Humanitarian action: a Just action?

[Abu Suleyman]

Personally, I think these changes are a good thing--the "ends justify the means" is a very slippery slope, and I would like to think that the society I live in tries very hard not to slide too far down it, even if the opponent does.

I agree to an extent. I would not agree that all ends justify any means. My view is that ends and methods are both necessary but not sufficient conditions of justification. Any attempt to define a war as just without looking at both of them will result in a lot of tail chasing.

BTW, love the Latin phrases.

[Rex Brynen]

BTW, love the Latin phrases.

The only subject I ever failed, actually!

[M-A Lagrange]

Hey Guys

If you do not like french army... Neither do I But probably not for the same reasons. (Had my ass save a couple time by foreign legion and was happy to see them. Must say they're good guys).

To come back to the Just war: what abu suleyman is quiete true. But there is a difference between looking to criminalise war, which is what the UN under anglo saxon NGO (espacially Oxfam and some others) are looking for. And setting rules for a just use of war, which is the spirit of the UN charter.
To follow Abu Suleyman, please take time to look at Carl Schmitt theories (I know, I am repeating my self). But I will defenitively go for some readings of Reinhold Neibuhr.

To complete Rex brynen, jus in bello is an important thing. And is basically what all of us are looking at into war. What Manu code says in -1750 is almost the same as Geneva Convention: do not kill a desarmed enemi, do not kill civilian... In Deteronomy the judes declared that killing women and children under the age to carry weapons is a crime, that destroying agricultural land also... So looking for an honorable way to make war is something that all of us have been looking for.

The use of violence is not something evil, it is the way you use it and the objective you're persuing that will make it good or evil. I am sorry but fighting the Nazi was a ####ing good thing. But bombing german town was terrorism and UK knew it. On this see Michael Walzer Just and Unjust wars.

How using action dedicated to limit the use of violence in a positive way (like healing wounded, protecting women and children...) to conduct military ation can be seen as a just/fair way to conduct war? (does not mean I am against).

To come to Stan.
Well, it is all the problem that your pointing out. Having a discriminative approach of distributing aid in a location leads to violence among civilian. In counter insurgencies, this is counter productive. We faced the same in DRC in 2007/2008 and I spend with a couple of foes a hell of a time to explain it to the UN.
But in a military approach of relief, being discriminative may help. What you have to target is a larger range of people. If you target individuals, you may be accurate but you will be counter productive as you put a side part of the immediat neighbourhood. And then generate violence among communities.
You better target a larger audiance. Targetting villages would be my advise (not saying I have the holy truth in my hands). This allows to inpulse an autoregulation obligation in the community. But providing aid is limitative, you have to couple it with security in a barter like: you help me and I protect you and provide aid. You try to #### me I stop every thing and even more. But that would defenitevely fall under unjust war and unjust humanitarian action.

I am actually looking at what to do for drug production. In my perception it would more or less follow the same pattern for producers than mining in DRC.

[William F. Owen]

Just War
I have to say I am pretty cynical about any construct of a "Just War", especially one that is largely the product of European Culture.
However, I do believe no armed force should "target" civilians. That is not to say there are circumstance where their deaths are largely unavoidable.
I also believe that any man, woman or child, that carries, operates, or directly supports weapons systems should not expect their gender or age to protect them. That is not to say that good judgement and some compassion may not be called for. I don't want anyone killing some 8-year old kid carrying ammunition for his father. - no problem with killing the dad who allows his kid to do that though!

[M-A Lagrange]

I must say that the first time I met a 12 years old stone boy armed with an RPG, I almost pee on me. I was protected only by a piece of paper from his chief... That wasn't much.
I do agree that killing children, women... is not to be done. But as said some COS I met in Bunia: a 12 years old boy with a gun is may be a 12 years old boy but it is also a guy with a gun and less aware of what he is doing than an adult. Well not really if both are under drugs.

But you pointed out all the difficulty to have a civilian oriented war or even instrumentalisation of humanitarian aid. Abu Suleyman was stating: "who you help is the important issue, not the structure of the conflict." Well if you do not help starving under 5 children then you have a problem, cause at the end, you end up in practicing, even indirectly, violence on innocent civilians. Kids can barelly being charged for their parents choices, not talking about women in contexts as Afghanistan. On the otherhand, your feeding you enemi.

"I have to say I am pretty cynical about any construct of a "Just War", especially one that is largely the product of European Culture." (William F. Owen)
"My view is that ends and methods are both necessary but not sufficient conditions of justification. Any attempt to define a war as just without looking at both of them will result in a lot of tail chasing." (Abu Suleyman)

What is interresting from your and Abu Suleyman comments is that it seems like there is a cultural interpretation of "Just war". North Americans would have a different view on Just war compare to europeans.
Also, the actual concept of just war (based on proportionality, response to an agression...) is a US concept brought by M. Walzer. It was a critic of US way to conduct war in Viet Nam. (on this, it's not me, it's you)Would that mean that US army is having a double look at it ? Assimetric war would justify an disproportionated response or would that just be missing the point in such confrontation?

[Rex Brynen]

Interestingly, the ICRC produced a major research report entitled People on War in 1999 which used opinion surveys to ascertain what different societies (including those with recent bitter experience of armed conflict) thought about the IHL and the laws of war.

The findings are interesting, especially since they do suggest emerging norms across multiple cultures. (Then again, it is often the attitudes of combatants, not civilians answering a poll, that may be most important--and those may be rather different.)

[M-A Lagrange]

"Then again, it is often the attitudes of combatants, not civilians answering a poll, that may be most important--and those may be rather different"

Well, there is one aspect of wars that is often under estimated, it is the participation of civilians into it.
One of the aspect I have witness and experiment a lot is the useof farming as a civilian tool to conquier land and also urbanism.
This has been used by Kagame after the genocide to reorganise the population setlements in Rwanda. Instade of preserving the wide spread villages urbanism scheme that was the norm before with houses on the top of the ills and fields in the valley. He concentrated settlements into valleys and obliged people to rebuild villages in a "european style" where he could have more grip on them. Also, this allowed him to spoil land from the Hutu (not saying I like the interharmwe, far from it).
In DRC, the Nande reconquiered land in Ituri by being the very first one to come back,pushed by civilian authorities. This allowed them to occupy "legaly" villages left by the original populations that were too traumatised to come back. It also alowed them to occupy "free" land through agricultural relief programs by distributing farming land that they used to military loose but to which they had access as they were the political winners.
In South Somalia, it is not land access that has been instrumentalised but access to water. Kenyan somaly were denied development by their government as they voted to be Somaly in the 60. So they manage non maintenance of water points, increasing artificially drought. This results into increasing inter ethnic conflicts and "force" donors and humanitarian actors to come and implement every 4 years the same projects based on conflict mitigation, peace promotion and water access. They also manage to recover livestock. They either send on other part of the kenya/Ethiopia/Somalia triangle and keep somewick old cattles they let die to increase the symbols of drought.
Also, in an attempt to settle the conflict in Somalia, NGO and UN agencies tryed to talk to elders and traders. They found out that all those civilians were either fully supporting war or were basically trading with various groups to support their efforts of war or increase existing tensions that would serve their business.

So far, I do agree that military behaviour is one important aspect of war. But civilian behaviour is also influencing war and not always (far from that) unpurposely.
It is the same with the problematic of drug production. In somehow, drug production and insecurity resulting from it becomes a rational choice for poor farmers households. Soldiers protecting them are not always providing what is the most beneficial for them in an economic perspective.

[Stan]

To come to Stan.
Well, it is all the problem that your pointing out. Having a discriminative approach of distributing aid in a location leads to violence among civilian. In counter insurgencies, this is counter productive. We faced the same in DRC in 2007/2008 and I spend with a couple of foes a hell of a time to explain it to the UN.
But in a military approach of relief, being discriminative may help. What you have to target is a larger range of people.

Hey MA,
In our case, the water being pumped (and the food provided by NGOs) was intended for everyone to include those who were actively part of the genocide. All told approx. 800,000 in two camps. It was however the Zairian army opposed to free drinking water and not the target population (Tutsi, Hutu, etc.). There were far worse things the FAZ did back then besides sell water.

I appreciate and understand your view on the issue. I think most of us also felt that we could have been more discriminative with the provision of relief, but that was not our choice to make at the time with over 4,000 people dying of cholera each day.

Targeting villages would be my advise (not saying I have the holy truth in my hands). This allows to impulse an auto regulation obligation in the community. But providing aid is limited, you have to couple it with security in a barter like: you help me and I protect you and provide aid. You try to #### me I stop every thing and even more. But that would definitively fall under unjust war and unjust humanitarian action.

Although I was talking in general about the refugee crisis in Goma, I'd like to comment on your post further.

Having lived amongst the Zairois for nearly a decade in friendlier times, I have to confess that most of the villages there were already (literally) targets of their own military and government. Any sort of pressure we could have applied would have be a waste of time, and resulted in just more dead villagers. (Unjust) Humanitarian actions should also take into account that more people will ultimately suffer from our inaction.

Honestly, much like Tom opined, I was hoping Mount Nyiragongo would have busted her seams and sent those folks to the promise land.

Regards, Stan

[Abu Suleyman]

Insofar as some seem to have taken my comments to indicate otherwise, I just want to say that I strongly believe that Conduct of War rules are a good thing, whether they are the Code of Chivalry or the Geneva Convention. Children and other non-combatants are not and should never be targets.

However, I treat the conduct of war as separate from the 'Just War' rightly or wrongly because I view the decision to go to war as separate from the conduct there of, mostly because in modern times the people who make decisions about the two are separate. Decisions to go to war is almost always made by politicians, whereas most war crimes are commited by individuals or groups thereof in the armed forces. It is conceivable that a political body would both declare an unjust war and then regulate that the war be conducted in such a manner that is against the law of land warfare. However, it is equally concievable that even in an unjust war, soldiers could conduct themselves in an honorable manner, and vice-a-versa.

[William F. Owen]

Decisions to go to war is almost always made by politicians, whereas most war crimes are commited by individuals or groups thereof in the armed forces.

So what is a war crime? I have some pretty set ideas about War Crimes, but these are vastly at odds with what the UN/NGOs/media wishes/chooses to call war crimes.

[M-A Lagrange]

Hey Abu,
What you describe is basically the rule of Just war that is making the distinction between entering into war for a Just reason and conducting war in a Just manner. (Jus in bello and jus at bellum)
Why wars are declared or occure is different from how they are conducted. The aim of this is to preserve the humanity of the combattants by accepting that war are spaces in the real with different rules and moral understanding. But saying that, the warriors or soldiers still have and are part of humanity. What political leaders may ask them to do may be unjust and then the responsability lies in the hands of the decision makers. But also, as Stan pointed out, combattants have the obligation to refuse unjust or illegal orders. The definition of unjust or illegal orders is unclear and vague, I agree.
And I would not dare to juge whitout knowing the responsability of individuals in a war zone. Choices made are harsh and difficult under high pressure. But still law as the realisation of moral standing in the real has to be preserved.

[Rex Brynen]

So what is a war crime? I have some pretty set ideas about War Crimes, but these are vastly at odds with what the UN/NGOs/media wishes/chooses to call war crimes.

Article 8 of the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court is the best single summary of war crimes (plus the more serious categories of genocide and crimes against humanity in Articles 6-7).

[Abu Suleyman]

So what is a war crime? I have some pretty set ideas about War Crimes, but these are vastly at odds with what the UN/NGOs/media wishes/chooses to call war crimes.

I suspect that if we were to break out our respective definitions of what we think war crimes are most of us here would have a pretty similar definition. I almost %100 certain, based on reading Wilf for so long that we would have no meaningful disagreement.

Why wars are declared or occure is different from how they are conducted. The aim of this is to preserve the humanity of the combattants by accepting that war are spaces in the real with different rules and moral understanding. But saying that, the warriors or soldiers still have and are part of humanity. What political leaders may ask them to do may be unjust and then the responsability lies in the hands of the decision makers. But also, as Stan pointed out, combattants have the obligation to refuse unjust or illegal orders. The definition of unjust or illegal orders is unclear and vague, I agree.

We are in %100 percent accordance. I treat the two as different, but both essential elements of a moral war. If your war for a good reason is conducted in an immoral way, it is not a moral war, and no amount of humanity in an immoral war makes it ok. I only separate warfighters from politicians for analytical purposes, and (a little) because their choices are of a different character.

And I would not dare to juge whitout knowing the responsability of individuals in a war zone. Choices made are harsh and difficult under high pressure. But still law as the realisation of moral standing in the real has to be preserved.

Also agree. Here I am talking about general theoretical level questions. Theory is important because (well constructed) it is a constant and gives us the measuring stick against which we can evaluate the real world. However, when dealing with individual cases I would be very hesitant to pass more than a cursory "If...then..." evaluation of the situation, and only after enough time had passed to let all of the facts come out.

Indeed, while not condoning true warcrimes, I think we are sometimes too harsh on warfighters. The stakes are higher in war, and therefore mistakes have greater consequences. To treat things that occur in a war zone the same way we would deal with them if they happened at home is probably a bad thing to do.