially humanitarian war, lead to total war because of their expansive goals and the moral fervour behind them. Indeed, one of the reasons why realists have criti¬cized utopian liberal dreams about ‘perpetual peace’ is that they are based on fundamental misunderstandings about the nature of international politics that would, ironically, make war more likely, not less likely. For example, during the interwar period, UK and French policy-makers, deluded by the theories of liberal internationalism, failed to act to prevent the re-emergence of Germany as an expansionist power, thereby contributing to the outbreak of WWII. The essence of realpolitik, then, is that it is better to be ‘hard-headed’ than ‘wrong- headed’. The sole reliable way of maintaining peace from this point of view is through the balance of power, and the recognition that only power can be a check on power. Moreover, it may also be misleading to portray realpoli¬tik as amoral. Rather, it is an example of moral relativism, in that it is informed by a kind of ethical nationalism that places considerations of the national self- interest above all other moral considerations. In other words, its enemy is the notion of universal moral principles, not morality as such.

However, realpolitik has been subject to severe criticism. In the first place, it draws on assumptions about power politics, conflict, greed and violence that serve to legitimize war and the use of force by making them appear to be part of the ‘natural order of things’. Second, in view of the scope of devastation and suffering that war wreaks, the assertion that matters of war and peace are beyond morality reflects a remarkable stunting of ethical sensibilities. Most thinking about why and when war can be justified therefore focuses on how the resort to war and its conduct can be reconciled with morality, usually through the notion of a ‘just war’.

Just war theory

The idea of a ‘just war’ is based on the assumption that war can be justified and should be judged on the basis of ethical criteria. As such, it stands between realism or realpolitik, which interprets war primarily in terms of the pursuit of power or self-interest, and pacifism, which denies that there ever can be a moral justification for war and violence. However, just war theory is more a field of philosophical or ethical reflection, rather than a settled doctrine. Its origins can be traced back to the Roman thinker, Cicero, but it was first developed system-atically by philosophers such as Augustine of Hippo, Thomas Aquinas, Francisco de Vitoria and Hugo Grotius. Modern contributors to the tradition include Michael Walzer, Jean Bethke Elshtain and David Rodin.

Can standards of justice be applied to war, and what are the implications of doing so? Those who subscribe to the just war tradition base their thinking on two assumptions. First, human nature is composed of an unchangeable mixture of good and evil components. War, in other words, is inevitable. Second, the suffering that war leads to can be ameliorated by subjecting warfare to moral constraints. As politicians, the armed forces and civilian populations become sensitized to the principles of a just war and the laws of war, fewer wars will occur and the harm done by warfare will be reduced. Just war theorists therefore argue that the purpose of war must be to re¬establish peace and justice. But has a war ever fulfilled these high ideals?

Just war theory addresses two separate but related issues. The first of these deals with the right to go to war in the first place, or what in Latin is called jus ad bellum. The second deals with the right conduct of warfare, or what in Latin is called jus in bello. Although these branches of just war thinking complement one another, they may have quite different implications. For example, a state fighting for a just cause may use unjust methods. Nevertheless, it is unclear whether, for a war to be just, it must fulfil all the conditions of jus ad bellum and jus in bello, or just a substantial number. There is also debate amongst just war theorists about the priority that should be accorded the various conditions. For instance, some have argued that greatest emphasis should be placed on ensuring that war is waged for a just cause, while others have suggested that it is more important that war is always a last resort. In the same vein, some just war theo¬rists have argued that the conditions for jus ad bellum have greater moral purchase that the principles of jus in bello, on the grounds that the ends justify the means. Finally, although the requirements of a just war may appear to be straightforward, they often raise difficult political, moral and philosophical problems when they are applied in practice.

Principles of jus ad bellum (just recourse to war)

 Last resort. All non-violent options must have been exhausted before force can be justified. This is sometimes seen as the principle of necessity.

 Just cause. The purpose of war is to redress a wrong that has been suffered. This is usually associated with self-defence in response to military attack, viewed as the classic justification for war.

 Legitimate authority. This is usually interpreted to imply the lawfully constituted government of a sovereign state, rather than a private individual or group.

 Right intention. War must be prosecuted on the basis of aims that are morally acceptable (which may or may not be the same as the just cause), rather than revenge or the desire to inflict harm.

 Reasonable prospect of success. War should not be fought in a hopeless cause, in which life is expended for no purpose or benefit.

 Proportionality. War should result in more good than evil, in that any response to an attack should be measured and proportionate. For example, a wholesale inva¬sion is not a justifiable response to a border incur¬sion.

Principles of jus in bello (just conduct in war)

 Discrimination. Force must be directed at military targets only, on the grounds that civilians or non- combatants are innocent. Death or injury to civil¬ians is therefore only acceptable if they are the accidental and unavoidable victims of deliberate attacks on legitimate targets, sometimes seen as collateral damage.

 Proportionality. Overlapping with jus ad bellum, this holds that the force used must not be greater than that needed to achieve an acceptable military outcome, and must not be greater than the provoking cause.

 Humanity. Force must not be directed ever against enemy personnel if they are captured, wounded or under control (prisoners of war). Together with the other jus in bello principles, this has been formalized over time, in the so-called ‘laws of war’.

KEY POINTS

• War is a condition of armed conflict between two or more parties, traditionally states. However, the nature of war and warfare has changed enormously over time, as they have been refashioned by developments in military technology and strategy.

• The classic account of war, developed by Clausewitz, views it as a continuation of politics by other means. However, the Clausewitzian conception of war has been criticized for ignoring the moral implications of and on the grounds that it is outdated, either because war has become a less effective policy instrument because modem wars are less easy to interpret in instrumental terms.

• Many argue that the nature of war has changed in the post-Cold War period. So-called ‘new’ wars tend to be civil wars rather than inter-state wars, often fought over issues of identity. They are also commonly asym-metrical wars, fought between unequal parties, tend to blur the civilian/military distinction, and, arguably involve higher levels of indiscriminate violence.

• War and warfare have also been affected by the development of ‘hi-tech’ technology and ‘smart’ weapons, giving rise to so-called ‘postmodern’ warfare. Although such warfare was effective in the Gulf War and in Kosovo, its strategic effectiveness has been called into question, especially in the context of small-scale, low-intensity wars, when the enemy is highly mobile and difficult to distinguish from the civilian population.

• Three broad positions have been adopted on the issue of the relationship between war and morality. Realpolitik suggests that war, as a political act, needs no moral justification. Just war theory seeks to justify war but only if it conforms to moral principles about both the just recourse to war and the just conductor war. Pacifism suggests that war, as an unnecessary evil, can never be justified.

CONCEPTS AND DEFINITIONS

Failed state: a state that is unable to perform its key role of ensuring domestic order by monopolizing the use of force within its territory.

Examples: Cambodia, Haiti, Rwanda, Liberia and Somalia.

Failed states are no longer able to operate as viable political units, in that they lack a credible system of law and order, often being gripped by civil war or warlordism. They are also no longer able to operate as viable economic units, in that they are incapable of providing for their citizens and have no functioning infrastructure. Although relatively few states collapse altogether, a much larger number barely function and are dangerously close to collapse.

War: a condition of armed conflict between two or more parties (usually states). The emergence of the modern form of war as an organized and goal-directed activity stems from the development of the European state-system in the early modern period. War has a formal or quasi-legal character in that the declaration of a state of war need not necessarily be accompanied by an outbreak of hostilities. In the post-Cold War era it has been common to refer to ‘new’ wars. These have been characterized, variously, as being linked to intra-state ethnic conflict, the use of advanced military technology, and the involvement of non-state actors such as terrorist groups and guerrilla movements.

Civil war: an armed conflict between politically organized groups within a state, usually fought either for control of the state or to establish a new state.

Conventional warfare: a form of warfare that is conducted by regular, uniformed and national military units and uses conventional (not nuclear) military weapons and battlefield tactics.

Total war: a war involving all aspects of society, including large-scale conscription, the gearing of the economy to military ends, and the aim of achieving unconditional surrender through the mass destruction of enemy targets, civilian and military.

Hegemonic war: war that is fought to establish dominance of the entire world order by restructuring the global balance of power.

Guerilla war: (Spanish) - literally, ‘little war’; an insurgency or people’s war, fought by irregular troops using tactics that are suited to the terrain and emphasize mobility and surprise rather than superior firepower.

Militarism: a cultural or ideological phenomenon in which military priorities, ideas and values come to pervade the larger society.

Identity war: a war in which the quest for cultural regeneration, expressed though the demand that a people’s collective identity is publicly and politically recognized, is a primary motivation for conflict.

Asymmetrical war: war fought between opponents with clearly unequal levels of military, economic and technological power, in which warfare strategies tend to be adapted to the needs of the weak.

Insurgency: an armed uprising, involving irregular soldiers, which aims to overthrow the established regime.

Militancy: heightened or extreme commitment; a level of zeal and passion typically associated with struggle or war.

Ethnic cleansing: the forcible expulsion or extermination of 'alien' peoples; often used as a euphemism for genocide.

Genocide is the attempt to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnic, racial or religious group.

Revolution in military affairs: the development of new military strategies, based on ‘high-tech’ technology and ‘smart’ weapons, aimed at thieving swift and decisive outcomes.

Realpolitik: a form of politics or diplomacy that is guided by practical considerations, rather than by ideals, morals or principles.

Negative peace: peace defined as a period when war is neither imminent nor actually being fought, although the forces that give rise to war remain in place.

Just war: a war that in its purpose and conduct meets certain ethical standards, and so is (allegedly) morally justified.

Pacifism: a commitment to peace and a rejection of war or violence in any circumstances

Jus ad bellum: a just recourse to war, reflected in principles that restrict the legitimate use of force.

Jus in bello: the just conduct of war, reflected in principles that stipulate how wars should be fought.

Collateral damage: unintended or incidental injury or damage caused during a military operation (usually used as a euphemism).

QUESTIONS FOR DISCUSSION

1. What is the difference between war and other forms of violence?

2. Is there a meaningful difference between conven¬tional and unconventional warfare?

3. Is war inevitable, and if so, why?

4. How persuasive is the idea that war is a political art?

5. Why is it so difficult to win asymmetrical wars? Are ‘new’ wars really more barbaric and horrific than ‘old’ wars?

6. How beneficial has ‘hi-tech’ warfare proved to be?

7. How valid are the traditional just war principles of jus ad bellum?

8. Do the principles of jus in bello constitute an obstacle to the effective conduct of war?

9. Why do pacifists reject war?

CHAPTER 6.NUCLEAR PROLIFERATION AND DISARMAMENT

1. Nature of nuclear weapons

2. Arms control and anti-proliferation strategies

1. NATURE OF NUCLEAR WEAPONS

The development and use of nuclear weapons in 1945 marked a major turning point in the history of warfare and, indeed, in the history of humanity. Very quickly, enough nuclear warheads had been created and stockpiled to destroy civilization many times over, giving humanity, for the first time, the capacity to end its own existence. As the Cold War developed, the world thus fell under the shadow of ‘the bomb’. However, while some saw nuclear weapons as the lynchpin of a deterrence system that effectively ruled out war between major powers, others viewed the nuclear arms race as a source of unending tension and insecurity. Anxieties about nuclear proliferation have intensified during the post-Cold War period. Not only from has the ‘nuclear club’ grown from five to at least nine, but many argue that the constraints that had prevented nuclear weapons from being used have been dangerously weakened. Finally, greater anxiety about nuclear proliferation has been reflected in an increasing emphasis on the issues of arms control and disarmament. Although non-proliferation strategies have ranged from diplomatic pressure and the imposition of economic sanctions to direct military intervention, nuclear arms control has been notoriously difficult to bring about. In this context, non-prolifera¬tion has increasingly been linked to a commitment to nuclear disarmament.

The first and only nuclear weapons that have been used in warfare were the atomic bombs, developed by the Manhattan Project, which were exploded over Hiroshima and Nagasaki on 6 and 9 August 1945 respectively. Developed under the scientific direction of the US physicist J. Robert Oppenheimer, and first tested in the New Mexico desert on 16 July 1945, these bombs represented an entirely new kind of weapon. An even more powerful nuclear weapon was developed in the hydrogen bomb. The Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombs were relatively small by comparison with the thermonuclear weapons later tested, some of which released destructive forces over 2000 times greater than those used against Japan.

The massive destructive capacity of nuclear weapons means that they have affected international and domestic politics in a way that no other weapons ever have. They are the archetypal example of a new category of weapons, recognized by the United Nations since 1948: ‘weapons of mass destruction’, or WMD. The category of WMD now also covers chemical and biological weapons (CBW) sometimes grouped together as atomic, biological and chemical weapons (ABC). They are distinguished from conventional weapons in three main ways:

• As the name suggests, they are weapons that have potential to inflict massive collateral damage, having devastating implications for civilian populations.

• Their mass impact has raised important moral questions, notably through the suggestion that these weapons are ‘non-legitimate, inhuman’ forms of warfare.

• They have a particularly powerful deterrent effect, making attacks on states which possess WMD almost unthinkable.