What's the difference between Justification, Understanding and Excusing?
Marko's comments on my last blog raise an extremely interesting and delicate topic. Marko says that the deliberate killing of civilians must be criticised whenever it occurs and that the Hamas comment that the suicide bombing in Tel Aviv was a legitimate response to Israeli aggression. Well, to a certain extent I agree. However, it seems to me that the traditional distinction between civilians and soldiers in recent times has got increasingly blurred. For example, the US army terms civilian killings as 'collateral damage' and tries to pass off its attacks as not a deliberate targeting of civilians. Under a normal system of law, this is a very tenuous defence at best. What does "deliberate" mean in this context? In my mind the fact that the killing of civilians is a known consequence of any particular action (whatever the reason for that action) means that one is deliberately targeting civilians - this may not be threshold in international law but it is certainly the case in, for example, a charge of murder.
A further point is what it means to "target" - does this simply mean targeting for killing or something wider - In Gaza and the West Bank palestinian civilians are targeted every day by force, by political power and by the bureacracies of the occupying power - I would urge anyone to read Amir Hass' (an Israeli journalist who used to work for Haaretz - not sure if she still does) account of life in Gaza just after the Oslo peace accord in the early 1990's. The details are not unlike the details of the life of Africans in South Africa under Apartheid.
Yes, the ideal is to demonstrate non-violently and to do everything peaceably - but to the average palestinian (and to the average objective observer) this is simply not working. Deliberate targeting of civilians is awful and should be condemned but what is the alternative? If the US can do it by way of cluster bombs the example to the rest of the world is set.
A further point is what it means to "target" - does this simply mean targeting for killing or something wider - In Gaza and the West Bank palestinian civilians are targeted every day by force, by political power and by the bureacracies of the occupying power - I would urge anyone to read Amir Hass' (an Israeli journalist who used to work for Haaretz - not sure if she still does) account of life in Gaza just after the Oslo peace accord in the early 1990's. The details are not unlike the details of the life of Africans in South Africa under Apartheid.
Yes, the ideal is to demonstrate non-violently and to do everything peaceably - but to the average palestinian (and to the average objective observer) this is simply not working. Deliberate targeting of civilians is awful and should be condemned but what is the alternative? If the US can do it by way of cluster bombs the example to the rest of the world is set.
posted by Akash at 10:06 AM
11 Comments:
Bobby, this is very difficult and challenging area of international humanitarian law (one that was the heart of the first case i did here at the ICTY related to the Siege of Sarajevo), that is the principle of distinction and along with the principle of proportionality (see Additional Protocol 1 and 2 to Geneva Conventions. In an international or internal armed conflict, the absolute obligation of the belligerents is to apply the principle of distinction when attacking or defending - to wit:distinguish between legitimate military targets and civilian targets - or persons taking part in combat and non-combatants. That civilians cannot be attacked or fired upon is customary internatonal law and is non-derogable - but there are situation where this changes - for example civilians can become conbatants if they fire weapons on the other side - they are then arguably legitimate military targets. But even then it has to be established whether they are legitimate military targets. This then is the principle of proportionality - which is fact dependent and practically very, if not impossible, to implement. Again in the AP to the Geneva Conventions - it essentially states that an attack which violates the principle of proportionality constitutes an indiscriminate attack. Commanders who contemplate attacking a military target must consider whether striking this target is expected to cause incidental loss of life, injury to civilians, damage to civilian objectives or a combination thereof, which would be excessive in relation to the concrete and direct military advantage anticipated If such casualties are expected to result, the attack is disproportionate and prohibited. So, imagine how difficult this is to resolve. Here's an example - in fact almost close to a real occurrence - suppose the US forces receive intelligence that Saddam is hosting a family party in one of his palaces during the conflict (ignore the fact that the invasion was illegal and thus the UN Charter was violated) and in that party women and children were present in addition to many other non-combatants. A reasonable commander may think that taking out the Commander-in-Chief of the adversary was a huge military advantage and therefore a legitimate military target - that would outweigh any civilian casualties that would be caused - civilians are deliberately being targeted but such an attack might not be illegal. When the US fires off rockets, cluster bombs etc into Iraq and its cities etc and when they say that there was collateral damage it is correct that such attacks might not be illegal - there needs to litigation/close scrutiny to decide some of these things (i however have no doubt that the many of the attacks the US conducted in Iraq were illegal - and more so it is absolutely disgusting that the US and UK have no official figure of how many civilians have been killed since the invasion ,is their obligation ). The famous pictures of the US tank taking out a sniper in a building in Baghdad could be defined as illegal - was there a reasonable threat (sniper v tank??) what is the military advantage gained? Could have deployed other weapons?
Marko's point is basically correct - killng civiians is illegal whether it is done by Islamic Jihad or the IDF - in fact it is well known that the IDF accepts that their soldiers are legitimate military targets (told to me by an ex Israeli officer).
I encourage you to read the ICTY Galic judgement and look up the football incident - it delves in to the issue of proportionality - if you are interested of course.
Rather than pose questions of proportonality, isn't the greater issue this.
Is there a morality to war? and in particular this (Long) war?
Nothwithstanding the vagueness of the morality issue, my feeling is that we are just floundering around now (the greater we). Making progress in the war on trror ??
there is absolutley no morality to the wars waged by the US, but there can be morality in war, such as intervention to prevent genocide - one of the only times the right to sovereignty can be violated. Had the internatonal community stepped in and waged war against the Hutus to stop their killing spree in Rwanda that would have been morally right - in my view.
But that wouldn't be considered a war by most. After all is it common parlance to talk about tte war in the former yugoslavia...no, it isn;t
So, once again, is there a morality to war, either a morailty of intention, or of conduct? t's a near impossible question to ask and answer. Thats why on the occasion of any major conflict arguments rage as to the rights and wrongs. Because there is a confused morality to killing in the name of, anf on behalf of.
Mt point re all of this, is that while it is oh so easy to criticise the US for its foreign policy conduct, especially recently, one should at least consider the possibility that forceful efforts to spread democracy, however impractical and culturally arrogant, may bear some small fruit, with a certain morality inherent??
yes it is (what do you mean by this - do you mean the war in 1992 or in 1999? The NATO strikes in 1999 were of course part of an international armed conflict (war). Common parlance may see it otherwise but that's partly because of massage and media.
you serioulsy cannot posit the point that the US has used force to institite democracy - i mean that may be the ruse they are employing to secure domestic support, but it really has nothing to do with the actual reason the US has invaded countries or supported opposition regimes in several latin american countries (Chile ).
well i'm not saying it's working. but part, however small, of their thinking in iraq, and possibly Iran, is to foment demcratic roots, directly or indirectly.
While i always doubted this approach being too crude, fanciful and impractical, there is a slim chance that there is some longer trem 'benefit' with respect to indivifual freedom as a greater shared goal amongst arab citizens. Sure, there are many more likley and less beneficial outcomes, which is why i always opposed action.
If you accept the admittedly declining chance of some progressive benefit, then one has to accept a moral aspect, coming back to the original question. After all there are plenty of Iraqis who are grateful for the invasion.
Anyway, the immediacy of the iraq problem alwys to me lay in its impracticality and consequences, not just its assumptions and philosphy. And not every aspect of the theory has fallen away, just most of it. The raisng of individual liberty, if things do change for the better, can hardly be a morally bankrupt outcome.
Sandy, just because some Iraqis are grateful for the invasion does not mean necessarily that there was a moral basis for the war. You made an interesting observation talking about morality of intention vs. morality of conduct. Morality is, however, purely a state of mind. If someone does something for immoral reasons but ultimately the conduct ends up having postive benefits you can't make the argument that the original action was moral. Take this ad absurdium, many (or most) Jews are very grateful for the existence of Israel and generally view the establishment of Israel and its current status as being a positive thing. There is, however, an argument that Israel would not exist (certainly in the form that it is now) without the atrocities of WWII. The 'positive outcome' does not in any way make those atrocities moral. That's really all to say that talk about a moral war or intervention or whatever you want to term it, one has to look at the underlying intention. It is here where any claim to morality falls down, in the vast vast majority of the cases and especially for the US's interventions throughout the last century and this one. The US has intervened purely out of self-interest - allegedly promoting democracy where it suits, propping up dictators where it suits and smashing democracies when it suits (Manu's reference to Latin America comes to mind; also see Mossadegh in Iran in the 50's which some see as the catalyst for most of the ME's problems to date and the US's current attitude to democratically elected Hamas). To say that ultimately Iraq may become a better place completely misses the point about the original justification for the invasion. And to further compound that by trying to give Bush and his cohorts the benefit of the doubt re promotion of democracy (in spite of the fact that these justifications were raised after the invasion and used to justify the 'stay the course' approach) is utter naivete. Do you know where the largest US embassy will be in 2 years time? Iraq. Do you know how long the US military is planning on having bases in Iraq? for at least the next ten years. To put that in perspective at the time of the Korean war, US bases in South Korea were intending to be there for 5 years only and they are still there some 50 years later...
Plus, who says that 'raising individual liberty' or democracy is a good thing per se? Democracy is hardly working in US right now is it? Hasn't really helped India the past 50 years...
well of course it doesnt make the atrocities moral, it may well lend interevntion to stop them a moral aspect though.
The promotion of democracy was always a central part of the doctrine of pre-emption. I am surpirsed you feel it was tacked on ex-post as justification. The political process prior to conflct strongly emphasised a weapons threat sure, which at least in their minds was an issue. But this emphasis was for legal reasons, as they now freely admit (Richard Perle 'it was always merely an adminsitrative issue"), and also persuasive to the media and general public.
Blair did try to switch the emphasis to humanitarian considerations prior to war aswell, which people do forget, before UN events / legal arguments took precedence. Actually, he constantly throughout the preceding 6m tried to make the humanitarian case, alhtough yes the emphasis was clearly elsewhere as as stated.
Regardless, it comes down to judgement. But denying their was a morailty of intention is too simplistic, and focuses too narrowly on perceived threat issue.
Yes something is broke in the US, but it isn;t denocracy as an ideal, it's other things.
Please remember in all of this discussion that i remain of the view that the invasion was in its conception and prosection dumb, reactionary, not liekly to be self-serving, and rpobably a spectacular own goal.
Oh, by the way, i've bought a sportscar....from the riduclaous to the utterly sublime....
what car? take a photo and post it up here for all to see.
The 'push for democracy' was never a real push for democracy as can be seen clearly by what is happening around the world. Don't believe everything you read or hear. The Neo-Cons pushed for regime change so long as the new regime was in the US's pocket- their manifesto is essentially imperialistic - nothing more highbrow than that. Blair can go on and on about supposed humanitarian policies but his actions belie his words - as is the case with most politicians. Frankly I am so sick of the spin and all debate about the reasons for going to war - wouldn't be quite so important had it not caused untold deaths and were the same arguments being re-run for Iran. No member of the Iranian regime will be able to be tried for genocide as Saddam has been - I doubt they are as bad as Savak in any case.
In terms of the morality police, Malaysia has just sentenced a Chinese couple to one year in prison for holding hands in public in Kuala Lumpur - morality police are everywhere....who gets targeted is another matter...
Well, yes, you are right that the US is not after democracy per se, just democracy that ios conveninet to its own interests.
Nevethreless, and despite its imperialistic bent, i still can't dismiss entirely the do good angle.
And yes, as i have stated previously, it's best to just move on. The serach for why got boring about 2 years ago. There is no single why, just a confluence of circumstances that made practical the prosecution of a doctrine that had been sitting on the shelf for 20years.
Re car, go to
http://www.porsche.com/uk/models
and select cayman...
in silver, delivery in seotember.
and yes, don't ask..
Hi! Just want to say what a nice site. Bye, see you soon.
»
Post a Comment
<< Home