Post-War Violence - Essay Example

Introduction

Post-war violence is the violence that escalates right after a great war. Many people expect peace right after a war, but that is never the case because most people have not healed and still fight small wars within themselves that actually might grow into another war. An example of such is the “post-conflict” of the 1990s. Reconciliation after the war is always a long and painful process, but Ruther a necessary step to building a long lasting peace. To reconcile there must be healing that comes by facing the past pains and accepting the losses and trying to understand the cause of the fight and solving it, this will ensure it will not happen again. However reconciliation cannot be achieved without justice, and at list one part taking responsibility. In this topic, we are going to look at the effects of warfare, post-war justice, realism and liberalism, reasons for war and the fact that war is conducting economic gain in some countries.

Realism and liberalism Post-war justice is not only judicial and tribunal meant to punish the wrongdoers, but it is also intended to restore peace and make sure what has happened will not happen again. However, some states necessitate war to sustain itself. An example is World War 2 that affected mostly the African countries and Asian. The use of military strategies contributed most; these are ideas brought forth by military organizations to put up a goal, better known as "art of the general" creating a battle to win a war. It was used commonly by the Japanese, Vietnamese, as their campaign tactics, its existence spread widely through the Western countries too.

knew as ‘clash of civilization states that people ideas and culture will in the future be the cause of war in the society; this can also help us understand war more clearly by identifying the route of most wars. A clear indication is the racial equality in South Africa (apartheid) which still continues till to date (Vasquez 1997).The route of the wars in South African is color acceptance, the White does not want to accept the black in the society, this goes down even in German where black are received coldly.

The principals of just war theory are two, 1.reason for the war, and 2.means to adopt (Suárez 2007).The reason for the war helps tell if the war was necessary or not this will distinguish the just and the unjust in the war. While the means to adopt also tells who started the war first, the initiator, this also points out the wrongdoer and the rightful party in the war. Modern justice specifically looks at these aspects to rule out judgment in international and local courts.

Reasons for war had gradually changed before fights erupted due to political motives, land nationalism and such, the modern world has found new reasons to explode war basing on personality(sex, age, gender, color) the new generation offer a new material shifting from political and traditional to cultural grounds of war (Berdal &Malone 2000). Everyone is fighting for their identity in the society, the women fighting for their rights and justice, the lesbians, and gays fighting to have rights to exist and even in some African countries the albinos struggling to live and justice to be allowed to walk without fear of being killed. Shown in some countries where people have died because of their skin color, or gender. Or religion. In Iraq the war on religion has been widely spoken, and till now it is still seen to exist without any hope of ever coming to an end, the fight on religion is viewed in many countries, it is believed the religious war is the main course of terrorism, indicated in terror attacks where victims are asked of their religion before being executed (Berdal &Malone 2000).

War was conducted in the name of economic gain, this is seen in World War 2, the European countries brought war to get access to African nations as seen later they managed to colonies most of them because they saw opportunities and minerals such as oil, gold, diamond in these countries. Also seen in the German lands of the Thirty years war, war became a huge profit making enterprise (Berdal &Malone 2000).).Economic gain is a wild known agenda in the history of warfare.

Morality has been a reason for war. Suddenly it’s okay to use ammunition for humanitarian grounds (Vasquez 1997). It is not ethically justified to go to war, under any reasons war does not solve these problems, and instead it damages more. A good example is the Rwanda genocide; they went into war due to ethical reasons but ended up on the losing side, spending many years recovering their economy. Ethnical wars are coming up so fast because people, societies think they are justifiable. Ethical wars damage the communities, leaving most countries seeking refuge in other nations; they always escalate to ethnical cleansing, word best describing the war in Rwanda. They are mainly brought about by political conflicts, where a particular ethnical group wants to rule, or think of themselves as the ruling power and does not want to give chance to other groups, in the case of Rwanda Hutus felt the "tests" were not better in leading thus they decided to eliminate them, and this is why it was called ethnic cleansing, they were determined to remove all of them from the society by killing them. Rwanda still in a way surfers from that war that left them crippled for a long time, but they learned a lesson from it since they do not recognize tribes in their societies, in the eyes of the nation, they are all Rwandese (Gasana, 1999).

It would be more appropriate to kill a soldier in war than it would have been if a stray bullet killed a child. Point being that a solder is not very innocent, and a civilian is an innocent party in the war, a civilian is always viewed as the attacked in any war. Thereby the policy of double effect does not justify the killing of civilians in war (Eltringham 2008).

The victorious side has a duty to mind and brings peace to the table, order can always be initiated by one part and it is only rightful for this part to be the victorious side, because they have something to celebrate about and even if they have also been affected hugely by the war, they can find solace in victory thus will heal faster than the losing end (Stouffer et al., 1949). The victorious side should also find a way to create a level ground to discuss a way forward after the war. The role of providing security falls on the winning side too; thus, they are on the best set of mind to secure the already fearful and tone nation. It is wrong for the victorious team to celebrate victory amidst a lot of damage. Thus, they are required to be "the bigger person" in the society (Hathaway 2005).

The effects of counterinsurgency are in ethics or divisions. Neglect of some of the Pashtun concerns between 2001 and 2005 in Afghanistan contributed to a resurgence of the Taliban in 2006 (Staub 2006). When a state fails to pay attention to politics and society hence showing that the officer in command has made a poor decision (Staub et al 2005). About this context, Iraq war, it is said that the poor decision of the Bush administration leads to the quagmire. Political leadership has an impact on the progress of the campaign. Even when a military fights an insurgency, its efforts can be stopped by domestic political situations (House 2001).

Mercenary is a group of soldiers that fight for another nation or intervene in a war tone region. They fight for a cause or citizenship; some of these mercenaries serve in government units. The military change has changed the nature of warfare considerably since now there is enough manpower to protect and fight for war tone nations (O'Brien 2000). An example is the Rwanda genocide where European military troops were sent to help fight for the civilians and protect them from the local rebels. It has contributed to improving the view of warfare significantly giving people hope (Press 2004). Additionally, it has its disadvantages since now people will bring up fights hoping the other nations will intervene and help out, a case is seen in the erupting war in Burundi only this time the European countries refused to speak because they were hoping they had gotten something from the previous Rwanda genocide (Gasana, 1999). .

Video games set in war zones are an attractive form of military strategies militaries base their skills on training in video games; some countries have sponsored the distribution of wargames.It is also indicated that video games influence a level of aggressiveness and criminal like behaviors in young people thus the claim that there is a connection between the real world and the video games. It shows that there done warfare does blur the line between the simulation and reality of violence and war (Musah et al 2000).

The people displaced by war have human rights too, and they can enact them by seeking asylum in other countries. These people are called refugees. Another state can take them in because of fear of persecution; this always undergoes court orders, but in the case of mass violence where a group of people flees to another country for protection, no judicial proceeding is required (McCreight 2013). International law gives the right to seek asylum but does not oblige the state to provide it sometimes they are offered state protection and even funded by their respective countries (Marston & Malkasian 2008).

In conclusion war as an aspect of life has effects on humanity and the government should find more ways to ensure a safe country. Wars fought in the past also have had an impact on some wars today, for example, ethnical wars will be influenced by most decisions of the previous government. Wore tone countries take years to recover, and some never get to recover either. The strategies of fighting a war in nations also should be improved beyond what has already existed. Fighting war and violence has proved to be a stigma in every country , but a lot is being done to improve the nations. The introduction of military weapons, a creation of more military groups and techniques to fighting against the war have been brought forth, to fight wars like genocide, terrorism and much more.

Reference

Berdal, M.R. and Malone, D., 2000. Greed & Grievance: Economic Agendas in Civil Wars . Lynne Rienner Publishers.

Gasana, J.K., 1999. Natural resource scarcity and violence in Rwanda.

Eltringham, N., 2008. The Order of Genocide: Race, power, and war in Rwanda by Scott Straus Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 2006. Pp. 288, US $27.95 (Pbk .). The Journal of Modern African Studies, 46(02), pp.331-333.

Hathaway, J.C., 2005. The rights of refugees under international law. Cambridge University Press. McMahan, J., 2004. The Ethics of Killing in War*. Ethics, 114(4), pp.693-733.

House, J.M., 2001. Combined arms warfare in the twentieth century. Univ Pr of Kansas.

Musah, A.F., Fayemi, K. and Fayemi, J.K., 2000. Mercenaries: an African security dilemma. Pluto Press.

Marston, D. and Malkasian, C. eds., 2008. Counterinsurgency in Modern Warfare . Osprey Publishing.

McCreight, R., 2013. Scenario development: using geopolitical war games and strategic simulations. Environment Systems & Decisions, 33(1), pp.21-32.

O'Brien, K.A., 2000. PMCs, myths and mercenaries: the debate on private military companies. The RUSI Journal, 145(1), pp.59-64.

Staub, E., 2006. Reconciliation after the genocide, mass killing, or intractable conflict: Understanding the roots of violence, psychological recovery, and steps toward a general theory. Political Psychology, 27(6), pp.867-894.

Staub, E., Pearlman, L.A., Gubin, A. and Hagengimana, A., 2005. Healing, reconciliation, forgiving and the prevention of violence after genocide or mass killing: An intervention and its experimental evaluation in Rwanda.Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology, 24(3), p.297.

Stouffer, et al., 1949. The American soldier: combat and its aftermath. Studies in social psychology in World War II, Vol. 2

Suárez, D., 2007. Education professionals and the construction of human rights education. Comparative Education Review, 51(1), pp.48-70.

Vasquez, J.A., 1997. The realist paradigm and degenerative versus progressive research programs: An appraisal of neotraditional research on Waltz's balancing proposition. American

Political Science Review, 91(04), pp.899-912