Any war always involves language, as the people need to believe that someone is unworthy of humane treatment. According to Brown, dehumanization is “the psychological process of demonizing the enemy, making them seem less than human and hence not worthy of humane treatment” (para 8). Without dehumanization, people around the world are prone to be sympathetic to all human beings, which prevents them from supporting wars. Thus, this paper claims that dehumanization is the starting point of any war or armed conflict.
Recent history has numerous examples of how dehumanization helped to support armed conflicts around the globe. The first example was the well known ‘war on terrorism’ started by Bush administration. According to Azlan, President Bush’s administration united “greater Muslim world, from Morocco to Malaysia; by placing them in a single category (“enemy”), assigning them a single identity (“terrorist”)” (para 6). The category of enemy included a wide variety of groups of Muslims from Morocco to Malaysia that have their personalities and differences. However, none of that was acknowledged in the media and official rhetoric of the White House to find the support of the US citizens. The rhetoric was successful until 2009, helping to justify billions of dollars spent on bombing innocent people.
Similar tactics is used today by Putin’s administration to justify the war in Ukraine. People of Russia and Ukraine are closely connected, as people from Ukraine often have friends and relatives living in Russia. Thus, it would be difficult for Putin to wage war on Ukraine with dehumanizing rhetoric. According to Apt, Putin created the idea that the people of Ukraine are suppressed by nationalists and fascists that are not worthy of living. It was the only way for Russian people to support the war, as Russian citizens are unlikely to fight against their friends and relatives; however, fighting against people that suppress their friends and relative in the neighboring country is acceptable. In other words, without dehumanization of the enemy, it would be impossible to start the conflict in Ukraine.
In summary, any war starts with the language, as people of power need to force other to believe that a certain group of individuals can be identified as enemies that are not worth living. While there are many examples of dehumanization in the world, two recent conflicts demonstrate the idea most vividly. In particular, during the ‘war on terrorism’ Bush’s administration tried to dehumanized all the Islamic world by identifying them as terrorists. Similarly, Putin identified the Ukrainian regime as fascists, which allowed him to gain support of the public in the conflict.
It has been a recurrent phenomenon in human history that wars and clashes have caused tremendous harm to civilians. That is why there has been a stronger emphasis on protecting people during warfare. Among the strategies highlighted in this context are the Protection of Civilians and the Responsibility to Protect (R2P). Even though both of these approaches aim to shield civilians from danger during the armed struggle, they vary in terms of their scope, methodology, and objectives in responding to conflict.
Discussion
The “Protection of Civilians” strategy is designed to shield people from harm during militarized conflicts, preventing them from becoming casualties and denying adversaries the opportunity to use them as human shields. By contrast, the “Responsibility to Protect (R2P)” is a global pledge to stymie grave crimes (ISHIZUKA). It holds that the state is responsible for safeguarding its citizens from mass atrocities. However, if it is either unable or unwilling, the international community must step in, including through military action if necessary.
One of the significant distinctions between the Protection of Civilians and Responsibility to Protect is their scope. Whereas the Protection of Civilians is limited only to armed conflict scenarios, the Responsibility to Protect considers all occurrences of mass atrocities (ISHIZUKA). Moreover, the objectives for addressing conflict and mass atrocities differ. Protection of Civilians concentrates on protecting individuals in armed conflict, whereas Responsibility to Protect focuses on preventing mass atrocities and, when prevention fails, responding to them effectively.
To provide greater security for non-combatants, a mixture of strategies may be necessary. This combination could require bolstering the Protection of Civilians approach to address the core reasons for strife and make those responsible for severe human rights violations answerable. At the same time, the Responsibility to Protect initiative should be improved to ensure it is not applied as a justification for armed intervention and is only employed as an absolute necessity.
Conclusion
The Protection of Civilians and Responsibility to Protect approaches offer two distinct perspectives on protecting civilians during conflict. While both approaches have limitations, combining the two may offer a more comprehensive strategy for protecting civilians from harm. Ultimately, any approach to protecting civilians must address the root causes of conflict and seek to prevent mass atrocities from occurring in the first place.
Works Cited
ISHIZUKA, Katsumi. “The Protection of Civilians and The Responsibility to Protect in UN Peacekeeping Operations: Are the New Humanitarian Norms still Valid for Peacekeeping?.” Bulletin of Saitama Gakuen University. Faculty of Economics and Business 19 (2019): 101-112
Operation Geronimo, which aimed to assassinate Osama bin Laden (OBL), was conducted by the U.S. military forces under authorization from President Obama. The fact of assassination received much public approval in light of the fight against world terrorism and, namely, Al Qaeda. However, the legal context of the operation itself remains controversial from various perspectives, such as the U.S. Constitution, international laws and conventions, and, finally, the territorial integrity of Pakistan – the country of OBL’s last residence. Only a close inspection of these perspectives can provide proof of the operation’s actual legal authority.
Discussion
In a general sense, the U.S. Constitution understandably forbids any acts associated with assassinations. However, the situation surrounding Al Qaeda’s leaders cannot be dismissively generalized. The events of September 11, 2001, significantly altered the interpretation of the assassination ban imposed by the Constitution. In particular, joint resolutions passed three days after the catastrophe by the House and the Senate during the 107th Congress untied the President’s hands in light of the means to fight against international terrorism (107th Congress 2001a; 2001b). From that point onward, any counterterrorism efforts were allowed on the condition that associated intelligence and general operation conduct would be subject to constant legal oversight (107th Congress 2001a; 2001b). In this context, even a direct assassination can be authorized, given that Congress approves it complies with Federal law.
The second issue of the Geronimo operation was its compliance with international humanitarian law (IHL). Above everything else, it aims to protect soldiers and civilians during an armed conflict (Protocol I, 1977). The most controversial demand imposed by IHL is providing the option to surrender, which supposedly could be the case for OBL. Nevertheless, several factors indicate that the operation went entirely in the framework of IHL. Firstly, soldiers are not expected to offer the surrender option directly during the conflict (Protocol I, 1977). Secondly, the decision to conduct a raid instead of aerial bombardment showcases concern for civilians in the proximity of the battlefield (Presidential authority, n.d.). Finally, there was no evidence of issuing the order to refute the plea to surrender in the case it occurred.
The last concern regarding the operation’s legal framework refers to the illegal use of force on Pakistan’s territory, which violates its territorial integrity and political independence. According to Soherwordi and Khattak (2020), the fact of operation caused substantial public revolt and unrest. In addition, it led to several announcements by Pakistan’s government, including the protest at the National Assembly (Soherwordi & Khattak, 2020). In this context, there are several important peculiarities that can explain Pakistan’s reaction. For instance, despite the announcement, the Pakistani government did not proceed with the prosecution (Soherwordi & Khattak, 2020). Apart from that, the same reaction was evident after the U.S. operations that involved using drones on Pakistan’s territory. Finally, there is evidence of several conversations between the U.S. and Pakistani officials regarding the OBL issue that imply a secret deal between the countries (Soherwordi & Khattak, 2020). Therefore, the threat that Al Qaeda poses to the world proved to be more important and had to be dealt with as soon as possible.
Conclusion
Based on the pieces of evidence mentioned above, authorization of Geronimo’s operation can be considered legal. The constitutional ban on assassination has been elevated in the framework of the war against international terrorism. The norms and requirements imposed by IHL were considered and fulfilled during the operation. Finally, despite the public unrest, concealed agreements and consequent actions imply that OBL’s assassination was preemptively agreed upon despite the territorial issues.
Presidential authority: Operation Geronimo case study [Course handout]. (n.d.).
Soherwordi, S. H. S., & Khattak, S. A. (2020). Operation Geronimo: Assassination of Osama Bin Ladin and its implications on the US-Pakistan relations, war on terror, Pakistan and Al-Qaeda. South Asian Studies, 26(2).
Terrorist crimes encroach on the life and health of people, endanger the security of the entire State, disorganize the political situation, and disrupt stability in society. In this regard, various legal means are being created in the country to respond to acts of terrorism committed, the purpose of which is the application by the State of measures of adequate influence against criminals, the creation of a system of State guarantees for victims and ensuring the safety of the population. The problem of anti-terrorist protection of the population, as well as objects of special importance and life support from terrorist attacks, is relevant both for the United States as a whole and for the whole world. Therefore, it can be argued that President Obama had legal authority for Operation Geronimo due to the fact that it prevented the commission of further terrorist attacks with many human victims, including on the territory of the United States.
Discussion
By order of the US president, American special forces invaded the territory of a foreign state. The leadership of the United States — including President Obama, Vice President Biden, and Secretary of State Clinton – watched the operation to destroy terrorist Osama bin Laden in real-time via video for forty minutes. This was made possible thanks to a small camera mounted on the helmet of one of the American special forces. The Navy seals, who were rehearsing the operation in a specially built replica of the Abbottabad mansion, found the founder of the terrorist network in the bedroom (Krishna, 2019). Obama gave instructions, and a bullet hit in the left eye ended Osama’s life. At the same time, the command given by Obama can be considered legitimate.
A counterterrorist operation is a special legal operation that is established in any locality where a counterterrorist operation is carried out. It is introduced to prevent or disclose a terrorist act or acts, as well as to minimize the consequences of these illegal acts. Therefore, the invasion of the United States for this purpose under the leadership of Obama on the territory of another country can be considered legitimate. Therefore, the counter-terrorism operation was not of a local scale, but very large, that is, it required large resources and took place on the territory of another state, according to the regulations, the Government of Pakistan was notified about its conduct (Smith & Barrett, 2018). The decision to end the counter-terrorism operation was announced when the criminal was eliminated. At the same time, nothing threatened the life and health of citizens of a foreign state, their interests, and property. Thus, the actions of Barack Obama to conduct a counter-terrorism operation on the territory of another state were legal.
The circumstances connected with violence, interethnic conflicts, and authorizing Geronimo’s counter-terrorist operation were a real threat to the life and security of citizens, and the normal activities of state institutions. The need for counter-terrorism operation Geronimo was determined by the degree of danger of terrorist threats, and the involvement of a significant number of people using violent means and methods. Taking into account the need to implement coordinated state measures in the context of Osama bin Laden’s activities, a special place was given to the consistency and improvement of the necessary measures to combat terrorist crimes (Fishman, 2019). In this regard, the implementation of the current legislation by Barack Obama, aimed at preventing or reducing the likelihood of terrorist manifestations, is inextricably linked with the interests of the people.
According to the law on Countering terrorism, taking the life of a person committing a terrorist act, as well as harming the health or property of such a person or other legally protected interests of an individual, society, or the state when suppressing a terrorist act or carrying out other measures to combat terrorism by actions prescribed or permitted by U.S. law, are lawful (Mustafa et al., 2020). In this situation with the Geronimo operation, the conditions under which public authorities can cause harm are clearly traced.
Although Osama bin Laden was not caught committing a terrorist act, his murder was carried out in order to prevent a planned terrorist act, which was known thanks to the intelligence service. The Law on Countering Terrorism clearly reveals the concept of combating terrorism. This is the identification, prevention, suppression, disclosure, and investigation of a terrorist act. It follows from this that State authorities may cause harm when countering terrorism in the course of activities directly related to a terrorist act (Mustafa et al., 2020). This circumstance, on the basis of the law, gave Obama, as an authorized person, a decision to conduct a Geronimo counter-terrorism operation, during which it was possible to use military equipment, weapons, and special means in order to eliminate the threat represented by Osama bin Laden.
The objectives of the counter-terrorist operation are defined in the law as the suppression of a terrorist act, the neutralization of terrorists, ensuring the safety of individuals, organizations, and institutions, or minimizing or eliminating the consequences of manifestations of terrorism. Geronimo’s operation met these criteria, so its very conduct and course meet the adopted legislation. During the Geronimo operation, the state authorities had sufficient information about the involvement of Osama bin Laden in an upcoming or committed terrorist act, and such an understanding was abstract, and was not based on guesses and assumptions (Roy et al., 2022). Therefore, the actions carried out by Obama as part of the elimination of Osama bin Laden can be regarded as legitimate.
It should be noted that the terrorist Osama bin Laden is primarily a criminal. Therefore, the possibility of lawful harm extends to the activities of persons involved in the fight against terrorism. It makes it possible, within the norms of criminal law, to cause harm during the detention of a person who has committed a crime, in the case of execution of an order or order, which is recognized as circumstances precluding the criminality of the act (Mustafa et al., 2020). In the case of Operation Geronimo, harming Osama bin Laden can be considered a necessary defense and a necessity as a suppression of an attack and other active actions on the part of the criminal. Therefore, the attack on the special services within the framework of Operation Geronimo, by its legal nature, should be attributed to a measure of procedural coercion. It can be considered as the detention of a suspect, the grounds and procedure of which are regulated by the Criminal Code. This proves that President Obama has had legal authority for Operation Geronimo.
Conclusion
Obama’s command to bring justice to Osama bin Laden as part of Operation Geronimo, which imposed the death penalty, caused a mixed reaction. Guided by the principle of the inadmissibility of political concessions, the anti-terrorist strategy today is aimed at the unconditional destruction of persons suspected of terrorism, and thoughts about detaining criminals and bringing them to justice are unacceptable. The deprivation of the life of Osama bin Laden accused of terrorism during Operation Geronimo was used to prevent a terrorist act, therefore President Obama had legal authority for Operation Geronimo.
References
Fishman, B. (2019). Crossroads: Counter-terrorism and the internet. Texas National Security Review, 2(2), 82–100.
Krishna, S. (2019). Manhunt Presidency: Obama, race, and the third world. Third World Quarterly, 9(1), 1–14.
Mustafa, D. G., Ali, N., Siddiqui, D. S., & Shah, Y. F. (2020). Historical analysis of Pakistan’s relations with United States of America under Obama’s administration. Journal of Historical Studies, 6(1), 119–242.
Roy, M. I., Khalid, A., Rehman, A., & Khalid, F. (2022). Operation Neptune Spear and the Manhunt (implications for Pakistan United States counter terrorism synergism 2001-2020). Communications of the ACM, 45(7), 103–108. (2019). Classroom interaction research: The state of the art. Journal of Political Studies, 29(2), 39–50.
Smith, N., & Barrett, E. C. (2018). Psychology, extreme environments, and counter-terrorism operations. Behavioral Sciences of Terrorism and Political Aggression, 11(1), 48–72.
The aftermath of the infamous attack on Hiroshima and Nagasaki remains one of the worst disasters in the history of the humankind, as well as one of the worst war crimes. Though often excused by the necessity to force Japan as one of the Axis forces to surrender, the specified tactical decision is often debated in regard to its reasonability. By scrutinizing the issue and exploring the nature of the disaster, as well as its political, economic and social implications, Grunow offers a new perspective on the infamous attack.
Argument Summary
In his article, Tristan Grunow (2003) takes retrospect into the specified event, detailing the effects of the atomic bombs drop and the rationale behind the specified decision. While Grunow’s (2003) argument concerning the shock of the Japanese government and people being the main reason behind their eventual surrender being an unusual perspective on the subject matter it does provide an opportunity to view the events of the Hiroshima bombing, therefore, integrating an expanded analysis of the outcomes of the disaster. According to Grunow (2003), the connection between the release of the atomic bombs and the subsequent defeat of the axis forces is quite tenuous.
About the Authors
Tristan Grunow is a member of the Yale University and its Council on East Asian Studies. He is an expert in modern Japanese history, which makes his analysis and the resulting contribution to the assessment of the Hiroshima events particularly important. Therefore, the paper is a credible work that represents a valuable addition to the current body of knowledge on the subject matter.
Summary of Contents
The article delves into the events that transpired in Hiroshima as the atomic bomb was dropped onto the city. Specifically, the research considers the associated factors that may have contributed to Japan’s decision to surrender. These include Russia’s invasion of Manchuria, as well as the attack that Nagasaki suffered, namely, the fact that the U.S. dropped another bomb on it after Hiroshima was wiped off the face of the Earth (Grunow, 2003). The consideration of the core factors that may have influenced Japan’s decision to submit to the Allied forces leads to an objective assessment of the situation.
Strengths
The attempts to include as many associated factors that might have contribute to Japan’s final decision to surrender should be deemed as the main strength of the article. Grunow (2003) excels in his endeavor to examine the situation as objectively as possible and consider a broad variety of sociopolitical, socioeconomic, and technological factors that may have driven Japan to accept its defeat in the WWII. The specified detail adds a substantial amount of objectivity to the analysis and provides a detailed picture of the sociopolitical and socioeconomic environment in which the tragedy occurred. As a result, a comprehensive assessment of the issue becomes possible.
Weaknesses
Unfortunately, the weaknesses that reduce the quality of the analysis slightly. Among the core disadvantages of the paper, one should mention the lack of alternative viewpoints on the subject matter. Admittedly the authors offer a comprehensive evaluation of the key factors and detail their impact on the decisions made by the U.S. in regard to the attack, as well as the choices made by the Japanese government in regard to the surrender. However, there is an absence of the other perspectives on the attack on Hiroshima and the following decision of Japan to surrender.
Conclusion
Due to the diligent assessment of the core facts regarding the attack on Hiroshima, as well as a comprehensive analysis of the essential economic, political, and sociocultural factors, Grunow (2003) produces an excellent analysis of the issue. Moreover, the author offers an original interpretation of the events and the role that the attack had on Japan’s surrender. Therefore, the article is worth considering a crucial contribution to the historical discourse.
Terrorism could be considered the most severe display of crime and may threaten large population sectors. This aspect of hazardous crime is present in various parts of the world, including developed and developing countries. Due to the danger of terrorism, most countries have implemented various counter-terrorism measures, and the priority is often set on preventing crime and minimizing the damage. The counter-terrorism approaches often involve hard and soft policies to address this issue. This essay explores the ineffectiveness of relying solely on hard measures, the benefits of the soft methods, and the most efficient technique of their combination.
Failure of Hard Approach
The hard approach to countering terrorism involves the use of rigid and strict measures. The hard approach could also be rephrased as the military approach, which focuses on eliminating or disarming the target using military force. By observing the case of Nigeria involving the attacks of a terrorist organization called Boko Haram, it could be noticed that relying solely on hard power is ineffective. Nigeria faced increased terrorist attacks on its territory and adopted various counter-terrorist techniques. However, the techniques did not show the desired effect, since the country still massively relied on a hard approach toward terrorism. The military approach is critical in maintaining the fundamental security of the territory and protecting civilians from terror, and Nigeria considered this approach to be the most effective. The results emphasize that using a hard approach against terrorism only showed a 7% improvement in battling terrorism, which is miserable in the face of this severe problem (Ugwueze & Onuoha, 2020). By utilizing sole brutal force against terrorists, the country only triggers a new chain reaction of endless hatred, just postponing the problem.
Soft Approach to Counter-Terrorism
The opposite of the military approach, the soft approach is considered a diplomatic approach to countering and preventing terrorism. Compared to a hard approach, where the emphasis is put on reactive and strict response, a soft approach involves conciliation to identify the motives and objectives of terrorists. This approach involves acquiring more information about the terrorist ideology and using strategies to counter this ideology. The recent terrorist attack in Bangladesh with 28 lethal outcomes has triggered the government to implement a soft technique of building a proper community to tackle terrorism. As the terrorists are local youth who radical units have programmed, the government set the objective of creating a safe community. As the societies in Bangladesh differ fundamentally, it is crucial to encourage trust and respect between diverse groups of the population (Husain, 2017). A soft approach to enhancing communities may be effective as brainwashing one unit could be simple, but programming the whole society will be impossible.
Deradicalization and Rehabilitation Using Soft Approach
The soft approach also involves the process of reverse radicalization and rehabilitation of criminals that malicious organizations and units have programmed. The radicalization process often starts with the implantation of destructive ideology and afterworld into the brain of young civilians. Due to their young age, they could be unable to identify the dangers of ideologies and could not resist them on a psychological level. By exploring the case of Sri Lanka regarding the implementation of deradicalization and rehabilitation, the benefits of the soft approach could be identified. During the program, feelings of hatred, refusal, and destruction were replaced by their positive opposites. The approach involved establishing the victims’ connection with their families and society and spiritual and general education to encourage personal growth. The results of the approach are impressive, as, from more than 12,000 rehabilitated patients, only ten were engaged in repeated criminal activities (Hettiarachchi, 2018). Using soft approaches such as reverse radicalization and rehabilitation may be one of the most effective ways to handle the issue of local terrorism.
The Combined Method
Although the sole hard approach could be ineffective, relying solely on a soft approach may be dangerous as the country needs to have radical measures if a rapid and brutal response is needed. Perhaps the most effective way to counter terrorism nowadays is to combine hard and soft measures to create an effective strategy. The combined technique is positive because a soft approach may shatter when the terrorists are foreigners. The criminals raised in another society and culture with various beliefs perhaps could not be rehabilitated, as their families are far away. As a result, it is crucial to implement both measures of offense, including arresting, preventing, and minimizing damage, as well as conciliation and reprogramming (Husain, 2017). The counter-terrorism policies of any territory should include possible military measures as insurance to the soft approach.
Implementing only one approach could endanger the territory and simulate the risks of a terrorist attack. Comprehensive counter-terrorism measures should prioritize using soft approaches to tackle local terrorism. The technique should include the creation of a safe community, as well as deradicalization and rehabilitation of victims. To address emergency circumstances, the country should possess a military force that could be used rapidly and precisely to disarm the situation.
On November 24, 2015, a bus carrying the Tunisian presidential guards was attacked by a terrorist who bombed it using an IED. The bus had 64 passengers and among them, 12 were killed on the spot while 52 survived with both minor and major injuries. The Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant claimed the attack was a well-known terrorist organization involved in other parts of the World. Tunis bus bombing, according to a representative of the office of the Tunisian Prime Minister, the explosion occurred when the car was parked close to a major thoroughfare in the capital city of Tunis, where guard members are frequently picked up and dropped off.
Operational Environment
The area where the bombing took place was Port El Kantaoui which is in Hammam Sousse. The area is a hotspot as it is an active port that has a constant flow of tourists, meaning a lot of people are present there daily. The port is a busy one; hence, it became a good target for terrorism, which was not different on November 24, 2015. Despite being ultra-modern and brilliantly white, the design is based on Tunisia’s more traditional structures, complete with winding alleyways and arches. From Sousse proper, along kilometers of crystal-clear sea, the hotels that line the coastline extend to Port El Kantaoui’s harbor and the area to the north.
The images below are for the location of the November 24, 2015, Tunis bombing. It includes a physical and a topographical map, respectively, Figure 1 and Figure 2.
Figure 1: A physical map of the attack of 2015Figure 2. Port El Kantaoui topographical map
Attacker
Outsiders see Tunisia as the lone success of the Arab upheavals and a crucial front in the broadly supported “war on terror.” According to reports, the attacker on Tuesday was identified as Houssem Abdelli, 28, a street vendor who resided close to Ettadhamen, one of Tunis’s less affluent areas. A correspondent from AFP claimed to have seen the bus’s partially burned-out shell along with police, ambulances, and fire trucks on the scene. His mother recognized him from a picture. She did not mention any connections he could have had to radical Islamist organizations.
Recruitment
The recruitment of Abdelli did not happen acutely but instead, it took the attacker 4 months of intense practice to execute his plan. Abdelli started training on how to safely move bombs and how to fix IEDs on bulletproof vests without pre-exploding. As part of his training, he clothed animals including dogs with the self-made bulletproof vest and bombs and made the dog run to assess whether it would be possible for him to walk while carrying the same publicly. This training started in August and ended three weeks before the day of the explosion. For Abdelli, the training was crucial since it helped him avoid instances of the IEDs exploding without hitting his target. Additionally, this training gave him experience in how to handle explosive devices in public without being detected by sensors or people. The pictures below showcase Abdelli before the training, during the training, and before the attack. However, since Abdelli was a suicide bomber, his after-math photo was not retrieved but an image acquired from governmental archives was found, following the incident.
Figure 3. Abdelli’s photo before the trainingFigure 4. Abdelli’s photo during the trainingFigure 5. Abdelli’s photo during the day of the attackFigure 6. Abdelli’s photo was obtained from governmental archives
Explosive Device
The explosive device used in the Tunis November 24th attack was a “homemade” bomb. It comprises other destructive devices used in an “improvised explosive device” (IED) attack to kill, disable, harass, or divert targets. Criminals, vandals, terrorists, suicide bombers, and rebels utilize IEDs. IEDs consist of several parts, such as an initiator, switch, primary charge, power source, and container. IEDs may have extra components or “enhancements” like nails, glass, or metal shavings to increase the number of ejected shrapnel after the explosion. Other components, such as potentially dangerous substances, may be added to improvements. Depending on the objective, an IED can be started in several ways. Also, IEDs can use a variety of readily accessible materials as explosives, including fertilizer, gunpowder, and hydrogen peroxide.
Figure 7. Front and rear view of a basic IEDFigure 8. IED packaging in bagsFigure 9. IED preparation is in process
Attack
Due to the training and practice Abdelli had gone through during the preparation period, the terrorist was cautious about the street cameras. Therefore, he used pavements and roads that were free from monitoring by the town administration. This avoidance allowed only allowed the bus to be captured by street cameras before and after the attack. The focus on the bus meant that only two stages, the pre-attack and after-attack, would be evidenced. These phases of the attack have been illustrated in Figures 10 and 11.
Figure 10. Presidential Iris Bus before departure during the day of the attack, Stage 1Figure 11. Presidential Iris Bus after the attack, Stage 2
Response
Tunisian authorities responded quickly and effectively to Abdelli’s suicide attack. While the 12 people succumbed on the spot, the remaining victims were saved by the police, medics, and paramedics who rushed to the scene after hearing the explosion. Additionally, the government dispatched several ambulances to extinguish the fire that resulted from the bombing. Besides these responses, the military was sent to conduct a thorough search of any other threats that would have been in the proximity.
Conclusion
One of the imperative lessons learned is that virtuous individuals could emanate vicious and result in killing innocent citizens. The government has well-established antiterrorism measures that centralize citizens and necessitate people to raise concerns if any suspicious person or possible terrorist is witnessed. People need to collaborate in fighting terrorism since the menace often causes the deaths of both suicide attackers and innocent individuals.
The paper covers the looming energy crisis in the European Union and the integrity of the region, particularly France and Germany. The crisis is the result of a combination of factors that include the closure of several nuclear power plants in France, a surge in demand for natural gas in Germany, and a decline in production in the North Sea. Imposition of sanctions may be one way to resolve the current energy crisis within Europe, specifically in Germany and France, as they are the two largest members of the EU. Countries like France would be willing to change their policy if it was clear that sanctions were working. Different academic sources have been reviewed to evaluate how they have discussed the looming energy crisis given the Russian-Ukrainian conflict. The primary topic of the research is how the energy crisis impacts the two largest EU nations, Germany and France, from an international relations perspective, therefore, the question regarding neorealism and neoliberalism. The looming energy crisis in view of the Russian-Ukrainian conflict could significantly impact Germany and France. For Germany, the crisis could mean increased prices for goods and services and job losses. For France, the crisis could lead to a decline in economic output and unemployment. In addition, the conflict may cause disruptions to energy supplies, which would have a negative impact on the industry and daily life across both countries. From an international relations point of view, the crisis in Ukraine has the potential to have a significant impact on both Germany and France.
Introduction
This research examines the looming energy crisis in the European Union and its implications for the bloc’s integrity. While there is no clear answer as to who is primarily responsible for the current energy crisis in the European Union, there is ample evidence that deregulation and privatization have played a significant role. In particular, policy changes such as reducing environmental regulations and removing barriers to private investment have led to a decline in natural gas and oil production. This decline has been exacerbated by rising demand from Germany and France, both large energy consumers. The paper is important for understanding these trends and their potential consequences for EU policy.
Research Questions
Q1. How does the winter’s looming energy crisis threaten the integrity of the European Union, particularly France and Germany?
Q2. Does this (the looming energy crisis) mark the end of Neoliberalism and pave the way for Neorealism?
Definitions
Neoliberalism is a political and economic ideology emphasizing free market principles (Fremstad & Paul, 2022).
Neorealism refers to the return of realism in economic thought, which emphasizes the role of economics in shaping society (Sørensen et al., 2022). This is opposed to the idealism of neoliberalism, which holds that free markets could solve all problems.
Relationship between neoliberalism and the looming energy crisis: Neoliberalism has played a significant role in exacerbating, prolonging, and even causing the current energy crisis.
Consequences of neoliberalism’s collapse in the European Union: If neoliberalism collapses, it could have significant consequences for the EU due to its reliance on free trade. France and Germany will likely play a central role in this process.
Policy Implications: This research has implications for future policy-making regarding European integration and the energy crisis. In particular, it suggests that greater emphasis should be placed on renewable energy sources and energy conservation measures to mitigate the negative consequences of neoliberalism’s collapse.
Hypotheses
H0: Sanctions do not affect a country’s position regarding supplying energy to the EU, particularly in Germany and France, and will worsen the energy crisis.
H1: Sanctions have a significant effect on the Russian standpoint and will resolve the energy crisis in the EU, in particular in Germany and France
The research should answer whether sanctions significantly affect the Russian stance and resolve the energy crisis in EU countries such as Germany and France.
Literature Review
The Russian-Ukrainian conflict started in February of 2022, and the conflict has significantly impacted energy supplies, causing widespread price increases and shortages (Mbah & Wasum, 2022). The roots of this conflict can be found in the aftermath of the Cold War. As Russia and the United States emerged as two separate powers, they began to compete for influence in former Soviet states. This rivalry eventually led to a conflict in Ukraine, which is now ongoing (Mbah & Wasum, 2022). The conflict has caused significant damage to energy supplies, as well as caused widespread civilian casualties. The Russian-Ukrainian conflict has had a massive impact on energy supplies worldwide. Prices for oil and other fuels have skyrocketed, and shortages have become common. This conflict has also caused damage to energy infrastructure, leading to disruptions in production. In addition, the conflict has increased civilian casualties, as both sides have resorted to using heavy artillery and aerial bombardment.
There is a growing consensus that the looming energy crisis this winter threatens the integrity of the European Union, particularly France and Germany (Cafruny et al., 2022). Cold winter has caused widespread blackouts in several European countries. Other newspapers, like “The Independent,” suggest that France and Germany are simply trying to shift the blame for this crisis onto each other (GHINCEA, 2022). Books about the energy crisis tend to focus on either France or Germany. For example, Jonathan Eyal’s book Power, Plunder, and the Energies of Democracy: The History of Energy Policy in Europe argues that this crisis is a result of neoliberalism and privatization (Magnus Ryner, 2022). Eyal’s book largely ignores the energy crisis in the EU. Some journals argue that this crisis marks the end of neoliberalism and the beginning of Neorealism. Other journals suggest that France and Germany are simply trying to shift the blame for this crisis onto each other.
The sources provide conflicting information about who is primarily responsible for the current energy crisis in Europe. While “The New Economist” article suggests that France and Germany are both to blame, Philip Oct Newell’s article indicates that Germany is primarily at fault because it allowed France to take on too much debt (Lordkipanidze, 2022). Both articles provide a comprehensive look at the history of energy in Europe and how the crisis has developed. However, The New Economist provides a better view of the situation than Philip Oct Newell’s article. It provides a clear explanation of why Germany is at fault for the current energy crisis in Europe. Both sources provide valuable information about the European energy crisis and its origins. Having multiple perspectives on any given topic is important to understand the situation fully.
The New Economist’s article describes how Europe’s energy crisis developed, starting with France taking on too much debt in the late 2000s (Verdun, 2022). Germany allowed France to do this, so Germany is primarily responsible for the current energy crisis. Chotiner (2022) article explains why Germany is at fault for the crisis, and it is clear that they allowed France to take on too much debt. The situation is now so bad that France is threatening to leave the EU, which could seriously impact Europe’s economy. Chotiner (2022) article provides a good perspective on the current energy crisis, and it is clear that sanctions are one way to improve the situation. Chotiner (2022) research found that sanctions significantly affect the Russian standpoint and will resolve the energy crisis in EU countries such as Germany and France. This suggests that the imposition of sanctions may be one way to resolve the current energy crisis within Europe. Sanctions may be especially effective in Germany and France, as they are the two largest members of the EU (Langot et al., 2022). This could lead to a resolution of the crisis, as countries such as France would likely be more willing to change their policy if it was clear that sanctions were working. It is important to note that sanctions will only work if they are carefully planned and implemented. They must be specific and tailored to target Russia’s economic interests and be enforced consistently. If these conditions are met, sanctions may be an effective way to resolve the energy crisis in Europe.
There is a research gap on the impact of the Russian-Ukrainian conflict on the Russian economy. Studies that have been conducted generally find that sanctions have significant negative effects on the Russian economy, often leading to a decrease in GDP, an increase in inflation, and a decline in international trade (Khudaykulova et al., 2022). However, there is little consensus on how these sanctions affect Russia’s business and political elites. This research gap may make it difficult to understand why certain policy changes, e.g., increasing energy prices, might be necessary to address Russia’s energy crisis. It may also hamper efforts to devise effective sanctions policy.
Research Methods
The literature review used both primary and secondary sources. Primary sources were articles written by journalists or researchers directly affected by the energy crisis. Secondary sources were articles that discussed the energy crisis but did not rely on first-hand reporting. Qualitative researchers typically explore a topic by talking to people who are involved in that topic. This type of research is beneficial when exploring complex topics, as it allows for a more in-depth look at the issue. In the future, a qualitative research project involving interviews with participants to gather data about the energy crisis and its effect on Germany and France will be conducted for a detailed understanding of the topic.
Quantitative research involves the collection and analysis of numerical data. This research uses data from Eurostat to explore the looming energy crisis given the Russian-Ukrainian conflict. Eurostat is a statistical agency that provides information on various economic issues, including a study on the energy crisis. France and Germany are the two key European economies that rely heavily on energy imports for their economic well-being. If Russia were to disrupt oil shipments from Ukraine, this could significantly affect both countries’ economies. During the interviews in the future, participants will air their views about the energy crisis. The data collected from the survey will help establish how the energy crisis affects the two biggest EU countries, Germany and France, from an international relations point of view.
Theoretical papers provided a philosophical perspective on the efficacy of sanctions. These papers argued that sanctions could be an effective tool for resolving international conflicts. Empirical studies provided evidence that sanctions significantly affect the Russian standpoint and will resolve the energy crisis in the EU. Overall, the research found that sanctions are an effective way to resolve the current energy crisis in Europe. They can be tailored specifically to target Russian interests, and they have a significant impact on Russian behavior. Sanctions should be enforced consistently to have the most positive impact on European economies.
Results
This winter’s looming energy crisis and how it threatens the integrity of the European Union, particularly France and Germany, is a pressing issue. The conflict in Ukraine has caused an oil shortage, which has led to price hikes throughout Europe. This price increase will significantly impact economies throughout the continent and may lead to social unrest. Suppose nothing is done to mitigate the effects of the crisis. In that case, it could destroy what remains of neoliberalism within Europe, paving the way for a return to more traditional economic policies. In terms of France and Germany, the crisis will significantly impact their respective economies. In France, the oil shortage will lead to higher prices for goods and services, while in Germany, it will increase costs for energy-intensive industries.
Furthermore, the conflict in Ukraine has created a refugee crisis in Europe, which is expected to have a negative effect on both GDP and unemployment rates in many member states. Taken together, these events constitute a major threat to the interdependence of France and Germany and could well lead to a breakdown in the European Union. From the research, it can be said that the looming energy crisis may mark the end of neoliberalism in Europe. This is because neoliberalism has been largely responsible for exacerbating the energy crisis by favoring deregulation, privatization, and free-market policies. On the other hand, neorealism may be more fitting to address this situation as it calls for reconsidering how economies are structured and operated. In terms of France and Germany specifically, it is important to note that both countries have been heavily reliant on exports for their economic growth, which the conflict has disrupted. These countries will likely experience even more economic hardship if this conflict escalates. In conclusion, while the energy crisis may signal the end of neoliberalism in Europe, it is still too early to say for certain. More research needs to be done to determine this development’s long-term implications.
Discussion
This winter’s energy crisis is expected to be one of the worst in recent years. It is estimated that energy demand will exceed supply. This will put immense pressure on the European Union, which is already struggling to cope with the influx of refugees and the economic crisis. France and Germany are particularly vulnerable to the energy crisis, as they rely heavily on imported energy (Baqaee et al., 2022). This winter, they will be forced to compete for limited energy supplies, potentially leading to tension between the two countries. The European Union is highly interdependent, and the energy crisis could seriously affect its integrity. If France and Germany cannot get their hands on sufficient energy resources, this could lead to major disruptions in their everyday lives. This would be particularly problematic for Germany, which is considered one of the key economic engines of the EU. The energy crisis is a serious threat to the European Union’s stability, and it will require all the resources of the member states to overcome it. France and Germany will need to work closely to ensure that the crisis is resolved as quickly and efficiently as possible.
The energy crisis could mark the end of neoliberalism, as it is a clear sign that the market cannot always be relied upon to provide for people’s needs. This could lead to a shift towards neorealism, which stresses the importance of government intervention to ensure that people have access to essential resources. However, it is also possible that the energy crisis will be seen as a temporary setback for neoliberalism and that the market will eventually find a way to meet people’s needs. It is still too early to say the future of neoliberalism and neorealism. Still, the energy crisis will be a major factor in determining how these ideas play out.
The looming energy crisis has potential consequences for neoliberalism, neorealism, and Europe as a whole. It remains to be seen what the future holds for these ideologies, but the energy crisis will certainly impact their development. Neoliberalism and neorealism are based on the idea that markets can solve all problems, while Europe relies on several external sources of energy. If these sources of energy become unavailable, Europe could be in trouble. Additionally, the crisis could lead to increased nationalism and protectionism, negatively impacting neoliberalism and neorealism. The ramifications of the looming energy crisis are far-reaching, and governments must pay attention to how it will impact the world.
Germany imports about 35% of its natural gas from Russia, and France imports about 30% (Halser & Paraschiv, 2022). Due to the conflict between Russia and Ukraine, there is a risk of disruption in the supply of natural gas to Europe. This has led to an increase in natural gas prices in Europe. The current energy crisis should be compared and contrasted with the two main IR theories, neorealism and neoliberalism, to provide a complete perspective on its effects. According to neorealism, the current energy crisis results from underlying structural problems in the global economy that predate the crisis. These problems must be addressed through increased economic cooperation rather than reliance on individual countries or industries. On the other hand, neoliberalism asserts that the market is the best mechanism for allocating scarce resources and that government intervention in the economy is invariably harmful.
In terms of outcomes, it seems likely that neorealism would prevail in view of the global economic problems it identifies. In addition, neoliberalism is ineffective at resolving these problems, making its advocates unlikely to support increased government intervention in response to the energy crisis. This suggests that neorealism might become the dominant theory in international relations.
Conclusion
The winter’s looming energy crisis and how it threatens the integrity of the European Union, particularly France and Germany, is due to the Russian-Ukrainian conflict. The conflict has caused an oil shortage, leading to price hikes on commodities such as gas. This has significantly impacted the EU economy, with concerns over its overall sustainability heightened by reports of job cuts and factory closures. In light of these developments, the neoliberalism model, based on deregulation, free trade, and lower levels of state intervention, is no longer viable in the face of a global energy crisis. Instead, it appears that Neorealism, which emphasizes the importance of national economies, political stability, and social cohesion, as well as the need for states to play a more active role in promoting economic development, may be increasingly needed to ensure the long-term viability of the EU. It appears that both neoliberalism and neorealism models may need to be reconsidered in light of the global energy crisis. Suppose this situation continues for an extended period. In that case, it could potentially lead to the demise of neoliberalism and the emergence of neorealism as the dominant economic model in Europe. France and Germany may eventually move towards a more neorealist model to address the challenges posed by the energy crisis.
References
Baqaee, D., Moll, B., Landais, C., & Martin, P. (2022). The Economic Consequences of a Stop of Energy Imports from Russia. CAE Focus, 084-2022.
Cafruny, A., Fouskas, V. K., Mallinson, W. D., & Voynitsky, A. (2022). Ukraine, Multipolarity and the Crisis of Grand Strategies. Journal of Balkan and Near Eastern Studies, 1-21.
Chotiner, I. (2022). Why John Mearsheimer blames the US for the crisis in Ukraine. The New Yorker, 1.
Fremstad, A., & Paul, M. (2022). Neoliberalism and climate change: How the free-market myth has prevented climate action. Ecological Economics, 197, 107353.
GHINCEA, G. M. (2022). Afterword: the Russo-Ukrainian war and great power competition.
Halser, C., & Paraschiv, F. (2022). Pathways to Overcoming Natural Gas Dependency on Russia—The German Case. Energies, 15(14), 4939.
Khudaykulova, M., Yuanqiong, H., & Khudaykulov, A. (2022). Economic Consequences and Implications of the Ukraine-Russia War. International Journal of Management Science and Business Administration, 8(4), 44-52.
Langot, F., Malherbet, F., Norbiato, R., & Tripier, F. (2022). Strength in unity: The economic cost of trade restrictions on Russia. Global Economic Consequences of the War in Ukraine Sanctions, Supply Chains and Sustainability, 4.
Lordkipanidze, R. (2022). How to deal with the toughest problem of scammers-thieves-hackers in today’s bright electronic generation. Professionalism and Law-obedience in Everything and for Strong INTERPOL on Foundations of American Lessons to the Best Life, (120), 117.
Magnus Ryner, J. (2022). Is European monetary integration structurally neoliberal? The origins of the EMS and the 1977–1978 locomotive conflict. Comparative European Politics, 1- 18.
Mbah, R. E., & Wasum, D. F. (2022). Russian-Ukraine 2022 War: A review of the economic impact of Russian-Ukraine crisis on the USA, UK, Canada, and Europe. Advances in Social Sciences Research Journal, 9(3), 144-153.
Sørensen, G., Møller, J., & Jackson, R. (2022). Introduction to international relations: theories and approaches. Oxford university press.
Verdun, A. (2022). The greatest of the small? The Netherlands, the New Hanseatic league and the Frugal four. German Politics, 31(2), 302-322.
The purpose of this easy was to determine the extent to which the bombing of Dresden in 1945 qualifies to be a war crime. In this regard, the paper focused on evaluating the justification for the attack.
The evaluation was done with the aid of the just war theory. The question that was answered is: can it be said that the Allied bombing of Dresden in 1945 constitutes a war crime? The findings reveal that the Allied forces using aircrafts and highly explosive bombs attacked Dresden during the World War II. Consequently, the damage was enormous. In particular, the attack led to the destruction of property worth millions of dollars.
Furthermore, nearly 35,000 civilians lost their lives during the attack (Taylor 2005, p. 31). The objective of the attack was to weaken Germany’s military. Dresden was a significant industrial center in which, various companies produced several weapons and military supplies. Moreover, the city had functioning transport and communication infrastructure.
The Allied forces believed that these infrastructural facilities and the industrial production in Dresden supported Germany’s military operations (Addison & Crang 2006, p 88). Thus, destroying the city was inevitable. However, the analysis of the factors that led to the attack reveals that there was no significant justification to warrant the raid.
The Allies did not have a just cause to attack the city. This is because their raid was based on assumed rather than imminent aggression. The consequences of the attack were also not proportionate to the military benefits. Contrary to the popular believe, the Allies did not fully achieve the objective of the attack. Their air strikes had extensive damage on non-military targets. However, they had little impact on Germany’s military capability. These findings indicate that the bombing of Dresden was essentially a war crime.
Introduction
The bombing of Dresden in 1945 is one of the most significant events that occurred during the World War II. Dresden was the seventh largest city in Germany, and it was located in the eastern part of the country.
It was a cultural center that boasted of elegant museums and historic buildings. It was also an industrial center, which had several factories and commercial buildings (Hisper & Schurr 2011, p. 67). By 1945, a large number of the refugees who were fleeing from the Red Army had moved into the city. Between 1939 and 1944, Dresden was one of the few cities that escaped the invasion of the Allied forces.
However, in February 1945 the Allies invaded the city through devastating air strikes. The American and the British military forces attacked the city with over 3,900 tons of highly explosive bombs. There were four rounds of attack on the first day. However, the Allies continued to carryout sporadic attacks for approximately two months.
The attack led to the death of between 25,000 and 35,000 civilians. Additionally, it led to the destruction of nearly 23% of the city and property worth millions of dollars (Benda-Beckmann 2012, p. 93). The attack is one of the most controversial events in the World War II. This is because some scholars believe that the attack was unjustified, whereas the Allies believe that they had a legitimate reason to attack Dresden.
This paper will focus on the justification of the bombing of Dresden. In this regard, it will answer the question: can it be said that the Allied bombing of Dresden in 1945 constitutes a war crime? In order to answer this question, the just war theory will facilitate the analysis of the factors that led to attack.
Factors that Led to the Attack
Several factors or reasons led to the bombing of Dresden during the Second World War The Allied forces used these reasons to justify their military action in Dresden. By analyzing the factors that led to the attack, we can judge whether the raid was justified or not. Some of the reasons that led to the attack include the following.
First, the US military compiled a report, which indicated that the attack had legitimate ends. Besides, they had a high chance of conducting the attack successfully. The main objective of the attack was to weaken Germany’s military so that it could not defeat Marshal Konev’s troops (Baldoli, Overy & Knapp 2011, p. 41). Dresden was an important target of the Allied forces due to its transport and communication infrastructure.
In particular, the city had functional rail systems, as well as, communication facilities. The Allies believed that Germany was capable of using these facilities to coordinate attacks on Russian or British targets. Thus, destroying the transport and communication infrastructure in Dresden was inevitable. Dresden was also located at an important traffic route that linked the east and the west, as well as, the northern and the southern parts of the country.
Additionally, three major trunks of the Reich railway system, which was an important traffic route, converged in Dresden. In this regard, Dresden was a strategic location through which the Nazi Germany could easily attack its targets. Hence, destroying the city and its railway system was a way of weakening Germany’s military.
Second, the Allies attacked Dresden because the city was a significant industrial base that supported Germany’s military. The city had over one hundred manufacturing plants, and workshops that produced ammunitions at the time of the attack.
Approximately, 50,000 people worked in these manufacturing plants (Spielvogel 2011, 342). The main weapons and materials that were produced included fuses, poison gas, gears, and various types of guns. Furthermore, some of the factories were key suppliers of the aircraft components that were vital to Germany’s air force.
Zeiss-Ikon, which was one of the major manufacturers in Dresden, produced instruments that were important during the World War II (Biddle 2008, pp. 413-449). Such instruments included lenses, camera, and bombsights. Some companies such as Seidel and Naumann shifted their production from consumer goods to ammunitions. Recent studies indicate that Dresden was home to a large number of war-related industries.
According to Martel (2004, p. 123) the production of weapons and war-related supplies in Dresden made the city a target of military action. In particular, the Allies had to destroy the factories that produced the weapons in order to reduce the capability of Germany’s military.
According to the US military, the Justification of area bombing was based on the need to destroy communication systems and to stop the production of ammunitions. The presence of military units around Dresden also justified the attacks. In this regard, the Allies claimed that Dresden was not an undefended city. Hence, attacking it did not contravene the legal provisions (Hague Conventions) that prohibit attacks on undefended cities.
Third, the loopholes in the Hague Convention led to the air strikes in Dresden. The Hague Conventions that define the acceptable ethical conduct during wartime, initially, covered only land and sea attacks. Air attacks were not included because the use of aircrafts in wars started after the adoption of the conventions (Crawford & Foster 2008, p. 72).
The international community did not manage to amend the Hague Conventions by including aerial warfare. In this regard, countries were free to use their air force facilities to attack their enemies without legal restrictions. It is against this backdrop that the Allies used highly explosive bombs to destroy Dresden. Since the conventions did not regulate air strikes, the Allied forces claimed that they did not use extraordinary means in the attack.
According to the Allies, the attack was not strange because it was comparable to similar raids that had occurred in other regions. In this context, the Allies compared the Dresden attack with the bombing of Pforzheim, which also took place in 1945. This raid led to the death of approximately 20,000 civilians.
The Allies carried out a similar attack in Tokyo, which led to the death of more than 100,000 civilians (Brown 2000, p. 324). The allies used more or less the same weapons and methodologies in these attacks. Consequently, the Dresden attack was not an isolated case.
Fourth, international political intrigues played an integral role in the Dresden attack. The allied forces were committed to supporting each other during the World War II. Concisely, Churchill who was Britain’s prime minister during the war, was eager to support Russia. In 1944, the Nazi Germany attacked Russia.
Consequently, Churchill promised to support Russian troops in order to defeat the Germans. In 1945, Churchill demonstrated his support to the Russians by ordering his troops to participate in the Dresden attack (Black 2003, p. 119).
Churchill’s perception of war and military strategy also contributed to the attack. Churchill always sought for an opportunity to launch an offensive attack against the Germans. Generally, he was dissatisfied with a defensive war. However, the British and American military forces were not capable of initiating a direct attack on Germany before 1944. Thus, the 1945 bombing of Dresden gave Churchill a perfect opportunity and a formidable means of weakening the enemy.
Finally, the first and the second world wars led to the exhaustion of the Allied forces’ human and financial resources. By 1945, the Second World War tended to accelerate rather than to reduce.
Most European leaders focused on intensifying their military attacks in order to bring the long and costly war to an end. The wars had already caused so many deaths in Europe and America. Consequently, both America and Britain were not able to double the size of their troops. In this regard, using strategic bombers was the only viable alternative at the disposal of the Allies.
Concisely, the Allies believed that strategic bombers would help them to prevent the war from lasting until 1946. However, the Allies were aware of the fact that using strategic bombers in Dresden would have severe consequences. In particular, heavy air strikes were expected to “cause great confusion in civilian evacuation from the east and to hamper movement of reinforcements from other fronts” (Biddle 2008, pp. 413-449).
Thus, attacking Dresden would help the Allies to create a barrier “between the advancing Russian troops and the Wehrmacht supplies and reinforcements” (Biddle 2008, pp. 413-449). Human beings were to be part of this barrier or obstruction. This means that the Allies intended to use the large number of refugees in Dresden to prevent Germany from conducting efficient maneuver warfare.
Analysis of the Factors that Led to the Attack of Dresden
According to the just theory, a military attack is only permissible if there is a just cause (Ramsey 2002, p. 213). This implies that engaging in acts of aggression is unjust and the person who bears the consequences of the damages that might result from such acts has a just cause or a right to self-defense.
Thus, a country has a right to use military action to protect its boundaries. In this context, self-defense should be the only justification for a war. In the contemporary world, the interpretation of self-defense includes anticipation of possible acts of aggression and helping other nations to resist internal or external security threats.
It is against this backdrop that the Allied forces attacked Dresden in order to avert any aggression from the Nazi Germany. Additionally, they intended to assist each other to overcome external attacks, especially, from the Germans. Based on these perspectives, the Allies believed that they had a just reason to attack Dresden since their intention was to preempt an anticipated war.
The arguments for preemption can be misleading because initiating an act of aggression in order to avoid a future war is not always an ethical solution. This is because preemptive strikes normally occur due to assumed rather than imminent aggression.
Thus, preemptive attacks contravene the “moral principle that an agent is presumed innocent” (Fotion 2007, p. 67). Concisely, the purpose of acts of aggression is to retaliate against offenses that have already been committed rather than those that might occur in future. Production of weapons was one of the reasons that led to the attack of Dresden.
This is not a just reason because the Allies assumed that the weapons would enable Germany to attack other nations. However, the act of producing weapons does not always result into aggression. Besides, producing weapons or ammunitions is not always a security threat to neighbors. Thus, attacking a country or a city merely because of weapon production is wrong and unacceptable.
Even though the objective of the preemptive war policy is to avert future aggression, it can actually destabilize peace. This is because such policies enable countries to act in their self-interest at the expense of other nations. For instance, the Allies attacked Dresden in order to fulfill their interests, which included showing their military might to their enemies and maintaining their control of the region.
According to the just war theory, a military attack should always be the last resort (Fiala 2008, p. 83). Countries must always explore all possible alternatives to settle their differences before resorting to warfare. International security agencies such as the United Nations Security Council support this view because wars usually result into undesirable outcomes.
For instance, in Dresden the air strikes killed thousands of innocent civilians and led to the destruction of property worth millions of dollars. Despite being aware of these consequences, the Allies did not make any attempt to end their differences with Germany through peaceful means. They did not attempt to engage the Germans in peaceful negotiations in order to end their differences.
The bombing of Dresden lacks merit because it focused on civilian targets rather than military ones. To begin with, the military barracks that were the main targets of the attack were located far away from the city. Most of the military facilities were in the northern part of the city.
However, the Allies did not attack most of these facilities. On the contrary, they intensified their attacks on civilian targets, thereby causing too much destruction of property and human beings. According to Levine (2002, p. 77), some of the camps that were bombed by the Allies were occupied by refugees and not the military. According to just war theory, an indiscriminate attack is unjust and unfair.
Armed attacks should target combatants rather than civilians. This is because the activities of the civilians or their presence in a targeted location are often not the essence of the war. Consequently, they have immunity from armed attacks. However, the attack of Dresden ignored the principle of distinction because the British and the US forces bombed areas that were occupied by the civilians (Zupan 2004, p. 83).
In this context, the attack lacks justification and the casualties that occurred are essentially war offenses. Some scholars argue that transport infrastructure such as rail systems were not included in the Allies’ maps that identified the targets of the attack. According to Friedrich (2008, p. 418), the Allied forces did not have accurate maps of the city. Consequently, they had little knowledge of the city, and their ability to identify the right targets for the attack was limited.
Weinberg (2005, p. 567) supports this view by asserting that the Allies were merely interested in densely populated and built-up areas in which they could easily cause massive destruction through air strikes. Weinberg’s view confirms the claim that the Allies had the intension of attacking civilians in order to cause confusion in Dresden.
The resulting public outcry would then put pressure on Germany’s government to stop its military action. This strategy does not meet the criteria for a just attack or war. According to the just war theory, the aggressor must have the right intension. However, the Allies’ intention was not right because their aim was to harm innocent civilians in order to achieve their self-interests.
One of the factors that boosted the Allies’ confidence during the attack was their military might. The combined resources of the British and American military forces exceeded those of their German counterparts. Consequently, the Allies had a high chance of defeating the Germans.
This is in line with the just war principle, which states that the aggressor must predict reasonable success before attacking its enemy (Mattox 2006, p. 91). According to the US military, the bombing of Dresden was legitimate because they successfully destroyed the city and the factories that produced ammunitions.
However, the possibility of achieving reasonable success in a war is not always a just reason for initiating an act of aggression. Even though the Allies managed to achieve their objective of stopping the production of ammunition in Dresden, their attack was associated with unjust cause and wrong intensions. Additionally, the costs of the attack outweighed its benefits. In a nutshell, the damage caused by the attack does not commensurate with the military gains that the Allied forces achieved in Dresden.
The innocent lives that were lost during the attack are permanent damages that cannot be reversed through any amount of compensation. In 1949, the international community tried to use the Fourth Geneva Convention to prohibit bombing of civilians during wars. However, the UK and the US were reluctant to accept these conventions. This indicates that the two countries were determined to cover the war crimes that they committed in Dresden.
The attack also interfered with several business activities in the city. The tourism industry was one of the most affected sectors because a significant number of tourist sites were destroyed during the attack. These damages represent war crimes that were committed during the attack of Dresden.
Most of the scholars who support the view that the bombing of Dresden was a war crime believe that the Allies ignored the principle of proportionality. The British and the US forces were fully aware of the magnitude of the damage that would occur due to the attack. In particular, they strategically planned to attack the civilians in order to stop the advancement of Germany’s military.
As stated earlier, the objective of the Allies was to take advantage of the large number of refugees in order to create confusion in Dresden. The resulting disorder would then enable them to avert any significant attacks from Germany’s military. According to Evans (2005, p. 121) a legitimate war or military attack should not be launched if the aggressors are aware that the casualties would be clearly excessive. Furthermore, the aggressors must not use excessive force to defeat its enemy.
However, the Allies used excessive force by attacking Dresden with the aid of several tons of highly explosive bombs. The British prime minister ordered the use of the deadly weapons because he was determined to protect the UK at all costs during the World War II (Spielvogel 2011, 362).
Hence, carrying out area bombing in industrial cities was one of the UK’s plans to protect its territories at all costs. Even though the first phase of the attack damaged the city extensively, the Allies continued to carryout sporadic attacks. Hence, the level of the damage became more extensive. It is apparent that comparing the level of the damage and the casualties that occurred in Dresden with similar attacks is not a logical way of justifying the raid.
The fact that the damage was comparable to those that occurred in other raids does not mean that the harm was proportional to the military advantage of the attack. Each military attack is unique in terms of the casualties and the methodologies that are associated with it. Thus, using previous attacks to justify the bombing of Dresden is a fallacy.
Finally, it is worth evaluating the Allies’ conception of the principle of reasonable chance of success in a war in order to understand the justification of their attack in Dresden. According to their original plan, the Americans intended to strike specific industrial targets using high altitude bombers. However, they had underestimated the possible effects of the weather on their attack. Consequently, the Americans and the British military forces had to make significant amendments to their pre-war bombing doctrine.
The northern part of Europe had a cloudy weather, which prevented the use of the Norden bombsight. Consequently, the Americans were not able to launch their attacks with the planned precision. Recent studies show that 42% of the missiles that were launched by the US military missed their targets by at least five miles (Biddle 2008, pp. 413-449).
This failure is attributed to the heavy cloud that covered most parts of Europe including Dresden. In response to this failure, the Allies resorted to bombing large visible targets in the city. These targets included rail systems and communication facilities. According to Spielvogel (2011, p. 371) the Allies used aircrafts to indiscriminately bomb targets that were unseen and unverifiable.
Most of the air strikes were basically area raids because the military forces could not identify any specific target to destroy on the ground. This led to the destruction of several non-military targets and the death of thousands of civilians. Even though the Americans had failed to launch their targets accurately, they continued to describe the attack as “precision bombing of specific military targets” (Biddle 2008, pp. 413-449).
This assertion, illustrates the USA’s sensitivity to the ethical questions that emerged concerning their use of air strikes in Dresden city. According to Friedrich (2008, p. 431), the aerial bombing had little impact on Germany’s military. This is because the Germans continued to advance despite the air strikes in Dresden.
Generally, the Allies did not manage to achieve their military objective of incapacitating the Germans. In this regard, the Allies did not properly calculate the possibility of achieving a reasonable success. Moreover, there was only partial achievement of the objectives of the attack.
This implies that the attack had no justification. Thus, the causalities and the damages that occurred are essentially the results of a war crime rather than a just war.
Conclusion
The bombing of Dresden in 1945 is one of the most condemned events that occurred during the World War II. The Allied forces carried out the bombing, which involved the use of aircrafts and highly explosive materials. The objective of the attack was to reduce Germany’s ability to sustain its attacks during the World War II (Biddle 2008, pp. 413-449).
Dresden was one of the few cities that had not been destroyed during the war. It had a few industries that produced ammunitions for Germany’s military. Additionally, it had functioning transport and communication infrastructure that facilitated deployment of troops from Germany. Thus, destroying the city would help in weakening the capability of Germany’s military.
The attack caused extensive damage in the city. In particular, it destroyed several buildings, as well as, transport and communication infrastructure. Furthermore, thousands of innocent civilians lost their lives (Biddle 2008, pp. 413-449). The analysis of the factors that led to the attack indicates that the Allies did not have a just cause to bomb the city. The attack occurred as a result of assumed rather than imminent aggression.
Contrary to the just war principles, the Allies used excessive force during the raid. Furthermore, they indiscriminately attacked the city, thereby destroying several non-military targets. These findings indicate that there was no substantial justification for the attack. In this regard, the bombing of Dresden city was a war crime.
References
Addison, P & Crang, J 2006, Firestorm: Bombing on Dresden 1945, Prentice Hill, Boston.
Baldoli, C, Overy, R & Knapp, A 2011, Bombing, States and Peoples in Western Europe: 1940-145. Oxford University Press London.
Banda-Beckmann, B 2010, German Historians and the Allied Bombings, John Wiley and Sons, New York.
Biddle, T 2008, ‘Reality History and Memory’, Journal of Military History, vol. 72 no. 1, pp. 413-449.
Black, J 2003, World War 2: Military History, McGraw-Hill New York.
Brown, L 2000, Technical and Military Imperatives: Radar History of World War 2, Prentice Hill Press, Boston.
Crawford, K & Foster, S 2008, War, Nation, Memory: International Perspective on World War II, Palgrave, New York.
Evans, M 2005, Just War Theory, Macmillan Press, London.
Fiala, A 2008, The Just War Myth: Moral Illusions of War, Palgrave, New York.
Fotion, N 2007, War, and Ethics: New Just War Theory, Prentice Hill, Boston.
Friedrich, J 2008, The Fire: Bombing of Germany in 1940-1945, John Wiley and Sons, New York.
Hisper, C & Schurr, C 2011, The World War II Years, Oxford University Press, London.
Levine, A 2002, The Strategic Bombing of Germany: 1940-1945, Macmillan Press, London.
Martel, G 2004, The World War II Reader, Palgrave, New York.
Mattox, J 2006, Saint Augustine and the Theory of Just War, John Wiley and Sons, New York.
Ramsey, P 2002, The Just War: Force and Political Responsibility, McGraw-Hill, New York.
Spielvogel, J 2011, Western Civilization since 1500, McGraw-Hill, New York.
Taylor, F 2005, Dresden: Tuesday 13 February 1945, McGraw-Hill, New York.
Weinberg, G 2005, A World at Arms: Global History of World War II, McGraw-Hill, New York.
Zupan, D 2004, War, Morality, and Autonomy: Investigation in Just War Theory, Macmillan Press, London.
New Zealand is a country that has always enjoyed a prospering economy and a stable political landscape, resulting in relative peace and co-existence among its diverse ethnic and religious populations. However, in 2019, the attack at Christchurch by a lone-wolf gunman disturbed the relative peace of this Island Nation, exposing its vulnerabilities to a growing global scourge, white supremacy terrorism. New Zealand, through the Christchurch Call to Action initiative, has asserted itself as a global fighter in the war against terrorism, recognizing that the patterns of terror attacks involving white supremacy are globally uniform.
New Zealand’s Geography and Population
New Zealand is a long and narrow country that extends 990 miles in length, with a width of 250 miles (Country Reports 2022). With a land mass of 103, 360 square miles, it ranks sixth among the largest island countries in the world (Country Reports 2022). It is not made up of one island but consists of more than six hundred islands stretched along its length. It is a land of diversity and contrasts, with spectacular mountains, active volcanoes, sandy beaches, deep glacier lakes, and caves. It also has snowcapped mountains like the Southern Alps, also known as the Ka Tiriti o te Moana in the South Island, contributing to its rich beauty. Another important fact about New Zealand is that 30% of its land mass is a national reserve, making it one of the countries with vast regions dedicated to wildlife (Country Reports 2022). It lies in the Temperate zone of the world, and its climate is generally mild, but invigorating with sharp contrasts among the regions.
A country with a high HDI is comprised of people enjoying a long and healthy life, decent living standards, and access to knowledge (Siu 2022). According to UNDP (2020), New Zealand’s HDI was 0.931 in 2019, placing it among the countries with very high human development indexes. Worldwide, New Zealand’s HDI is comparable to that of Belgium, placing it at number 14 among 189 countries and territories. Its HDI increased from 0.826 in 1990 to 0.931 in 2019, an increase of 12.7 showing a considerable improvement over the three decades (UNDP 2022). New Zealand has an impressive Human Development Index (HDI), which measures the standard of living, access to knowledge, and quality of life.
When it comes to the specific HDI indicators like life expectancy, mean years of schooling and expected years of schooling, and Gross National Income (GNI), New Zealand has demonstrated very consistent improvements. Over the period, 1990 to 2019, life expectancy at birth soared by 6.9% years, while average years of schooling and expected years of schooling improved by 1.2 and 4.4 years, respectively (UNDP 2022). Moreover, the country’s GNI per capita improved by about 55.8%, making it one of the most impressive performers in HDI indicators (UNDP 2022). Its HDI average of 0.931 surpasses the mean of 0.898 for countries categorized as having very high human development, and above the OECD countries, whose mean HDI is 0.900 (Siu 2022). Nevertheless, the inequality-adjusted HDI (IHDI) falls to 0.859, showing that there are considerable levels of inequality in the country (RNZ 2022). These figures demonstrate how New Zealand has improved in terms of the quality of life of its population.
In terms of fertility, the country has been experiencing a declining birth rate in the last decade. At the moment, the average birthrate is 1.6 children for every woman, indicating a 20% decline in the last ten years (RNZ 2022). According to RNZ (2022), this average is below the 2.1 replacement rate, which is the mean number of children that each woman should have to enable a population to replace itself. These changes are attributed to the use of contraceptives and a sharp drop in teenage pregnancy, making New Zealand an aging population.
In terms of religion, New Zealand is very diverse, including affiliations to Baha’I, Buddhism, Christianity, Maori Christianity, Hinduism, Islam, Jainism, Judaism, and Sikhism. Also, there are Zoroastrianism, New Age movements, Indigenous Maori, Chinese religions, Japanese religions, and people who are not affiliated with any religion (Religious Diversity Center 2022). Interestingly, almost half of New Zealand, 48.19 stated during the 2018 census that they are not affiliated with any religion (Religious Diversity Center 2022). The population of New Zealand, seemingly, is becoming increasingly unreligious.
New Zealand’s Political System
New Zealand’s government is a parliamentary one, based on the British model, where the House of Representatives wields legislative power. The members of the House of Representatives, or parliament, are elected after three years of service. According to The Electoral Commission (2022), after every election, the party, or coalition of parties with a majority of the legislators in the House of Representatives forms the government. The leader of the governing party then becomes the prime ministers who form a cabinet with other ministers responsible for different ministries in the government, making up the central organ of the executive arm of the government (New Zealand Government 2022). Any legislation initiated in the House based on cabinet decisions must be passed in the parliament by a majority for it to become law. Nevertheless, the cabinet wields extensive regulatory authority, limiting the parliamentary review subjected to them (New Zealand Government 2022). Due to strong party discipline, and permission for cabinet ministers to sit in parliament, there is a harmonious working between the executive and legislative authorities.
The head of state is the British Monarch, King Charles III, who is represented by a monarch-appointed governor general recommended by the government of New Zealand (New Zealand Government 2022). The governor-general’s authority is limited to powers to protect the constitution and to act when there is a constitutional crisis. For instance, the governor-general can dissolve the parliament in extraordinary circumstances. While the New Zealand government is simple, the provisions in its constitution are very complex, being a mixture of convention and statute. In case there is a clash between the two, a convention will always prevail. About thirty departments of different sizes and importance carry out government business in New Zealand. Essentially, most of the departments are aligned with ministerial portfolios with each head of department working under their respective ministers.
Case Study Shootings in the International Context
Even though terror attacks had been happening in the world, including the September 11, 2011 attack on the World Trade Center in New York City, among other places, New Zealand experienced relative peace. However, things changed on March 15th, 2019 when a terrorist attack occurred in the country’s Christchurch region involving two mass shootings (The New Zealand Parliament 2022). The attack was carried out by a lone gunman who targeted worshippers during the Friday prayers, beginning with the Al Noor Mosque in Riccarton, before proceeding to the Linwood Islamic Centre, killing 51 people and injuring forty others. The gunman, Brenton Harrison Tarrant was apprehended on his way to a third mosque. Described as a white supremacist, it is alleged that he had live-streamed the first shooting on Facebook, and had also published an online manifesto before the attack. He pleaded guilty to engaging in terrorist activity, forty attempted murders, and 51 murders on 26th March 2020. Consequently, he was handed life imprisonment without parole, a first of its kind in the history of New Zealand’s criminal justice system, a departure from the norms of respecting personal freedom due to terrorism (Small 2011). This incident set precedence for other countries to set up tough laws against terrorists.
The lone-wolf terror attack is a recurring scenario involving an attack committed by a solo extremist, with no formal training and no affiliation to any terrorist group. The Christchurch attack fits this lone-wolf white supremacy profile perfectly. Policymakers and social scientists have grappled with the profile of the typical attacker in today’s terrorism landscape, seeking to know what motivates them and give the following profile (Tauikura 2022). The attackers are mostly male, with the majority being in the 20s, and the average age being 35, with a few older perpetrators (Tauikura 2022). In terms of ethnic identification, lone-wolf terrorists can exist along a spectrum of ideologies, from white supremacist terrorists to Islamist terrorists. However, it has been noted, that the majority of the lone-wolf attacks are committed by white supremacists with ideologies like Anti-Muslim, Neo-Nazi, and Anti-Immigrant, among others. It is interesting to note that most of these perpetrators identify as European or white.
Another interesting perspective concerning these lone-wolf attackers is that since 2010, they have had a considerable online presence and connected with many spectators to their extremist activities. In line with this, these lone-wolf attackers often communicate their intent to attack through written communication or video streaming. In another case, they share their intentions with their family members and friends. Another pattern that has been noted is that the perpetrators are overly armed, mostly, with semi-automatic guns (Tauikura 2022). Luckily, they cannot access explosives because of restrictions on access to such dangerous materials. Lastly, they intertwine their acts with political grievances mixed with personal issues as part of their motivations to carry out terror attacks.
How the Case affected the domestic context in New Zealand
This attack was not only shocking but was a strong signal to New Zealand that it was part of the world that was struggling with issues of white. Under the Terrorism Suppression Act, New Zealand defines terrorism as an act a person carries out to advance politics, ideology, or a religious cause, by inducing terror among civilians, or to compel a government or an international body from doing anything about it. New Zealand’s definition is in line with the standard international definitions of terrorism. It highlights that ideological motivations underpin the planning and commission of terrorist violent attacks.
Currently, the New Zealand government is exploring ways of tackling emerging forms of terrorism that are motivated by ideologies of white supremacy like neo-Nazism and anti-Muslim terrorism (New Zealand Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade 2022). White supremacy is a term that is used to refer to individual terrorists as well as organized extremist groups. The 2019 terror attack in New Zealand is an example of an individual terrorist attack, exhibiting white supremacy ideologies. The person who committed it had no affiliation with any terrorist organization. Even though this kind of attack in New Zealand is unprecedented, it was neither singular nor anomalous. It aligns with the type of terror attacks involving sole perpetrators worldwide and fits with cases witnessed in Europe and the United States, christened, lone-wolf white supremacy terrorism. These lone-wolf terror attacks which are carried out because of white supremacy ideologies like Neo-Nasism and anti-Islam are intended to advance white supremacy ideologies and terrorize civilian communities like New Zealand, characterized by pluralism and diversity.
Christchurch Call to Action
The Christchurch Call in New Zealand’s proposed action plan to international organizations, Internet Players, and governments through which they commit to take specific measures to combat terrorism. Specifically, the action plan calls upon the stakeholders to develop tools to thwart the downloading of violent extremist and terrorist content tackle the causes of violent extremism, and enact tougher gun control legislation (France Diplomacy 2022). The call to action requires the players to be increasingly transparent about detecting and removing content, ensuring that business recommender systems do not direct internet users to content posted by extremists to prevent them from going viral.
This call to action plan is an example of a pragmatic measure that tackles the root cause of the factors leading to the increased incidences of extremist attacks in the world (Math 1990) It is something that other countries in Europe and the USA can take up and implement for the betterment of their population. For one to appreciate the effort made by the government of New Zealand, it is important to recognize that the factors leading to terrorist attacks, and more so, white supremacy have predictable patterns.
Analysis
Many factors have been identified to be the cause of lone-wolf terrorism and they include gender, economic and symbolic status loss, personal grievances, online radicalization, and possession of powerful weapons. Concerning gender, it is clear that men commit the majority of terror attacks including the lone-wolf white supremacist terrorist. Additionally, men who historically violated women have been found to make up a high-risk category of persons with a propensity to violence (Tillett 2021). Notably, Western countries have witnessed a rise in terror attacks committed by men identifying themselves as “incel” (Tillett 2021). Their agenda is to ensure that women are oppressed, and they also harbor white supremacy beliefs like anti-immigration.
The other factor has to do with men experiencing tough times during economic recessions, leading to high rates of unemployment. The economic losses lead to loss of status in the society, and become a political grievance (Grygiel n.d). The political leaders and governments are blamed for the personal economic and symbolic status loss, while the communities forming ethnic minorities become the prime targets for venting. When personal grievances merge with political dissatisfaction, they offer an avenue for the victims to express their displeasure concerning the political and economic shortcomings (Kesselman 2013). There are also personal grievances including issues like rejection of romantic advances, and bullying.
Another important trend is the fact that radicalization has become an online affair. Digital platforms like social media which are unmonitored spaces of interaction are very convenient for those who want to share hateful ideologies and sentiments of extremism. The issue of enabling spectators also arises, where online peers who do not commit violent acts not only support but also encourage the perpetrators online. Lastly, lone-wolf attackers take advantage of lax gun laws to overarm, appropriating military-grade weapons like semi-automatic assault weapons (Tillett 2021). The attackers also amplify the extremist ideology that carrying out a terror attack is an act of righteousness. It is interesting to note that New Zealand has worked hard and surpassed many other countries in this context by passing stricter gun legislation immediately after the Christchurch attacks with the view of preventing future attacks.
Conclusion
Even though New Zealand is a country that has been prospering economically, enjoying the presence of religious diversity, political stability, and high quality of life, the 2019 terror attacks at Christchurch disturbed its peace. It revealed that extremism is a reality that can take place in any country with a diverse population. Just like in the USA, and many countries in Europe, the attack in New Zealand was carried out by a lone-wolf attacker, who made their intention known through the internet. The Christchurch Call to Action is a great attempt at addressing the factors that have led to the increase of such cases in the world, and this has put New Zealand at the forefront of tackling the global menace.
France Diplomacy. 2022. “Christchurch Call to Eliminate Terrorist and Violent Extremist Content Online (15.05.19)”. France Diplomacy – Ministry for Europe and Foreign Affairs. Web.
Grygiel, Jakub J. n.d. Great Powers and Geopolitical Change.
Kesselman, Mark, Joel Krieger, and William A Joseph. 2013. Introduction to Comparative Politics. [Florence, KY.]: Wadsworth.
Math, D. 1990. An Introduction to Institutions and Institutional Change. Ebook.
New Zealand Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade. 2022. “International Security“. New Zealand Ministry Of Foreign Affairs and Trade. Web.
Taurikura, He. 2022. “Panel 2: Addressing The Causes – How Can Embracing Community And Diversity Approaches Contribute To Preventing And Countering Violent Extremism”.