Tag Archives: war

March 12, 2026 · 1:14 am

Being there

It is sometimes claimed that one cannot form a legitimate opinion about countries such as those in the Middle East without first visiting them. This claim is mistaken. In most cases, direct personal experience is not necessary for forming a reasonable and informed judgment.

First, much of our knowledge about the world depends on reliable testimony and evidence rather than personal observation. No one expects a person to visit every place in order to have an opinion about it. Historians write about ancient civilizations they have never seen; scientists study distant galaxies they will never visit; experts evaluate foreign governments based on documented facts and credible reports. Human knowledge would be almost impossible if direct experience were the only valid basis for judgment.

Second, moral judgments about political systems often rely on well-established principles rather than personal travel. For example, a person could reasonably oppose apartheid in South Africa without ever having been there. The system of apartheid was widely documented: laws that enforced racial segregation, restricted where people could live, whom they could marry, and whether they could vote. Once these facts were known, it was entirely rational to condemn the system on moral grounds. Visiting the country would not change the basic ethical evaluation of those laws.

Third, the requirement that one must personally visit a place before criticizing it creates an impossible standard. By that logic, people could not condemn slavery in the past, the Soviet gulag system, or genocide in other countries unless they had personally travelled there. This would silence moral judgment precisely where it is most needed.

Finally, what matters is not physical presence but the quality of the evidence on which a judgment is based. A poorly informed traveller who spends a week in a country may know less than someone who has carefully studied its history, laws, and social conditions.

For these reasons, visiting a country is neither a necessary nor sufficient condition for forming a reasonable opinion about it. What matters is access to reliable information, careful reasoning, and sound moral principles—not the possession of a passport stamp.

Leave a comment

Filed under Essays and talks

Tagged as , , , , , , , , , ,

February 17, 2026 · 9:02 pm

The Moral Failure of Pacifism

Pacifism presents itself as the highest moral ground: a principled refusal to engage in violence, an insistence that all killing is always wrong, and a hope that moral purity can disarm brutality. In practice, however, pacifism is not merely naïve but morally evasive. It refuses responsibility for consequences, confuses intentions with outcomes, and ultimately relies on the violence of others to sustain the very peace it claims to uphold. The aim in international conflict should be to minimise harm; but pacifism often fails in this regard.

This was most forcefully argued by George Orwell, whose essay Pacifism and the War remains one of the clearest demolitions of pacifist reasoning. Writing during the Second World War, Orwell rejected the idea that pacifism was a morally neutral position. On the contrary, he argued that it had real political effects—and those effects overwhelmingly favoured the aggressor.

Orwell observed that “Pacifism is objectively pro-Fascist.” This was not rhetorical excess. His point was simple: in any conflict between a violent aggressor and a resisting victim, the refusal to resist does not produce peace; it merely removes obstacles. If Britain had adopted pacifism in 1940, Nazism would not have been morally chastened—it would have triumphed. To decline to fight is not to opt out of the conflict, but to decide who wins it. If pacifists had their way, the Nazis would have defeated the Allies.

A central flaw in pacifist thinking is the assumption that violence is always symmetrical: that all killing is morally equivalent regardless of cause or context. Orwell rejected this moral flattening. He insisted that intention, necessity, and consequence matter. A soldier fighting to stop mass murder is not morally equivalent to the murderer. To pretend otherwise is not moral clarity; it is moral laziness.

Pacifism also depends, often unacknowledged, on a background of enforced order. Orwell pointed out the hypocrisy of pacifists living safely within states defended by armies while denouncing the very institutions that protect them. “Those who ‘abjure’ violence can do so only because others are committing violence on their behalf,” he wrote. Police, soldiers, and prisons do not disappear because one refuses to acknowledge them; they merely become invisible conveniences.

There is, moreover, a psychological comfort in pacifism. It offers moral absolution without demanding difficult choices. To say “I oppose all violence” spares one from weighing tragic alternatives—such as whether allowing an aggressor to prevail will lead to greater suffering than resisting him. Orwell saw this clearly. Pacifism, he argued, often masquerades as compassion while functioning as an escape from moral seriousness.

History bears this out. Non-violent resistance can be effective against regimes that retain some moral constraint or dependence on public opinion. It fails utterly against totalitarian systems that recognise no such limits. Gandhi’s methods would not have worked against Hitler, Stalin, or Pol Pot. To recommend pacifism in such contexts is not humane—it is catastrophic.

None of this is to glorify war. Orwell himself despised militarism and nationalism. His argument was not that violence is good, but that it is sometimes necessary, and that refusing to acknowledge this does not make one virtuous. It merely hands moral agency to those least deserving of it.

Pacifism, then, is not a higher morality but an abdication of it. By focusing exclusively on personal purity, it neglects responsibility for outcomes. By condemning all violence equally, it erases the difference between oppression and resistance. And by refusing to choose, it ensures that others will choose on its behalf—usually the worst among us.

In a world where evil is not hypothetical but historical and recurring, moral seriousness requires more than clean hands. It requires the courage to accept tragic necessities and the honesty to recognise that peace, when it exists, is very often bought—not by pacifism—but by those willing to defend it.

1 Comment

Filed under Essays and talks

Tagged as , , , , , , , , ,

January 16, 2026 · 11:33 am

“The enemy of my enemy is my friend”

The saying “the enemy of my enemy is my friend” has superficial appeal. It promises strategic clarity in a complex world by reducing moral and political judgment to a single axis: opposition. But as a principle for thought or action, it is deeply flawed—logically, morally, and practically.

1. It confuses alignment of interests with shared values

Two parties may oppose the same enemy for entirely different reasons. That coincidence of hostility does not create trust, compatibility, or friendship. At most, it creates a temporary overlap of interests.

History repeatedly shows that alliances built purely on shared enemies collapse once the common threat recedes—or worse, mutate into new conflicts. Treating such alliances as friendships mistakes convenience for commitment.

Friendship, whether personal or political, rests on positive qualities: trustworthiness, shared aims, and moral reliability. Mere opposition supplies none of these.

2. It erases moral evaluation

The phrase encourages a dangerous moral shortcut: anyone who fights my enemy must therefore be acceptable. This dissolves ethical judgment and replaces it with tribal logic.

By this reasoning, brutality, oppression, or fanaticism can be excused so long as it is directed at the “right” target. The maxim thus invites moral blindness, allowing people to ally themselves with forces they would otherwise condemn—simply because those forces point their weapons elsewhere.

In effect, the saying subordinates ethics to expediency.

3. It treats enemies as static and intentions as irrelevant

Enemies change. Interests shift. Today’s ally of convenience may become tomorrow’s adversary. The maxim ignores intentions, long-term goals, and character, focusing only on the present alignment of hostility.

This is strategically naïve. A group may oppose your enemy not to defend your interests, but to advance its own incompatible or hostile agenda. Once the common enemy is defeated, nothing prevents that group from turning against you—often from a stronger position gained through your assistance.

4. It collapses complexity into binary thinking

The saying reduces the world to a crude friend/enemy dichotomy. In reality, political and moral landscapes are multi-dimensional. One may oppose an enemy’s actions while also rejecting the methods or aims of those who oppose them.

Binary thinking discourages nuance, caution, and proportional judgment. It pressures people to “pick a side” even when all available sides are morally compromised or strategically unwise.

5. It encourages short-term thinking at the expense of long-term consequences

Aligning with an enemy’s enemy may produce immediate tactical gains, but it often sows the seeds of future disasters. Weapons, legitimacy, or moral cover granted today can empower far worse outcomes tomorrow.

The maxim embodies a present-focused opportunism that treats future costs as someone else’s problem.

Conclusion

“The enemy of my enemy is my friend” is not wisdom; it is a slogan for abandoning judgment. At best, the enemy of your enemy is a temporary partner of convenience—and even that requires careful scrutiny.

A more responsible principle would be:

Shared enemies justify caution, not trust.

Friendship—whether personal, political, or moral—cannot be inferred from hostility alone. It must be earned by shared values, reliable conduct, and compatible long-term aims.

Leave a comment

Filed under Essays and talks, Logical fallacies

Tagged as , , , , , , , , , ,

January 12, 2026 · 2:58 pm

Against Pacifism and Appeasement

Pacifism is often defended as a morally superior stance in political life. By refusing violence, it claims to rise above the brutal logic of power and coercion. Yet this claim rests on a serious misunderstanding—both of human nature and of how conflict actually arises. Far from preventing violence, pacifism frequently enables it. Appeasement, its practical corollary, does not restrain aggressors but encourages them.

A philosophy that cannot account for aggression does not abolish it; it merely leaves it unanswered.

The Error at the Heart of Pacifism

Pacifism assumes that conflict is fundamentally a failure of communication or goodwill. If parties can be brought to understand one another, violence will recede. This assumption confuses a moral aspiration with a descriptive claim about reality.

Human beings—and the political communities they form—do not act solely from misunderstanding. They act from ambition, fear, ideology, greed, and the pursuit of dominance. Some conflicts are not accidental but intentional. Any political doctrine that refuses to recognise this fact substitutes hope for analysis.

From a realist perspective, pacifism commits a basic philosophical error: it treats what ought to motivate human action as though it already does. Politics conducted on this assumption is not ethical idealism but moral negligence.

Deterrence and the Logic of Incentives

Armed deterrence is often caricatured as a love of force or a cynical embrace of violence. In reality, deterrence is grounded in a sober assessment of incentives. Aggression is discouraged not by moral appeal alone, but by the certainty of cost.

The purpose of deterrence is not to fight wars, but to prevent them. When the costs of aggression are clear, credible, and immediate, rational actors refrain from initiating violence. Where deterrence fails, it is usually because it was not credible, not because it existed.

The long absence of direct war between major powers after 1945 was not achieved by pacifism. It was achieved by a balance of power in which escalation promised catastrophe. That catastrophe never occurred precisely because deterrence worked.

Appeasement as Moral and Strategic Failure

Appeasement arises from the same mistaken psychology as pacifism: the belief that concessions will satisfy aggressors. History offers repeated evidence to the contrary.

The most cited example remains the treatment of Nazi Germany in the 1930s. The territorial demands of Adolf Hitlerwere met with concession rather than resistance, culminating in the Munich Agreement, defended by Neville Chamberlain as the price of peace. The lesson drawn by the aggressor was unmistakable: threats worked. Almost everybody now realises that the appeasement of Hitler was a catastrophic misjudgment, and that Winston Churchill made the right call.

Appeasement does not signal goodwill; it signals vulnerability. Each unopposed demand lowers the perceived cost of the next. When resistance finally comes, it does so under worse conditions, at greater human cost. As Churchill said ‘An appeaser is one who feeds the crocodile, hoping that it will eat him last’.

Appeasement fails not because its intentions are malicious, but because it misunderstands how power responds to weakness.

The Moral Asymmetry Pacifism Refuses to See

Pacifism insists on collapsing the moral distinction between violence and resistance to violence. This is a grave error. There is an asymmetry between aggression and defence that pacifism cannot accommodate without dissolving moral judgment altogether.

To defend oneself—or one’s political community—is not to endorse violence as a good, but to refuse injustice as a norm. A society that renounces defence does not become morally pure; it transfers moral agency to those least constrained by conscience.

The tragedy is not that force exists, but that it is sometimes necessary. Moral seriousness requires acknowledging tragic necessities, not denying them.

Peace Requires Enforcement

Modern international order rests on rules, norms, and institutions—but these do not sustain themselves. They endure because they are enforceable. Alliances such as NATO deter aggression precisely because their commitments are credible. Law without enforcement is aspiration; order requires capacity.

Diplomacy matters. Law matters. Ethical restraint matters. But none of these function in a vacuum. Where force is entirely renounced, the scrupulous are governed by the unscrupulous.

Conclusion

Pacifism offers moral comfort at the price of political irresponsibility. By denying the persistence of aggression, it disarms those who wish to live peacefully while empowering those who do not. Appeasement compounds this failure by rewarding coercion and punishing restraint.

Armed deterrence is not a celebration of violence but an acknowledgement of reality. It seeks peace not by denying human nature, but by constraining its worst expressions. The refusal to defend the innocent is not moral purity; it is abdication.

Peace is preserved not by wishing violence away, but by ensuring that those who would unleash it know they will fail.

Leave a comment

Filed under Essays and talks

Tagged as , , , , , , , , , , ,

December 4, 2025 · 11:15 pm

Negotiations between bitter enemies

ChatGPT said:

Meaningful negotiations between bitter enemies are possible, but they require a very particular set of conditions, incentives, and mechanisms. History shows that even more entrenched adversaries—India and Pakistan, the IRA and the British government, the U.S. and North Vietnam, FARC and the Colombian state—have found ways to negotiate when the circumstances compelled it.

Here is how such negotiations can occur between actors as hostile as Hamas and Israel, even indirectly:

1. Negotiation does not require trust—only overlapping interests

Enemies negotiate when:

  • Both sides want something only the other can give
    (e.g., hostages vs. ceasefire or humanitarian access).
  • The costs of not negotiating rise too high.

Trust is not the foundation; mutual self-interest is.
The classic formula is: “Don’t trust—verify.”

2. Intermediaries create a safe, deniable channel

Countries or organisations such as Qatar, Egypt, the U.S., Turkey, the UN act as “message carriers” and:

  • Prevent either side from losing face
  • Allow proposals to be exchanged without public commitment
  • Provide plausible deniability (“We’re not talking to them; we’re talking to Qatar.”)

This insulation is crucial because direct dialogue would be politically toxic to both sides.

3. Negotiations are compartmentalised

Hostage exchanges, ceasefires, and humanitarian access are treated as discrete issues and kept separate from the larger conflict (statehood, disarmament, etc.).

This enables progress on something today, even when resolving the underlying conflict is impossible tomorrow.

4. Each side has internal factions whose cooperation must be managed

Israel has its cabinet, military, intelligence branches, and public pressure.
Hamas has political leadership, military commanders, and influence from allies (Iran, Qatar, etc.).

An intermediary helps:

  • Test what each faction will accept
  • Prevent breakdowns caused by internal disagreements
  • Frame concessions in ways leaders can sell to their own constituencies

5. Negotiations operate through structured “confidence-building steps”

These are small, incremental actions designed to prove that each side will uphold its commitments:

  • Release of a small number of hostages
  • Short pause in fighting
  • Allowing aid convoys
  • Verification mechanisms

These modest steps reduce fear of betrayal and allow momentum to build.

6. Back-channels run parallel to the public rhetoric

Public statements may be fierce (“We will never negotiate with terrorists”).
Privately, both sides communicate through:

  • Intelligence services
  • Envoys
  • Military liaisons
  • Foreign governments

This dual messaging is common in intractable conflicts.

7. Both sides need a “face-saving narrative”

A negotiation will fail if either party feels humiliated.

Thus intermediaries help craft narratives such as:

  • “We secured the release of our civilians.”
  • “We protected our people and achieved a humanitarian breakthrough.”
  • “We forced the enemy to alter behaviour.”

This allows leaders to justify compromise without appearing weak.

8. Negotiation is often transactional, not transformational

Israel and Hamas do not need to recognise each other’s legitimacy or reconcile politically.
They simply need to strike an exchange:

  • You stop X, we deliver Y
  • You return hostages, we pause operations
  • You permit aid, we adjust military posture

This is the core of most wartime negotiations.

9. Deadlines and external pressure accelerate results

International actors apply leverage:

  • Qatar can pressure Hamas financially
  • The U.S. can pressure Israel militarily or diplomatically
  • Egypt controls the Rafah crossing
  • Global public opinion restricts both sides’ freedom of action

These pressures force seriousness in talks.

10. Negotiation can succeed despite hatred, not because of harmony

Hatred does not prevent negotiation—it simply shapes its format.
If the incentives are strong enough, even mortal enemies talk.

Consider:

  • U.S.–Taliban negotiations (2020)
  • Israel–PLO Oslo Accords (1993)
  • Egypt–Israel peace (1978) after four wars
  • Northern Ireland Good Friday Agreement (1998)

These were achieved between groups who once vowed never to speak.

In short:

Bitter enemies can negotiate when:

  • They have something the other wants
  • The costs of not negotiating rise
  • Conversations are mediated and deniable
  • Steps are incremental and verified
  • Each side can claim a political win

Hatred does not make negotiation impossible—
but it determines the structure, secrecy, and fragility of the process.

Leave a comment

Filed under Essays and talks

Tagged as , , , , , , , ,

November 1, 2025 · 12:42 pm

The Moral and Legal Right of Every Nation to Self-Defence

1. The Universal Principle of Self-Defence

The right of self-defence is one of the most fundamental principles in both moral philosophy and international law. Morally, it arises from the natural law notion that every individual and community possesses a right to preserve life and security against aggression. This right extends from persons to nations: if a state represents its people, then defending its citizens from attack is an ethical duty as well as a right.

In legal terms, this principle is codified in Article 51 of the Charter of the United Nations, which recognises “the inherent right of individual or collective self-defence if an armed attack occurs against a Member of the United Nations.” This right is not conditional upon popularity, geography, religion, or political system. It is an axiom of international order: without it, peace itself becomes untenable because no state could resist coercion or invasion.

2. The Moral Imperative of Defence

Beyond legality lies moral necessity. To deny a people the means to defend themselves is to deny their right to exist. Philosophers from Aquinas to Kant have acknowledged that moral obligations presuppose survival — a community under attack must act to preserve the conditions in which moral life can continue. The defence of citizens is, therefore, not only permitted but required of any responsible government.

When aggressors target civilians, as in terrorist assaults or missile bombardments, the duty of defence becomes all the more urgent. While moral norms constrain how defence should be exercised — proportionality, discrimination between combatants and non-combatants, and adherence to humanitarian law — the existence of the right itself is beyond dispute.

3. Israel and the Singling-Out Problem

Israel, like any other sovereign state, is entitled to invoke its inherent right to self-defence when its people are attacked. Yet in international discourse, Israel’s exercise of that right often attracts condemnation that would not be levelled at other nations under similar circumstances. When other states respond to terrorism or invasion — for example, the United States after 9/11 or Ukraine after Russia’s 2022 invasion — the international community overwhelmingly affirms their right to self-defence.

If, however, Israel is told that it alone must endure attacks without response, or that its very assertion of this right is illegitimate, then a moral double standard is being applied. To deny to Jews what is granted to every other people is not merely inconsistency — it is discrimination. That discrimination, directed uniquely at the Jewish state, is the essence of anti-Semitism in its modern, political form.

4. The Dangers of Exceptionalism

The claim that Israel must be held to an exceptional standard often hides behind humanitarian language. Of course, humanitarian concern for civilians is valid and necessary; yet concern becomes prejudice when it evolves into an implicit assertion that Jewish self-defence is uniquely immoral. By contrast, a consistent moral and legal framework demands that all states be judged by the same standards of necessity, proportionality, and intention — no more, and no less.

To make an exception for Israel — to deny it the right that defines statehood itself — would not advance peace but would corrode the universality of international law. Once one state is excluded from the basic rights of nations, the entire moral order of the international community begins to fragment.

5. Conclusion

Every nation has both a moral and legal right to defend itself. This principle is not a matter of political preference but of justice and survival. To challenge it selectively, to withhold it from one state alone — Israel — while affirming it for all others, is to apply a discriminatory standard rooted in prejudice. Such selective denial cannot be justified by appeals to peace or compassion, for peace without justice is mere submission, and compassion that excludes Jews is not compassion at all.

Therefore, to deny Israel the right of self-defence that every other nation possesses is, in effect and in principle, a form of anti-Semitism. A just world order must apply the same moral and legal standards to all nations — or it ceases to be just at all.

Leave a comment

Filed under Essays and talks

Tagged as , , , , , , , ,

September 21, 2025 · 12:58 pm

Just War Theory: Before, During, and After

Just War Theory is a moral framework for evaluating the resort to war, conduct in war, and responsibilities after war. It seeks a middle path between pacifism (which rejects war) and realism (which treats war as beyond morality), arguing that war, though tragic, can sometimes be morally justified and must always be morally constrained. Classically divided into three pillars—jus ad bellum (justice of going to war), jus in bello (justice in the conduct of war), and jus post bellum (justice after war)—the tradition stretches from Augustine and Aquinas to modern thinkers and legal institutions. What follows is a conceptual map of the three pillars, their internal standards, and their tensions in contemporary practice.

I. Jus ad bellum — When is it right to go to war?

Jus ad bellum offers criteria that must be satisfied before force is used. The test is cumulative: meeting one criterion is not enough.

  1. Just Cause
    The paradigmatic just cause is defense against aggression—the violation of a political community’s territorial integrity, sovereignty, or basic rights. Contemporary expansions include humanitarian intervention to prevent mass atrocities and collective defense to uphold international order. Preventive war (to forestall a distant, speculative threat) is typically rejected; preemptive war (to counter an imminent attack) may be permissible under strict conditions.
  2. Legitimate Authority
    War-making must be authorized by those who rightly hold political authority over the community in whose name the war is fought. Traditionally this means recognized sovereigns; today, there is also significant weight placed on multilateral authorization and legal processes, which help ensure accountability and reduce self-serving claims.
  3. Right Intention
    Even with a just cause, motives must aim at peace and the vindication of rights, not conquest, revenge, or economic gain. Mixed motives are common, but the dominant intent must be rectificatory, not predatory.
  4. Last Resort
    All reasonable nonviolent options—diplomacy, sanctions, mediation—must have been seriously attempted or shown to be futile. “Last resort” does not require trying the impossible; it requires a good-faith sequence of alternatives proportionate to the urgency and gravity of the threat.
  5. Proportionality (of Ends)
    The foreseeable goods achieved by waging war must outweigh the foreseeable harms—the destruction, displacement, and destabilization that war inevitably brings. This is a prudential and moral calculus, sensitive to uncertainty and the possibility of escalation.
  6. Reasonable Chance of Success
    It is wrong to launch a war that is almost certainly futile, since doing so sacrifices lives without realistic hope of securing the just cause. This criterion disciplines noble but reckless ventures.

Together, these criteria set a high bar. They also interlock: just cause without right intention slides into self-interest; last resort without a realistic prospect of success becomes tragic grandstanding.

II. Jus in bello — How must war be fought?

Even a justly initiated war can be waged unjustly. Jus in bello principles govern conduct during hostilities, applying to all parties irrespective of ad bellum standing. A soldier on the “wrong” side may still fight justly; conversely, a soldier on the “right” side can commit atrocities.

  1. Discrimination / Noncombatant Immunity
    Deliberate attacks must be directed only at legitimate military targets—combatants and military objectives. Noncombatants (civilians, medical personnel, prisoners) may not be intentionally targeted. This principle rests on the moral equality of persons and the special risks voluntarily assumed by combatants.
  2. Proportionality (in Means)
    The harm inflicted in a particular attack must be proportionate to the concrete and direct military advantage anticipated. Even legitimate targets cannot be attacked with unlimited force; means must be sized to ends. Having said that, the quickest way to end a war and minimise suffering might be to win it with overwhelming force.
  3. Necessity and Minimal Force
    Force should be limited to what is necessary to achieve a legitimate military objective. If an objective can be attained with fewer risks to civilians, the less harmful method is required.
  4. No Malum in Se (No Intrinsically Wrong Means)
    Certain methods are barred regardless of utility: torture, rape, genocide, perfidy, and weapons whose effects are indiscriminate or superfluously injurious.
  5. Due Care and the Doctrine of Double Effect
    When striking a legitimate target risks collateral damage, combatants must take feasible precautions to minimize civilian harm—choice of weapon, timing, warnings where possible. The doctrine of double effect permits foreseen but unintended civilian harm only if: (a) the act aims at a legitimate target; (b) the bad effect is not the means of achieving the good; (c) the good is proportionate; and (d) due care is taken to reduce harm.
  6. Fair Treatment of Prisoners and the Wounded
    Captured combatants are not fair game; they must be protected from violence, intimidation, and degrading treatment. Medical neutrality and humanitarian relief are corollaries.

These constraints bind even in extremis. Claims of “military necessity” cannot override categorical prohibitions, though they may inform proportionality judgments. Modern asymmetries—insurgencies embedded in civilian populations, remote weapons, and cyber operations—strain these principles, but the core commitments remain: target the fighter, spare the innocent, and keep means proportionate and necessary.

III. Jus post bellum — What is owed after war?

The third pillar addresses the aftermath: how to end war justly and secure a stable, decent peace. Though less codified than the other two, a coherent set of norms has emerged.

  1. Just Cause for Termination and Settlement
    Peace terms should track the just cause: they should vindicate the violated rights (e.g., restore territory, protect populations) without seeking vengeance or humiliation.
  2. Proportionality and Humility
    Settlements must not impose excessive burdens or collective punishments. Overreach breeds resentment and sow seeds for future conflict. Humility recognizes the limits of imposed social engineering.
  3. Discrimination
    Responsibility for wrongdoing should be individualized. Collective reprisals against civilian populations are unjust. Accountability should focus on leaders and perpetrators.
  4. Rights Vindication and Institutional Repair
    Postwar duties include safeguarding basic human rights, supporting the reestablishment of legitimate political authority, rebuilding essential infrastructure, and enabling the rule of law. Where regime change is undertaken, it must be justified by the initial ad bellum reasons and carried out with a clear plan for self-governance.
  5. Punishment, Reconciliation, and Amnesty
    A just peace balances accountability with social healing. War crimes trials affirm norms and deter future abuses; truth commissions and conditional amnesties may be warranted to integrate former adversaries and prevent cycles of revenge.
  6. Restitution and Reparations
    Where feasible, wrongfully seized property should be restored, and proportionate reparations may be owed to victims. Reparations should not cripple the defeated society’s capacity for recovery.
  7. Security Guarantees and Safe Exit
    Occupying powers or peacekeepers have duties to maintain order, prevent reprisals, and ensure that when they depart, the political community can sustain a minimally just peace.

Jus post bellum reminds us that victory is not the end of moral responsibility. The aim is not merely to stop fighting but to secure a peace that is more just than the status quo ante.

Cross-Pressures, Hard Cases, and Contemporary Challenges

  1. Pacifism vs. Realism
    Pacifists argue that war’s inherent evils defy moral regulation; realists claim moral talk is naïve in a realm of survival. Just War Theory replies that, while imperfect, moral constraints both guide conscience and shape institutions—training, rules of engagement, and law—making war less destructive than it would otherwise be.
  2. Humanitarian Intervention and Responsibility to Protect
    When a state massacres its own people, sovereignty can become a shield for atrocity. Just cause and right intention may support intervention, but last resort, multilateral legitimacy, and success prospects are essential to avoid compounding harm.
  3. Asymmetric Warfare and Terrorism
    Nonstate actors often blend with civilians and flout discrimination. The temptation is to relax standards in response. Just War Theory resists this: violations by one side do not license violations by the other. Yet operationalizing due care under asymmetry is among today’s hardest problems.
  4. Preemption vs. Prevention
    In a world of rapid-strike capabilities and WMDs, the line between imminent and speculative threat blurs. The tradition remains skeptical of preventive war, demanding strong evidence of imminence and necessity for preemption.
  5. Remote and Cyber Operations
    Drones and cyber tools can reduce risks to one’s own forces and, at times, to civilians; they can also tempt overuse and erode accountability. Principles of discrimination, proportionality, and legitimate authority apply regardless of distance or domain. Cyber actions that disable hospitals or critical civilian infrastructure may fail discrimination and proportionality tests.
  6. Supreme Emergency and Dirty Hands
    The “supreme emergency” claim—suspending normal constraints to avert civilization-threatening catastrophe—tests the limits of the theory. Many concede tragic dilemmas exist but insist that even then some lines (malum in se) cannot be crossed, and any extraordinary measures demand stringent retrospective scrutiny, remorse, and reparation.
  7. Moral Equality of Soldiers
    A central (and contested) tenet holds that ordinary combatants on both sides are moral equals if they fight within jus in bello, because responsibility for going to war lies mainly with leaders. Revisionists argue that participation in an unjust war is itself wrongful. The debate matters for culpability and postwar reconciliation.

Conclusion: The Shape of a Just Peace

Just War Theory does not promise clean hands. It offers a disciplined way to ask three persistent questions: Should we fight? If we fight, how must we fight? When the fighting stops, what do we owe to victims, adversaries, and our own soldiers? By tying the justice of resort, conduct, and aftermath into a single moral arc, the tradition seeks to ensure that the end is peace under right, not simply victory. Its strength lies less in delivering algorithmic answers than in structuring practical judgment—cultivating habits of restraint, accountability, and care amidst humanity’s gravest decisions.

Leave a comment

Filed under Essays and talks

Tagged as , , , , , , , , , , , ,

September 6, 2025 · 2:24 pm

The CCP did not defeat Japan

The Chinese Communist Party (CCP) has claimed credit in defeating Japan during World War II. However, this claim is a subject of historical debate. Their contribution was significant but also very different in scale and character from that of the Nationalist government under Chiang Kai-shek. Here’s a breakdown:

1. Context: China’s Resistance Against Japan

  • Japan invaded Manchuria in 1931 and launched a full-scale invasion of China in 1937 (the Second Sino-Japanese War, which merged into WWII).
  • At the time, China was politically divided: the Nationalist Kuomintang (KMT) controlled most of the government and armed forces, while the CCP under Mao Zedong operated from rural bases.

2. United Front and Early Cooperation

  • After Japan’s 1937 invasion, the CCP and KMT formed the “Second United Front.”
  • In principle, both sides were to fight the Japanese together. In practice, deep mistrust remained, and cooperation was limited.
  • The CCP’s Red Army was reorganized as the “Eighth Route Army” and “New Fourth Army,” nominally under Nationalist command but effectively independent.

3. CCP’s Military Role

  • Guerrilla Warfare: The CCP specialized in guerrilla tactics in the Japanese-occupied countryside, harassing supply lines, ambushing troops, and mobilizing peasants.
  • Their forces tied down substantial numbers of Japanese troops, preventing full concentration against the KMT or elsewhere in Asia.
  • The CCP avoided costly set-piece battles (which were mainly fought by the KMT’s regular army, often with heavy casualties).

4. CCP’s Political Strategy

  • The CCP expanded its influence by setting up “liberated zones” in rural areas behind Japanese lines.
  • They established schools, land reforms, and local militias, which won support from peasants.
  • While fighting the Japanese, they were also consolidating power for the eventual civil war with the KMT.

5. Comparison with the Nationalists

  • The Nationalists bore the brunt of the conventional war: major battles like Shanghai (1937), Wuhan (1938), and Changsha (1939–42) were fought by KMT forces. They suffered enormous losses (millions of soldiers and civilians).
  • The Communists fought fewer large battles but built up political capital through their resistance narrative and survival strategy. By 1945, their influence had expanded dramatically despite contributing fewer casualties in direct combat.

6. Aftermath

  • When Japan surrendered in 1945, both the KMT and CCP claimed credit for victory.
  • The CCP’s guerrilla war and political organizing gave them legitimacy as patriotic resisters, helping them win mass support.
  • This position of strength allowed them to defeat the Nationalists in the subsequent Chinese Civil War (1946–49).

✅ In summary:
The CCP did not play the primary military role in Japan’s defeat—that fell to the Nationalists, who fought the large battles and took the heaviest losses. However, the CCP’s guerrilla warfare, political mobilization, and strategic use of the anti-Japanese war to expand their rural base were crucial to their later rise to power. Their role in WWII was therefore less about directly defeating Japan and more about positioning themselves as the future rulers of China.

Leave a comment

Filed under Essays and talks

Tagged as , , , , , , , , , , ,

September 5, 2025 · 12:34 pm

The Legal and Moral Right of National Self-Defence

Introduction

If the international order is to be more than parchment, it must rest on a principle that is both legally sound and morally intelligible: political communities have a right to defend themselves against armed attack. This claim is universal—no matter a state’s size, popularity, or politics—and it applies to countries whose conflicts are most visible today, including Israel and Ukraine. Recognizing the right is not the same as granting a blank cheque. Law and ethics place strict limits on how self-defense may be exercised. But the right itself is foundational. Without it, sovereignty is theater and human rights become unenforceable hopes.

The Legal Case

1) Sovereignty and the baseline prohibition on force

Modern international law begins with two paired rules: (a) states must not use force against the territorial integrity or political independence of other states (UN Charter art. 2(4)); and (b) a state retains an “inherent right” of individual or collective self-defense if an armed attack occurs (UN Charter art. 51). The second rule is not an exception that swallows the first; rather, it preserves the minimum capacity necessary for the first to mean anything. A prohibition on aggression would be incoherent if victims could not lawfully resist.

2) Customary law and the Caroline principles

Long before the Charter, customary law articulated two guardrails: necessity and proportionality. Self-defense must be necessary—responding to an actual or imminent armed attack—and proportionate—aimed at ending the attack and restoring security, not punishing or exacting vengeance. These limits remain the backbone of lawful defense today.

3) Collective self-defense

Because security is intertwined, states may assist a victim state at its request (collective self-defense). This recognizes that aggression against one can threaten many and that law need not force a victim to stand alone.

4) Non-state actors and the “unwilling or unable” problem

Attacks now often come from armed groups rather than regular armies. Many states and courts accept that large-scale attacks by non-state actors can trigger a right of self-defense, especially when the territorial state is unwilling or unable to prevent such attacks. This remains debated, but the core idea is continuous with the purpose of Article 51: the law protects people from violence irrespective of the attacker’s uniform.

5) Jus in bello still binds

Even when resort to force (jus ad bellum) is justified, the conduct of hostilities (jus in bello / international humanitarian law) remains strictly regulated: distinction (never deliberately target civilians), proportionality in attack, precautions, humane treatment of detainees, and prohibitions on collective punishment and forcible transfer. A lawful cause never sanitizes unlawful means.

The Moral Case

1) Natural-rights and social-contract reasoning

Political communities exist to secure basic goods—life, liberty, and ordered peace. If a state lacked the moral permission to repel violence, it would fail its most basic duty to its citizens. On a social-contract view, citizens yield certain powers to a state precisely so that common defense can be organized; denying the state the right to defend would betray that bargain.

2) Just War Theory

Just war thinking aligns closely with law: a defensive war is prima facie just if it repels aggression, is pursued with right intention (restoring peace, not revenge), has a reasonable chance of success, and is a last resort. Means must satisfy discrimination and proportionality. The moral right to self-defense is thus real, but it is not license; it is an assignment of responsibility under discipline.

3) Kantian and dignity-based arguments

Aggression instrumentalizes persons, treating them as means to political ends. Defense resists that instrumentalization and upholds the equal dignity of those attacked. A state that refuses to defend its people when it can is not morally “peaceful”; it is negligent.

4) Consequentialist considerations

Unchecked aggression invites more of the same. Allowing victims to defend themselves, and to receive assistance, reduces incentives for predation and helps stabilize expectations that borders and civilians are not fair game.

Universalism Means Symmetry

If the right is universal, it applies to friends and adversaries alike. We do not decide who may defend themselves by popularity polls, ideology, or sympathy. That symmetry is a feature, not a bug, of a rule-governed order. It constrains our biases and preserves the credibility of the law even when emotions run high.

Applying the Principles

Ukraine

Ukraine is the paradigmatic case of lawful and moral self-defense: its territory has been subject to large-scale invasion and occupation by a neighboring state. Ukraine’s resort to force to repel that aggression, and requests for outside assistance, fit squarely within Article 51 and just war criteria. The constraints still apply—Ukrainian operations must distinguish combatants from civilians and calibrate force to military necessity—but those constraints limit how defense is carried out, not whether Ukraine may defend itself. It may, and it should.

Israel

Israel faces recurrent armed attacks from organized groups that have launched rockets, raids, and other assaults. Under widely accepted readings of international law, such attacks can trigger Israel’s right to self-defense, including measures against the responsible armed groups even when they operate from adjacent territory. That right is real; the obligations are equally real. Israel must observe necessity and proportionality, take constant care to spare civilians, facilitate humanitarian assistance, and avoid collective punishment or forcible displacement. Affirming Israel’s right to defend its population is fully compatible with insisting that Israeli operations meet the strictest legal and moral standards—and with recognizing the rights and dignity of Palestinian civilians, who are themselves entitled to protection under the laws of war. Both truths stand together.

Addressing Common Objections

  1. “Self-defense is a pretext for aggression.”
    Sometimes states misuse the language of defense. The cure is not to abolish the right but to enforce its limits: demand evidence of an armed attack or imminent threat; scrutinize necessity and proportionality; and maintain accountability for violations.
  2. “History or grievances negate the right.”
    Historical injustices are morally weighty, but they do not negate a community’s present-tense right to be free from rockets, invasions, or hostage-taking. Remedies for historic wrongs must be pursued through law and diplomacy, not by tolerating new attacks on civilians.
  3. “Defense perpetuates cycles of violence.”
    Unrestrained retaliation certainly can. Disciplined defense, constrained by law, can shorten wars by degrading the capacity for further attacks while preserving a diplomatic off-ramp. Peace is not achieved by forbidding defense but by binding it to rules and pairing it with credible negotiation.
  4. “Only nonviolence is moral.”
    Nonviolence is admirable where it can protect the innocent. But when violent aggression is already occurring, refusing to defend may permit greater injustice. Moral seriousness requires meeting force that threatens innocents with proportionate, rule-bound resistance.

What the Right Does Not Entail

  • It does not authorize punishment, annexation by conquest, or demographic engineering.
  • It does not excuse war crimes, ever.
  • It does not silence criticism of how force is used; on the contrary, scrutiny is part of honoring the right responsibly.
  • It does not deny that adversaries’ civilians possess equal moral worth.

Conclusion

Every country possesses a legal and moral right to defend itself. International law codifies it; moral philosophy explains it; practical reason needs it. The right is universal and symmetrical, extending to states we favour and those we do not, and it comes paired with stringent duties that protect civilians and hold leaders to account. A world that denies Ukraine or Israel this right would not be more humane; it would be a world in which borders are invitations, civilians are bargaining chips, and law is rhetoric. The true path to peace is to uphold the right of self-defense—and the limits that give that right its legitimacy—consistently, publicly, and for everyone.

Leave a comment

Filed under Essays and talks

Tagged as , , , , , , , , , , , ,

August 22, 2025 · 11:04 pm

Civilian casualties are not genocide

1. Civilian Casualties in War

  • In almost every war in history, civilians have been killed as a result of bombing, artillery fire, food shortages, disease, or accidents.
  • Examples include the bombing of Dresden and Tokyo in World War II, or more recently, collateral damage in conflicts such as Iraq and Afghanistan.
  • These deaths are usually unintended consequences of military action, even if foreseeable, and they are sometimes described as “collateral damage.”
  • International humanitarian law (e.g., the Geneva Conventions) accepts that some civilian deaths may occur in war, but requires combatants to minimize them and avoid targeting civilians directly.

2. Genocide

  • Genocide, by definition (from the UN Genocide Convention, 1948), is the deliberate intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnic, racial, or religious group.
  • It is not about incidental or accidental deaths, but about purposeful extermination—for example, the Holocaust#, the Armenian genocide, or the Rwandan genocide.
  • The key element is intent. Without intent to destroy a group as such, large-scale deaths (however tragic) do not meet the legal or historical definition of genocide.

3. Why the Confusion Today?

  • Media framing and rhetoric: The word “genocide” has become a powerful moral accusation. Activists and politicians sometimes use it loosely to condemn wars that cause civilian suffering.
  • Historical illiteracy: Many people today are less familiar with the legal definitions and historical cases, and so equate “many civilian deaths” with genocide.
  • Moral absolutism: In modern discourse, people may reject distinctions between intentional and unintentional killing, regarding all mass deaths as equally criminal. This flattens important legal and moral categories.
  • Images and immediacy: Graphic media coverage can make civilian suffering look like systematic extermination, even when the intent is different.

4. The Danger of Misuse

  • If the term “genocide” is applied too loosely, it dilutes the meaning and risks disrespecting genuine genocides where extermination was the explicit goal.
  • It also obscures moral clarity: failing to distinguish between careless or disproportionate warfare (which can still be a war crime) and deliberate extermination.

✅ In short: Yes, misunderstanding history and international law has led some people to think that ordinary (though tragic) wartime civilian casualties equal genocide. The critical distinction is intent—war causes collateral deaths, genocide seeks annihilation.

Leave a comment

Filed under Essays and talks

Tagged as , , , , , , , ,