[Reader-list] Disproportion and the Justification of War
Shuddhabrata Sengupta
shuddha at sarai.net
Sat Aug 5 02:00:32 IST 2006
Dear Jamie, Mansour, Iram, Aasim and others
On the eve of the day when a demonstration that I hope will happen as
close as possible to the Israeli Embassy in New Delhi, I think it is
very worthwhile that we are having this debate on the reader list. I
would like to thank all of you for the very thoughtful points that you
have raised. I have learnt a lot from all of them.
I am not doubting for a moment that there is something obscene in the
spectacle of the most powerful military force in the Middle East, (the
Israeli Defence Forces) targetting civilians and non combatants in
Lebanon (or for that matter in the Gaza Strip, or on the West Bank). I
have also no doubt that they are aided in this obscenity by many
commentators in the US media who pretend that the conflict is one
between equal parties. So I agree with Mansour and what he says in his
posting. I also, like Iram, do not at all doubt the sincerity and good
faith of those who have drafted and circulated the petition. I also
believe that to unleash hostilities on to a civilian population, to bomb
airports, houses and roads, because two soldiers have been kidnapped is
a gross moral wrong. But, the question remains, is it
'disproportionate'. What would have been proportionate? How can one
measure the magnitude of suffering in this case, and say this is the cut
off point where a response by the Israeli Defence Forces would have
ceased to be proportionate. And this, here is where it would have stayed
within the respectable bounds of proportionality.
Let me clarify a few points. I am not a pacifist. Generally, my sympathy
for non-violent opposition stems as much from pragmatic as it does from
purely ethical grounds. I maintain that armed opposition to oppression
is not in every instance a morally questionable aim. However, I do have
a problem with the monopoly over force that the modern nation state has
claimed, with which comes the relatively new notion of the standing army.
Given the nature of the state, and the fact that in my view a state is
by definition an organ of the power of a ruling class, I view all
violence (exercised by all and any state(s) or proto state(s)) as
objectionable. This includes what statesmen like to call 'defensive
measures'. Remember, all war ministries are called 'Ministries of Defence'.
I have no fundamental moral objection to a population, or even
individuals, undertaking acts of violence either in self defence, or in
pursuit of a specific aim that aims to put an end,reasonably, to a
condition that itself constitutes unbearable violence. I do not think
violence is pretty, or beautiful, or redemptive, just that sometimes
there is no other way. And given a choice between dying or watching
someone I love die and attacking an aggressor in order to ensure that
this does not happen, I would unhappily choose the latter. I believe
that there can be just acts of violence, but no good acts of violence,
and that these can occur when the perpetrators of such acts do not claim
to be doing anything other than effecting simple violence in order to
put an end to a greater violence. Such a perpetrator cannot make the
claim that their act is somehow above question. They are fully aware of
the fact that what they do causes pain to someone or the other.
I do not believe there can be just wars. Because, the perpetrator of a
war, a state, views itself as an agent who has a monopoly over the
legitimate claim to force. Once a claim is successfully made with regard
to legitimacy, the undertaker of that claim need not question or doubt
their act. The state does not doubt its necessity to make war, It has
the 'right' to conduct violence, to make war, that is what makes it a
state in the first place. In fact, the state that cannot make war, is
hardly justified in being seen as a state, and so, even Japan (with its
so called 'Pacifist' constitution, continues to maintain one of the most
powerful military machines in Asia).
In fact there is a crucial difference between an individual, or even
collective violent act by people who do not see themselves as the state,
and a state's action. This does not make the first less violent, only
violent in a different way, and I would argue that this difference has a
significance. The first (if it attempts to justify itself, or if it can
be justified) is not the violence that seeks to punish, or make a point,
or even safeguard a territory, but the violence that has to occur, as a
last resort, in order to save lives.
In this understanding, only a combatant can be the legitimate target of
violence. Those who have read my last posting carefully, will note that
i had qualified every statement I was making by invoking the figure of
the civilian. The International Laws of War (spelt out in the covenants
of the Geneva Convention) are instruments that aim to spell out what
should happen between combatants. Civilians are granted protection in
the main when they become subject to the actions of an occupying power.
This means, that if Israel invades Lebanon, or parts of Lebanon, then it
has the responsibility under International law (the Geneva Convention)
to ensure that the Lebanese non combatants in the zones that it controls
are not subjected to arbitrary violence by its armed forces, it is here
that the question of 'disproportionate' or 'unreasonable' force can
arise, in a strictly legal sense. Until that time, if an Israeli rocket
hits a structure that was sheltering non combatants, all that the
Israeli government needs to do (if it so desires) is to say that it
regretted the 'collateral damage'. This is the time honoured principle
that the US Administration has used in Iraq and in Afghanistan, and
elsewhere. In fact, the princicple of was is to inflict maximum damage
to a civilian population so that the targetted population understands
that the only guarantee of its safety lies in the hands of the state
that enacts the violence upon it. This is why every modern war is also
simultaneously projected as a war of liberation. A state liberates the
subjects of another state from that state by bombing it into a situation
where it is willing to delegitimize one ruling power in favour of
another. This logic has no room whatsoever for 'proportionate' force in
relation to civilian populations.
To argue that a state act proportionately violently in relation to the
subjects of a state that it considers hostile is to miss the point. A
state need not do so. And the whole point of Guantanamo Bay, for
instance, lies in this fact. That is why the inmates of the camp are not
seen as combatants, it is in fact easier for the US governement to deal
with them outside the limitations of international law precisely because
they can be represented as non-combatants to the outside world, and held
in a territory that legally does not fall within the boundaries of the
United States of America. Prisoners of war, in a US POW camp would have
to be treated under the Geneva Conventions.
State's do not kill in order to save lives (even if that is what they
say they do). Because states do not kill combatants alone. The nature of
war aims today is based on a terrorization of a non combatant
population. This is why there is no difference between recognized states
and terrorist organizations. Neither actually is interested in
targetting combattants, but in making civilians and non combatants scared.
And this is why the language of proportion, in my view is ultimately
untenable. In the end, it is about whether you believe that a state has
the moral authority to involve you (as a subject or a citizen) in a
declared act of aggression against another state and its subjects. I
refuse to grant my state that moral authority over my person, and
consequently I refuse to see why any aggressive act of the Israeli (or
Syrian, or Iranian, or Lebanese, or Indian or Pakistani or any)state
should be measured by me against some abstract scale of proportional and
reasonable violence, and found either wanting, or not wanting. I do not
want to be involved in this measuring game at all. As far as I am
concerned, the question is not about whether there should or should not
be a just war. I would personally much rather that there should just not
be war.
Apologies for a long post,
regards,
Shuddha
More information about the reader-list
mailing list