When in “The Taste of Armageddon”, Anan 7 speaks about learning to fight in the proper way, he refers to the simulation of battles run by the computers; this form of war has preserved the planets from damage, but both of the participating sides still have had to disintegrate the people who were pronounced “killed” by the simulated strikes. Having observed the course of the war, Kirk makes the decision to interfere because the simulated war has resulted in just as many casualties as the real one would. The loss of human lives is what drives Kirk as the protector of peace to protest the simulated war. In comparison, Starship Troopers by Robert Heinlein seems to demonstrate an attitude that is the opposite of Kirk’s. Throughout the course of the book, the war goes on between the Arachnids or “the Bugs” and the people of Earth. The war results in devastation for both sides.
However, neither of them are willing to stop, negotiate, cease fire, or think about the ruination caused by the conflict. In fact, the ending of the book paints a scene where the Terran Federation decides to consolidate the efforts of as many troopers as possible for an extra-powerful strike on the enemy. The soldiers are motivated by the speech, saying that they are coming for their fellows who were taken prisoner by the Bugs; however, the boat will not come back to pick them up after dropping them, “instead it’ll fetch more ammo and rations” (Heinlein 155). That way, the ultimate intentions of the Terran Federation seem to be oriented toward the continuation of the war at any cost, even if it leads to a massive loss of soldiers’ lives, or devastates the Earth.
Differently put, the Federation seems to agree with Eminiar’s perspective of the need for the armed conflict. The only difference is that the former does not care about the preservation of planets, cultures, or ecosystems. The pacifist point of view of Captain James Kirk is alien to both of these parties.
The documentary film largely addresses how the US military has been marred with the issue of rape. It is apparent that women soldiers are the worst victims of human rights violation presented in this movie.
The documentary highlights intensive research that has been carried out in the US military especially in regards to female victims who have undergone grueling experiences while serving in the US military.
From the film, it is cathartic and validating to report the trauma that women undergo in the hands of the US military.
According to the reports obtained from the US Department of Defense, an assault from an enemy is less likely to affect a female soldier in the US military compared to the chances of being raped by a female colleague.
This implies that the greatest threat that female soldiers face while in line of duty is the possible rape from their rogue male counterparts.
However, it is surprising that the Department of Defense has done very little to avert the bad experience that female soldiers go through while serving in the army (Parrish par. 5).
Close to 20,000 sex crimes against women serving in the military were reported way back in 2010.
In addition, the film documentary highlights that about twenty percent of female soldiers in the US military have been raped or have experienced rape attempts while working close with their male counterparts.
Age also seems to be an issue of consideration when it comes to rape ordeals that women face while in the US military.
For example, the documentary observes that female soldiers who are within the ages of 18 and 21 years are highly likely to be raped compared to those who are above 22 years. In any case, more that 50% of the rape victims among female soldiers are aged between 18 and 21 years.
Nonetheless, the documentary does not explicitly explain the extent of rape and other forms of human rights violation that women over the age of 22 undergo. It is possible that rape ordeal is the worst form of human rights violation that female soldiers face in the US military.
Male soldiers are also part and parcel of the statistics of rape cases that are dominant in the US military. However, the number of men being raped is rather small in comparison to all the rape cases combined.
The reports in the documentary indicate that only one percent of the male soldiers have been reporting rape assaults at least every year. For instance, close to 20, 000 men underwent sexual ordeals before the close of the year 2009.
In order to solidify the claim, one male victim of sexual assault has also been interviewed in the film. Again, the interview and even the reports presented in the film documentary do not categorically classify how these men are sexually assaulted.
It is imperative to mention that one of the major threats to human rights in the US military has been homosexuality. There are soldiers who are sexually molested by culprits of the same sex. As such, gays and lesbians have thrived in the military for a considerable length of time.
If the documentary could explicitly categorize the nature of sexual assaults experienced by either male or female soldiers, then it could be easy for the audience to understand the actual essence of the ‘invisible war’
The level of prosecution is still below par according to the statistics obtained from the criminal justice system with specific reference to the cases emerging from the US military. There are several victims who do not report sexual ordeals that they experience on a regular basis.
It is indicated that over 80% of sexual assault cases go unreported. However, the documentary does not explain reasons why victims are adamant or unwilling to make their cases open to the public. Perhaps, they may be threatened by the culprits or even be afraid of being socially stigmatized.
The documentary could have shed additional light on the threats and stigma that often accompany sexual-related ordeals. It is pertinent to understand that cases related to human rights violation are very sensitive and therefore, should be handled with great care.
It is not just adequate to report about this type of invisible war without offering the much needed solution to the challenge.
The documentary also highlights that successful prosecutions amount to less than 10 %. This implies that there is till loose link between the US military service and the US Department of Defense in regards to human rights violations that take place.
If prosecutions against offenders are not taken with keen interest, the vice within the military may still persist. As a matter of fact, sexual assault cases are not new in the US military. It is just that the documentary appears to be among the very first avenues where the bad experience has been aired.
In addition, it is also most likely that the challenge facing female soldiers in the US military is yet to be fully addressed by the concerned authorities.
It is not clear whether the US department of Defense is ready to handle the menace once and for all. In other words, the goodwill to prosecute offenders seems not to be in place.
From the documentary, we also get to learn that most of the perpetrators are within the higher ranks in the military. Junior officers are hardly involved in sexual assault cases, and if any, they are very minimal.
The documentary also reports that the external criminal justice systems are hardly made us of when carrying out prosecution of offenders. Why should the military service avoid an independent criminal justice system? Are there fears that external prosecutions could be successful?
Or is justice to the victims not a priority in the US military service and the US Department of Defense? These are terse questions that have not been addressed in the documentary at all.
It is apparent that the documentary was largely meant to bring out the issue of rape in the US military without exploring the several underlying aspects of the ‘invisible war’.
In regards to scanty prosecutions carried out within the military service, it is disheartening to learn that the elements of professional ethics and codes of conduct are hugely absent in the US military service.
It is vividly understood that senior officers and their allies always get away scot free without facing the right magnitude of judgment according to the crimes committed. Are there clearly defined professional codes of conduct within the military?
If so, why are they not being followed to the letter? The targeted audience to this documentary may be keen to ask and obtain answers to similar questions as they watch the film.
Unfortunately, the documentary does not address some of the most salient and pertinent issues emerging from the report.
In spite of the weaknesses evident in the documentary, there are also several strengths that can be clearly depicted in the movie. To begin with, the documentary makes use of statistics to support claims of sexual assault in the US military (Hlad par. 1).
There are very few catalogue of woes that can indeed match with the evidence presented in the documentary. The statistics have also been provided from variety of sources in order to affirm the state of the matter.
Hence, the documentary can be said to be both qualitative and quantitative in terms of providing evidence to the audience. Moreover, interviews have been used to solidify the facts and figures presented in the documentary.
For example, a US Coast Guard who used to formerly serve in the US military offers a powerful testimony on her experience while in the army. Her name is Kori Cioca. While still in the US military, she was physically abused and sexually assaulted by her immediate supervisor.
The victim did not expect such kind of treatment from the senior officer who did not seem to care about the trauma she would undergo after the ordeal. In a sharp turn of events, the supervisor concurred that he did not rape Cioca but mildly beaten her up.
Despite the magnitude of the matter, the supervisor was given a mild sentence because the rape claim was not considered by the internal prosecution at the military.
He only missed his pay for thirty days and was also restricted from operating within the military base for the same period of 30 days.
In order to confirm that she indeed went through a difficult time, her jaw was fractured to an extent that it could not be repaired. In addition, the medical report indicated that she acquired post-traumatic stress disorder after the rape ordeal.
Even after presenting her medical claims to the international prosecution system, it was not accepted. At least, this is a clear proof that most of the human rights abuses that female soldiers undergo when serving in the military are not given keen attention by the US Department of Defense.
It is also interesting to note that well wishers came out willingly to offset Cioca’s medical bills after they watched the Sundance screening of the film.
Her civil suit did not go through even after ending up as a plaintiff. In yet another interview with a victim of rape and physical violation, the documentary airs the grueling rape experience that Trina McDonald went through at Aleutian Islands in Alaska (Risen par. 2).
This was a distant Naval Operating Station. Before being raped, she was subjected to excess drugs. Her assailant was a military police officer.
Other similar rape cases have also been highlighted in the documentary. One surprising thing is that none of the victims obtained a fair hearing from the internal prosecution system.
When Leon Panetta, the then Secretary of Defense viewed the documentary film, he gave out a directive to senior commanders that all cases related to sexual violations be channeled to a colonel who is highly ranked.
In addition, a special unit for dealing with offenses on sexual violations was formed. This is deemed as one of the strengths of the documentary.
It managed to highlight and fully support claims of human rights violations in the US military service (Holden par. 2). Even though the vice may still be in place, the emerging cases have been definitely reduced to the minimum.
At this point, it is vital to mention that this documentary film does not go against the US military service.
The film documentary is particularly attempting to point out that the few bad elements in the military ought to be checked in order to save the image of the entire service bearing in mind that the services offered by the military are still integral in the face of the country.
The male or female soldiers who have found themselves in the hands of assailants at one time or another deserve better treatment even as they offer their services to the nation. Justice ought to be delivered to all victims of sex abuse in the US military (Dick par. 3).
Perhaps, in order to develop a vivid and critical reflection in regards to international human rights, it is paramount to emphasize that rape cases are not strange occurrences in our society.
If this is the case, why should it be perceived differently in the military? It is only proper if basic human rights can be upheld at all times irrespective of the social, economic or political status of the offender.
In summing up, the ‘Invisible War’ offers a succinct analysis and investigation of the paradox that exist in our society.
Whereas all soldiers hired in the US military are expected to uphold high standards of professional ethics, there are still rogue individuals who cannot protect human rights.
Nonetheless, if justice can be delivered to the victims, then it is without doubt that the US military will regain its reputation.
War and peace are the two central concepts that determine the existence of mankind on Earth. These concepts have always attracted the attention of numerous scholars who tried to define war and piece and state reasons that lead to them. It goes without saying that there was no need to examine peace as it is a positive phenomenon. Consequently, war, as the most terrible evil that human beings can do to each other, demanded thorough consideration. Nowadays, numerous theories of conflicts and of war exist in the scientific world, including the theories by Parsons, Webber, and Stoessinger. The latter theory is exactly the topic of the current paper, and the following paragraphs will explore it so that to see why people go to war and how they can be made not to (Stoessinger, 2007, xvi).
Stoessinger’s Theory
To start with, let me take a brief look at John G. Stoessinger’s background. It is necessary because it may allow understanding his views on war and peace and analyze his theory more properly. John Stoessinger was born in Austria and as a child experienced the invasion of the Nazi Army to his motherland. He had to escape from Austria with his family and lived in Russia and China till the end of the war. Nowadays he is a successful statesman and scientist delivering lectures to students in a lot of countries of the world (Stoessinger, 2007, xii).
From Stoessinger’s background, it can be clearly seen that the theory of war formulated by him was based on the events he experienced and he has a full right to state this theory. The central point of Stoessinger’s theory of war is the negation of the role of circumstances and such abstract notions as human nature, ethnic and racial misunderstanding, etc.: “History does not make history. Men and women make foreign policy decisions.” (Stoessinger, 2007, 408)
Stoessinger states that the major and almost the only reason for war is the position of the leader of the nation: “In all these cases, a leader’s personality was of critical importance and may, in fact, have spelled the difference between the outbreak of war and the maintenance of peace ” (Stoessinger, 2007, 392)
The leaders of nations take central place in the theory by Stoessinger due to the fact that he is absolutely convinced that these are people who make decisions and no circumstances are able to make them go to was if they do not want to. As a famous diplomat, Stoessinger (2007) admits the eternal chance for compromise, peaceful negotiations and harmless co-existence of human beings. Due to this, there are no other reasons of war, according to Stoessinger (2007), than personal point of view of leaders and their misperceptions (385 – 398).
The interaction of perceptions and misperceptions is another leading point of the theory of war by Stoessinger. The main point of this interaction lies in the fact that leaders who possess respective decisive power in questions of peace and war often have misperceptions that lead to wrong decisions. According to Stoessinger (2007, 385 – 398), there are four kinds of misperceptions that a leader can face and decide to start a war because of them. They are misperceptions of their own role and importance in the world. Due to this misperception, a leader can start a war even without any obvious reasons and in contradiction to a public opinion just because he or she feels the power to influence the lives of millions.
This misperception is rather dangerous, especially if combined with all other kinds. The second misperception is the misperception of the adversary. This can result in the demonization of an adversary and in finding made-up reasons for war. The third is the misperception of intentions that an adversary has which often results in rather aggressive behavior and lack of wish for compromise. And the fourth is the misperception of the adversary’s abilities and forces (Stoessinger, 2007, 385 – 398). All these misconceptions result in wrong understanding and the start of the war, as can be exemplified by the events that take place in the Third Persian Gulf, or Iraq War started in 2003.
Iraq War
The Iraq War is the brightest example of an armed conflict developing according to the theory expressed by Stoessinger. The very reasons for the war were quite ambiguous and left a lot of place for discussion and doubt. The claims about the weapons of mass destruction that were located in Iraq and endangered the existence of the whole of mankind were just a cover for the personal ambitions of President Bush.
It is obvious nowadays as 5 years have been spent in war and no signs of the weapons of mass destruction were found. Drawing from this, I can conclude that in this case the misperception of his own role was experienced by George Bush. The thought that he is destined to save the world from some indefinite danger made him go to war with the country ruled by another person with the same misperception – Saddam Hussein (Stoessinger, 2007, 321 – 360).
Furthermore, the misperception of the adversary from Bush’s side also took place in this conflict. The actual demonization of Hussein who was pictured as the largest evil in the world actually took place, and the tragic episode with the execution of the former Iraqi President completed the development of this misperception. Thus, one can not examine the same misperceptions in Hussein’s attitudes because George Bush initiated the war.
Moreover, the misperception of the adversary’s intentions that also took place proves this fact. According to Bush’s statements, Hussein’s intention was to use his weapons of mass destruction to attack the USA and other democratic countries so that to take control over them and kill people. In the objective reality, however, no signs of weapons of mass destruction were found by international inspectors and the actual intentions of the Iraqi leader can be reduced to defending the independence of his country and preserving his power. Consequently, I can speak about the fourth kind of misperception – of the adversary’s abilities.
It is obvious that the abilities of Hussein’s regime were severely exaggerated and turned out to be quite small. The military success of the American army in Iraq was not doubted and the capture of Hussein is the best proof thereof. Of course, the overall control over Iraq has not yet been established and partisan armies and terrorist groups still operate in Iraq, but this is nothing compared to the danger announced before the start of the war. Thus, we can observe the central role of the leader and all his misperceptions that led to the Iraq War (Stoessinger, 2007, 360 – 380).
Conclusion
To conclude, I would like to state that the theory of was formulated by John G. Stoessinger has a lot of positive sides and can be applied to almost every armed conflict in the history of mankind. The role of the leader as the decision-maker in peace-war questions doubtless, as well as the misperceptions that lead to making wrong decisions and to the beginning of the war. The example considered in this paper proves that Stoessinger’s theory is effective and can clearly motivate the reasons that stood behind this armed conflict. On the whole, the theory by Stoessinger is a rather psychological and specific one.
It is psychological because its author focuses on personal issues and explains wars as a result of certain peculiarities of the psychology of decision-makers. It is specific because it focuses on objective phenomena and not on the abstractions like human nature, certain circumstances, ethnic and racial misunderstandings, and so on.
References
Stoesinnger, J. G. Why Nations Go to War. Wadsworth Publishing; 10th edition, 2007.
Constituting probably the most tragic part of American history, slavery left its scars on the lives of millions and the community in general. It was a period of unprecedented violence towards innocent people unable to defend their basic rights. The fight against it turned into a full-scale war, claiming thousands of lives and transforming the entire state. Among the numerous prominent figures associated with that period, a specific place is occupied by John Brown, a reserved shepherd who became a national symbol of struggle against inequality. Viewed as a selfless hero by some and as an “embodiment of evil, a murderer, and a lunatic” by others, he was one of the most controversial individuals of the Civil War (American Experience, 2019). The documentary under review provides a valuable discussion of John Brown’s life and a story of violence inextricably connected to him.
The first major topic covered in the video is the development of John Brown’s views throughout his life. Born in a traditional family, he learned the tragic reality of losses at an early age when his mother died. Moreover, being a child, he personally witnessed the hostile attitude towards a Black boy, which laid the foundation for the rage he would carry afterward. However, the documentary additionally provides an entirely different source of John Brown’s motivation, showing him as a person having nothing to lose (American Experience, 2019). In fact, his life is depicted as a story of continuous failures and enormous debt, leading to bankruptcy. His inability to achieve financial goals and highly ambitious character became a driving force for choosing another goal in his life. Finally, when his personal beliefs and the emerging abolitionism views matched, John Brown turned into a devoted warrior for freedom willing to sacrifice his life.
The theme directly tied to John Brown’s motivation is the role of religion in his actions. The video mentions that he was raised as a Calvinist, for whom life was an on-going trial, and the losses were the work of the Lord (American Experience, 2019). His beliefs grew stronger with age, and he often used to turn to God for advice. Moreover, his famous vow when he claimed to devote his life “to the destruction of slavery” took place in a church (American Experience, 2019). Finally, he started considering religion as an excuse for his inflicted violence and suffering, viewing himself as a sword in Lord’s hands. This is an issue, which broadly resonates with today’s problem of using God to justify the committed crimes. Religion, which is supposed to promote peace and love for mankind, has turned into a powerful weapon. Although in John Brown’s case, the goal was a noble one, such interpretation of faith has accounted for many tragedies.
The review of religious aspects logically leads to a more general question of the acceptability of violence for the right cause. The initial representatives of abolitionism were highly-educated people who followed the principle of peaceful transformation of the society. Then, the murders of activists and the infamous Fugitive Slave Act resulted in more radical views. As Thomas Jefferson once noted, “the tree of liberty should be watered with the blood of tyrants” (American Experience, 2019). This attitude seemed to guide John Brown in the many cruel acts he performed during his fight. However, such an approach often leads to a growing spiral of violence and a loss of many lives. Moreover, it was a remarkable moment that the first person to die in the Harpers Ferry attack was a free Black man (American Experience, 2019). Although the circumstances then were extraordinary, it should be a reminder to everybody that violence is not the right way to solve problems as it brings suffering to everybody.
Another valuable point superficially mentioned in the article is how the society and its ruling class allow fierce leaders to develop through their ignorance. It was after the bloody clashes in Kansas and the notorious Pottawatomie massacre when he traveled around the North searching for help. Still, his supporters preferred not to know about his actions, “willing to give him money and not ask too many questions” (American Experience, 2019). A similar story would be repeated almost a century later, with the European leaders negligently allowing Adolf Hitler to gain power and start a tragic war. This shows the hazards of negligence and the desire of some political figures to avoid tough questions.
The final issue not revealed in the documentary but deserving some particular attention is John’s attitude towards his fellow-in-arms. It is noted that he accepted the idea of being caught and hanged and even mentioned his expected fate during his last visit to the Russells (American Experience, 2019). At the same time, as a leader, he was supposed to take care of his men and attempt to protect them. Unfortunately, his actions demonstrated directly the opposite as he led the raiders into a trap and then declined to surrender despite a promise to have their lives spared. Fighting for his ideals, he pretended himself to be a God entitled to determine others’ destinies without the moral right to do it.
The discussion above indicates some of the principal aspects of John Brown’s character and struggle reviewed in the documentary. A description of his life and the tragedies he faced helps to understand his continuous inclination to violence. Raising the eternal question of the acceptability of crimes for the benefit of the wider society, the author prefers to leave it unanswered, only mentioning some possible consequences. Finally, it is all about a man who waged war but looked for peacefulness in God and sacrificed his life but made his name remembered forever by his ancestors.
Reference
American Experience. (2019). John Brown’s Holy War [Video]. YouTube. Web.
As a Japanese, Yamaguchi Yoshiko pretended to be Chinese and was active in Manchukuo under the name “Li Xianglan,” and this deception earned her much scorn and criticism after identity reveal. In Japanese War Bride, Yamaguchi plays Tae, a Korean War veteran’s Japanese wife – a representative of a race that had only recently claimed to be superior – who faces racial prejudice in the United States. In the film, it is not Tae’s willingness or unwillingness to accept American ways but the reaction of those around her, especially her sister-in-law Fran, that defines her station in American society. Japanese War Bride suggests that identities are not freely chosen but shaped by one’s social environment and, whatever they are, they can always cause prejudice – notions that link closely to Yamaguchi’s biography and suggest that her deception was not as unforgivable as some assume.
Historical Context
When discussing Yamaguchi’s complex identity, whether through the lens of Japanese War Bride or otherwise, one has to consider the social forces that shaped fluid identities in Southeast Asia of the early 20th century.
Yamaguchi’s identity was dual since her childhood, as she was a Japanese girl born in China and adopted by the Chinese (Wang 144). Yamaguchi’s film career masking her as a Chinese movie star Li Xianglan was a part of Japanese cultural policies (Wang 122).
Identities are Shaped, not Chosen
Japanese War Bride and Yamaguchi’s biography suggest that it is not one’s free choice but social reactions that shape identity. In Japanese War Bride, Tae is willing to adapt to American ways of life by facing hostility, especially from Fran (Vidor). “Li Xianglan” persona was shaped by Japanese cultural policies rather than Yamaguchi’s aspirations (Wang 144).
The Difficulties of Moving Past
Japanese War Bride and Yamaguchi’s biography demonstrate how one’s social environment can adapt harder due to refusing to let go of older prejudice.
In Japanese War Bride, part of American hostility toward Tae is explained by the relatively recent memories of the Second World War (Vidor). Yamaguchi consistently attempted to move past Li Xianglan as a “young girl manipulated by savvy political apparatus” (Kleeman 144). In China, these attempts did not prevent the perception of Li Xianglan as a perversion of Chinese culture remains remarkably persistent (Wang 145). In Japan, these attempts did not prevent the emphasis on the exotic and foreign aspect of her personality associated with the Li Xianglan period (Coates 26).
Identity and Prejudice
Japanese War Bride and Yamaguchi’s biography show that, whatever identity one attempts to assume, someone will still be prejudicial about it.
In Japanese War Bride, American society rejects Tae because of her identity both as an Asian and a representative of the recently hostile Japan (Vidor). In Imperial Japan, the Japanese berated Yamaguchi for her Chinese clothes and her mastery of Mandarin Chinese (Hotta 132). In post-WWII China, the Chinese resented Yamaguchi by association with the Japanese occupational policies and almost sentenced her to death by the firing squad (Yamaguchi and Sakuya 238).
Conclusion
Both Japanese War Bride and Yamaguchi’s biography suggest that identities are not something to choose freely and, therefore, bear full responsibility for, but complex phenomena largely shaped by social environment rather than one’s desires.
Works Cited
Coates, Jennifer. “The Shape-Shifting Diva: Yamaguchi Yoshiko and the National Body.” Journal of Japanese and Korean Cinema, vol. 6, no. 1, 2014, pp. 23-38.
Kleeman, Faye Yuan. In Transit: The Formation of the Colonial East Asian Cultural Sphere. University of Hawaiʻi Press, 2014.
Hotta, Eri. Pan-Asianism and Japan’s War 1931-1945. Palgrave Macmillan, 2008.
Vidor, King, director. Japanese War Bride. 20th Century Fox, 1952.
Wang, Yiman. “Affective Politics and the Legend of Yamaguchi Yoshiko/Li Xianglan.” Sino-Japanese Transculturation: From the Late Nineteenth Century to the End of the Pacific War, edited by Richard King et al., Lexington Books, 2012, pp, 143-166.
Yamaguchi, Yoshiko, and Fujiwara Sakuya. Fragrant Orchid: The Story of My Early Life. University of Hawai‘i Press, 2015.
The international Red Cross Committee estimated that over 3.8 million people lost their lives in a decade-long war in D.R. Congo due to starvation or disease alone (IHL 1). In addition, millions of people have become internally displaced persons, while some are fleeing the fighting by crossing borders to the neighboring countries. The war mostly concentrated in the Eastern Congo has mainly affected women and children due to their high nature of vulnerability.
The physical assault on women has led to enormous distress, posing a challenge to the traditional relief system by the aid agencies that principally concentrated on rescue missions and material support without taking into consideration the psychological challenges women face (IHL 2). The project will therefore concentrate on empowering women victims with distress management skills.
Stakeholders Analysis
Even though war and violence affect all in a society, the impact on different gender groups is varied in degree. In the D.C Congo, just like other war-torn countries, women have borne the brunt of war due to their susceptibility to rape and torture, and even killings. They also experience deprived basic resources for livelihood, increased family responsibility, detention, displacements, and the resultant psychological distress (ICRC 2).
It is, therefore, necessary to develop coping skills that would enable them to manage the general psychological torture. To ensure sustainability, the project will involve volunteers who are drawn locally at the community level in the affected region (Eastern Congo). The volunteers will undergo social and psychological training that would equip them with the appropriate skills required to carry out the duty of counseling the project target victims on survival and individual trauma/ distress management techniques. This is expected to help achieve project goals and objectives.
Logical framework
The overall goal of the project is to empower the women to achieve psychological distress management skills in the conflict-ravaged D.R Congo through counseling during and after the conflicts. This is expected to be achieved through the use of the local volunteers drawn from their respective regions and trained in modern counseling skills to comply with the changing trends. This is to ensure the enhancement of the long-term sustainability of the project for both effective planning and implementation.
Purpose: The process of training the locally drawn volunteers is expected to breed sustainability in the project delivery process on a long-term basis rather than short-term.
Results: The women victims of war are therefore expected to be more empowered to become trainers of trainers for sustainability by focusing on individual empowerment.
Inputs: It would involve training of volunteers and then the movement of volunteers to affected areas to brief the community on what is expected of them in the project.
Monitoring and evaluation: The past data from humanitarian organizations working in the region and government would be used as the benchmark indicators, such as the number of women initiated in the program and the success stories of the victims.
Assumption: It is logical to assume that the target group will be accessible so that they can be involved in the project despite the fact that some hideaway in the thick forest to avoid atrocities committed by the militias during the intense conflict.
Works cited
IHL. Women and War: “Are Women More Vulnerable than Men?” 1977. Web.
International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies. “Strategy 2010: To Improve Lives of Vulnerable people by Mobilizing the Power of Humanity”. Web.
The article “How War Fuels Poverty” was written by Joe McCarthy. It examines conflicts from Ukraine to Tigray and makes the case that they have severe effects in addition to the immediate brutality. A novel war has begun due to Russia’s assault on Ukraine, a tragic development with terrible repercussions. In this report, the ten nations most impacted by war lost, on aggregate, 41% of their financial products as a consequence of conflict (McCarthy, 2022). From a strictly economic perspective, wars produce disruptions in livelihoods and financial access, which feed poverty.
First, war obliterates vital infrastructure that sustains daily existence, including hospitals, electricity hubs, and water systems. Second, war uproots individuals from their homelands, keeps kids out of school, exacerbates gender discrimination, and introduces individuals to extremely high rates of violence. This article mentions several ongoing conflicts in various parts of the world and explains the aftermaths of the war. This includes Saudi, Syria, and Ethiopia’s protracted civil wars, the outcomes of which have been terrible. War ravages environments because advanced weapons contaminate the air, land, and water and wipe out ecosystems. Poverty often worsens following an influential and well-connected disaster that seizes government control.
This article is grounded on the policy of peace promotion, which demands respecting and taking into account oneself and other people. As a result, serenity is essential to every circumstance in our lives. As people develop a greater awareness of and sense of obligation for each other and the wider world, their lives become more meaningful. Although such a broad usage is favored, people or societies can increase their influence by carefully concentrating their actions, which will help to avoid disputes.
Wark, N., & Ally, M. (2020). An emergent pedagogical framework for integrating emergent technologies into curriculum design. Emerging Technologies and Pedagogies in the Curriculum, 89–111. Web.
In public opinion, hockey has a reputation as one of the most violent sports. However, this sport has, in many ways, helped build Canada from scratch; because of it, the people have grown closer together. The war has affected Canada in other ways as well. A national influence is still recognized today in memorials, but not in the most favorable manner. During the war, many hockey players joined the Canadian Expeditionary Forces. It, in turn, influenced the subsequent development of hockey as one of the key aspects of Canadian culture. This paper will show how the three are related and will mainly concentrate on the intersection of World War I and World War II and the beginning of professional hockey in the early to mid-1900s.
Violence in Hockey
Contrary to the public’s belief that hockey violence is rising, violence has always been ingrained in the sport’s tradition. According to Kannen and Shyminsky (2019), players, spectators, organizers, pundits, and the Canadian state have all condoned, legitimized, ritualized, and sometimes even applauded violent versions of hockey from the game’s inception to the present day. For instance, Kenler and Knott-Fayle (2022) concede that Hockey Canada “grossly misunderstood and miscalculated the depth and breadth of the problem” and that “it did not end the culture of toxic behavior” (para. 2). As such, hockey violence has been considered normal since the late eighteenth century.
John Ross Robertson, the president of the Ontario Hockey Association, said, “We must call a halt to slashing and slugging and insist upon clean hockey… before we have to call in a coroner to visit our rinks” as an illustration (McKee and Forsyth 2021, 10). A year later, the coroner was summoned when an Ontario player named Alcide Laurin died after sustaining an injury to the head from Maxville’s Allan Loney (Adams 2020). The coroner was called once again in 1907 when Owen “Bud” McCourt of the Cornwall Hockey Club was hit in the head by Charles Masson of the Ottawa Victorias (Adams 2020). Masson and Loney were first accused of murder, but the accusations eventually changed to homicide. Although such violence was seen as inherent to the sport, the offending player was always found not guilty by the courts.
The 1907 rivalry between the Montreal Wanderers and Ottawa Silver Seven is a good illustration of the ferocity and machismo that existed in Canadian hockey before the First World War. Many people watched games between the Silver Seven and the Wanderers since they were two of Canada’s top hockey teams. Due to the extraordinary level of violence in this game, journalists created several powerful narratives about hockey and masculinity that were reflected in the media coverage of the match on January 12, 1907 (Kannen and Shyminsky 2019). The second game between the two teams at the end of the season sparked more talk about the role of violence in hockey.
When social perceptions of manliness and masculinity were shifting profoundly, hockey also rose to prominence in Canadian popular culture. In the research, Kenler and Knott-Fayle (2020) assert that failing to acknowledge the interaction between sports culture and masculinity in male-dominated areas is linked to violence in hockey (2). For example, in the late 19th century, the most dominant male ideal in North America was a kind of violent masculinity that Adams (2020) refers to this as “rougher masculinity” (164). This intense definition of masculinity, which was rooted in ideas of physique, martial spirit, eugenics, and social Darwinism, elevated belligerence and ferocity and put a high emphasis on physical prowess and athletic ability (Fosty and Fosty 2020). Moreover, the rise of passionate manhood coincided with a reappraisal of what Adams (2020) calls “primitive masculinity”—a rising propensity to see men as beings of impulsivity and instinct, even as “animals” or “savages,” and to view this “brutish” side as the purest manifestation of manliness (168). The sport evolved as one of the most effective platforms for combating effeminacy and bestowing manliness as discontent with the new corporate world of male white-collar jobs and worries about cultural feminization and “over civilization” sparked attempts to renew manhood in new ways (Simons 2022, 111). Furthermore, the transformation of male identity throughout the 1880s and 1890s contributed to the acceptance—even necessity—of the roughness and brutality of games like hockey in developing a masculine character. Especially hard sports helped men build the physical strength and martial spirit essential to being a passionate man.
The historical context of hockey violence is essential for more than just the historical context it provides, it is also necessary for a complete comprehension of the brutality in modern hockey. The National Hockey League (NHL) and Hockey Canada have been under heavy fire for their brutality in the aftermath of instances involving sexual assault, sexism, machismo, homosexuality, and intimidation in sports and hockey culture in particular (Kenler and Knott-Fayle 2022, para. 3). For instance, the Bertuzzi case, in particular, has in the past reignited conversations about the issue of violence in NHL hockey. However, a historical perspective on the role of physical violence and intimidation in the game is one component of this discussion that has not gotten enough attention. The toxic masculinity in sports has therefore been brought to light by The Conversation Newspaper, which offers a comparative frame of reference that helps to emphasize the unique characteristics of current hockey violence and the social environment in which it is set.
Though contrasts between respectable and uncouth male ideals were obvious, those between middle-class and working-class ideas of masculinity needed to be more straightforward and rigorous. In organizations like fraternal orders, fire brigades, militia companies, and sports clubs, the concepts of a responsible, respectable earner and a roughneck coexisted (Magrath, Cleland, and Anderson 2019, 207). Although middle-class sports organizations aimed to mold young men’s masculine character in conformity with ethical ideals, players on amateur sports teams sometimes went beyond the bounds of proper conduct. Even the most middle-class sports clubs, like their equivalents among the fraternal organizations, were part of a more comprehensive male recreational culture (Adams 2020). As such, the sport tolerated a certain amount of manly roughness; hence definitions of manly are rarely challenged.
Moreover, while the NHL, as an organization, should regulate on-ice violence, it performs this function in a very specific way. Castillo and Sommers (2017) note that “in 1922, the National Hockey League (NHL) introduced Rule 56 which made “fisticuffs” an official part of the game” (676). Since that time, brutality and violence have become almost an integral part of any hockey game. At the same time, this state of affairs suits both the players and the fans. Moreover, the National Hockey League’s supplementary discipline regime promotes cruelty on and off the ice. Even though the NHL tries to prevent the formation of a negative reputation for players in the media, it simultaneously uses a system of punishments for hockey players for disciplinary violations and misconduct (Kennedy and Silva 2020). Violence is thus fairly common in hockey, both on and off the ice. It has, in turn, influenced certain public opinion about hockey.
Hockey and War
During the First World War, several Canadian ice hockey players joined the Canadian Expeditionary Forces (CEF). Organized senior and junior hockey leagues around the nation have proven to be successful recruiting tools for the CEF. Even though athletes from numerous sports represented their respective countries throughout the war, ice hockey was the only structured activity that resembled war in the early 20th century. For instance, in the years after Canadian Confederation, many Canadians praised the “manly” and often violent hockey game because they considered it a dependable and essential guardian of military readiness. Before the war started, Canadian hockey players had been taught to expect to do their “duty to the nation” (Goldstein 2021, 198). Hockey players were the most logical and best candidates for military duty by 1914.
Patriotism and culture are other aspects of hockey connected to war. The connection was a significant motivator for hockey players to enlist in the First World War. Despite this, the notion of Canada meant various things to different players, and hockey was sometimes the only thing that united divergent “hyphenated-Canadian” groups in a country struggling to define its identity (King 2010, 266). Some players wanted to represent their many immigrant groups inside the country, just like they had done on the ice. Others joined because they were proud to be Canadian or British. The study of Gordie Howe, one of the sport’s most successful and well-known players in the postwar era, serves as an excellent illustration of hockey and war. Throughout his long professional career, which spanned from 1946 to 1980, Howe exemplified many characteristics of the perfect hockey player by combining talent and scoring ability with tenacity, aggressiveness, and a willingness to fight when required (King 2010). Despite the difficult conditions of military life, Howe made his debut in the very first season after the end of World War II. This dedication to hockey and the culture of Canada in general, despite external factors, is one of the key characteristics of most hockey players.
In Canada, it would have been hard for the unit to avoid absorbing hockey players, whether or not they were picturesque. Youngsters who are used to using hockey sticks may be natural with rifles. Smith (2014) describes the Canadian Hockey players as people meant for the war by claiming that they were, “firing for hours during a hot and sustained engagement does not fatigue them as it otherwise would” (264). As a result of the abundance of players among the ranks, the battalion entered five teams in amateur competition. The six-team league, which had a reputation for unpredictable ownership, contract disputes, and severe violence, welcomed some of the country’s top players back to its rinks and gave its business-driven endeavor an excellent patriotic finale.
This period in history can be characterized by a decline in the perception of masculinity in both Canada and the United States. Silva and Kennedy (2022) contend that Howe exhibited the blend of restrained fury and manliness that his early public persona as the “Bashful Basher” in Detroit implied (138). Howe’s logical and skillful use of force, particularly in contrast to the emotive Fontinato, cemented his manliness within the hockey culture and positioned him as a “modern” but tough role model for male rebirth in postwar Canada (Silva and Kennedy 2022, 139). Hockey’s fighting culture was accepted and glorified by Howe’s example of sportsmanlike masculinity, and he also set an example for outstanding players that are being followed today. Howe’s way of being a man in Canadian culture helped solidify a dominant, heroic, white, heterosexist form of hockey masculinity.
Conclusion
In conclusion, this analysis considered male masculinity and sexism in connection to violence and historical battles in late nineteenth- and early twentieth-century Canada. In this case, the research examined conflicting media portrayals of rough and violent hockey. It has investigated the meanings of hockey within the broader history of manhood and masculinity in North America and analyzed hockey violence in the context of the Newspaper by the Conversation. Central Canadian newspapers produced hockey storylines during the 1907 campaign that included aspects of toxic masculinity and sexual violence. While expressing shock and alarm, descriptions of hockey as ‘brutal butchery’ also revealed a degree of public fascination with the game’s potential for violence. On the other hand, descriptions of hockey as a ‘strenuous spectacle’ portrayed the game as an electrifying public show of macho ferocity. These intricate stories could be expressed incredibly vividly because of the rivalry between the Ottawa Silver Seven and the Montreal Wanderers. Moreover, newspaper accounts of games between teams from different leagues showed that people had similar worries and thoughts about hockey violence.
References
Adams, Carly, ed. 2020. Sport and Recreation in Canadian History. Toronto: Human Kinetics Publishers.
Castillo, Henry L., and Sommers, Paul M. 2017. “An Analysis of Fights in the National Hockey League.” Open Journal of Statistics 7 (4): 678-688.
Fosty, Darril, and Fosty, George. 2020. Tribes: An International Hockey History. New York: Stryker-Indigo Publishing.
Goldstein, Jordan. 2021. Canada’s Holy Grail: Lord Stanley’s Political Motivation to Donate the Stanley Cup. Toronto: University of Toronto Press.
Kannen, Victoria, and Shyminsky, Neil, eds. 2019. The Spaces and Places of Canadian Popular Culture. Toronto: Canadian Scholars.
We can trace war and violence from the beginning of recorded history of human beings. Even before then, humans have always been violent and at war for various reasons.
Today, many people still prefer war and violence as means of solving some issues or world affairs. Human beings have perpetuated war and violence due to their greed, pride, and hatred. People kill one another because of hatred or the need to acquire what others possess. Nations arm themselves and opt for wars because they need world respect or resources from other nations.
Violent men have ascended to power through bloody wars and violence in order to satisfy their desires. Others have used religion to justify killings of others or themselves. It is obvious that men have used wars and violence to end wars. However, this has not been an effective solution because there are new realities of wars and potential war threats. This observation has led some scholars to conclude that wars and violence are unavoidable and basic realities of human cultures.
We can understand wars and violence from various perspectives. In this essay, we look at war and violence from the point of view of Oroonoko by Behn.
War and Violence: predisposition in human beings
From Oroonoko, we can understand that the text presents anti-colonial ideas. It shows slavery in its worst form. In other words, the text associated slavery with greed, brutality, and dishonesty. Behn’s text expresses great dissatisfaction with the beheading of King Charles I and several attempts to assassinate Charles II. Behn attempted to show that violence and greed were predisposition in the Britons. The author also notes betrayal and dishonesty that come with violence.
For instance, “the British captain wins trust of Oroonoko” (Behn 28) by befriending him. However, the captain betrays and lies to Oroonoko by selling him to Trefry. These acts of betrayal and lies are also present in other people of authority Oroonoko interacts with like Surinam. Behn also reflects Byam as a person who greed as consumed by writing, “he was one who loved to live at others’ expense” (Behn 70).
Majorities agree that the main causes of wars are greed, economic issues, and inequality in society. This argument posits that we engage in wars and violence in order to progress their economic aims. Such engagements may aim at previously denied resources or attempts to gain access and control of resources.
In this context, greed has been the main force behind wars and violence. For instance, the ability of people to gain access to resources that they can loot enhances conflict. This conflict emanates from greed because of the possible gains in terms of profits or other tangible or intangible gains.
War, Violence, and Resources
We need to understand that people engage in wars for various reasons. It is important to draw a distinction between wars for resources and amassing of resources for other purposes. We understand that warring factions may need an adequate supply of resources to keep them in the battlefield.
However, problems emerge when people fight to accumulate resources for the sake it. This is because resource accumulation and support to warring factions differ. It is difficult to identify distinctions between conflict for resources and conflict to accumulate resources because courses of wars often change before completion of wars. Initial causes of wars may be genuine. However, as conflicts advance, greed may become a new defining factor in conflicts.
This is usually evident from a change from a collective objective to privileged objective of the few. Therefore, wars and violence when viewed under economic rationale depict various reasons for engaging in them. In this context, we have to understand how people use wars to pursue economic agendas.
British developed their economies by using slaves from Africa. They had to capture and sale slaves for economic gains. Behn’s work promoted the need to eradicate slavery. The author depicts wars and violence of slavery as evil. This is because whites used cruel acts against slaves. For instance, the author notes:
“when they thought they were sufficiently revenged on him, they untied him as he almost fainted due to the loss of blood, from a thousand wounds all over his body and led him bleeding and naked as he was, and loaded him all over with irons and then rubbed his wounds, to complete their cruelty, with Indian pepper” (Behn 67).
Such acts only depicted violence against slaves, which British exploited to create fear among slaves.
Behn notes, “those who want slaves make a bargain with a master or a captain of a ship, and contract to pay him so much apiece, a matter of twenty pound a head, for as many as he agrees for, and to pay for ’em when they shall be delivered on such a plantation” (Behn 3). For the British, the option of economic success depended on exploiting African slaves. However, such economic gain came with considerable wars and violence at the expense of slaves.
The British became profit-seeking people in their own ways as Behn noted, “those whom we make use of in our plantations of sugar are Negroes, black slaves altogether” (Behn 3). The British had to control territories and monopolize slave trade. They also derived huge profits due to constant demands.
Slaves were the main economic drivers of wars and conflicts. Past wars and violence have shown that most wars emanated out of the need to accumulate resources. For instant, Charles Taylor managed to get millions of dollars from Liberia every year by focusing on the country’s main resources like diamond, iron ore, and timber among others.
In Cambodia, Khmer Rouge also plundered the country’s resources like timber and gems with the help of his Thai associates. Wars and conflicts in Africa usually revolve around resources like diamonds and oils. These minerals are lucrative commodities of facilitating wars. Wars and conflicts manifested themselves in different ways against slaves.
Violence in society manifests itself in a number of ways. These include murder, assault, rape, war, slander, betrayal, massacre, and execution among others. Behn’s book depicts the worst form of execution ever by stating “so inhuman were the justices who stood by to see the execution, who after paid dearly enough for their insolence. They cut Caesar in quarters, and sent them to several of the chief plantations” (Behn 63).
The execution of Caesar shows how people can turn aggressive based on the prevailing circumstance. Human beings tend to learn aggression from others. There is a notion that the use of violence and aggressive tendencies guarantee the desired results regardless of suffering people endure during the course. This is the belief that people have used to be aggressive and promote violence for the sake of achieving resources or power they desire.
The use of wars strengthened obedience among slaves while physical coercion ensured that slave masters had absolute control over slaves. However, usages of wars and violence only provide temporary solutions. This is because when violence ends, subjects also reduce their levels of obedience to authorities. This is why slave masters used constant vigilance to watch slaves. However, slaves had to revolt against their masters because of excessive violence and threats.
Most people argue that their wars and violence have credible cause. This is not true because negative effects of wars are devastating in society. This means we cannot use either religion or any other way to justify acts of wars and violence. Slave masters turned to violence because they felt that they could not control slaves due to the decline of their power. The use of violence against subjects may reveal weaknesses among rulers.
Countries may engage in wars and acts of violence to test their power and control over others. Protracted wars only enhance further usage violence. Wars and violence enhance superiority of people. For instance, Behn shows that Britons were superior over natives. On the other hand, she portrays native people as savages who also engaged in acts of atrocities and violence.
Conclusion
Wars and violence have consumed values of the world. People have adopted ways that fit their desired outcomes. This means that people resort to violence and wars that only create chaotic societies. People create wars and violence based on their greed, pride, and hatred. Different economic and political reasons have fueled wars.
People have blamed inequalities in allocations of resources or a lack of taking part in decision-making processes as the main causes of conflicts. Serious arguments have concentrated on the real factors that result into conflicts. Others have concluded that wars and violence take place due to economic inequalities. This argument originates from the idea that many people want more resources than they have. However, such people resort to force because they cannot gain access to such resources with ease.
In this sense, we can conclude that greed is responsible for wars and violence in society. However, we also have needy people who need to gain access to resources for potential benefits. Greed reflects the idea of craving for more resources than needed. Therefore, people who fight for noble problems are not acting in the interest of greed. However, if this war aims to support privileged class, then greed undermines the noble fight.
Some scholars have concluded that wars and violence are reactions to a number of problems people face in society such as scarcity of resources, violations of individuals’ rights, inequalities in power and resources distribution among others. War factors usually take racial or ethnic aspects as Behn shows in the book. The British used wars and violence against slaves to advance their economic agendas.
Some forms of wars and violence are irrational because they lack worthwhile motives since most of them may originate from earlier hatred or vengeance. When we understand economic issues, then we have crucial factors that can help us formulate effective interventions for wars and violence. This suggests that we have to comprehend war economies and the role of greed in perpetuating violence.
Works Cited
Behn, Aphra. Oroonoko; or, the Royal Slave. London: W.W Norton & Company, 2010. Print.
When discussing the domain of war, it is necessary to stress its ethical component. Almost any war implies mass and institutional violence, which has a purposeful character and assumes a strain between countries. It is crucial that this phenomenon is deeply rooted in history since wars have been perceived as the most common form of communication between states, which is confirmed by historical reality. However, this mode of interaction has also been regarded as a strongly negative format of interstate relations. The purpose of this paper is to provide arguments that a moral justification of war is impossible based on a critical discussion of theories supporting the ethical justification of warfare and prove that they have inherent contradictions and are likely to lead to further negative manifestations and consequences.
In order to understand the arguments that make it possible to justify war from the standpoint of morality, it is crucial to analyze the history of this phenomenon. Initially, a war was considered acceptable if the participants in this process acted in accordance with the existing rules and had justified their reasons for unleashing the military conflict (Kovac, 2013). If these conditions were not followed, the conflict was considered barbarous. The distinction between a morally justified and an immoral war depended on the purpose of initiating it and the side against which the warfare was unleashed. Some experts in the field claimed that wars derived from the social order of the world (Kovac, 2013).
For example, some theorists believed that war was a necessary state of humanity. Opponents of this position argued that people were benign beings by their nature who could come to unanimity without the use of force and violence. However, a social space and its structure pushed states to fight with each other. Although these beliefs were diametrically opposed, they revealed a general understanding of wars, which implied that they could be morally justified since they were a prerequisite for the development of the world.
One of the fundamental approaches that consider similar arguments to justify the use of military action is realism. In this theory, the emphasis is placed on the political aims of war. The conduct of war is not only a seizure of territory and victory over the enemy but also an unsurpassed opportunity to have an impact on the opponent’s consciousness. Justification of war from this standpoint lies in social antagonisms that reach the level of interstate contradictions (Morkevičius, 2015). Consequently, in this approach, war has a rational explanation and is an inevitable given.
However, when arguing whether or not realism allows justifying war from a moral perspective, it is necessary to note that this theory breeds such concepts as “war” and “morality” on different sides of the barricades (Morkevičius, 2015). Thus, a military action cannot be considered from the position of morality. Due to the fact that war is regarded in the context of political action and affects interests of state structures, realism cannot justify war from a moral point of view.
Another direction that justifies the use of military action is the theory of militarism. In general, it is a reactionary policy of strengthening military power and intensifying military preparations. It is interesting that this theory has a specific discourse on the moral justification of military action (Morkevičius, 2015). In particular, war is compatible with morality in the sense that it does not allow society to regress. For example, when justifying a military conflict, experts supporting this position suggest that war stimulates the development or emergence of moral values.
It is reasonable to assume that without wars the evolution of such domain as justice would be impossible. However, such an argument can be rejected as this approach proclaims the apotheosis of war (Morkevičius, 2015). In this connection, in society, a threat of total war of annihilation is increasing.
Interestingly enough, there is a position that fundamentally opposes any wars, which is pacifism. No military confrontation can be ethically justified, and the supporters of pacifism morally condemn any armed struggle since it inevitably leads to human casualties. Therefore, this theory strives for a peaceful conflict resolution. Initiation of war is rejected as a means to resolve international disagreements since it affects the lives of civilians (Ryan, 2013). Moreover, a pivotal argument in this approach is that people also should not resort to violence in response to the evil exhibited towards them.
Despite the fact that pacifism morally denounces wars and any justifications of them, this view is subjective in some cases. Although pacifism pursues a humanistic worldview, this approach contains a contradiction on a fundamental level. There are different modes of pacifism ranging from its absolute form, which views wars as univocal evil, to pacifism that has a conditional character. In the latter case, violence is likely to be morally justified under certain circumstances (Ryan, 2013).
Moreover, these factors are determined by specific political conditions. Consequently, conditional pacifism also has a connection with theories that support a moral justification of wars. Notably, having reviewed the arguments that either defend or reject the moral component of war, it becomes possible to observe the counter movement of militarism and pacifism towards each other (Ryan, 2013). At the confluence of some circumstances, pacifism can justify the need for violence against people while militarism can exhibit an opposite tendency.
Just war theory is another popular approach, which argues that it is possible to justify the emergence and conduct of a military action from the ethical point of view. The concept is a compilation of certain aspects of pacifism and militarism. The concept is based on two fundamental principles of jus ad bellum and jus in bello (Sussmann, 2013). According to the first principle, war can be morally justified if certain rational causes are present and violence is applied to ensure international order and security. At the same time, war should be wielded by legitimate authority. Moreover, a military action can be justified if it does not imply implementation of bad intentions.
An important factor that this theory includes is that both sides should participate in a war only if they are not doomed to failure (the forces are distributed evenly among the opponents). Also, another principle presupposing the moral justification of war is that it should be an extreme measure to which a state resorts (when diplomatic measures prove to be ineffective) (Sussmann, 2013). From the standpoint of the second fundamental principle (jus in bello), a military conflict can be ethically viable when a pragmatic principle of a probability of success is observed. An aspect of paramount importance that this theory has is that a military conflict should prevent a greater evil.
On the one hand, in this concept, it is possible to discern a rational grain. Just war theory does not denounce war initially as pacifism does (Ryan, 2013). Also, in this concept, military conflicts are not glorified as in the theory of militarism. Moreover, unlike realism, just war theory does not subordinate a military action to the political necessity but requires a moral basis (Sussmann, 2013). On the other hand, it can be argued that war cannot be morally justified when relying on the principles of this concept since they have high flexibility; therefore, they lose their objectivity.
The general purpose of just war theory lies in its potential to maintain violence at a morally acceptable level. However, jus ad bellum and jus in bello contradict each other in their core. Importantly, the discrepancies can be detected in the conceptual apparatus of the theory. Moreover, they reveal a practical inconsistency of the concept.
An example of the way just war theory exhibits contradictory arguments lies in its interpretation of legitimate power. Notably, every state has a legitimate government; however, in the case when civilians rebel against it in order to establish a new government, it becomes impossible to determine what power should be considered legitimate (Sussmann, 2013). Thus, the argumentation proposed in the theory leads to a paradox.
Moreover, the understanding of evil proposed in the concept also contains a contradiction. For example, according to this approach, good can fight evil using force. In addition, each of the opponents can offer their understanding of evil and initiate a military conflict to achieve justice (Sussmann, 2013). Thus, despite the fact that just war theory provides stronger arguments than such approaches as realism, militarism, and pacifism do, this concept also does not offer normative provisions that allow justifying war from a moral perspective.
Comparing the arguments provided above, it can be stated that wars cannot be morally justified for a number of reasons. The discussed theories and their arguments focus on human rights or the need of countries to subordinate military conflicts to a political necessity (Kovac, 2013). However, such a worldview revives the theological meaning of war, which has already had severe consequences. In particular, such argumentation makes it possible to justify humanitarian intervention from the position of morality.
Large-scale negative outcomes of such a reasoning can be observed in Libya, Iraq, Afghanistan and some other states. Moreover, these arguments lead to the emergence of hybrid wars, which are global police operations in their core (Sussmann, 2013). In addition, when substantiating wars from the ethical perspective, radicals receive a moral right to proclaim their supreme ethical value as the cause of war. It will lead to the fact that disparate values will inevitably resonate with each other.
Thus, it can be concluded that wars cannot be morally justified. Despite the fact that different theories provide multiple arguments to prove a polar worldview, these assumptions often contain contradiction. Many of the approaches discussed in the paper rely on the historically formed idea that war is an essential state of humanity since it allows the world to develop, and warfare is acceptable when it relies on some common principles. Nonetheless, this mode of justification is not related to morality. However, more importantly, the points provided in different theories leave room to subjectivism and interpretation, which can evolve in further negative manifestations such as wars veiled under humanitarian interventions or other overtones.
References
Kovac, J. (2013). Science, ethics and war: A pacifist’s perspective. Science and Engineering Ethics, 19(2), 449-460.
Morkevičius, V. (2015). Power and order: The shared logics of realism and just war theory. International Studies Quarterly, 59(1), 11-22.
Ryan, C. (2013). Pacifism, just war, and self-defense. Philosophia, 41(4), 977-1005.
Sussmann, N. (2013). Can just war theory delegitimate terrorism? European Journal of Political Theory, 12(4), 425-446.