& çâÌæÚUæð´ ·¤è ¥ôÚU Îð¹Ùæ ÁæÚUè ÚU¹ð´ ¥ÍæüÌ ¥ÂÙð ÜÿØ ÂÚU ŠØæÙ ÚU¹ð´Ð ãæÚU Ù ×æÙð´, €UØô´ç·¤ ·¤æ× ·¤ÚUÙð âð ¥æÂ·¤ô ©gðàØ ·¤è Âýæç# ãôÌè ãñ ¥õÚU ÁèßÙ ·¤æ ¹æÜèÂÙ ÎêÚU ãôÌæ ãñÐ ÖÜð ãè ÁèßÙ ×ð´ ç·¤ÌÙè Öè ·¤çÆÙæ§ü €UØô´ Ù ¥æ°, çÁ™ææâæ ¥õÚU ©ˆâæã ÕÙæ° ÚU¹ð´Ð ŠØæÙ ÚU¹ð´, ÜÿØ ã×ðàææ ¥æÂ·Ô¤ Âæâ ãôÌð ãñ´ çÁ‹ãð´ ÂæÙð ·Ô¤ çÜ° ÂýØæâ ¥æÂ ·¤Öè Öè àæéM¤ ·¤ÚU â·¤Ìð ãñ´Ð

When a war is just?

MOHAMMAD A MABUD
IN speaking about war, we often raise the question of its justness. There are always a number of issues to be considered before launching a war to let 'good' prevail over 'evil'. Hence, there must be some common ground for concurrence on issues involved in making the decision for a war. It may, however, be noted that even if the war is apparently just, all conceivable means should be utilised and exhausted before declaring it as a last resort.
A number of criteria need to be considered for judging a particular war as 'just'. These are:
* A war is just when it is intended for defence against an aggressor. A defensive war is, therefore, a just war.
* A war will be just, if all the means of conciliations and negotiations are explored and utilised; and willingness for negotiation is not spurned on either side. As long as a country is willing to negotiate, cooperate and shows some evidence of compliance, declaring war on it is 'unjust'.
* A war is not justified, if it is intended to achieve a hidden motive of the aggressor say, territorial gain or extracting resources.
* The participation of a third country alongside the defending country is less immoral, provided it is based on the principle of request and that the third country also perceives that the aggressor may be a threat to its own security later on.
* A war is totally unjust, if it is initiated on the request of a handful of people within the defending country.
* A war is unjust, if it is initiated with sheer arrogance to demonstrate one's military might, or experiment its weapons upon a country which is disproportionate in size, resources and power.
* A war is unjust, if the aggressor uses public resources for which it does not have prior mandate at the time of election or approval of parliament. Sometimes, parliamentary approval for war also becomes unjust if, overtly or covertly, unholy objectives of government are disclosed to the members.
* A war is unjust, if it is launched with various pretext and without sufficient notice to the defending country.
If we look at the ongoing American led war on Iraq in the light of the above, one will only find it as highly 'unjust'. Iraq was no longer proved to be a threat to the security of US and UK which are thousands of miles away from it. Iraq was their former ally, but differences accrued over its occupation of Kuwait in 1991 -- a problem which was settled long ago. Iraq's immediate neighbours also have acknowledged that they no longer thought Iraq was a threat. Besides, American led war on Iraq failed to get support of the UN Security Council, because UN-sponsored Inspection Team failed to detect any weapon of mass destruction. Government of Iraq had already agreed to the UN Inspector's proposal to (1) destroy Skud missiles, (2) allow its scientists to be interviewed and (3) free inspection any time and anywhere in Iraq. Such a cooperation on the part of the Iraqi government was unprecedented and upto the best satisfaction of UNInspection Team and UN Atomic Energy Commission.
It some more time could be granted, more progress towards disarmament of Iraq could be achieved. Overwhelming majority of the Security Council members including China, France and Russia were in favour of giving more time. But in complete disregard the UN charter and worldwide protest against war on Iraq, America and Britain declared it unilaterally. It is simply outrageous and totally unjust.
The arguments for war to change regime and destroy "weapons of mass destruction" are mere propaganda for public consumption, but hidden agenda might be something different. It is evident that America and Britain had long planned for war on Iraq as their preparation for it in terms of massive military build-up in the Gulf area started almost 5-6 months before declaring the war.
An unjust war is a crime against humanity. In fact, those who are responsible for initiating an unjust war on a disproportionately weak country, commit crime. In war, combatant forces kill innocent people,
even women and children are also not spared. Thus, they commit crimes which are punishable under law.
According to the Holy Quran, if one kills an innocent person, irrespective of his religious affiliation, he is killing, as if, the entire mankind. Neither Christianity nor Judaism or for that matter, any religion permits unjust war. It is no wonder why a celebrated personality like the Pope himself warned USA and UK not to wage war against Iraq. Apart from the United
Nations, world leaders like Nelson Mandela of South Africa, Jaques Chirac of France, Jimmy Carter of USA and Prime Minister Mohamad Mahathir of Malaysia voiced their concern against war. But in defiance of world opinion and also in disregard the canons of civilization, America and Britain have launched an unjust war on Iraq. The sooner this war is stopped the better for them and the humanity.
Mohammad A Mabud, a sociologist, is former Division Chief, Bangladesh Planning Commission.