Columns

Debatable is written by the Otago University Debating Society, which meets for social debating every Tuesday at 7pm in the Commerce Building. This week’s motion is “war can never be justified”. Jack Montgomerie argues the affirmative while Rebecca Gates argues the negative.
Affirmative
 
War is wrong. Wars of aggression, liberation and self-defence cannot be justified. That wars of aggression are wrong is without contention. State-organised murder and maiming to oppress or steal have no moral justification. Such wars are inherently wrong.

 
What then of “wars of liberation”? These wars are not necessarily inherently wrong, for their goals are initially admirable. However, wars of liberation are wrong because they contradict themselves. Despite a belief that humans are equally endowed with inviolable rights and a desire to see them upheld, wars of liberation seek to violate their oppressors’ rights, in the apparent belief that their oppressors are less reasonable, less human and less deserving of compassion than they. If we truly believe that everyone is equally human, we cannot rightly fight others to make ourselves free.
 

Moreover, such wars never truly liberate. Whether initiated from without, as in Iraq, or from within, as in Cuba, wars of liberation end up violating the rights of their chosen people. As we see today in the Middle East, the non-violent resistance of the Syrian people is a tool of liberation feared far more by tyrants than the guns and knives of the Libyan rebels.

 
Wars of self-defence are wrong because they destroy the very thing which they seek to protect. If we fight to protect a society which cares equally for its citizens, we destroy those values by diverting resources to build war machines. If we fight to protect a society based on democratic principles and the rule of law, we destroy it with conscription of labour, martial laws and internment camps. If we fight to protect a gentle society, we destroy it by militarising our culture and legitimating violence as a means of solving problems. As well as doing immense physical damage, wars inevitably mar a nation’s soul.

 
All types of war incur another victim which is never party to the conflict. The environment always suffers as the result of war. The fires, pollution, deforestation and poaching which accompany wars cause not only further human privation but also bring suffering for innocent animals with whom the combatants have no quarrel.

 
All kinds of war are wrong. Wars of aggression are wrong just as a thief or murderer is wrong. Wars of liberation and self-defence are wrong because in seeking to advance or defend their ideals, they inevitably abandon them. All wars constitute an unprovoked attack on the environment. War can never be justified.
 

- Jack Montgomerie
 

Negative
 
War is ugly. It is dirty, bloody, expensive and scary. There is nothing glorious about dying as a soldier. But these things don’t mean that war can never be justified.

 
The affirmative side of the house has based his argument around two key ideas: that war is detrimental to human rights and that waging war damages a society’s ideals.
 

This “rights” idea can be condensed to “we should never engage in a war because war always violates peoples rights”. A noble sentiment, but an ignorant one. Once we get to the point were war is being considered, rights are already being disregarded left, right and centre. We need to look at the degree to which each course of action would violate the rights of people. If the harm caused by a war is less then that caused by not doing anything, then war is not only right but required.

 
Oppressors have rights. But so do the citizens under the oppressors. Basic maths proves that more rights of more people will be protected by removing oppressors. Haiti isn’t perfect, but thanks to the Haitian Revolution, people cannot be property anymore.
 

If we believe everyone is equally human, then we work to make this a world where everyone is treated as equally human, even if this requires the occasional war.
 

So the rights of dictators are not enough to stop the rights of citizens from being protected. What then about this principled idea? That we should not engage in war, even in self-defence, because it can damage societal value? I’m sorry, but this is bullshit. When you fight to defend your way of life from an invading army, you are not ignoring the principles of that way of life, but showing everybody just how much you love them and that you are willing to die in their defence. Also, I take exception with the affirmative’s examples. Under his argument, it is only wrong for peaceful democratic societies to go to war. If a society values aggression, physical superiority and has a “might is right” mentality, then it would be perfectly okay for them to invade, because it would sync with their ideals.
 

Finally, yeah, wars suck for the environment. You know what else sucks for the environment? Peace. There is a noticeable lack of warfare in central USA, but pollution means you will still get all your minerals in one breath.

 
Is war messy and painful? Yes. Can it ever be justified? As I have just shown you, yes, yes it can.
 

- Rebecca Gates