Division
of University
Relations
Homepage
A just war?
 |
Nineteen years isn’t an overly long
time, but in my life wars have ravaged the Balkans and the Middle East,
Russia got its “Vietnam” with the Afghan War and twice America
has gone to war with Iraq. I have seen genocide occur in Rwanda and ethnic
cleansing in Kosovo, not through my own eyes, but through the newspapers
and evening newscasts. Yet somehow this current war has affected me in
a way that none of the others have.
Obviously I am older and more socially conscious of the political climate
around me. Past events have been as horrific, but I was simply too young
to understand the implications. One might even argue that the reason such
events occur is that we cannot understand our actions and the actions
of others. Yet this war and its “shock and awe” effects are
visible from living rooms across the country, and for that reason people
are questioning that much more the implications and the purpose of the
actions of the Bush administration and its allies. There has always been
activism surrounding warfare, but today the media makes us all aware and
we are all forced to try to decide if this war is just.
The Just War Criteria states that all wars must have a just cause involving
self-defence, punishment or the prevention of aggression. It has been
no secret that this is a pre-emptive war, an attempt to remove a dictator
who has some potential for causing widespread harm with weapons of mass
destruction, therefore it is likely that this war would be considered
within the realm of the prevention of aggression. Yet the proper inspections
were not completed before missiles were dropped, UN approval was not given
and in my opinion that is a major infraction. It is also in opposition
to UN policy to cite self-defence in a pre-emptive attack; an attack must
occur before self-defence can be cited as the cause.
Secondly, war must be a last resort according to the criteria. All other
means, including but not exclusive to, admonishment, sanction and political
pressure must be exercised before war. Did the Bush Administration wait
long enough? Or apply enough pressure before going to war? Tony Blair
did provide demands for Saddam Hussein to follow if he wanted the war
to be prevented, yet the act was nothing more than a media ploy to make
it appear that attempts were being made to reconcile differences and prevent
an attack on Iraq. The UN resolution demanded that Hussein appear on Iraqi
television and tell the Iraqi population that Iraq does have nuclear capabilities
and that he has been deceiving the state and the global community. Then
after the public address he would produce such weapons to the international
community.
The reason I feel such a request is a ploy is that it assumes that Hussein
is a rational man with a concern for his population. This fact has already
been refuted. He kills his people for disobeying his orders, is elected
by arbitrary elections and has little concern for human rights. Central
to Blair’s request is the presence of a concern for human rights;
it must be so great that a dictator is willing to admit personal fault
so that the civilians and resources aren’t put at risk. This was
obviously a blind attempt at prevention.
This ploy not only makes a mockery of international diplomacy but also
makes use of the media as a mechanism to influence public opinion. From
presidential addresses to journalists following infantries through the
Ad-Dibdibah Desert, we can get a daily dose of the missiles falling and
the buildings collapsing. It is not only politicians taking advantage
of the media to arouse public interest and rally support, but rather the
media are juicing this war for every angle possible. We can watch a POW’s
family speak about their daughter’s release from Iraqi forces and
talk of the parties that will ensue upon her arrival home. Media pulls
at our heartstrings providing an emotional angle, giving a voice to the
soldiers who are fighting this war. This not only allows the stories of
those on the field and in the air to be told, but it also acts as another
way for the American government to rally their nation’s support.
It is no coincidence that it was Colin Powell
who went on Muslim television stations to speak on the necessities of
this war. Perhaps Bush’s public image would not have been viewed
as favourably. In fact this attempt to use the media to get Muslim nations
to back the war has ultimately backfired and has sparked even more anti-war
demonstrations. The key element the Bush administration is missing in
their marketing is the connection to the Muslim world and the voice of
the Iraqi public. An Iraqi civilian speaking on the injustices he or she
has endured would provide a more effective media broadcast. Yet the fact
cannot be ignored that has not been fully determined how Iraqi citizens
feel about this war.
Journalists go to war to document the stories of those on the field and
those in the towns that are being attacked; yet CNN was kicked out of
Baghdad making the storytelling more difficult. Kuwait City has become
the journalist haven of choice, as if a Middle Eastern backdrop makes
the story more authentic. The media provides immediate gratification for
those thriving for minute by minute updates, yet it must be realized that
in international politics everything has a hidden agenda and nothing is
as simple as it appears on the surface.
 |