On just war

Résumé du document

When, in the sacred Hindu text the Bhagavad Gita, Prince Arjuna asks Lord Krishna about the righteousness of his participation in a war that would entail him killing his cousins, Lord Krishna explains to him that it is his duty as a warrior to take up this role, and that he should do it as best as he can. Insofar as the modern-day soldier can prescribe to himself his role as a warrior to the exclusion of all his other personas, I would agree wholeheartedly with Lord Krishna's counsel. However, as history would have it, it seems to be the democratic model of society of the Western liberal type that has won out, rather than the rigidly-stratified caste system of Hindu tradition.

The implications of this cannot be understated, because it would now appear—with all due respect to Lord Krishna—too pat to say that one is fighting a war simply out of duty; even a soldier is not just a soldier, but also a citizen, an individual, as well as an ethical being whose morality is, in all probability, of the Axial Age1 strain.

Extraits

[...] However, I personally do not find this brand of argumentation acceptable. As expressed by Christopher Kutz in his essay Uniforms, “principled reflection demands that we understand the deep links between responsibility for war and the privileges of warfare, rather than simply assert their separateness.” To me, it would make more sense to separate the war context and the civilian one, rather than jus in bello and jus ad bellum. For one thing, such a separation would address the paradox of “participants in normalized mass killing, territorial occupation, and political transformation enjoy[ing] permission to do together what would be infamous crimes if done separately.” In other words, the idea of fulfilling one's duty as a combatant to, crudely put, kill or be killed would not be problematic only insofar as the casus belli is just. [...]

[...] Extrapolating from this idea that, at the very least, democratizing efforts from the outside do not work that well, I find it difficult to accept the validity of democratizing wars, if only because they run a greater risk of causing even more damage, and on a greater scale. Needless to say, the Vietnam War is a very good example to illustrate my point. To state it plainly, and in the words of a classmate who recently published an article in the magazine The Paris Globalist, aim of [all this] is not to argue against the notion of democracy. [...]

[...] The only case I can think of where this would not apply is the case of conscription, which, in any case, I am against. Further borrowing from Hindu thought (but this time rather in favor of I would also like to make a case for the paramount importance of jus ad bellum, but from a more general philosophical standpoint, rather than pertaining to the particular context of liberal democracies. According to Hindu thought, three components can generally be attributed to elements that make up our world (from thoughts and things to actions): sattva, raja and tama (in order of good and desirability). [...]

[...] Why, then, is jus ad bellum so crucial? Why is it so inextricable from jus in bello? My personal response to this is that insofar as modern states claim to be liberal democracies, soldiers, before they start acting in their capacity as soldiers, are individually citizens—and, as citizens, they have another role to play and other responsibilities to fulfill that precede those of a soldier. These undoubtedly include participating in the State's decision-making processes, in some way or another, and there is no reason why the decision as to whether to go to war should not fall within this circumference. [...]

[...] As the actress Cate Blanchett opined in an interview, I do not think world peace will ever be possible, but that does not mean we should not work towards it. Bibliography Confucius: Great Learning Vyasa: Bhagavad Gita Tolstoy, Leo, Constance Garnett (trans.): The Kingdom of God is Within You, New York, Dover Publications Ren Furui: China's non-interventionism and democracy in the world order, The Paris Globalist, Vol Issue pp. [...]