The etymology of the lexis “war” actually has a complex history behind it, exhibiting evolution from its original state; that justifies the true meaning of the word; differing from the understanding we inherit today.
It originates from the late old English “wyrre” meaning “large-scale military conflict” (identical to it’s definition in the 21st century), that was derived from Old North French “Werre” – difficulty/dispute, from Frankish “werra”, from Proto-Germanic werz-a, from Old High German werran today in German translating to verwirren meaning “to perplex”, said in Watkins to from PIE – “wers”- to confuse; indicating its original sense was to “bring into confusion”.
This archaic definition suggests that conflict is a state of confusion, even justifying that the parties involved in the conflict do not comprehend why they are in conflict. This simply conceptualises the situation of the present, where powerful country leaders are in constant conflict, war, in the name of “democracy”, however the depth truth is, that they do not fathom the harm that they are emitting. Firstly, to the civilians of their own countries, secondly to the global economy, thirdly to the environment, and, lastly, to the ideology of democracy. Even if the “true justification” behind war is in the name of democracy, the minute war is declared, any state of democracy is destructed; concluding that it is impossible to justify war in the name of democracy; and even to attempt to, would be a heinous act to mankind.
The Basics of Basics
Is it possible to justify war in the name of anything? Albeit, democracy? The democratic grounds of our global society are to conjointly live together, with equal rights and equal status. The 16th US president, Abraham Lincoln once unequivocally defined democracy as “government of the people, by the people, for the people”, illustrating that the government, the decision makers for our global network, voted by the people, work for the best interest of the people. In defiance however, the people, society, want war to stop. So, by countries partaking in wars, they are going against the will of the people; they are erecting undemocratic circumstances.
Evidence to this claim can be justified via current affairs from a survey from the “Responsible Statecraft” stating that approximately 70% of Americans want the war in Ukraine to halt. The majority of the world, are in favour of the current ongoing wars to halt, aren’t our leaders obliged to adhere to the demands of the people? Technically. So, how can we justify wars in the name of democracy, if the wars occurring attack the democratic network we habituate, defying the will of the people? Henceforth, it is impossible to justify war in the name of democracy.
Cyprus: Advocating for human rights or finding an excuse to invade?
Throughout history, there is no evidence that any war has been in the name of democracy. It may be claimed to be in the name of democracy, especially at the time, but was never the preeminent reason. Simply, a curtain to hinder the true routes behind war; greed. Throughout history, governments have triumphantly gaslighted their citizens from believing they were fighting for their patriotic reasons, to save democracy; however, as time passes and current phenomena metamorphose into history, we witness the true reasons and the methods in which governments brainwashed their citizens.
A prime exemplification is highlighted in the 1974 illegal invasion, imposed by Turkey upon the Republic of Cyprus. Politically speaking, the reason for the war was due to intercommunal violence between Cypriots and Turkish Cypriots, stemming from interferences from political parties of the far right and Greece. Turkey, acting in the name of expanding democracy, to gain equal rights for its citizens habituating on the Island of Cyprus, although in the name of democracy, was in violation of all international laws including the Charter of the United Nations founded in 1945 (Turkey is one of the founding members of the United Nations).
Chapter I, article 1, clause 1; states that the purpose of the United Nations is “To maintain international peace and security, and to that end: to take effective collective measures for the prevention and removal of threats to the peace” and to bring about by “peaceful means, and in conformity with the principles of justice and international law” , supplementarily, in chapter VI article 33, clause 1 asseverates the parties to any dispute “to endanger the maintenance of international peace and security, shall, first of all, seek a solution by negotiation, enquiry, mediation, conciliation, arbitration, judicial settlement, resort to regional agencies or arrangements, or other peaceful means of their own choice”.
The charter of the United Nations was drafted to serve a specified purpose, international peace and to maintain harmony, globally.It specifies that all countries should go to any arms length in the prevention of corrupting peace, thus, inflicting war; strongly supporting that war is not an acceptable measure to assert democracy or in this situation, expand democracy. The United Nations is the most supreme legal entity therefore, its framework must be upheld, and primarily, respected since it serves to the ground basis on which countries co-exist without harming one another.
Chapter VI article 33, clause 1, denotes that if a dispute is to arise, preventative measures are to be taken to avert war. Henceforth, Turkey, did not even attempt to negotiate, arbitrate, conciliate or any other arrangement with peaceful means of their own choice, they instantaneously initiated the declaration of war upon Cyprus and the illegal occupation of 36.2% of the island until today. Turkey is just a portrayal of the many paradigms where the charter of the United Nations is utterly overviewed and the initial response of any country is to declare war, to “standardise democracy”.
Without attempting to peacefully convene, how can the killing of innocent individuals be justified? The citizens of Turkey were brainwashed into supporting this invasion, as to spreading democracy and fighting for the human rights of their sin-patriots to be treated with respect, when peaceful preventative measures weren’t even discussed. This acts as evidence portraying that war cannot be justified in the name of democracy.
USSR: Attacking the regime by becoming the regime; who’s oppressing whom?
Like everything in life, there are limits of which if exercised within, result in passably positive outcomes. To contrast, the only circumstance where war can be somewhat justified is to relieve from oppression and gain democracy. As countries and civilisations progress, we encounter and will forever witness the oppressors and the oppressed. As 3rd parties, looking into the circumstances of these foreign affairs, we must overview with emphasised understanding and compassion for the oppressed, with reference to the extent of warfare they have undergone, the extent of mental manipulation, physical harm, the duration of oppression, their socioeconomic state, and, the nature and nurture they received. How would you feel if you were born into a country where democracy is a crime? Just to briefly mention the possible existence of another political party could have you executed by the state. Innocent women, innocent children and innocent men living in constant fear, dreaming of inheriting the most basic human rights, as the right to vote, engraved in the European convention of Human rights under Article 3.
This is evident and illustrated via the existence of the Soviet Union, later known as the Union of Soviet Republics, composed of 15 constituent soviet republics; some of which joined the Union against their own will, post the 1st World War under supervision of Russia for “protection”. The Union of Soviet Republics was initially founded by the Bolsheviks, led by the political theorist Vladimir Ilyich Ulyanov (Lenin).
The communist regime spawn from the Russian revolution of 1917, espousing Marxism-Leninism. As the development of the USSR enhanced, the power over the member states grew like a fungus. In member countries such as Romania, conditions were severely harsh and inhumane. Propaganda engulfed the media; the newspapers, the television, loudspeakers in the streets and influence from the secret police as progressed over time from the Cheka (the secret police), immensely resembling the Nazi regime even post 1945 and the halt of the Second World War. The Brezhnev Doctrine, initiated by Leonid Brezhnev in 1968, subject of foreign policy, called on the Soviet Union to enforce military intervention in countries where socialism was under threat. This Doctrine engraved that no country could adopt another political system or have free election to ascertain a democratic structure. After years of suppression, Romania finally rebelled, in a civil war to gain their freedom from the communist regime, to gain democracy. This is the only sense in which a war in the name of the democracy is in all its meaning.
John Rawls, possibly the most influential political philosopher of the 21st century, in “The Laws of the People” clarifies that just considerations of war are part of the nonideal theory of international justice, verbatim, “the only legitimate grounds of the right to war against outlaw regimes is defense of the society of well-ordered peoples and, in grave cases of innocent persons subject to outlaw regimes and the protection of their human rights”. Despite the arguments in favour of war in the name of democracy, it is still unjustifiable.
France: The pivotal force driving homo-sapiens since ancient times; greed
As the esteemed lawyer, politician and activist who fought for social justice and for India’s independence from British rule, Mahatma Gandhi, once unambiguously articulated, “Earth provides enough to satisfy every man’s needs but not every man’s greed”. Greed, is one of the most dangerous attributes to mankind, however, one of the main drives behind war. It is impossible to have one without the other, war without greed. Wars even in the name of democracy, evoke overzealousness either on the people or on the leaders indicting the war; including in cases where the people are fighting for their freedom and to ascertain democracy.
Unlike in Romania, where the rebellion of 1989 was the closest scenario to be justifiable, greed took over France from overstepping the establishment of democracy within their nation, to conquering and invading other nations to spread this so-called democracy into other countries. The French Revolution from 1789 until 1799 is a prime example of greed taking over the aims of establishing democracy via war, counteracting its morality and somewhat of justification.
The idea behind the French Revolution was partially bought about by the Enlightenment, amongst some other factors such as King Loui’s incompetence to lead, inequality throughout the estates (social classes) and poverty. Democracy drives all the above factors and are synopsised within the ideologies of the Enlightenment that existed from the 18th century, within the framework of philosophers such as Montesquieu and Jean-Jacques Rousseau; that advocated for liberty, constitutional governance, and equality. These core ideologies of the Enlightenment challenged the Ancien Regime and all that followed it along with the sovereignty of the divine ruler, king Louis XVI. As the Enlightenment spread, starting via political discussions by the bourgeoisie in salons, to the dethroning of the king on the 21st of September 1792; technically succeeding in the overthrowing of the monarchy and establishing a democracy. Again, similarly to Romania, at a grave human cost.
However, unlike Romania, the bloodshed did not stop there, greed took over. The Girondins, a political group during the French Revolution, established in 1791-1793, and Jacques Pierre Brissot, faction leader, argued for the war of the first coalition, reason being the liberation of the people from neighbouring countries from despotism and tyranny of monarchy. The declaration of Pillnitz, evoked by Leopold the 2nd, Marie Antoinette’s brother, the Holy roman Emperor, cannot be deemed a primal catalyst for the war since the declaration was cardinally vague and it was evident that Austria and Prussia were reluctant to declare war on France, it was supremely to to save face. The war of the first coalition lasted from 1792 until 1797, claiming approximately more than 400 000 lives.
The war of the first coalition was theoretically to be in the name of democracy, au contraire, the grave number of casualties cannot be justified via this reason. France, did successfully gain democracy by the dethroning of the king, yet through their domestic rebellion claimed thousands of lives during the phases of the Great terror. If France left the bloodshed internally, perhaps the reason for the war in the name of democracy could have been somewhat justified, however, the external interference in foreign affairs of other countries, in an attempt to spread democracy cannot be justified. Firstly, on the grounds of not knowing if the people living in these Monarchial states were seeking a democracy, thus the war for democracy being undemocratic since the will of the people is unknown, and secondly, the military efforts behind the wars claiming so many lives. Greed drove the war in the name of democracy and surpassed the boarder where the limits are for allowing any war to occur in the name of democracy thus not justifying it.
Is killing justified without consciousness?
Summatim, war cannot be justified via the reason of democracy. As John Rawls believed, there are some circumstances where war can be legitimised, against outlawed regimes for the protection of society and, to protect innocent persons subject to these outlawed regimes. Adding a subjective stance to this encounter, in antithesis of Rawls, these circumstances although valid, cannot provide a tabula rasa, ergo, only being more justified over wars in the name of democracy that do not qualify these circumstances.
To further epitomise the support weighing this argument, the opinion of a first person, an individual whom actually lived through war, fought in war, risked their life for war and still live to this day to share their experience with the world, serves an unmatched witness to testify for this account. The Vietnam war, a war that technically speaking, and in the lexis of the media in “justifying” America’s intervention, was to fight for democracy in Vietnam to prevent a communist takeover of the region, when in reality was an apparatus operated in the strategic move against Russia in the Cold War.
America’s intervention had no correlation with fighting for what was best for the people of Vietnam, democracy in Vietnam or, the world. Tim O’Brien’s account on the war, a soldier who fought in the Vietnam war, a first-person source fighting on the side of America, the party that was in attempt to maintain “democracy” by eluding Communism, claims that “wars are nothing but roots of dehumanisation and death”.
If the people who physically and mentally fought, cannot justify war in the name of democracy, then how can we, as third parties, add to this validity? Death is the only certain in life, marking the end to our journey as living Homo sapiens, where all consciousness, the main drive of our brains, evaporates. But, what is consciousness? The debate on consciousness stems from credible philosophers to neuroscientists, that still have not agreed to one simple definition.
The Oxford dictionary definition of consciousness is “the state of being aware of and responsive to one’s surroundings“ and “person’s awareness or perception of something”. This simply connects consciousness with awareness of one’s surroundings but is dissatisfactory in providing a deeper explanation to equate to the deeper understanding linking consciousness with awareness of surroundings during death. A source that provides a sounder base is the “integrated information theory of consciousness” (IIT), that allows consciousness to be measured which portrays the demonstration to the method, the how, behind how it can be determined whether an individuals can be aware of their surroundings, even during death, inducing the dehumanisation of death to a farther imperative crime and death in warfare to be asseverated.
IIT, founded by credible neuroscientist Giulio Tononi, looks into the idea that consciousness is linked to integrated information, which can be represented by a precise mathematical quantity called Φ (‘phi’). The human brain, specifically the posterior cortex of the cerebrum has very high Φ and is therefore highly conscious: it has highly complex and meaningful experiences. Systems with zero Φ are not conscious at all. This establishes that we can measure consciousness throughout individuals using Φ, allowing us to determine whether the individual is credible enough to understand what is occurring during death. Now that we have established that consciousness proves awareness during death, the dehumanisation of death as an act all together should be the greatest form of torture, especially death in warfare, proving that any death cannot be justified if not by natural phenomena, further belabouring that lives can’t be sacrificed for the greater good in war, for democracy, or yet, war in the name of democracy cannot be justified.