110. THERE IS NO JUST WAR - There Is Just...War

There is very little philosophical solace to be found to counteract the despair at what is currently happening in Ukraine. At least for me. Some thinkers might be comforted by ideas such as just war theory, I suppose. Russia’s invasion, they would say, is unjustified and demands a military response if sanctions fail. Military retaliation would now be justifiable to restore peace.  That approach is not open to me as I believe the entire apparatus of the just war approach is flawed. The criteria is far too open to abuse from states who can claim “self defence” or “last resort” without much scrutiny if their power status in the world is high, and those same claims, even when true, can be dismissed as propaganda from lower status states deemed enemies. Russia has, after all, despite the incredulity of the world, claimed that what they are doing is just. That they are not invading a sovereign state but helping to liberate and reclaim an area which is rightfully “Russia”. We might roll our eyes, but the point remains: the language of “just war” is far too open to interpretation and misuse, especially in an era of “fake news” and “post-truth”. When Russia says such things, we scoff and cry “invasion”. When America invades a sovereign nation to interfere with its domestic politics, however, we fly flags and thank soldiers for their service.

It was an eye-opening reminder visiting the War Remnants Museum in Ho Chi Minh City a few years ago when in Vietnam. It only takes a few references to what they call the “American war” and “American invasion” there to see how easily narratives draped over facts in our news reporting and history lessons become embedded in our understanding of the world. Many Americans still believe the invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq were necessary responses to the crimes of 9/11 despite there being neither factual basis, or legitimate interpretations of international law to support such claims. These wars of choice were just as illegitimate as Russia’s invasion of Ukraine is today, yet our leaders - and many high profile commentators - determined them “just” and “legal” at the time and continue to defend them to this day. The notion of just war is of little meaningful use in the hands of states or citizens of states.

It has also always been troublesome to me that just war conditions, in philosophical discourse, have historically been split into two kinds. Jus ad bellum, the conditions which have to be met to go to war justly, and jus in bello, the conditions of what is and isn’t allowed within war as legitimate, just, fighting. The reason this troubles me is the notion that the separate spheres of justice seem to entail: that one can fight an unjust war justly. While the opposite entailment seems true enough, and a just war might logically lose its moral righteousness if the means of battle transgress what is justifiable, the idea that an unjust invasion might still meet the criteria of justice when it comes to weaponry used and proportionality of response is incoherent. A single casualty at the hands of an unjustified aggressor is a preventable moral wrong which cannot be made “just” simply by acknowledging how much worse the death toll could have been had certain rules and limitations not been followed.

But the real failing of just war theory remains the presumption of necessary violence at its heart. This is the real bind I feel when watching the news roll in from Ukraine. To see the Russian violence and hear the world speak so quickly about the futility of sanctions and the need for a clear show of force in response. To hear the Ukrainian government call for Molotov cocktails to be thrown at invading tanks. To even feel myself that frustration that we are just watching this all happen and, without dropping bombs of our own, maybe we are just letting it happen? On the one hand, everyone says they are trying to avoid another world war. On the other, the implication continues to haunt that, perhaps such a war may become the necessary consequence of this unilateral action by Russia.

For the real problem with aggression, whether the invasion is Russian, American, or British (for we must never forget that Russia is only doing now what we used to do all the time, and continue to do in Ireland: the project of colonialism that many in our current government tell us to be proud of and sanction criticism of in school curriculums) is aggression itself. And when the problem is aggression, violence, murder, power and greed, the solution cannot be hewn from the same sick source.

A similar difficulty was discussed last year, when those calling for prison abolition also called for justice for those like George Floyd and Breonna Taylor and defined justice as the cops who murdered them being put in jail. If we believe that prisons should be abolished, they need to be abolished even for the criminals we most want to see behind bars, and if we want an end to war (the only truly ethical motivating principle for any justification for war: ending it as soon as possible and restoring peace) then we cannot use more war to stop war.

Russia’s invasion can easily be explained away as Putin wanting to start a new empire, or reclaim geopolitical power believed to be lost, or start a new world war he believes Russia may ultimately win to give himself ultimate global dominance…but to do so is to ignore that all these motivations come from our living - by choice, not necessity - in a world where power, empire and dominance is the norm and a goal to be desired. It is to wilfully ignore that another world is possible. One where there aren’t winners and losers but where there is global cooperation and mutually assured aid instead of destruction. We just have to decide that is the world we want to live in and make it happen instead of perpetuating the false ideas of realpolitik and feigning necessity at what is clearly contingent.

It is the concept of nations that lies at the root of the problem of war. It is the global economic systems of manipulated scarcity, inequality and hoarding that motivates taking by violence what can’t be gained legitimately. When we ignore the underlying motivations of invasion and speak only of the good and the bad, we sweep under the rug the tricky truth that we are all culpable for maintaining a global political system that nurtures the conditions for war far more than it inculcates the conditions for peace.

So when I see the news reports from Ukraine and wonder what to do, I find myself stuck for answers because the only answer that I know there is - change the whole damn system - seems so far from being taken seriously as to be hopeless. Instead, we resort to the tired old framework of sanction and escalation that hasn’t worked before and will likely fail to work again. Meanwhile, the number of casualties and corpses rise, the sabres continue to rattle, and we mistake adding further to the carnage as not only necessary, but actually as some sort of justice.

Author: DaN McKee

My book - AUTHENTIC DEMOCRACY: An Ethical Justification of Anarchism - is available HERE  and from all good booksellers.  Read my Anarchist Studies journal paper on Anarchism and Character Education here. For everything else DaN McKee related: www.everythingdanmckee.com