When I was in Japan recently I had the opportunity to explain about Malaysia’s Non-Governmental Organisation’s campaign to make war a punishable crime.
The Japanese had been guilty of perpetrating brutalities during their Manchurian Incident and war against China and also during the Pacific War.
On the other hand they were the only people in the world to experience the first ever nuclear war, of having their citizens of Hiroshima and Nagasaki reduced to ashes by atomic bombs, with the loss of 200,000 lives and thousands more struck down by radiation sickness later.
For the Japanese the realities of war and the killings have been fully understood from their experience. I believe they can be expected to support a campaign to make war a crime.
I spoke about the horrors of war to three separate groups i.e. the Nikkei Future of Asia Forum, breakfast meeting with the head of Nikkei and his senior staff and before a full audience at the Foreign Correspondent’s Club, Tokyo.
While in England in April I was invited by the Ramadhan Foundation to speak about the Criminalisation of War at the Imperial College in London.
An interesting incident was the attempt by Jewish students to stop me from speaking at the Imperial College because I am regarded as being anti-Semitic. The authorities were embarassed by this demand and almost decided to stop me.
I was waiting for them to do so. Then I could go there to see if they would stop me. If they did I would be able to say that there is no freedom of speech in England.
However, the authorities decided that only students from the Imperial College would be allowed to attend. Still the hall was full with standing room only.
At all these meetings I was able to explain why war should be regarded as a crime. I pointed out that it is ridiculous to regard murder as a crime punishable with the most extreme penalty yet the deliberate killings of thousands of people, mostly innocent men, women and children are regarded as proper and legal.
There is a contradiction here which does not fit in with human values in a civilised world.
Today trillions of dollars are being expended on the development and production of ever more lethal weapons of mass destruction. Poor countries are forced to buy these weapons by playing on their false sense of pride. They buy these expensive weapons so as not to be less well-equipped than their neighbours. Yet these weapons are often not used at all. Still they have to be upgraded or replaced with newer versions at tremendous cost.
Malaysia has been drawn into this game. We have bought two submarines costing over RM3 billion. When are we going to use them? Are we contemplating going to war with our neighbours? I can think of other ways of spending RM3 billion in Malaysia.
We need a defence force to preserve our independence. But do we have to be involved in an arms race? Only the suppliers of arms would benefit from an arms race.
War is not a solution for our foreign policy agenda. A stiff backbone is far more important. Unfortunately at the moment we don’t have that.
The campaign against war and the criminalisation of war has gained momentum. This is going to be a long-drawn struggle. But it has to begin somewhere if we are going to achieve this radical change in the mindsets of people. God-willing insya’allah this struggle will eventually succeed.
Via this blog I would like to apeal to all Malaysians to support this campaign. We may feel safe from war now. But we must remember and think about all those people who now face the prospect of being bombed and rocketed, of having their heads and limbs torn from their bodies, of being killed. That they are non-combatants and have done no one any harm does not seem to matter to the warmongers. They will suffer all the same.
When war broke out in Europe in 1939 we in Malaysia thought we were safe. But we were not. In a world war we too will be subjected to attack. Our forces will not be able to do much.
We don’t foresee this happening to us. But it can happen if war is still regarded as a way to settle conflicts between nations.
That is why I believe that it is important to make war a crime and so to stop it from being the way to settle conflicts between nations.
The Japanese had been guilty of perpetrating brutalities during their Manchurian Incident and war against China and also during the Pacific War.
On the other hand they were the only people in the world to experience the first ever nuclear war, of having their citizens of Hiroshima and Nagasaki reduced to ashes by atomic bombs, with the loss of 200,000 lives and thousands more struck down by radiation sickness later.
For the Japanese the realities of war and the killings have been fully understood from their experience. I believe they can be expected to support a campaign to make war a crime.
I spoke about the horrors of war to three separate groups i.e. the Nikkei Future of Asia Forum, breakfast meeting with the head of Nikkei and his senior staff and before a full audience at the Foreign Correspondent’s Club, Tokyo.
While in England in April I was invited by the Ramadhan Foundation to speak about the Criminalisation of War at the Imperial College in London.
An interesting incident was the attempt by Jewish students to stop me from speaking at the Imperial College because I am regarded as being anti-Semitic. The authorities were embarassed by this demand and almost decided to stop me.
I was waiting for them to do so. Then I could go there to see if they would stop me. If they did I would be able to say that there is no freedom of speech in England.
However, the authorities decided that only students from the Imperial College would be allowed to attend. Still the hall was full with standing room only.
At all these meetings I was able to explain why war should be regarded as a crime. I pointed out that it is ridiculous to regard murder as a crime punishable with the most extreme penalty yet the deliberate killings of thousands of people, mostly innocent men, women and children are regarded as proper and legal.
There is a contradiction here which does not fit in with human values in a civilised world.
Today trillions of dollars are being expended on the development and production of ever more lethal weapons of mass destruction. Poor countries are forced to buy these weapons by playing on their false sense of pride. They buy these expensive weapons so as not to be less well-equipped than their neighbours. Yet these weapons are often not used at all. Still they have to be upgraded or replaced with newer versions at tremendous cost.
Malaysia has been drawn into this game. We have bought two submarines costing over RM3 billion. When are we going to use them? Are we contemplating going to war with our neighbours? I can think of other ways of spending RM3 billion in Malaysia.
We need a defence force to preserve our independence. But do we have to be involved in an arms race? Only the suppliers of arms would benefit from an arms race.
War is not a solution for our foreign policy agenda. A stiff backbone is far more important. Unfortunately at the moment we don’t have that.
The campaign against war and the criminalisation of war has gained momentum. This is going to be a long-drawn struggle. But it has to begin somewhere if we are going to achieve this radical change in the mindsets of people. God-willing insya’allah this struggle will eventually succeed.
Via this blog I would like to apeal to all Malaysians to support this campaign. We may feel safe from war now. But we must remember and think about all those people who now face the prospect of being bombed and rocketed, of having their heads and limbs torn from their bodies, of being killed. That they are non-combatants and have done no one any harm does not seem to matter to the warmongers. They will suffer all the same.
When war broke out in Europe in 1939 we in Malaysia thought we were safe. But we were not. In a world war we too will be subjected to attack. Our forces will not be able to do much.
We don’t foresee this happening to us. But it can happen if war is still regarded as a way to settle conflicts between nations.
That is why I believe that it is important to make war a crime and so to stop it from being the way to settle conflicts between nations.
253 comments:
«Oldest ‹Older 201 – 253 of 253salam,
a typical diagnostical analysis from a mind of a medical doctor. prevention is always better than cure. brilliant! you have my sincere support my dear Tun.
Gua Caya Sama Lu !
Dear Dr Mahathir
Congratulation for reaching the first Million in such a short time.
Well done and I belief you still command the kind of attraction even when you are retired.
Please make good use of this attraction for a better Malaysia, No Racist speech again, please!
Shiok Guy
http://shiokguy.blogspot.com/
Assalamualaikum Tun.
Benar sekali.Musuh jangan dicari.Tapi kalau datang jangan ditolak.
Terima kasih Tun.
Hi TUN,
We morally support pro-peace! :)
However, I believe a more detailed plan is needed.
Assuming we have many countries globally supporting this move, how would that change the reaction on warmongering countries.
Who will be the judges/juries?
How would they issue the verdict?
How to punish the criminals?
Who will punish them?
Will the be selected peace-keeper countries?
What if these peace-keeping countries themselves engage in war but come out with all kinds of justification that approved by their group? Who will keep an eye on them?
Each country is ruled by a president/PM for a period of time. What if their ideology change when a new leader emerge?
What if the convict country is a powerhouse and no one could stop their aggression? ....
If we have solid answers to these, perhaps one day we can see the reality of world peace.
TUN, if you can give your personal views on these questions, the people would love to hear them! :)
What tun says is true i just can't expecting it.
Dear Tun,
I absolutely support what Tun doing,as a Malaysian we're all equal.
Since the era of Tun,everything is peace,harmony and unity and right now we don't have that's feeling anyway.
Corruption is everywhere,keep voice up the opinion,we're here as a Malaysian to fully support whatever Tun do,take care....
To 'Shiok Guy' and others...
Pls understand the basic. From my point of view, Tun is NOT racist. He is just safeguarding Malay and other races indirectly. If Malay not unite, Malaysia will have problems. Now, Kit Siang, Karpal very dare to question Malays' rights. Sometime, they are 'Kurang ajar'!
As Malaysian, we have and must respect Malays. This country initially belong to them. We have to respect the house owner, in other word.
In China, non-Chinese race WILL NOT be given Citizenship even if u born there or stays there for 100 yrs! But, in Malaysia, Indians and Chinese were granted Citizenship before Merdeka! Malay NOT asking anything from Chinese and Indians. They just safeguarding their rights. Is this wrong? Is this too much for us; Indians and Chinese.
Dear Tun, Having read too much on the atrocities of war, namely Nanking among others, you have my absolute support for the campaign against war.
And congratulations on attaining the millionaire status.
peperangan dengan BN (Barang Naik) sangat memualkan ayahanda tun..
tapi kerajaan masih sibuk membandingkan minyak kita dengan harga minyak negara jiran.
dengar harga minyak akan naik lagi nasib baik saya dah jual kereta saya better jalan kaki dari memperkayakan orang yang sudah kaya
salam tun,
we are very much enlightened hearing from you.
bukan senang berjuang menentang 'pengganas sebenar' yang menguasai dunia dengan duitnya..
semoga tun sentiasa dalam rahmat Allah dan diberi kekuatan menghadapi segalanya.
YABhg Tun
Saya ada firasat baru macam Pak Sheikh buat RAHMAN dulu. 4 orang orang ni kena berbincang baru boleh AMAN - A bdullah, M ahathir, A nuar, N ajib kalau di terbalik kan pula, UMNO hanya tinggal NAMA kena percaya Tun !
Walau bagaimana pun, Tun dah ikut aura Mawi, Raja SMS. 1 juta bloggers Tun jadi "Raja Blog" la
Salam blogger
Mohd Zaki @ ZeQ
Kelana Jaya, Selangor
Yes, what you say is true, war should be a crime. But talk is cheap. Start a movement tun, you have plenty of time on your hands. Make war a crime. Make your cakap selupa bikin.
Don't trust the Japanese. They have not apologised for the WWII atrocities. Their text books do not acknowledge their wrong doing in WWII. They still deny the masacre of Nanking. They still go to the shrine and honor their war criminals. They are a racist country that still deny decendants of Koreans forcefully taken to Japan as labour in WWII as equal Japanese citizens. They are hypocrites.
I support U Tun! Salute!!!
kebenaran memang ada kalanya terlalu pahit utk diterima. Begitu jugalah dengan apa yg terhidang sekarang. Syabas dan terima kasih kepada TUN kerana sanggup menerima pelbagai asakkan hanya kerana membentangkan sebuah kebenaran.
Saya akan terus menyokong perjuangan TUN. Saya akan memainkan peranan saya walaupun mungkin terkalu kecil berbanding dengan apa yang orang lain buat. Namun ini saya anggap sebagai tanggungjawab sosial.
Semoga Allah terus menganugerahi TUN dengan kesihatan yang baik.
Dear Tun,
1. You said that you were almost stopped from speaking at Imperial College because you are regarded as anti-Semitic. Do you think you are anti-Semitic? My view is that you probably are, but I would be happy if you disagree with me and state why you think you are not anti-Semitic. You are probably anti-Semitic because you attack Jews as opposed to Zionist. I am most certainly anti-Zionist, but I am not anti-Semitic.
2. Would you allow a known Zionist freedom of speech in Malaysia? No I do not think so, nor will any of your Malay supremacist supporters in your blog.
3. I look forward to a day when all UMNO leaders –whether past, present or future – would be disallowed any international platform, not on the basis of being anti-Semitic, but on the basis of being racist!
4. Be that as it may, I fully support your campaign to criminalise war.
LJ
The US finally bowed and accepted that they lost the war against 'Jihad'
http://www.worldfutures.info/Analysis/911/US-lost-the-war-against-Jihad.html
Respectable Tun,
I couldn't agree more with the idea of criminalising war. For one thing, war is indeed a shameful waste of money,expertise and human resource. Just imagine the loss of millions of lives, including innocent people who fall victims of war. If those people had not died, they could have contributed many things to the world and become valuable assets of their respective countries. And the poor kids whose countries had been torn into pieces by war, they loss their childhood..they loss their friends and families too. Just imagine what will become of them in future..how terrible their life would be.
As for the money spent on developing the destructive weapons, even a small kid could tell some better ways of spending them. Those money is people's money..it should therefore be used for the betterment of the world, not for war. Even without war, the world is already a 'messy' place with racism, discrimination and corruption going on everywhere.
It is also a sad thing to realise that hundreds of bright and brilliant people out there are spending their days and nights trying to figure out better ways of killing their own species. This is such a waste of expertise.
US President, George W. Bush said that his war against Iraq and Afghanistan is to maintain peace. How ironic it was, when countless innocent souls were violently ripped apart from their bodies because of some vague beliefs of the so-called peace-keeper. I pity him for being such a fool,and I pity those under his influence more for having to serve for such a tyrant.
People of the world,
Wake up. The time has come for us all to hold our hands together and put a stop to war once and for all. Support Tun Dr. Mahathir Mohamad in his fight against war. Our voices maybe small, but altogether we are strong enough to make those mighty leaders' spine shiver.
Support Tun Dr. M and spread his words..that's the least that we could do.
Yana
Brisbane, Australia
Tun,
I agree with statement above. We got no point to have war. War should be criminalized else more and more problems will happened. Innocent people, elder,women, children and men are all suffered in war. They being killed with no reason but WAR.
Human got their own right to live on this planet. We arent god, we dont have the rights to kill/to end up a person's life with no particular reasons.
Wars cause alot of problem.
Wars could considered as a babarian act of nations since educated people like us know there are alot of ways to sovle problem but not WARS!
WARS will only killed, destroyed our homeland. People who declared a war always say they are fighting for their country's rights but actually they are fighting for $ $$$ and own benefits.
Leaders of their country dont care about the effects of war since they are sitting in their whitehouse and give ORDERs to those soldiers and arm forces. They dont even go to the battle fields. People died because of them, amputate because of their leader's selfish act.
DO those leaders really care about those arm forces?
-ofcourse not!
hundred thousands people died in war fields and could say that 98percent of them ...the leader dont know about their background.
So of them might have their family, love one and friends.
perhaps a new marriage soldier forced to go to war field to defence for their country, at last he might only leave a cold body (dead body of him) after the callous war.
Country spend trillions on weapon exploration, who will gain those beneficial?
only those official and people who make those killing weapons will gain.
I wonder if they got the money to spend on useless weapons making, why dont they help those people in poverty?
as u mention above,
malaysia spent 3million on buying new war weapon, do you think malaysia need it?
NO!
why?
because once there is a war..UN's member will help. SO whats the reason to have such weapon?
intend of showing off?
plus why should some country bear alot of soldiers?
is it because of the country got alot of extra expense?
why dont use the money on helping and developing the country instead of bearing those useless thing?
If there really a war, i guess an atomic boom will clear off everything. Those soldiers? sit and lay on land to die.
So? No point to have strong arm forces backbones.
Plus there is no reason to declare a war because of $ , fuels and religion.
All religions want peace not war.
so those who declare war because of religion ,mean they are against their god!
where is peace?
Hui Ling
Tun...
I think there is 1 Japanese who realize about the atrocities of war including the use of nuclear weapons... Guess who??
He is HIDEO KOJIMA... yes the maker of Metal Gear Solid game series....
PMC... (Private Military Companies) like Hallibuton and Blackwater...
Beware my brethrens! Reject the finance profit of war!
Dear Tun,
I just want to share with you and others article from the internet about what WAR is all about, if care to read :-
War
War should be understood as an actual, intentional and widespread armed conflict between political communities. Thus, fisticuffs between individual persons do not count as a war, nor does a gang fight, nor does a feud on the order of the Hatfields versus the McCoys. War is a phenomenon which occurs only between political communities, defined as those entities which either are states or intend to become states (in order to allow for civil war). Classical war is international war, a war between different states, like the two World Wars. But just as frequent is war within a state between rival groups or communities, like the American Civil War. Certain political pressure groups, like terrorist organizations, might also be considered “political communities,” in that they are associations of people with a political purpose and, indeed, many of them aspire to statehood or to influence the development of statehood in certain lands.
What's statehood? Most people follow Max Weber's distinction between nation and state. A nation is a group which thinks of itself as “a people,” usually because they share many things in common, such as ethnicity, language, culture, historical experience, a set of ideals and values, habitat, cuisine, fashion and so on. The state, by contrast, refers much more narrowly to the machinery of government which organizes life in a given territory. Thus, we can distinguish between the American state and the American people, or between the government of France and the French nation. At the same time, you've probably heard the term “nation-state.” Indeed, people often use “nation” and “state” interchangeably but we'll need to keep them conceptually distinct for our purposes. “Nation-state” refers to the relatively recent phenomenon wherein a nation wants its own state, and moves to form one. This started out as a very European trend—an Italian state for the Italian nation, a German state for the German people, etc., but it has spread throughout the world. Note that in some countries, such as America, Australia and Canada, the state actually presides over many nations, and you hear of “multi-national societies.” Most societies with heavy immigration are multi-national. Multi-national countries are sometimes prone to civil wars between the different groups. This has been especially true of central Africa in recent years, as different peoples struggle over control of the one state, or else move to separate themselves from the existing arrangement (itself often having been put in place by distant imperial powers insensitive to local group and ethnic differences).
All these distinctions will come in handy as we proceed. For now, we note how central the issue of statehood is to the essence of warfare. Indeed, it seems that all warfare is precisely, and ultimately, about governance. War is a violent way for determining who gets to say what goes on in a given territory, for example, regarding: who gets power, who gets wealth and resources, whose ideals prevail, who is a member and who is not, which laws get made, what gets taught in schools, where the border rests, how much tax is levied, and so on. War is the ultimate means for deciding these issues if a peaceful process or resolution can't be agreed upon.
The mere threat of war, and the presence of mutual disdain between political communities, do not suffice as indicators of war. The conflict of arms must be actual, and not merely latent, for it to count as war. Further, the actual armed conflict must be both intentional and widespread: isolated clashes between rogue officers, or border patrols, do not count as actions of war. The onset of war requires a conscious commitment, and a significant mobilization, on the part of the belligerents in question. There's no real war, so to speak, until the fighters intend to go to war and until they do so with a heavy quantum of force.
Let us here cite, by way of support, the views of the one and only (so-called) “philosopher of war,” Carl von Clausewitz. Clausewitz famously suggested that war is “the continuation of policy by other means.” Surely, as a description, this conception is both powerful and plausible: war is about governance, using violence instead of peaceful measures to resolve policy (which organizes life in a land). This notion fits in nicely with Clausewitz's own general definition of war as “an act of violence intended to compel our opponent to fulfil our will.” War, he says, is like a duel, but on “an extensive scale.” As Michael Gelven has written more recently, war is intrinsically vast, communal (or political) and violent. It is an actual, widespread and deliberate armed conflict between political communities, motivated by a sharp disagreement over governance. In fact, we might say that Clausewitz was right, but not quite deep enough: it's not just that war is the continuation of policy by other means; it's that war is about the very thing which creates policy—i.e., governance itself. War is the intentional use of mass force to resolve disputes over governance. War is, indeed, governance by bludgeon. Ultimately, war is profoundly anthropological: it is about which group of people gets to say what goes on in a given territory.
War is a brutal and ugly enterprise. Yet it remains central to human history and social change. These two facts together might seem paradoxical and inexplicable, or they might reveal deeply disturbing facets of the human character (notably, a drive for dominance over others). What is certainly true, in any event, is that war and its threat continue to be forces in our lives. Recent events graphically demonstrate this proposition, whether we think of the 9-11 attacks, the counter-attack on Afghanistan, the overthrow of Iraq's Saddam Hussein, the Darfur crisis in Sudan, the bombings in Madrid and London, or the on-going “war on terror” more generally. We all had high hopes going into the new millennium in 2000; alas, this new century has already been savagely scarred with warfare.
War's violent nature, and controversial social effects, raise troubling moral questions for any thoughtful person. Is war always wrong? Might there be situations when it can be a justified, or even a smart, thing to do? Will war always be part of human experience, or can we do something to make it disappear? Is war an outcome of unchangeable human nature or, rather, of changeable social practice? Is there a fair and sensible way to wage war, or is it all hopeless, barbaric slaughter? When wars end, how should post-war reconstruction proceed, and who should be in charge? What are our rights, and responsibilities, when our own society makes the move to go to war?
1. The Ethics of War and Peace
Three traditions of thought dominate the ethics of war and peace: Realism; Pacifism; and Just War Theory (and, through just war theory, International Law). Perhaps there are other possible perspectives but it seems that very few theories on the ethics of war succeed in resisting ultimate classification into one of these traditions. They are clearly hegemonic in this regard.
Before discussing the central elements of each tradition, let's declare the basic conceptual differences between “the big three” perspectives. The core, and controversial, proposition of just war theory is that, sometimes, states can have moral justification for resorting to armed force. War is sometimes, but of course not all the time, morally right. The idea here is not that the war in question is merely politically shrewd, or prudent, or bold and daring, but fully moral, just. It is an ethically appropriate use of mass political violence. World War II, on the Allied side, is always trotted out as the definitive example of a just and good war. Realism, by contrast, sports a profound skepticism about the application of moral concepts, such as justice, to the key problems of foreign policy. Power and national security, realists claim, motivate states during wartime and thus moral appeals are strictly wishful thinking. Talk of the morality of warfare is pure bunk: ethics has got nothing to do with the rough-and-tumble world of global politics, where only the strong and cunning survive. A country should tend to its vital interests in security, influence over others, and economic growth—and not to moral ideals. Pacifism does not share realism's moral skepticism. For the pacifist, moral concepts can indeed be applied fruitfully to international affairs. It does make sense to ask whether a war is just: that is an important and meaningful issue. But the result of such normative application, in the case of war, is always that war should not be undertaken. Where just war theory is sometimes permissive with regard to war, pacifism is always prohibitive. For the pacifist, war is always wrong; there's always some better resolution to the problem than fighting. Now let's turn to the elements of each of these three traditions.
2. Just War Theory
Just war theory is probably the most influential perspective on the ethics of war and peace. The just war tradition has enjoyed a long and distinguished pedigree, including such notables as Augustine, Aquinas, Grotius, Suarez, Vattel and Vitoria. Hugo Grotius is probably the most comprehensive and formidable classical member of the tradition; James T. Johnson is the authoritative historian of this tradition; and many recognize Michael Walzer as the dean of contemporary just war theorists. Many credit Augustine with the founding of just war theory but this is incomplete. As Johnson notes, in its origins just war theory is a synthesis of classical Greco-Roman, as well as Christian, values. If we have to “name names”, the founders of just war theory are probably the triad of Aristotle, Cicero and Augustine. Many of the rules developed by the just war tradition have since been codified into contemporary international laws governing armed conflict, such as The United Nations Charter and The Hague and Geneva Conventions. The tradition has thus been doubly influential, dominating both moral and legal discourse surrounding war. It sets the tone, and the parameters, for the great debate.
Just war theory can be meaningfully divided into three parts, which in the literature are referred to, for the sake of convenience, in Latin. These parts are: 1) jus ad bellum, which concerns the justice of resorting to war in the first place; 2) jus in bello, which concerns the justice of conduct within war, after it has begun; and 3) jus post bellum, which concerns the justice of peace agreements and the termination phase of war.
2.1 Jus ad bellum
The rules of jus ad bellum are addressed, first and foremost, to heads of state. Since political leaders are the ones who inaugurate wars, setting their armed forces in motion, they are to be held accountable to jus ad bellum principles. If they fail in that responsibility, then they commit war crimes. In the language of the Nuremberg prosecutors, aggressive leaders who launch unjust wars commit “crimes against peace.” What constitutes a just or unjust resort to armed force is disclosed to us by the rules of jus ad bellum. Just war theory contends that, for any resort to war to be justified, a political community, or state, must fulfil each and every one of the following six requirements:
1. Just cause. This is clearly the most important rule; it sets the tone for everything which follows. A state may launch a war only for the right reason. The just causes most frequently mentioned include: self-defence from external attack; the defence of others from such; the protection of innocents from brutal, aggressive regimes; and punishment for a grievous wrongdoing which remains uncorrected. Vitoria suggested that all the just causes be subsumed under the one category of “a wrong received.” Walzer, and most modern just war theorists, speak of the one just cause for resorting to war being the resistance of aggression. Aggression is the use of armed force in violation of someone else's basic rights.
The basic rights of two kinds of entity are involved here: those of states; and those of their individual citizens. International law affirms that states have many rights, notably those to political sovereignty and territorial integrity. It thus affirms that aggression involves the use of armed forces—armies, navies, air forces, marines, missiles—in violation of these rights. Classic cases would be Nazi Germany into Poland in 1939, and Iraq into Kuwait in 1990, wherein the aggressor used its armed forces to invade the territory of the victim, overthrow its government and establish a new regime in its place. Crucially, the commission of aggression causes the aggressor to forfeit its own state rights, thereby permitting violent resistance. An aggressor has no right not to be warred against in defence; indeed, it has the duty to stop its rights-violating aggression.
But why do states have rights? The only respectable answer seems to be that they need these rights to protect their people and to help provide them with the objects of their human rights. As John Locke, and the U.S. Founding Fathers, declared: governments are instituted among people to realize the basic rights of those people. If governments do so, they are legitimate; if not, they have neither right nor reason to exist. This is vital: from the moral point of view, only legitimate governments have rights, including those to go to war. We need a theory of legitimate governance to ground just war theory, and Aquinas perhaps saw this more clearly than any classical member of the tradition. This connection to legitimacy is consistent with the perspective on war offered so far: war, at its heart, is a violent clash over how a territory and its people are to be governed.
Based on international law (see Roth), it seems like there are three basic criteria for a legitimate government. If these conditions are met, the state in question has rights to govern and to be left in peace. They are as follows. First, the state is recognized as legitimate by its own people and by the international community. There is an uncoerced general peace and order within that society, and the state is not shunned as a pariah by the rest of the world. Second, the state avoids violating the rights of other legitimate states. In particular, legitimate governments don't commit aggression against other societies. Finally, legitimate states make every reasonable effort to satisfy the human rights of their own citizens, notably those to life, liberty and subsistence. States failing any of these criteria have no right to govern or to go to war. We can speak of states satisfying these criteria as legitimate, or “minimally just,” political communities.
Why do we need to talk about these rights? First, to give state rights moral legitimacy and to avoid fetishizing state rights for their own sake. Second, to describe what is wrong about aggression and why it justifies war in response. Aggression is so serious because it involves the infliction of physical force in violation of the most elemental entitlements people and their communities have: to survive; to be physically secure; to have enough resources to subsist at all; to live in peace; and to choose for themselves their own lives and societies. Aggression thus attacks the very spine of human civilization itself. This is what makes it permissible to resist with means as severe as war, provided the other jus ad bellum criteria are also met. Third, talk of legitimacy is essential for explaining justice in a civil war, wherein there isn't classical, cross-border aggression between competing countries but, rather, a vicious fight over the one state between rival communities within a formerly united society. The key to discerning morality in such cases revolves around the idea of legitimacy: which, if any, side has minimal justice? Which side is defending—or is seeking to establish—a legitimate political structure in our three-fold sense? That's the side which it is permissible to: a) be part of; or b) if you're an outsider, to support.
How does this conception of just cause impact on the issue of armed humanitarian intervention? This is when a state does not commit cross-border aggression but, for whatever reason, turns savagely against its own people, deploying armed force in a series of massacres against large numbers of its own citizens. Such events happened in Cambodia and Uganda in the 1970s, Rwanda in 1994, Serbia/Kosovo in 1998-9 and in Sudan/Darfur from 2004 to the present. Our definitions allow us to say it's permissible to intervene on behalf of the victims, and to attack with defensive force the rogue regime meting out such death and destruction. Why? There's no logical requirement that aggression can only be committed across borders. Aggression is the use of armed force in violation of someone else's basic rights. That “someone else” might be: a) another person (violent crime); b) another state (international or “external” aggression); or c) many other people within one's own community (domestic or “internal” aggression). The commission of aggression, in any of these forms, causes the aggressor to forfeit its rights. The aggressor has no right not to be resisted with defensive force; indeed, the aggressor has the duty to stop and submit itself to punishment. If the aggressor doesn't stop, it is entirely permissible for its victims to resort to force to protect themselves—and for anyone else to do likewise in aid of the victims. Usually, in humanitarian intervention, armed aid from the international community is essential for an effective resistance against the aggression, since domestic populations are at a huge disadvantage, and are massively vulnerable, to the violence of their own state.
Terrorists can commit aggression too. There's nothing to the concept which excludes this: they, too, can deploy armed force in violation of someone else's basic rights. When they do so, they forfeit any right not to suffer the consequences of receiving defensive force in response. Indeed, terrorists almost always commit aggression when they act, since terrorism is precisely the use of random violence—especially killing force—against civilians, with the intent of spreading fear throughout a population, hoping this fear will advance a political objective. On 9/11, the al-Qaeda terrorist group clearly used armed force, both to gain control of the planes and then again when using the planes as missiles against the targets in The Pentagon and The World Trade Center. This use of armed force was in violation of America's state rights to political sovereignty and territorial integrity, and to all those people's human rights to life and liberty. The terrorist strikes on 9/11 were aggression—defiantly so, deliberately modelled after Pearl Harbor. As such, they justified the responding attack on the Taliban regime in Afghanistan. The Taliban had sponsored and enabled al-Qaeda's attack, by providing resources, personnel and a safe haven to the terrorist group.
An important issue in just cause is whether, to be justified in going to war, one must wait for the aggression actually to happen, or whether in some instances it is permissible to launch a pre-emptive strike against anticipated aggression. The tradition is severely split on this issue. Vitoria said you must wait, since it would be absurd to “punish someone for an offense they have yet to commit.” Others, like Walzer, strive to define the exceptional criteria, stressing: the seriousness of the anticipated aggression; the kind and quality of evidence required; the speed with which one must decide; and the issue of fairness and the duty to protect one's people. If one knows a terrible attack is coming soon, one owes it to one's people to shift from defense to offense. The best defense, as they say, is a good offense. Why let the aggressor have the upper hand of the first strike? But that's the very issue: can you attack first and not, thereby, yourself become the aggressor? Can striking first still be considered an act of defence from aggression? International law, for its part, sweepingly forbids pre-emptive strikes unless they are clearly authorized in advance by the UN Security Council. These issues, of course, were highlighted in the run-up to the 2003 U.S.-led pre-emptive strike on Iraq. The U.S. still maintains, in its National Security Strategy, the right to strike first as part of its war on terror. Many other countries find this extremely controversial.
2. Right intention. A state must intend to fight the war only for the sake of its just cause. Having the right reason for launching a war is not enough: the actual motivation behind the resort to war must also be morally appropriate. Ulterior motives, such as a power or land grab, or irrational motives, such as revenge or ethnic hatred, are ruled out. The only right intention allowed is to see the just cause for resorting to war secured and consolidated. If another intention crowds in, moral corruption sets in. International law does not include this rule, probably because of the evidentiary difficulties involved in determining a state's intent.
3. Proper authority and public declaration. A state may go to war only if the decision has been made by the appropriate authorities, according to the proper process, and made public, notably to its own citizens and to the enemy state(s). The “appropriate authority” is usually specified in that country's constitution. States failing the requirements of minimal justice lack the legitimacy to go to war.
4. Last Resort. A state may resort to war only if it has exhausted all plausible, peaceful alternatives to resolving the conflict in question, in particular diplomatic negotiation. One wants to make sure something as momentous and serious as war is declared only when it seems the last practical and reasonable shot at effectively resisting aggression.
5. Probability of Success. A state may not resort to war if it can foresee that doing so will have no measurable impact on the situation. The aim here is to block mass violence which is going to be futile. International law does not include this requirement, as it is seen as biased against small, weaker states.
6. Proportionality. A state must, prior to initiating a war, weigh the universal goods expected to result from it, such as securing the just cause, against the universal evils expected to result, notably casualties. Only if the benefits are proportional to, or “worth”, the costs may the war action proceed. (The universal must be stressed, since often in war states only tally their own expected benefits and costs, radically discounting those accruing to the enemy and to any innocent third parties.)
Just war theory insists all six criteria must each be fulfilled for a particular declaration of war to be justified: it's all or no justification, so to speak. Just war theory is thus quite demanding, as of course it should be, given the gravity of its subject matter. It is important to note that the first three of these six rules are what we might call deontological requirements, otherwise known as duty-based requirements or first-principle requirements. For a war to be just, some core duty must be violated: in this case, the duty not to commit aggression. A war in punishment of this violated duty must itself respect further duties: it must be appropriately motivated, and must be publicly declared by (only) the proper authority for doing so. The next three requirements are consequentialist: given that these first principle requirements have been met, we must also consider the expected consequences of launching a war. Thus, just war theory attempts to provide a common sensical combination of both deontology and consequentialism as applied to the issue of war.
2.2 Jus in bello
Jus in bello refers to justice in war, to right conduct in the midst of battle. Responsibility for state adherence to jus in bello norms falls primarily on the shoulders of those military commanders, officers and soldiers who formulate and execute the war policy of a particular state. They are to be held responsible for any breach of the principles which follow below. Such accountability may involve being put on trial for war crimes, whether by one's own national military justice system or perhaps by the newly-formed International Criminal Court (created by the 1998 Treaty of Rome).
We need to distinguish between external and internal jus in bello. External, or traditional, jus in bello concerns the rules a state should observe regarding the enemy and its armed forces. Internal jus in bello concerns the rules a state must follow in connection with its own people as it fights war against an external enemy.
There are several rules of external jus in bello:
1. Obey all international laws on weapons prohibition. Chemical and biological weapons, in particular, are forbidden by many treaties. Nuclear weapons aren't so clearly prohibited but it seems fair to say a huge taboo attaches to such weapons and any use of them would be greeted with incredible hostility by the international community.
2. Discrimination and Non-Combatant Immunity. Soldiers are only entitled to use their (non-prohibited) weapons to target those who are, in Walzer's words, “engaged in harm.” Thus, when they take aim, soldiers must discriminate between the civilian population, which is morally immune from direct and intentional attack, and those legitimate military, political and industrial targets involved in rights-violating harm. While some collateral civilian casualties are excusable, it is wrong to take deliberate aim at civilian targets. An example would be saturation bombing of residential areas. (It is worth noting that almost all wars since 1900 have featured larger civilian, than military, casualties. Perhaps this is one reason why this rule is the most frequently and stridently codified rule in all the laws of armed conflict, as international law seeks to protect unarmed civilians as best it can.)
3. Proportionality. Soldiers may only use force proportional to the end they seek. They must restrain their force to that amount appropriate to achieving their aim or target. Weapons of mass destruction, for example, are usually seen as being out of proportion to legitimate military ends.
4. Benevolent quarantine for prisoners of war (POWs). If enemy soldiers surrender and become captives, they cease being lethal threats to basic rights. They are no longer “engaged in harm.” Thus it is wrong to target them with death, starvation, rape, torture, medical experimentation, and so on. They are to be provided, as The Geneva Conventions spell out, with benevolent—not malevolent—quarantine away from battle zones and until the war ends, when they should be exchanged for one's own POWs. Do terrorists deserve such protection, too? Great controversy surrounds the detainment and aggressive questioning of terrorist suspects held by the U.S. at jails in Cuba, Iraq and Pakistan in the name of the war on terror.
5. No Means Mala in Se. Soldiers may not use weapons or methods which are “evil in themselves.” These include: mass rape campaigns; genocide or ethnic cleansing; using poison or treachery (like disguising soldiers to look like the Red Cross); forcing captured soldiers to fight against their own side; and using weapons whose effects cannot be controlled, like biological agents.
6. No reprisals. A reprisal is when country A violates jus in bello in war with country B. Country B then retaliates with its own violation of jus in bello, seeking to chasten A into obeying the rules. There are strong moral and evidentiary reasons to believe that reprisals don't work, and they instead serve to escalate death and make the destruction of war increasingly indiscriminate. Winning well is the best revenge.
Internal jus in bello essentially boils down to the need for a state, even though it's involved in a war, nevertheless to still respect the human rights of its own citizens as best it can during the crisis. The following issues arise: is it just to impose conscription, or press censorship? Can one curtail traditional civil liberties, and due process protections, for perceived gains in national security? Should elections be cancelled or post-poned? May soldiers disobey orders, e.g. refuse to fight in wars they believe unjust? A comprehensive theory of wartime justice must include consideration of them, and not merely focus on what one may do to the enemy. For some of the worst atrocities in wartime have occurred within, and not between, national borders. Some states, historically, have used the cloak of war with foreign powers to engage in massive internal human rights violations, usually against some disfavoured group. Other states, which are otherwise decent, panic amidst the wartime situation and impose emergency legislation which turns out to have been complete overkill, and which they later regret and view as the product of fear rather than reason.
2.3 Jus post bellum
Jus post bellum refers to justice during the third and final stage of war: that of war termination. It seeks to regulate the ending of wars, and to ease the transition from war back to peace. There is little international law here—save occupation law and perhaps the human rights treaties—and so we must turn to the moral resources of just war theory. But even here the theory has not dealt with jus post bellum to the degree it should. There is a newness, unsettledness and controversy attaching to this important topic. To focus our thoughts, consider the following proposed principles for jus post bellum:
1. Proportionality and Publicity. The peace settlement should be measured and reasonable, as well as publicly proclaimed. To make a settlement serve as an instrument of revenge is to make a volatile bed one may be forced to sleep in later. In general, this rules out insistence on unconditional surrender.
2. Rights Vindication. The settlement should secure those basic rights whose violation triggered the justified war. The relevant rights include human rights to life and liberty and community entitlements to territory and sovereignty. This is the main substantive goal of any decent settlement, ensuring that the war will actually have an improving affect. Respect for rights, after all, is a foundation of civilization, whether national or international. Vindicating rights, not vindictive revenge, is the order of the day.
3. Discrimination. Distinction needs to be made between the leaders, the soldiers, and the civilians in the defeated country one is negotiating with. Civilians are entitled to reasonable immunity from punitive post-war measures. This rules out sweeping socio-economic sanctions as part of post-war punishment.
4. Punishment #1. When the defeated country has been a blatant, rights-violating aggressor, proportionate punishment must be meted out. The leaders of the regime, in particular, should face fair and public international trials for war crimes.
5. Punishment #2. Soldiers also commit war crimes. Justice after war requires that such soldiers, from all sides to the conflict, likewise be held accountable to investigation and possible trial.
6. Compensation. Financial restitution may be mandated, subject to both proportionality and discrimination. A post-war poll tax on civilians is generally impermissible, and there needs to be enough resources left so that the defeated country can begin its own reconstruction. To beggar thy neighbor is to pick future fights.
7. Rehabilitation. The post-war environment provides a promising opportunity to reform decrepit institutions in an aggressor regime. Such reforms are permissible but they must be proportional to the degree of depravity in the regime. They may involve: demilitarization and disarmament; police and judicial re-training; human rights education; and even deep structural transformation towards a minimally just society governed by a legitimate regime. This is, obviously, the most controversial aspect of jus post bellum.
The terms of a just peace should satisfy all these requirements. There needs, in short, to be an ethical “exit strategy” from war, and it deserves at least as much thought and effort as the purely military exit strategy so much on the minds of policy planners and commanding officers.
Any serious defection, by any participant, from these principles of just war settlement should be seen as a violation of the rules of just war termination, and so should be punished. At the least, violation of such principles mandates a new round of diplomatic negotiations—even binding international arbitration—between the relevant parties to the dispute. At the very most, such violation may give the aggrieved party a just cause—but no more than a just cause—for resuming hostilities. Full recourse to the resumption of hostilities may be made only if all the other traditional criteria of jus ad bellum—proportionality, last resort, etc.—are satisfied in addition to just cause.
Perhaps a few additional thoughts on coercive regime change should here be added, in light of controversial recent events, especially in Afghanistan and Iraq. Can coercive regime change ever be justified, or is it essentially an act of imperialism? In my view, forcible post-war regime change can be permissible provided: 1) the war itself was just and conducted properly; 2) the target regime was illegitimate, thus forfeiting its state rights; 3) the goal of the reconstruction is a minimally just regime; and 4) respect for jus in bello and human rights is integral to the transformation process itself. The permission is then granted because the transformation: 1) violates neither state nor human rights; 2) its expected consequences are very desirable, namely, satisfied human rights for the local population and increased international peace and security for everyone; and 3) the post-war moment is especially promising regarding the possibilities for reform. And the transformation will be successful when there's: 1) a stable new regime; 2) run entirely by locals; which is 3) minimally just. There is extensive historical evidence that this kind of success probably takes from 8 to 12 years to achieve (essentially, a decade). Note that successful, rights-respecting coercive regime change can be done, contrary to some pessimistic views; it was actually done in Germany and Japan from 1945-55, and so it is neither conceptually nor empirically impossible. It's very difficult, to be sure—and, in some cases, it's not a wise thing to do—but it's not literally impossible.
A review of the literature suggests something of a 10-point recipe for transforming a defeated aggressive regime into one which is minimally just:
Adhere diligently to the laws of war during the regime take-down and occupation.
Purge much of the old regime, and prosecute its war criminals.
Disarm and demilitarize the society.
Provide effective military and police security for the whole country.
Work with a cross-section of locals on a new, rights-respecting constitution which features checks and balances.
Allow other, non-state associations, or “civil society”, to flourish.
Forego compensation and sanctions in favour of investing in and re-building the economy.
If necessary, re-vamp educational curricula to purge past poisonous propaganda and cement new and better values.
Ensure, in a timely fashion, that the benefits of the new order will be: 1) concrete; and 2) widely, and not narrowly, distributed. The bulk of the population must feel their lives after the regime change are clearly better than their former lives for the change to be sustainable.
Follow an orderly, not-too-hasty exit strategy when the new regime can stand on its own two feet. Again, this will probably take a decade of intensive effort.
To summarize this whole section, just war theory offers rules to guide decision-makers on the appropriateness of their conduct during the resort to war, conduct during war and the termination phase of the conflict. Its over-all aim is to try and ensure that wars are begun only for a very narrow set of truly defensible reasons, that when wars break out they are fought in a responsibly controlled and targeted manner, and that the parties to the dispute bring their war to an end in a speedy and responsible fashion that respects the requirements of justice.
3. Realism
Realism is most influential amongst political scientists, as well as scholars and practitioners of international relations. While realism is a complex and often sophisticated doctrine, its core propositions express a strong suspicion about applying moral concepts, like justice, to the conduct of international affairs. Realists believe that moral concepts should be employed neither as descriptions of, nor as prescriptions for, state behaviour on the international plane. Realists emphasize power and security issues, the need for a state to maximize its expected self-interest and, above all, their view of the international arena as a kind of anarchy, in which the will to power enjoys primacy.
Referring specifically to war, realists believe that it is an inevitable part of an anarchical world system; that it ought to be resorted to only if it makes sense in terms of national self-interest; and that, once war has begun, a state ought to do whatever it can to win. In other words, “all's fair in love and war.” During the grim circumstances of war, “anything goes.” So if adhering to the rules of just war theory, or international law, hinders a state during wartime, it should disregard them and stick steadfastly to its fundamental interests in power, security and economic growth. Prominent classical realists include Thucydides, Machiavelli and Hobbes. Modern realists include Hans Morgenthau, George Kennan, Reinhold Niebuhr and Henry Kissinger, as well as so-called neo-realists, such as Kenneth Waltz.
It is important to distinguish between descriptive and prescriptive realism. Descriptive realism is the claim that states, as a matter of fact, either do not (for reasons of motivation) or cannot (for reasons of competitive struggle) behave morally, and thus moral discourse surrounding interstate conflict is empty, the product of a category mistake. States are simply not animated in terms of morality and justice: it's all about power, security and national interest for them. States are not like “big persons”: they are creations of an utterly different kind, and we cannot expect them to live by the same rules and principles we require of individual persons, especially those in peaceful, developed societies. Morality is a luxury states can't afford, for they inhabit a violent international arena, and they've got to be able to get in that game and win, if they are to serve and protect their citizens in an effective way over time. Morality is simply not on the radar screen for states, given their defensive function and the brutal environment in which they subsist.
Walzer offers arguments against this kind of realism, contending that states are in fact responsive to moral concerns, even when they fail to live up to them. States, because they are the creation of individual persons, want to act morally and justly: it could not be otherwise. Walzer goes so far as to say that any state which was motivated by nothing more than the struggle to survive and win power could not over time sustain the support from its own population, which demands a deeper sense of community and justice. He also argues that all the pretence regarding “the necessity” of state conduct in terms of pursuing power is exaggerated and rhetorical, ignoring the clear reality of foreign policy choice enjoyed by states in the global arena. States are not frequently forced into some kind of dramatic, do-or-die struggle: the choice to go to war is a deliberate one, freely entered into and often hotly debated and agonized over before the decision is made. And this is leaving unspoken the argument regarding the defiant, Machiavellian amorality behind certain kinds of realism, and the moral calibre of the actions it might recommend on this basis. For example, if it's all about power and winning in the competitive struggle, does that make it alright to unleash weapons of mass destruction? Or to launch a mass rape campaign? Commit genocide and just get rid of those bastards? Just war theory suggests not, and just war theorists like Walzer want to claim that the rest of us agree.
Prescriptive realism, though, need not be rooted in any form of descriptive realism. Prescriptive realism is the claim that a state ought (prudential “ought”) to behave amorally in the international arena. A state should, for prudence's sake, adhere to an amoral policy of smart self-regard in international affairs. A smart state will leave its morality at home when considering what to do on the international stage. Why? Because if it's too moral, it will be exploited by other states more ruthless. Nice guys finish last. Or, a moralized and moralizing state will offend other communities, whose communities sport different values. Better to stick to the sober calculus of national interests and leave ethics out of it.
It's important to note that a prescriptive realist might, in the end, actually endorse rules for the regulation of warfare, much like those offered by just war theory. These rules include: “Wars should only be fought in response to aggression”; and “During war, non-combatants should not be directly targeted with lethal violence.” Of course, the reason why a prescriptive realist might endorse such rules would be very different from the reasons offered by the just war theorist: the latter would talk about abiding moral values whereas the former would refer to useful rules which help establish expectations of behaviour, solve coordination problems and to which prudent bargainers would consent. Just war rules, the prescriptive realist might claim, do not have independent moral purchase on the attention of states. These rules are what Douglas Lackey calls “salient equilibria”, stable conventions limiting war's destructiveness which all prudent states can agree on, assuming general compliance. There might even be some room for overlap between this kind of realism and just war theory.
4. Pacifism
It seems best to rely on Jenny Teichman's definition of pacifism as “anti-war-ism.” Literally and straightforwardly, a pacifist rejects war in favour of peace. It is not violence in all its forms that the most challenging kind of pacifist objects to; rather, it is the specific kind and degree of violence that war involves which the pacifist objects to. A pacifist objects to killing (not just violence) in general and, in particular, she objects to the mass killing, for political reasons, which is part and parcel of the wartime experience. So, a pacifist rejects war; she believes that there are no moral grounds which can justify resorting to war. War, for the pacifist, is always wrong.
Mention should straight away be made of a very popular just war criticism of pacifism which will not be used here. This criticism is that pacifism amounts to an indefensible “clean hands policy.” The pacifist, it is said, refuses to take the brutal measures necessary for the defense of himself and his country, for the sake of maintaining his own inner moral purity. It is contended that the pacifist is thus a kind of free-rider, gathering all the benefits of citizenship while not sharing all its burdens. Another inference drawn is that the pacifist himself constitutes a kind of internal threat to the over-all security of his state.
This “clean hands” argument is easily, and frequently, over-stated. It is important to note that, to the extent to which any moral stance will commend a certain set of actions or intentions deemed morally worthy, and condemn others as being reprehensible, the “clean hands” criticism is so malleable as to apply to nearly any substantive doctrine. Every moral and political theory stipulates that one ought to do what it deems good or just and to avoid what it deems bad or unjust. So this popular just war criticism of pacifism is not strong. The very idea of a selfish pacifist simply does not ring true: many pacifists have, historically, paid a very high price for their pacifism during wartime (through severe ostracism and even jail time) and their pacifism seems less rooted in regard for inner moral purity than it is in regard for constructing a less violent and more humane world order. So, this argument against pacifism fails; but what of others?
Walzer contends that pacifism's idealism is excessively optimistic. In other words, pacifism lacks realism. More precisely, the nonviolent world imagined by the pacifist is not actually attainable, at least for the foreseeable future. Since “ought implies can”, the set of “oughts” we are committed to must express a moral outlook on war less utopian in nature. While we are committed to morality in wartime, we are forced to concede that, sometimes in the real world, resorting to war can be morally justified. It's hard to see, e.g., how anything but war could've defeated the Nazis.
Another objection to pacifism is that, by failing to resist international aggression with effective means, it ends up rewarding aggression and failing to protect people who need it. Pacifists reply to this argument by contending that we do not need to resort to war in order to protect people and punish aggression effectively. In the event of an armed invasion by an aggressor state, an organized and committed campaign of non-violent civil disobedience—perhaps combined with international diplomatic and economic sanctions—would be just as effective as war in expelling the aggressor, with much less destruction of lives and property. After all, the pacifist might say, no invader could possibly maintain its grip on the conquered nation in light of such systematic isolation, non-cooperation and non-violent resistance. How could it work the factories, harvest the fields, or run the stores, when everyone would be striking? How could it maintain the will to keep the country in the face of crippling economic sanctions and diplomatic censure from the international community? And so on.
Though one cannot exactly disprove this pacifist proposition—since it is a counter-factual thesis—there are powerful reasons to agree with John Rawls that such is “an unworldly view” to hold. For, as Walzer points out, the effectiveness of this campaign of civil disobedience relies on the scruples of the invading aggressor. But what if the aggressor is utterly brutal, remorseless? What if, faced with civil disobedience, the invader “cleanses” the area of the native population, and then imports its own people from back home? What if, faced with economic sanctions and diplomatic censure from a neighbouring country, the invader decides to invade it, too? We have some indication from history, particularly that of Nazi Germany, that such pitiless tactics are effective at breaking the will to resist of even very principled people. The defence of our lives and rights may well, against such invaders, require the use of political violence. Under such conditions, Walzer says, adherence to pacifism might even amount to “a disguised form of surrender.”
Pacifists respond to this accusation of “unworldliness” by citing what they believe are real world examples of effective non-violent resistance to aggression. Examples mentioned include Mahatma Ghandi's campaign to drive the British Imperial regime out of India in the late 1940s and Martin Luther King Jr.'s civil rights crusade in the 1960s on behalf of African-Americans. Walzer replies curtly that there is no evidence that non-violent resistance has ever, of itself, succeeded. This may be rash on his part, though it is clear that Britain's own exhaustion after WWII, for example, had much to do with the evaporation of its Empire. Walzer's main counter-argument against these pacifist counter-examples is that they only illustrate his main point: that effective non-violent resistance depends upon the scruples of those it is aimed against. It was only because the British and the Americans had some scruples, and were moved by the determined idealism of the non-violent protesters, that they acquiesced to their demands. But aggressors will not always be so moved. A tyrant like Hitler, for example, might interpret non-violent resistance as weakness, deserving contemptuous crushing. “Non-violent defense”, Walzer suggests, “is no defense at all against tyrants or conquerors ready to adopt such measures.”
As sensible as Walzer's remarks might seem, they remain quite narrow, by no means constituting an all-things-considered refutation of pacifism. Generally, there are two kinds of modern secular pacifism to consider: (1) a more consequentialist form of pacifism (or CP), which maintains that the benefits accruing from war can never outweigh the costs of fighting it; and (2) a more deontological form of pacifism (or DP), which contends that the very activity of war is intrinsically wrong, since it violates foremost duties of justice, such as not killing human beings. Most common amongst contemporary secular pacifists, such as Robert Holmes, is a doctrine which attempts to combine both CP and DP. (No discussion will be made here as to religious forms of pacifism. While they have been very influential historically, especially their Christian variants, as theoretical propositions I believe they rest on core premises which are too contentious and exclusionary. But the Christian pacifist literature is a very rich source of information for those interested.)
What arguments might a just war theorist employ to overcome CP and DP? A just war theorist might, for starters, focus on the relationship in CP between consequentialism and the denial of killing. Pacifism in either form places overriding value on respecting human life, notably through its injunction against killing. But this value seems to rest uneasily with consequentialism, for there is nothing inherent to consequentialism which bans killing as such. There is no absolute rule, or side-constraint, that one ought never to kill another person, or that nations ought never to deploy lethal armed force in war. With consequentialism, it's always a matter of considering the latest costs and benefits, of choosing the best option amongst feasible alternatives. Consequentialism therefore leaves conceptual space open to the claim that under these conditions, at this time and place, and given these alternatives, killing and/or war appears permissible. After all, what if killing x people (say, soldiers in an aggressive army) appears the best option if we are to save the lives of x + n people (say, fellow citizens who would perish under the brutal heel of an unchecked aggressor)? It is at least conceivable that a quick and decisive resort to war could prevent even greater killing and devastation in the future. Historians speculate, e.g., that an earlier confrontation with Hitler would've prevented World War II from ending up being so widespread and destructive. These are two telling points: CP does not, of itself, ground the categorical rejection of killing and war which is the essence of pacifism; and CP is open to counter-examples which question whether consequentialism would reject killing and war at all under certain conditions. Consequentialism might even, in a particular case, go so far as to recommend war under certain conditions.
Casting doubt on DP is a complicated procedure. Only a sketch of plausible just war theory arguments can here be offered. The first question to ask is: which foremost duty does DP understand being violated by warfare? If the DP response is the duty not to kill another human being, then contention can be made that this is by no means uncontroversial. Consider the most obvious counter-example: aggressor A attacks B for no defensible reason, posing a serious threat to B's life. Some would suggest, in good faith, that B is not duty-bound not to kill A if such seems necessary to stop A's aggression. Indeed, they would argue that B may kill A in legitimate self-defence. The DP pacifist, however, might reply that extending B moral permission to kill A, even in self-defence, violates the human rights of A. He might contend that just war theory merely compounds the wrongness of the situation by paradoxically permitting lethal force to stop lethal force. There's a clever phrase nowadays: an eye for an eye leaves us both blind.
One just war theory rejoinder to this DP contention is this: B does no wrong whatsoever—violates no human rights—by responding to A's aggression with lethal force if required. Why does B do nothing wrong? First, it is A who is responsible for forcing B to choose between her own life and rights and those of A. We can hardly blame B for choosing her own. For if she does not choose her own, she loses an enormous amount, perhaps everything. And it is patently unreasonable to expect creatures like us to suffer catastrophic loss by default. Consider also the issue of fairness: if B is not allowed to use lethal force, if necessary, against A in the event of A's aggression, then B loses everything while A loses nothing. Indeed, A gains whatever object he desired in violating or killing B. Such is an unfair reward of awful behaviour. Finally, B's having rights at all provides her with an implicit entitlement to use those means necessary to secure her rights, including the use of force in the face of a serious physical threat. These powerful considerations of responsibility, reasonableness, fairness and implicit entitlement come together in support of the just war claims that: B may respond with needed lethal force to A's initial aggression; B does no wrong in doing so; it would be wrong to prohibit B's doing so; and that A bears all of the blame for the situation. It is A who should stop, not B who should succumb.
DP pacifists are not, at this point, out of options. Holmes, for example, suggests that the foremost duty of justice violated by war is not the duty not to kill aggressors, but rather the duty not to kill innocent, non-aggressive human beings. To be innocent here means to have done nothing which would justify being harmed or killed; in particular, it means not constituting a serious threat to the lives and rights of other people. It is this sense of innocence that just war theory invokes when it claims that civilians should not be directly attacked during wartime. Even if civilians support the war effort politically, or even in terms of their personal attitudes towards the war, they clearly do not pose serious threats to others. Only armed forces, and the political-industrial-technological complexes which guide them, constitute serious threats against which threatened communities may respond in kind. Civilian populations, just war theory surmises, are morally off-limits as targets. Holmes contends that this just war (and international law) rule of non-combatant immunity can never be satisfied. For all possible wars in this world—given the nature of military technology and tactics, the heat of battle, and the limits of human knowledge and self-discipline—involve the killing of innocents, thus defined. We know this to be true from history and have no good reason for expecting otherwise in the future. But the killing of innocents, Holmes says, is always unjust. So no war can ever be fought justly, regardless of the nature of the goal sought after, such as national defence from an aggressor's attack. The very activities needed to fight wars are intrinsically corrupt, and cannot be redeemed by the supposed justice of the ends they are aimed at. How is a just war theorist to respond to this DP challenge?
Some respond by casting doubt on the concept of innocence in wartime. But a just war theorist subscribing to the rule of non-combatant immunity will neither want, nor logically be at liberty, to argue in this fashion. It is hard to see, for example, how infants could be anything other than innocent during a war, and as such entitled not to be made the object of direct and intentional attack. It is only those who, in Walzer's phrase, are “involved in harming us”—i.e. those who pose serious threats to our lives and rights—that we can justly target in a direct and intentional fashion during wartime.
The more appropriate just war response invokes, alongside Walzer, the doctrine of double effect (or DDE). The DDE, invented by Aquinas, is a complex idea. In spite of its apparent technicality, though, the DDE is closely related to our ordinary ways of thinking about moral life. The DDE assumes the following scenario: agent X is considering performing an action T, which X foresees will produce both good/moral/just effects J and bad/immoral/unjust effects U. The DDE permits X to perform T only if: 1) T is otherwise permissible; 2) X only intends J and not U; 3) U is not a means to J; and 4) the goodness of J is worth, or is proportionately greater than, the badness of U. Assume now that X is a country and T is war. The government of X, contemplating war in response to an attack by aggressor country Y, foresees that, should it embark on war to defend itself, civilian casualties will result, probably in both X and Y. The DDE stipulates that X may launch into this defensive (and thus otherwise permissible) war only if: 1) X does not intend the resulting civilian casualties but rather aims only at defending itself and its people; 2) such casualties are not themselves the means whereby X's end is achieved; and 3) the importance of X's defending itself and its people from Y's aggression is proportionately greater than the badness of the resulting civilian casualties. The DDE, in making these claims, refers to common shared principles regarding the moral importance of intent, of appealing to better expected consequences, and insisting that bad not be done so that good may follow from it.
Just war theorists claim that civilians are not entitled to absolute immunity from attack during wartime. Civilians are owed neither more nor less than what Walzer calls “due care” from the belligerent governments that they not be made casualties of the war action in question. “Due care” involves fighting only in certain ways, applying limited force to specific targets. Essentially, “due care” means fighting in adherence with jus in bello. But does this just war claim simply beg the question against the latest DP principle? DPs insist on absolute immunity for civilians, which in our world would result in banning warfare, whereas just war theorists, acknowledging the threat, seem to dodge it by re-defining the immunity to which civilians are entitled, demoting it to mere “due care.” Despite appearances, it is not question-begging but principled disagreement which roots the difference. Just war theorists will argue that civilians cannot be entitled to absolute immunity because that would outlaw all warfare. But outlawing all warfare would ignore both the responsibility for interstate aggression and the implicit entitlement of a state to use necessary means (including armed force) to secure the lives and rights of its citizens from serious and standard threats to them. In the real world, it is neither reasonable nor fair to require a political community not to avail itself of the most effective means available for resisting an aggressive invasion which threatens the lives and rights of its citizens. It is simply not reasonable to require a state to stand down while an aggressor—be it state or terrorist—wreaks havoc, murder and mayhem upon its people.
This is not a complete defeat for DP, merely a suggestion of how such defeat might be sought. DP probably constitutes the most formidable moral challenge to just war theory (whereas prescriptive realism constitutes the most formidable prudential challenge to just war theory). Suffice it for our purposes to say that the DDE is the just war principle most frequently employed to defeat the DP pacifist's assertion that it is always wrong to kill innocent human beings. Just war theorists prefer to substitute, for this DP claim, the following proposition: what is always wrong, both in peace and war, is to kill innocent human beings intentionally and deliberately. Unintended, collateral civilian casualties can be excused during the prosecution of an otherwise just war, wherein the end is the repulsion of aggression and the means are aimed at legitimate military targets.
5. Conclusion
This entry provides a sample of the rich and controversial argumentation surrounding philosophical discourse on war. This discourse is dominated by three major traditions of thought: just war theory (and its international law subsidiary); realism; and pacifism. The interaction between these three traditions structures the contemporary discussion of wartime issues, at the same time as it fuels fascinating debate about them. While just war theory occupies an especially large and influential space within the discourse, its realist and pacifist alternatives endure as provocative challenges to the philosophical mainstream which it represents.
Tun
What a superb idea TCOW, this tells what type of person you are.
To my opinion you are leader of the brownies, whities, blackies yellowies and mixture of colours type of people.
Hey Malaysians "you are fortunate to have TDM".
I pray for your long life to see TCOW materialized.
My Dear Tun !
This is what we younger genaration are waiting for, a war should be declared as CRIME ON HUMAN BEINGS. I thank you for speaking for the future of the world but unfotunately our leaders seem to be more interested wasting money on military projects, hope this stops....
May God Bless You.....
-maliksyam-
Dearest TUN
The truth shall prevail. UMNO is blind to refuse your thoughts. We will continue to hear from you in your 2 million hits.
Refreshing and noble content!. Remember to take care of your health. Salaam to your family.
P.S. When the Jews get worried, you have made it! Great work.
PEACE UPON YOU
.... attaining one hundred victories in one hundred battles is not the pinnacle of excellence. Subjugating the enemy's army without fighting is the true pinnacle of excellence."
Sun Tzu, The Art of War.
RESPECT FROM PB2W - good job
Che Det,
i. No objection to ratification
of Rome statutes on ICC
By Estrella Torres
Reporter
...The United States led seven nations that include China, Israel and Iraq, that voted against the treaty in 1998 and has now gathered more than 100 bilateral immunity agreements with its political allies to provide immunity to American soldiers who may be accused of committing war crimes outside the US. The Philippines, one of the staunchest political and security allies of the US, signed the immunity agreement with the US in May 2003 that prevents ICC prosecution against US soldiers committing war crimes in the Philippines.
Ambassador Alistair Macdonald, head of the European Commission delegation to the Philippines, admitted that the ICC’s unprecedented role in international justice has indeed given rise to misunderstandings.
“While we understand the concerns raised by our partners worldwide, the European Union sincerely believes the Rome statute guarantees the highest criteria of justice and cannot lend itself to political manipulation,” said Macdonald...
ii. AN ALTOGETHER DIFFERENT ORDER:
DEFINING THE ELEMENTS OF CRIMES
AGAINST HUMANITY
SIMON CHESTERMAN*
Nothing is more pernicious to an understanding of these new crimes,
or stands more in the way of the emergence of an international penal code that could take care of them, than the common illusion that the crime of murder and the crime of genocide are essentially the same. The point of the latter is that an altogether different order is broken and an altogether different community is violated. - Hannah Arendt
V. CONCLUSION
In the abstract, the ongoing project to define the elements of crimes against humanity can only progress so far. Ultimately, the International Criminal Court itself will have to interpret its Statute on the basis of the facts presented in the cases that come before it. The accumulated knowledge of the two ad hoc Tribunals will be of assistance, but their experience also suggests four discrete—and sometimes incompatible—policy ends.
First, the minimalist view advocates that the Tribunals exist simply to adjudicate the cases presented to them; this view does not require the elaboration of abstract tests as presented here and, in fact, may suggest against it. Second is the view that the Tribunals were established to tell the story of what happened in the former Yugoslavia since 1991 and in Rwanda in 1994. This view stems from the ad hoc nature of the Yugoslav and Rwandan Tribunals and may require a more expansive view of their mandates.165 Although it raises issues of ICTY procedure that are beyond the scope of this Article, a third position focuses on the Yugoslav Tribunal’s relationship to the UN Security Council’s continuing efforts to restore international peace and security to the Balkans.
The fourth perspective posits that the Tribunals should see themselves as part of the emerging jurisprudence of international criminal law. But this last position is undermined by the Tribunals’ own inconsistencies with customary international law. This larger picture of juridical coherence has thus far been under-emphasized, with the result that the jurisprudence of the ad hoc Tribunals has been piecemeal and, at times, inconsistent. The eventual establishment of a permanent International Criminal Court will resolve some of these uncertainties by providing a firmer basis for a coherent jurisprudence, but divergent policy goals are certain to arise in the course of its work as well.
Writing on Adolf Eichmann’s 1961 war crimes trial in Jerusalem,166 Hannah Arendt subtitled her work “A Report on the Banality of Evil.”167 The title reflected her growing unease about the trial as it progressed; Arendt began her initial coverage for the New Yorker with some excitement, as “an obligation I owe my past,” but later came to view “the whole thing [as] stinknormal, inferior, worthless.”168 The most widely cited element of this unease concerned the strenuous attempts of the Israeli Court to give the evils of the Holocaust a human face in a man who remained, to Arendt, “terribly and terrifyingly normal.” 169 But at the same time Arendt was concerned with the way the Prosecutors and the Court had characterized the crimes in question. “Nothing is more pernicious,” she wrote, “to an understanding of these new crimes,” and nothing “stands more in the way of the emergence of an international penal code,” than the “common illusion” that domestic crimes and crimes against humanity are essentially the same: “The point of the latter is that an altogether different order is broken and an altogether different community is violated.”170 It remains to be seen whether the internationalization of the criminal process discussed in this Article will one day make it possible to view crimes against humanity as crimes against us all.
Note:
Good intention but with bad implementation is dangerous. Should not the OIC have their own interpretation of crimes against humanity?
keep up the good work in opening up the way malaysian thinks.
Dear Dr Mahathir;
Malaysia does not need expensive hi-tech weapons to defend this territory. What our country needed most is a good and efficient public transportation system like bullet trains , trams and buses. I mean just take a look at those pathetic public transportation system we have now in our country .
To spend in more money for the armed forces weapons upgrade is just a waste of public tax payer money.
Besides even if we have the state-of-the-art weapons in our military it does not guaranty that we could win a war againts our enemy . A good example is the US military intervention in Iraq.
Cheers
~Sadar~
Dear Che Det,
In my personal opinion, the arms race being the main purpose of the Department of Defense to spend billions of money for the 'toys' to modernize the defense forces is rather naive.
It would make the picture much more complete if you also add together the self-profiteering of the elitist few as well as 'ways to siphon the tax payer's money and launder it back to its intended owner', to add more truth to the naiveness.
Not to mention that in some case, murder might have been involved too!
Now, that would make your article picture perfect.
TUN,
We always hope that we have time machine where we can turn back to the time when we make wrong decision. Unfortunately, this will never happen.
TUN, you have a good motive and good heart for the UMNO, RAKYAT and the WORLD. If I have three wishes; (1) Go back to the time when you are our GREAT PM and OUR HERO, (2) Make you Young & Healthy so that you can still Lead us MALAYSIAN and (3) to have you appointed as the Secretary-General of the United Nation instead of Ban Ki-moon.
We believe you are the only WORLD LEADER who can really bring PEACE to the WORLD. Unfortunately, there too many evils in this world who want to stop you from moving on. So please do not stop fighting, TUN we support you.
We Want you TUN. We Love you TUN.
Regards,
RM
Salam hormat buat Tun,
Saya teramat setuju dengan idea Tun yang memang telah lama Tun pelopori berhubung isu ini.
Mozafar Mohd
tauugi@gmail.com
Dear Dr,
War is always a crime for a country who invades another country without strong justification. But it is not a crime if it is an act of self defence.
Malaysia for the matter, must equip itself with enough weapons for we cannot guarantee our present neighbours would not become future enemies in years to come. I do not see it as an arm race but more on the needs to update our arm stock in line with the latest technology.
I never imagine Malaysia invading Singapore or Thailand in the future for we are always tolerant to our neighbours. I can only foresee vice versa. Therefore, we must get ourselves ready for an act of self defence.
However, the decision to cancel the crooked bridge to Singapore by Pak Lah administration was heart breaking indeed! We have two submarines and I believe they will be used to protect our sea borders.
Logically thinking, how can they pass underneath the 'Tambak Johor'? Instead, they need to dive further down into Singapore water everytime they want to go from west to east coast and vice versa. This will not happen if crooked bridge is completed.
To you Dr, keep on fighting for the betterment of the Malays and Malaysia.
ABSH
Salam Tun,
Saya mungkin tidak menyokong kepimpinan Tun sepenuhnya dahulu tetapi usaha Tun menjadikan Peperangan Sebagai Suatu Jenayah, saya sokong sepenuhnya. Moga Allah permudahkan perjuangan Tun. Moga Allah panjangkan unmur Tun supaya usaha Tun ini dapat berhasil.
perjuangan tun lebih dari hanyan memperjuangkan malaysia!
Shabas!!!!!!!!!!! memang rugi kalau negara membelakangkan seorang yang sehebat TUN!!!!!!
Tun Sikander,
Only you can save us now. With your wise timely words and advise, which was never their during your 22 years, only you can save malaysia now from the depths of hell.
Oh Tun Sikander, please save us. Spend another million dollars in tax payers money and open up another perdana foundation which no one takes seriously and is a laughing stock of the rest of the world.
WAR is great business....
the only reason is money money money.....
with money we rule the world...
hahaha..............
What about dictatorship Tun? What about leaders who committed crimes to their own people? These tyrants and despots don't deserve to be classsified as criminals? What about police brutality? What about selective prosecution? These are all crimes against humanity.
No need to go as far as Afghanistan and Iraq. Myanmar is just next door, but ASEAN turn the blind eyes to the long-suffering Burmese. Non-interference? What non-interference? Because it is politically safe to do so?
It would be interesting if you could share with us all what you have done as an ASEAN leader regarding the long standing issues in Myanmar. Their problem is our problem too; political asylums and illegal immigrants from Myanmar are not something new.
Crime against humanity is a crime against humanity, whether it's conducted in one's own country or somewhere else.
Your courage in condemning the West in propagating wars is admirable. This initiative to criminalise war is also much lauded.
But it really helps if we can be fair to all the victims of the atrocities around the world instead of just focusing on the crimes by the West, esp Bush and Blair.
On military spendings, didn't the decision to acquire the submarines was done during your time? Why the about-face now Tun? You are condemning your own decision? Because of Perdana Leadership Foundation's initiative to criminalise war is at odds with your previous decisions to modernize our defence?
Strengthening our defence capabilities can't be equated to preparing to go and wage war against other countries. It is every government's responsibility to protect their own citizens, and be prepared for any eventuality, war included.
I'm all for the shoring up of our defence. But the questions and allegations of hefty commissions pocketed by some, the heftier pricetag paid by us compared to other countries who acquired the same thing, the improper maintenance that left some of our military capabilities to rot, the tendency to acquired obsolete technology, still need to be addressed by our authorities.
And to some commenters who said that there's absolutely no need to spend 3 billions for the submarines, no need to have good defence capabilities, because there's no war, you are just so naive, you would just agree blindly to whatever it is that Tun says. Know your facts first lah, a submarine is a strategic war deterrent, it's not something that you use to invade other countries, and it was a decision made during Tun's time. In a haste to just blindly agree, you make yourself sound like a fool. You thought you are supporting Tun, but instead you're condemning Tun's decision while in power, without you realizing it. You really made me laugh. And I used to think that most of the people who are frequenting Tun's blog and supporting Tun are rationale, and capable of do the thinking on their own, and how I was dead wrong...
I, as not only a civilised citizen of Malaysia, but also as an earthling, support the criminalising of war and violence.
1. Violence at any extent, is not a solution to problems and conflicts. Neither should it be used as means of making a point or attaining desired results.
2. When anyone is harmed or suffers any loss, such actions are to be categorised as crime. Isn't it hypocritical and ironic for one to be causing death of innocent people in the name of humanitarianism?
3. How very often are wars waged by the people among the top of the hierarchy for various alleged reasons, even when the rest of the nation recalcitrated the decision. Why should all the innocent people bear all the consequences, fear and suffering brought upon them for the sole decision and action of a minor group of elitists (or the so-called ‘Leaders’), who most likely will not be sharing the same suffering of the civilians? How often if ever do we find any presidents, vice presidents or members of the monarch fighting at the front line along the troops they have sent forth in the wars that they have passed? These so called royalties or decision-makers of the country are hiding behind fanciful fortified walls with the least of hundreds others to be at their service and protection while the civilians hide in their basic shelters praying hard not to be hit by a missile or found by hostile troopers, and others run like rats, dodging from the bullets and bombs that are raining down on them. WHO ARE THESE WAR WAGERS TO JUDGE THAT THEIR LIVES ARE MORE VALUABLE THAN OTHERS? This mentality itself, is a crime!
4. I quote "Except for ending Slavery, Fascism, Nazism, and Communism WAR has never solved anything."
Wars in the history had achieved the abovementioned accomplishment, but not without the loss of hundreds of millions of lives and property for each of the participating parties. Some wars in the past might have been "necessary" but things should be different now as we are now in 2008. Modernisation, education and civilisation have made a lot of positive impact throughout the world, in our mentality and everyday life. And we should continue to progress, not regress.
"I know not with what weapons WWIII will be fought, but WWIV will be fought with sticks and stones" ~ Albert Einstein.
5. Wars are more destructive than constructive. Whenever there is war, the ones who suffered the greatest loss: of life, property and innocence, are indeed the civilians. They lose their home, family, friends, employment, education and future. Keep in mind that dead were not only civilians but also soldiers. These soldiers were also somebody’s children, parents and spouses. Those lucky enough to survive the war may be left impaired for the rest of their lives. Some losses caused by wars take years to recover; some losses are just irreversible.
5. It can never be justifiable to achieve a better good on the expense of others' loss and suffering. Once war has been unanimously criminalised, everybody will think twice before planning and waging war against others for any reason. With the cooperated efforts of many other nations in imposing pressure on the condemned parties to dissolve the current critical issues and to find a non-aggression way to solve a conflict, those concerned parties in the conflict would lose a lot less than they would in a war, even if the end was victorious.
6. Wars could've started by various factors or reasons, for a varied period and eventually they all would come to an end. But none of the wars ended because the leaders suddenly had an enlightenment that war was not the wise resort. Instead, wars ended because either one or all the parties could no longer withstand the loss and the stalemate, or when one of the warring parties surrendered because they clearly did not see a chance for victory, or when one of the parties has been fully destructed or killed. Regardless of how or why the wars ended, they all happened after massive bloodsheds that are avoidable if all has tried hard enough.
7. Ridiculous amount of money is spent on warfare and national defence system that rarely if ever served its purpose. Even more ridiculous budget was dedicated to nuclear and other technological researches intended for defence or espionage, for example the spy satellites, spy aircrafts and other fancy gadgets. Every year we talk about the Budget allocation. If RM3 billion (excluding the maintenance cost) was spent on 2 submarines that will become obsolete in years and then have to be replaced, why not put the money into better use, for those who really need it, which could bring a more immediate positive effect of the money?? When war is no longer the mainstream solution for international or inter-state conflicts, and when the nations stop prowling on one another or afraid being prowled on, then this blind race of defence hardware can be put to an end. Perhaps, the only good reason I can think of, for having high-end weaponry and defence system is to protect the world when being attacked by hostile extraterrestrial beings or some kind of mutated species that are endangering the human lives, like in the many sci-fi movies.
Dear TDM
Semoga TDM dapat memberi komen-komen yg positive. Saya rakyat tak dapat penjalasan yg terang dalam isu ini. Apa yg diperkata kan oleh TDM ada asas nya. Rakyat mesti faham dan jangan mudah melatah.Terima kasih TDM, saya support tindakan TDM.Selamat berjuang.
ZULMDESA
Che Det,
Be Afraid to Die A Non-Muslim!
(it is a crime to lose your fortune)
Do you think more OIC members should master the nuclear technology and bio-technology to deter any unfriendly nation from colonizing them?
Do you think it is right that only western scientist decides when and where to test the black hole theory in their quantum physics laboratory?
ps is that Mukhriz Mahathir ready to lead?
Che Det,
Atom-smashing lab says experiment to start end-June
GENEVA (AFP) - European particle physics laboratory CERN is set to launch its gigantic experiment which hopes to throw light on the origins of the universe within a month, the laboratory's head said Tuesday.
If things go according to plan, the greatest experiment in the history of particle physics could unveil a sub-atomic component, the Higgs Boson, known as "the God Particle."
The "Higgs," named after the eminent British physicist, Peter Higgs, who first proposed it in 1964, would fill a gaping hole in the benchmark theory for understanding the physical cosmos.
Other work on the so-called Large Hadron Collider (LHC) could explain dark matter and dark energy -- strange phenomena that, stunned astrophysicists discovered a few years ago, account for 96 percent of the universe.
The LHC device "will be in working order by the end of June," CERN director general Robert Aymar told journalists.
A gamble costing six billion Swiss francs (almost six billion dollars, 3.9 billion euros) that has harnessed the labours of more than 2,000 physicists from nearly three dozen countries, the LHC is the biggest, most powerful high-energy particle accelerator ever built.
Beams of hydrogen protons will whizz around at near-light speed in opposite directions until, bent by powerful superconducting magnets, they will smash together in four bus-sized detector chambers, where they will be annihilated at temperatures hotter than the sun.
But Aymar played down hopes of any immediate discoveries once the LHC is set in motion.
"We will accumulate data for two years and it will take a lot of time to interpret," he said.
He also scoffed at fears that the massive experiment could create a black hole with potentially devastating consequences for life on Earth.
"The system is totally safe. There is nothing to fear," he said.
Nota:
Che Det, should we criminalise these scientists when they destroyed the entire planet for saying "hey -that's funny!?"
Subhanallah - where are the muslim scientists?
Salam Tun,
Most of the war on this earth started by America and supported by the Jews. Malaysian can't do much because our PM and his Ministers support America and their allies (Jews and Singapore). The jews will never stop killing the palestine and america will continue to support them and dominate Middle East. Today america declare war against muslim regarded as terrorist. All muslim should unite and campaign against america and stop looking up to america as if they are so great. In World war Two, america involvement were only on liberation day. Today they are the hero.
Tun you are taking a very big challenge. It is even bigger than the 22 years of building Malaysia. My familly and I fully support your iniciative. I hope all Malaysians and the whole world support you. War has been going on for thousands of years. The world knows how to balance itself with the natural disasters. We humans go all out to help these victims but at the same time create our own disasters. This has to stop. How many bilions can be saved especially the poorer nations.
LET US PROGRESS TILL WE SUCCEED.
93500lo///That is why I believe that it is important to make war a crime and so to stop it from being the way to settle conflicts between nations.///--- TDM
War between countries is the larger version of conflicts compared to conflicts within a nation. Before stopping the larger conflicts, a country should be able to stop conflicts among the people within a country. Unfortunately, we see all too often that politicians pursue populist policies, such as racism in Malaysia, to ensure continuation in power. TDM is the worst culprit in this regards. He might have been excused for using the convenience of racism to gain power, in his initial climb to political career. He should have moved away from racism after 8 years as PM, the time allowed for any US President, and started to make himself a statesman for the benefit of the people and the country. He had absolute power for 22 years, and he has institutionalized racism in the country. The country has been more polarized when he left than anytime before he ascended the throne in 1981. Yet, when his successor tried to depolarize the racial situation in the country, TDM accused PM AAB for not doing enough for the Malays. Now, 5 years after leaving office, TDM is again playing race card to achieve his objective of becoming the Chief of the "presidential council' for UMNO so that the President will be his puppet.
Has TDM the moral qualification to call for criminalization of war? Is he concerned about war, or is he trying to make a name for himself accusing those who were no longer in position of power as 'war criminals' to achieve the cheap thrill of having his name reported in the media?
Tun, Make love not war.Let all mankind live life to the fullest.@
WAR CRIMES is terrible, and should never be justified, or repeated...
kareema
Salam to my beloved Tun & Madam Tun,
My few points :-
1. Millionaire Blogger
* Congrats Tun! Your Power of Attraction is getting more powerful nowadays :-)...
2. Your Vision & Thought in this posting
* Country leader plays a part in shaping the mindset and thinking of its people like what u did now and before. Thanks to u, it makes us more forward thinking, have 'think big' mindset & more confident as a citizen of a country and the world. A lesson yet to received from Pak Lah!
3. "The Criminalisation of War"
* Tun or Malaysia will never able to succeed in this mission alone. I think thats why Tun 'lobi' in Japan & around e world. Like it or not, we need $$ & power to make it happen. But it has to begin somewhere & Tun had surely did that! And lot of Malaysians will surely back u Tun, no doubt about that
**p/s: Tun what u think if the UN tax those weapon manufacturer company for their fat profit. Or ask them to give out relief money to a disaster hit country dollar-to-dollar for each weapon they sold
4. 'World Police'
* Sorry to say, tapi mungkin bertahun-tahun baru kita dapat melihat cita-cita 'Criminalisation of War' ni jadi keyataan. Dan mungkin juga Tun dah tiada di sisi kita lagi bila Amerika di hukum kerana pencerobohannya terhadap Iraq. Tetapi percayalah Tun, usaha murnimu skrg ini, akan membawa kebahagiaan kpd penduduk di banyak negara yg teraniaya akibat peperangan termasuk di Iraq. Dan saya pasti juga, they will thank u a zillion for saving their lives!!
5. 'Personal Agenda'
* In my opinion, banyak pandangan, cara pemikiran dan action yg Tun lakukan sebenarnya membuka jalan and shaping the mind on what we, as the future generation should do and how we should handle our country and this world in the future. U see us as a develop country in 2020 and beyond and hv set out the 'hardware' on how to achieve that previously through RMK.
Your thought and thinking now, to me like a 'software' on how we should operate the system when we're a developed nation one day, insyallah.
U faced the challenges, the hardship and the insult now for our betterness in future. What else we could expect from a true countrymen!
So to Pak Lah, u better make good your administration now! Our country agenda is far more important than your own personal agenda and your 'politik kampung' & 'politik kedai kopi'.
Putrajaya can only afford to have the best captain around now!
Love u Tun & Madam Tun!
Yeah,time for Bush,Howard and Blair to face the music....
Salam Tun,
Sehingga sekarang saya suka memerhatikan ahli politi bercakap. Saya suka tenung wajah mereka, lihat pergerakkan bibir, mata, dan gerak tubuh mereka. Akan tetapi hingga sekarang saya tidak dapat memahami pemikiran mereka, apa objektif dan arah yang sebenar mereka cuba bawa.
Kini muncul pula blog-blog yang ternyata lebih sukar untuk difahami dengan percanggahan pendapat yang begitu ketara dengan hujah yang cukup mempesonakan.
Secara jujur, blog Tun juga antara yang cukup sukar untuk difahami, bukan dari segi penyampaian tetapi lebih kepada maksud tersirat disebalik baris kata.
Salam Tun. Saya sokong kempen ini.
Pls let us know what else we can do.
http://pemudajalanan.blogspot.com
Apa yang chedet cakap kan ni ?? tak berape paham la chedet ... Chedet letak jawatan pun dengan hujah chedet pk perjuangan UMNO tak betul tu pun dah nampak sangat dah.. Najib orang Chedet,so tu pasal Chedet taknak PakLah nak Najib. Takut sangat kalo dengan kekacauan skrang ni maka bila anwar perintah chedet nanti anwar akan bongkar semua .. Najib pun takut gak takut kes die dengan altantuya terdedah.. hehe..
salam Tun
Boleh tak Tun comment tentang 'Mengapa Tun perkenalkan penggunaan Bahasa Inggeris sutu ketika dulu'
Bagi pendapat saya dasar ini melemahkan lagi bangsa melayu kerana secara tidak langsung telah 'menjatuhkan' lagi bangsa melayu...
Salam Tun,
Betapa bercelarunya perancangan dalam menangani isu minyak negara kita. Memula sekali tak bagi orang luar beli minyak,gembar-gembur dalam media arus perdana bagai nak rak..rakyat tarik nafas lega sebab merasakan hasil mahsul negara kita betul-betul untuk dinikmati oleh kita saja...tapi alih-alih dapat green light pulak?
Lepas bagi tempoh akhir untuk kenderaan plat luar beli minyak kat Malaysia, baru kerajaan tersedar, ada rakyat kita yang cari makan tiap-tiap hari berulang-alik ke negara jiran guna plat kenderaan asing...camne boleh tak terpikir perkara simple camni?
Last but not least...statement cakap harga minyak naik bulan Ogos, tapi.....semua orang dah tau jawapannya.
Jadi dimanakah kredibiliti kerajaan sekarang? Tanyalah Nabil si Raja Lawak sebab dia ada jawapannya!
Post a Comment