Aggression
Writing by abuhatem on Saturday, 16 of August , 2008 at 2:01 am
First, let me clarify something. When I said the neocons where making more sense than the noninterventionists on the Georgia issue I was using hyperbole. What I meant was that noninterventionist blogs and commentators have been almost unanimous in unilaterally blaming Georgian aggression on the crisis without blaming the absolutely horrid Russian devestation of Georgia.
Of course, Georgia made a tactical mistake in invading South Ossetia, but Russian provocations of Georgia were going on for the past four months. Russia is not simply fighting back in South Ossetia, it also took back Abkhazia, is occupying Georgian cities of Gori and the port of Poti, and is 20 miles from Tiblisi as we speak. BBC World, Al-Jazeera English, and CNN International along with the NYTimes all reported from Tshkinvali for the past two days and have proven without doubt (what Muslim muhaditheen or scholars of historiography and narration would call khabar mutawatir or a highly massively transmitted peice of information) that Tshkinvali was not massively razed in the fashion that Russia alleged. In fact, most of the city remains intact although much destruction did occur and fighting appears to have been isolated to a few neighborhoods.
The noninterventionist solution in this case is not to take Russia’s side. Russia is asserting its sphere of influence in its near abroad and may intervene again in the future. In the eyes of justice, both Georgia and Russia should be blamed, but especially Russia for its highly disproportionate responsive aggression. The same people today taking Russia’s side and blaming Georgia, where taking sides against Israel during the 2006 July War against Lebanon. Hezbollah began the war, but Israel aggressed disproportionally. I am not a Christian, but let not our Christian brothers forget St. Augustine’s condition of proportionality in his formulation of jus ad bellum.
Aggression has always been the central problem in international relations. Notice I use the term “aggression,” and not “war,” for war may refer to defensive combat which various moral and religious traditions have strict legal codes to justify. There have been numerous solutions to the problem of aggression which are still in existence to this day:
- The “realist” Thucydides/Hobbes/Machiavelli approach - aggression is inevitable and fated because men are evil and love power, justice is impossible.
- The “liberal” Kant’s approach - aggression can be minimized by the spread of democratic capitalism.
- The”internationalist” Grotian approach - aggression contradicts the natural law, must be fought against in defense, and should not be engaged in - justice and virtue are possible.
Ludwig von Mises and other libertarians took approach no. (2). This is generally the underlying assumption of the vast majority of Americans to this day - whether Ron Paul libertarians, neoconservatives, liberal democrats, etc. It is generally assumed that the spread of free markets, free trade, and democracy will create a liberal order and norms and a community of nations which will avoid aggression. Even libertarians such as Ron Paul who reject the United Nations and supranational organizations accept the basic precept of international law - that aggression is wrong and unjust - and believe that our nation should strive to avoid this. Neoconservatives, and liberal democrats, may define aggression in a much more narrow way - making “peacekeeping” or “humanitarian” missions a loophole - yet they still accept the base assumptions of this fact, the idea of a liberal order was the base assumption of classical liberalism.
On the other side are the realists. The realists, as marxist historian E.H. Carr writes in his wonderful The Twenty Years Crisis, are the opposite of the classical liberals. Their view is that justice will always be impossible, that man is depraved, and that struggles for power and wealth define international relations fatally. The state exists just to exist and continue its existence, and aggression is something normal which cannot be stopped or curbed. Thus the realist is the “pragmatist,” who does not care for morality in foreign relations and rejects idealistic uses of power if they may harm his nation’s interests. Carr himself rejects such “consistent realism” stating that it provides absolutely no practical room for action. Realists attempt to secure as much power as possible, to keep the status quo, to be pragmatic, and to avoid unnecessary conforntation.
Realism’s fundamental assumption - that man is fully depraved - strikes at the heart of antiquity’s philosophy of man. Both Christian and Muslim civilization did not see man as fully depraved, nor perfect, but a mix of both good and bad. Justice is indeed possible, there are good and bad people, and aggression is not something inevitable but an evil chosen by its doer. Thus those who agreed with realism’s presumptions on power and its importance but were Christian developed a new school - the Christian realists - led by Reinhold Niebuhr, who argued that peace was paramount and aggression was immoral and unjust yet one should still be wary of the affects of power.
Thus comes the current question on the current crisis. When to intervene? For the strict noninterventionist, one should not intervene until one is attacked aggressively. For the strict liberal internationalists - those who transgress against another soverign state violate international law which was signed by all states in the interntational system, thus international institutions such as the United Nations or the European Union or even alliances of Western “liberal democracies” such as NATO should push Russia back militarily or at least put pressure. For the strict realist, this is Russia exerting its power and increasing in its sphere of influence, one should leave them alone unless they cross a major red line which affects the United States. Realist antiwar conservatives such as Christopher Layne recommend a strategy of “offshore balancing” or not engaging in combat unless Russia aggressively attacks any region to such an extent that it may strongly upset the balance of power in its favor and thus be hard to fight later on.
Because there is no “world government,” - nor will there ever be one - the problem of stopping aggression on small states that cannot defend themselves has been the central problem of international relations. The only key to security in the international system is allying oneself with more powerful states or alliances or increasing in military power. Georgia has learned this lesson - this is why it wants NATO membership and American gaurantees of support so bad.
Yet the realities of international politics catch up to the moral idealism of international law. American intervention is simply not pragmatic. Because America does not want all out confrontation with Russia it would never come to Georgia’s side. Saaksavili does not like this and has been blaming the west. Yet what can he do?
This is not our fight. American intervention on the side of the Georgians would simply exasterbate tensions in the world and lead to a confrontation with Moscow which is unnecessary and detrimental to our security. George Washington warned us of “entangling alliances.” This is not 1938, Hitler is not aggressively taking over Europe. We have no choice but to allow Russian aggression. The European Union - which is on Russia’s doorstep - will take the means necessary to contain and stop Russia as it is in their direct national interest. For the cause of peace, and national interest, pass the buck Bush.
A footnote - this crisis also gives a very important lesson. Although one may be antiwar and noninterventionist, it is simply not safe for any country to have weak defenses. Nuclear weapons and a strong and robust military are essential at deterring states from attacking each other. As you can see, Russia easily and fearlessly attacked Georgia while the West is sufficiently deterred - whether in statements from Bush, Condi, or Bob Gates - from actual military confrontation with Russia even though Russia is an extremely weak country and a regional power at best. The West wanted to attack North Korea, but after the Korean nuclear program was reluctant at upsetting the status quo. Its the same deal with Iran - Kenneth Gatzman, a neoconservative scholar for the Congressional Research Service, stated recently that if Iran got the bomb there would probably be no war against Iran nor any strong rhetoric, while if it was unarmed a war was likely. Legitimate defense is something necessary for every country. The problem is that such weapons become used by our own country for its own aggression against others. Where is Reinhold Niebuhr - who warned of this - when you need him?
Category: International Relations
- Add this post to
- Del.icio.us -
- Meneame -
- Digg
No comments yet.
Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.
