War crimes suspect Karadzic arrested

Radovan Karadzic, the former Bosnian Serb leader accused of war crimes and genocide during Bosnia's 1992-5 war, was arrested last night after more than a decade on the run. Read on here

Can Wars Be Just?

War in the twentieth century can be characterised by its particularly brutal nature. As technology advanced it allowed for the creation of new and more deadly weapons, which increased the costs of war substantially. The death tolls amongst both civilians and soldiers in both World Wars bears testament to this. With the dropping of the first atomic bomb on Hiroshima it appeared that all wars henceforth would be ‘total’ wars. The concept of a ‘just war’ was, therefore, held to have lost its utility (Chomsky, 2002). If wars were to be limitless as a consequence of the means of waging them, then the fundamental tenet of proportionality in just war theory could no longer be applied.

However, due to a delicate balance of power during the Cold War, no one power came to totally dominate world politics in that period and nuclear weapons have luckily not been employed in a war since the end of the Second World War. That the threat of their use still exists is of course a considerable risk.

War has not become total as had been predicted. Instead, it appears to be moving towards a situation in which technology has increased the capability of destruction, yet by the same token, precision has vastly increased and, consequently, discrimination is vastly improved (Nye, 1996; O’ Hanlon, 2000). War, fought at least by the technologically superior states, has become manageable to the point where just war theory may again be employed to assess its application. It appears that suggestions that the just war tradition had become irrelevant were very much premature.

In the post-Cold War era there has been an increase in what might be termed ‘humanitarian interventions’. Such military actions are taken with a view to preventing the large scale killing of a particular ethnic or religious group by another more powerful group. The interventions in Bosnia (Smith, 2005), Kosovo (Kurth, 2001), and East Timor (Smith, 2004) might be deemed as such. Another brand of intervention has developed which might aptly be termed ‘democratic interventions’. These interventions occur to either ensure that democracy is upheld in a state or to forcefully ensure that democracy ‘takes flight’ in that state. The United States has led the field in ‘democratic interventions’, with interventions in Haiti, East Timor, Afghanistan and Iraq all assumed ‘democratic interventions’ or at least having the aim of instituting democracy as a major ingredient in the mixture. The causus belli in recent wars by the United States has increasingly focused on the defensive, democratic and humanitarian nature of their wars (Haass, 1999). The just war tradition appears to be making a serious re-entry into the field of international relations theory. In fact, just war theory has played a key role in the development of international law as “elements of just war thinking have been incorporated into both treaty and customary international law” (Crawford, 2003: 7) and the principles of the tradition have influenced the practices of many armies, including the United States.

War is the most significant action that states may engage in, affecting all areas of policy formulation. The Bush Administration has sought to characterise the recent Afghanistan war as a just war “by making a positive legal and moral assertion to a right of self-defence (Crawford, 2003: 12).

“Tonight we are a country awakened to danger and called to defend freedom. Our grief has turned to anger and anger to resolution. Whether we bring our enemies to justice, or bring justice to our enemies, justice will be done” (President Bush, September 20, 2001).

“This is a day when all Americans from every walk of life unite in our resolve for justice and peace...we go forward to defend freedom and all that is good and just in our world” (President Bush, September 11, 2001).

“We fight, as we always fight, for a just peace -- a peace that favors human liberty...Building this just peace is America’s opportunity, and America’s duty” (President Bush, June 1, 2002).

The just war tradition can trace its origins to St. Augustine’s City of God and has undergone continuous development and redefinition to match the requirements of contemporary war. From the writings of Augustine, Aquinas and Grotius the tradition has advanced to depict the nature of modern warfare and establish the benchmarks by which the ‘justness’ of present wars might be assessed. The contemporary eminent scholars in the tradition include Walzer (2000), Coates (1997), O’ Brien (1981) and Paskins and Dockrill (1979). All agree on the ultimate aim of the just war tradition which is the advancement of peace and inevitably the demise of the tradition itself. “A just war must end in a just peace” (Coates 1997, 286) and it is fought with the intention of bringing about peace in the first place.

Coates (1997) divides the tradition into three elements: (i) just recourse to war (ius ad bellum), (ii) just conduct of war (ius in bello), (iii) just peace in the aftermath of that war (ius ad pacem). They are each separated in their individual analysis but, inevitably, comprise part of a greater whole and if any one is found to be lacking then the claim of a ‘just war’ is nullified.


But can war ever be considered just? Is it ever right to interfere in the internal operation of a state? If we can agree that wars can be just are we impelled to act in the name of justice? With ongoing (almost-) wars taking place in Iraq and Afghanistan, the crisis in Darfur and Chad and the violence surrounding elections in Zimbabwe, it is important to address the notion of whether or not interventions can be considered just. Is international politics governed by self-interest alone or do higher goals exist? The notion the European Union emerging as a coherent political identity is interesting in terms of military interventions given that many recognise the EU as having a greater propensity towards humanitarianism than the other major global powers. But if this humanitarianism takes the form of military intervention is it justified or merely a continuation of the 'white man's burden'?



- Chomsky, Noam. 2002. ‘The War in Afghanistan’ in Z Magazine, February 1, 2002.
- Coates, A.J. 1997. The Ethics of War. Manchester: Manchester University Press.
- Crawford, Neta C. 2003. ‘Just War Theory and the U.S. Counterterror War’ in Perspectives on Politics Vol.1 (1).
- Haass, Richard. 1999. Intervention: The use of American military force in the post-Cold War world, revised edition. Washington D.C.: Brookings Institution.
- Kurth, James. 2001. ‘First War of the Global Era: Kosovo and U.S. Grand Strategy’ in War Over Kosovo: Politics and Strategy in a Global Age, eds. Andrew Bacevich and Eliot A. Cohen. New York: Columbia University Press.
- Nye, Joseph. 1996. ‘America’s Information Edge’ in Foreign Affairs, Vol. 75 (2).
- O’ Brien, W.V. 1981. The Conduct of a Just and Limited War. New York: Praeger.
- O’ Hanlon, Michael. 2002. ‘A Flawed Masterpiece: Assessing the Afghan Campaign’ in Foreign Affairs Vol. 81 (3).
- Paskins, Barrie and Dockrill, Michael. 1979. The Ethics of War. London: Duckworth.
- Smith, Michael. 2004. The Spying Game: the secret history of British espionage. London: Politico’s Publishing.
- Smith, Gen. Sir Rupert. 2005. The Utility of Force: The Art of War in the Modern World. London: Penguin Books.
- Walzer, Michael. 2000. Just and Unjust Wars. Third Edition. New York: Basic Books.

Isolating Iran Creates Stronger Asian Cooperation

Iran and Israel have spent the last number of weeks conducting provocative military exercises in a bid to demonstrate the respective strength of their armed forces. The intention may be deterrence but the further escalation of threats can only lead to negative consequences.

Israel confirmed that it conducted a major aerial military exercise over the eastern Mediterranean Sea during early June. The message was clear: Israel has the capacity to attack any Iranian nuclear programme and is willing to do so. The posturing over recent weeks by both states reached new heights on Wednesday with Iran test-firing its latest missile, the Shahab 3, which has the capability of reaching Israel, eastern Turkey and Pakistan. The next generation of their Shahab missile programme will seek to produce missiles capable of reaching Europe.

The Iranian test led to criticisms from the United States, who signed a missile-defence treaty with the Czech Republic on Wednesday, which in turn led to strong criticism from Russia who view the move as hostile. The Czech Republic will host the radar system for the proposed project. Condoleezza Rica stated that "this missile defence agreement is significant as a building block not just for the security of the United States and the Czech Republic, but also for the security of Nato and the security of the international community as a whole….Ballistic missile proliferation is not an imaginary threat."

With neigbours on both sides (Afghanistan and Iraq) being invaded by the United States, it is no wonder that Iran is feeling somewhat ill at ease. They could be next on the list but are perhaps relieved that the US Presidential system allows for only two terms. We wait to see whether John McCain will provide the third. Iran continues to maintain that the aim of its nuclear programme is purely non-military, though the scepticism that this claim has generated throughout the world has led to the imposition of sanctions on Iran. A nuclear weapon would provide Iran with a greater deterrent against potential attacks but the worry in Israel that such a weapon would be used may very well lead to pre-emptory attacks, and a precedent for this has been set.

Perhaps most worrying for the US should be the fact that their increasing isolation of Iran has resulted in the development of a stronger relationship between the Chinese and Iranian governments. In a visit to Iran during April by China’s Assistant Foreign Minister Zhai Jun, Iranian Foreign Minister Mottaki suggested the possibility of creating an Asian Union that would act as a counter balance to US and European power on the international stage. China has sought to increase trade relations with Iran and, as Western states increasingly isolate Iran, China’s influence in the region has increased. The rapidly expanding Chinese economy requires the energy sources that a nation like Iran can provide. With the growing interdependence between China and Iran, the American policy of isolating Iran may prove another failed policy. With diplomacy and modest reconciliation with North Korea, the ‘Axis of Evil’ club is now down to just one member. It may be time to re-engage with Iran in a bid to relax tensions in the region and prevent any possible move by Iran to disrupt oil shipping through a blockade of the Strait of Hormuz. Expect the posturing by all sides to continue.

Growing Uncertainty Looming For Pakistan

Karachi was rocked today by a series of blasts that have so far left one dead and at least thirty-five wounded. Pakistan’s state-run news agency, APP, have described the blasts as ‘low intensity’ with the objective ‘to create panic’. These explosions follow Sunday’s suicide bomb attack in the capital, Islamabad, that left 15 policemen and two others dead and at least 40 injured. These attacks happened shortly after the close of the ‘Lal Masjid Shuhada (martyrs) Conference’, the first anniversary to commemorate the victims of the government’s military operation against the Lal Masjid (Red Mosque) and seminary. 103 people were killed as a result of the July 2007 military raid. Sunday’s attack targeted security personnel and is being viewed as a possible revenge attack. Pakistan is no stranger to instability but the past few days have witnessed an apparent heightened state of volatility.

In October 2007, following her return to Pakistan after years in exile, former Prime Minister and leader of the Pakistan People’s Party (PPP), Benazir Bhutto became the target of a suicide bomb attack in Karachi. She was assassinated in a subsequent attack in Rawalpindi on 27 December 2007. With 30.6% of the vote, Bhutto’s PPP emerged as the largest party following the February 2008 elections and formed a coalition government with the other main opposition party, PML-N. The parties of the new coalition government are united by their common enmity towards President Musharraf but the coalition government is far from stable and rumours of divisions have already surfaced.

In recent months the increased levels of violence have affected major cities like Islamabad and Lahore. Karachi has witnessed a relative level of calm but today’s blasts could see a worrying return to insecurity in the Southern coastal city.

These type of attacks are not new to Pakistan but their increased frequency is a concern for a government still trying to define its relationship with President Musharraf, while at the same time grappling with the difficulty of policing its porous Northern border with Afghanistan. Despite its reluctant population, Pakistan is a key ally in the US ‘War on Terror’ and has been under increasingly open pressure from US officials to do more to prevent cross-border attacks by a resurgent Taliban. With virtually no government control in the North-West Frontier Province, there have been calls from certain quarters that attacks within Pakistan by US or Coalition forces against Al-Qaeda or Taliban targets are acceptable. However, the infringement of Pakistani sovereignty can only serve to increase the appetite amongst the Pakistani population for anti-government action and risks the further destabilisation of the country. Coupled with the attack on the Indian Embassy in neighbouring Afghanistan today that left at least 40 dead and over 140 injured it is a worrying time for the region and one hopes that a tipping point in the level and magnitude of violence has not been reached.