War is generally an attempt by states and semi-state entities to beat their opponent into submission using violent means. There are exceptions to this such as where engaging in warfare is undertaken without expectation of victory but to raise a flag and make a point – think 1916 Rising or the Hamas attack from Gaza on Israel in October 2024. Those violent means can vary greatly along with the extent to which the so-called ‘laws of war’ are adhered to. There can be great suffering for both civilians and soldiers on all sides not just through injury, pain and death but through the dislocation caused by war including starvation, lack of shelter, fear, disruption of education and life chances for young people and children, and so on. War and preparation for war is also a major contributor to global heating and pollution.
War is an evil, mechanical dinosaur which should have been decommissioned by humanity long ago. Instead we have states and non-state parties engaging in, or preparing for war. This is the 21st century. We must wonder what humanity has learnt given that there are so many different alternatives to war available through mediation, conciliation, nonviolent action of many kinds, and other actions by citizens and states. But both power (e.g. USA) and powerlessness (e.g. Hamas in Gaza) can convince people that violence is the way to go to achieve their goals.
The launch of Lex Innocentium 21st Century is a very welcome initiative in relation to war (see https://lexinnocentium21.ie/ and item with other links in the news section of this issue). Cáin Adomnáin (Adomnán’s Law) of 697 CE was arguably the first attempt in western Europe to protect civilians in war – there are numerous other examples from other cultures in antiquity around the world. We have to question and undermine the very basis of war. The new Lex Innocentium 21st Century project does indeed take Cáin Adomnáin forward into the 21st century.
The basis of war is varied and multi-faceted. The military-industrial complex is complex with its tentacles everywhere. The Irish government has been promoting military production, incredibly for a country which suffered a small, guerrilla war only a few decades back. Northern Ireland has already had significant military production. There are big profits to be made, and no industry is more corrupt. Many politicians want to look big and strong and one way they think they can do that is by bolstering their country’s armed forces both because they may believe in such strength but also because it will reflect strength back on them.
But putting your faith in the military and war is a sword of Damocles. Large scale investment in the military tends to lead to the feeling they should be used, not just to threaten but for actual war. And once you start a war you are likely to escalate it, cf Israel, Gaza and Lebanon. And every penny or cent spent on the military is a penny or cent not available for positive purposes in society. Meanwhile potential or actual ‘enemies’ see your military investment and seek to match it, through feelings of insecurity and threat. And then you respond to their military spending and an arms race is begun. Belief in military ‘strength’ can lead to economic, democratic and social weakness with the extolling of militarism having many problems including machismo and its corollary of male violence.
Clem McCartney in his piece in the last issue of Nonviolent News analysed the hole the world is currently in regarding conflict. https://innatenonviolence.org/wp/2024/09/02/rreadings-in-nonviolence-when-will-we-ever-learn-reflections-on-a-debate/ This suggests some ways forward on the international stage. And the usual advice about being in a hole is to stop digging. Unfortunately the world shows no sign at the moment of emerging from that hole or even wanting to do so.
The situation for the people of Sudan is extremely bleak with no thought given by the respective vying war lords to the suffering and starvation of citizens. The Russia-Ukraine war is an unfortunate classical case of relative stalemate with lives and money being thrown into not just a hole but a bottomless pit. Israel thinks it can achieve peace through all out war on its opponents when all it is doing is perpetuating the conflict; you achieve a permanent end to a conflict by turning enemies into friends, not by trying to obliterate them. Meanwhile other states and people back who they want to support, exacerbating the conflicts.
A groundswell of popular opinion is usually needed to stop a state or states engaging in warmaking. Lex Innocentium 21st Century is one such initiative. The original Cáin Adomnáin did not actually seek to stop war as opposed to limiting warfare and protecting ‘innocent’ people. Hopefully thirteen centuries later we are realising that no one deserves to die in war and that, in an era of high tech and nuclear weapons, the stakes are too high to be engaging in war at all; the choice is between disarmament or destruction. The vast majority of those dying in modern warfare are civilians.
There are alternatives. World economic justice and resource sharing needs to be part of it. Reform of the United Nations is another part. The world – and the Irish government in particular – could pay attention to the thinking involved in Article 29 of Bunreacht na hÉireann which states that “Ireland affirms its adherence to the principle of the pacific settlement of international disputes by international arbitration or judicial determination.” This was written in 1937 and could be considerably extrapolated form in relation to the possibilities of dealing with conflict which have developed since then.
And Irish politicians paying attention to their own constitution would be a start; while they sometimes make positive noises their actions and inactions are generally negative. The recent information about flights carrying military equipment to Israel through Irish airspace is a case in point, and the government steadfastly refuses to search US military or military-contracted planes using Shannon airport. The approach seems to be to ignore western militarist links and to stall taking any action, all of which is incompatible with neutrality.
Escalation has been taking place regarding violence and poor relationships worldwide. But détente, disaramament and de-escalation can take place; it did take place very considerably following the end of the Russian Communist system and control in Eastern Europe but this was not followed up with new forms of cooperation internationally to cement that breakthrough. States fund war and preparation for war; they do not seem keen on funding or putting their thinking into peace. But the building of trust and justice can lead to an escalation in peace actions and disarmament,
The world has global heating to deal with; it cannot afford in any way – ecologically, financially, socially – to be distracted by wars and high level military confrontations. The pursuit of military solutions and ‘security’ (which is really a form of insecurity) is a chimera which distracts from the very urgent needs of the world for an end of global heating and for global justice. Yet the world, including ‘the West’, fiddles about while the world burns.