#9: Wars Can Be Averted (PART 1)

【Problem A: Not So Suddenly】
​​Imagine this fictitious yet horrifying situation.
 
Imagine that you’re enjoying a family dinner at home, and suddenly, an armed robber breaks in. In such instantly urgent life or death situation, what may happen to you? On the spur of the moment, who knows what you might do to protect yourself and your loved ones. The situation could turn frightful in an instant.
 
Unlike this fiction, wars rarely turn up due to an instantly urgent life or death situation. Rather, wars are deliberately waged due to several nations making contradicting assertions and failing to compromise. It often takes years or even decades for the conflicting demands to escalate into heated exchanges of threats - and eventually into wars.
 
These years and decades of escalations mean we have the time to think. This is precisely the reason why a vast majority of wars don’t suddenly turn up due to an instantly urgent life or death situation. They are deliberately waged.
 
Now, with this time on our hands, how do we go about in our thought process? That’s the key to this issue. One may think as follows:
 
Despite all the conflicting demands by the involved parties, at the end of the day, wars are to kill or to be killed. And if I choose to kill, no matter how desperately I preach that it was unavoidable, my moral conscience will not tolerate the killing even in exchange for my own survival. Rather than to endure a life of unbearable guilt, my moral compass will lead me to be slain first than to slay others.
 
Perhaps, wars will disappear if the vast majority of us thought this way.
 
Another may think as follows:
 
Should we maintain armed forces? With what kind of weapons should our military be armed? How much should we allocate for the military budget? What are the required procedures and authorities to order a military strike?  Can we use our armed forces against an aggressor who attacks our ally but not directly us (right of collective self-defense)? Moreover, rather than wait until an aggressor attacks, can we use our armed forces before an aggressor actually attacks, if the attack is perceived as imminent (right of anticipatory self-defense)? Do we spell these out in our constitution and law? What information do we provide our citizens to persuade them? How do we deal with those who oppose?
 
Such as in these two cases, we have the time to think and decide. Both the United States and Japan are taking the time and making deliberate choices. We are systematically deciding rather than calling shots on the fly. Elected politicians make decisions, and the people determine whether to accept or deny those decisions with our votes in elections. We're clearly making a choice.
 
Unfortunately, people of both nations are choosing the path of advancing war capacity. As seen in the most recent presidential election, American people are polarized into two sharply contrasting positions on many imperative issues facing the nation.

Nevertheless, it’s fair to say that most Americans readily accept the advancement of war capacity. Most Japanese people reach the same conclusion, albeit much more passively and the issue certainly more contentious. Regardless of how reserved and uninvolved, though, the end result is the same - that of advancing war capacity.
 
Therefore, This war was inevitable due to an instantly urgent life or death situation is an argument that has no logical standing.
 
By its Constitution, Japan is forbidden to maintain armed forces as it outlaws all wars. This is truly a noble constitution that Japanese people can rightfully boast to the world. However, Abe administration has sought to reinterpret the language and twist the spirit of the Constitution by proclaiming that “Japan does not forbid all wars, it can engage in wars of self-defense,” and “Our Self-Defense Forces are not armed forces with war potential.”
 
In recent years, the administration has promoted that the overseas deployment of Self-Defense Forces is constitutional because they are deployed “only to non-combat zones,” and “only for supportive roles, not combat.” Even when the Self-Defense Forces clearly found themselves in midst of a combat zone, the administration insisted that these are “regions where use of weapons has resulted in numerous casualties – but those are considered as clashes of forces, not combat.”

Abe administration is busy playing word games in an effort to delude its people - that reality is consistent with the Constitution, when it’s quite obvious that it’s not.
 
A constitution is a set of fundamental principles under which a nation is governed that limits the power of a ruler. It acts as checks and balances over a ruler’s authoritarian ego so not to cross the lines of fundamental rights of the people – like how it was violated in Japan during World War II. Unlike an ordinary law - or a rule created and enforced to regulate behavior of the citizens - a constitution is a rule created and enforced to regulate behavior of a ruler.
 
Political parties and administrations that circumvent the language and the spirit of the Constitution through deceitful reinterpretations, and moreover, that insist on amending the Constitution to fit the needs of the ruler if it stands in his/her way. Citizens are, in essence, accepting advancement of war capacity by continuing to support such parties and administrations.
 
“There’s no good alternate candidate, so I’m passively supporting through a mere process of elimination,” one may say. Yet, the end result is the same - that of support - regardless of elimination or passivity.

Can one justify to accept the advancement of war capacity if it’s passive and there’s no good alternate candidate? Although one surely must consider multiple issues in deciding for whom to vote, what are the specific issues that weigh so profoundly for you to justify turning a blind eye to War?
 
Tanks, ballistic missiles, battle ships, torpedoes, rocket launchers, land mines, fighter jets and machine guns. Can an organization with abundant armament as these be considered as anything but armed forces with war potential? When The New York Times writes about the Japanese Self-Defense Forces, it calls them “Army” and “Navy.”

Our Self-Defense Forces are not armed forces with war potential is a lame cover and a political chicanery, and this argument fools no one in the world.
 
As such, we call all of this as Taking the time and making a systematically deliberate choice to advance war capacity.
 
From all wars of the past, there’s no doubt that countless innocent people will endure enormous pain and suffering once wars are deliberately waged. Can you justify to yourself that these agonies of innocent people are inevitable to save your life and the lives of your loved ones?

Can you persuade your loved ones that it’s fine for these innocent people to cry in pain and die as long as they don’t happen right in front of your own eyes? Exactly what words and logic will you use to persuade your loved ones?
 
If you can say that This war was inevitable because the enemy provoked us, then could you proceed to also say that It was still inevitable despite my loved ones and I were sent to the frontlines? Norway and Israel employ a military draft system for men and women. Sweden will follow suit starting 2018. Draft system is not just training, but is a system to send men and women to the frontlines once wars are deliberately waged.
 
Can you truly and honestly persuade your heart that It was inevitable even if your sons and daughters, your grandkids, and the girls and boys from your neighborhood are sent to the frontlines?
 
If you can’t, then supporting any war will be Me First.
 
It'll be equivalent to saying As long as it’s good for me, then it’s fine for the others to suffer. It'll be the same as saying As long as my loved ones and I can be safe, then it’s fine for the others to be in danger, suffer, and die. Even if it’s a passive choice through a mere process of elimination. No matter how emphatically and profusely we "thank" our war heroes.
 
Some may ask, “It’s not fine for the drafted soldiers (draftees), but isn’t it fine for the military volunteers (volunteers) who enlist for pay?”
 
Yet, the more one learns of the real situations of the volunteers, the more one finds out that many of them were born into poverty or raised in dysfunctional families. And many can’t afford college tuitions, or simply want to dig themselves out of poverty. Out of desperation, they hope a few years of military service will afford them what so many of us take for granted – a decent education and living.
 
People raised in functional families or born into wealth, or the sons and daughters of Congressmen. As we all know, such people of privilege enlisting and sent to the frontlines are almost like a myth - that they hardly exist. That, in effect, equates to a class society of which the underprivileged suffer and die on the frontlines while the privileged enjoy the safety. A class society of such must be repudiated, and hence it’s not fine even for the volunteers.
 
The majority of the American people, perhaps, believe that the US mainland won’t be attacked even if the US engages in wars. We have difficulty imagining that the mighty US military losing a war or many of our citizens falling victim to enemy attacks, especially here at home. Of course, that’s what we hope for – not only for Americans but for everyone in the world.
 
However, wars are won at times and lost at other times. Continuing to advance war capacity means continuing to risk a possibility of tragedy. This isn’t true just for America, but for all nations of the world, as long as no country will fight a war without a chance to win or at least inflict damage upon its enemy.
 
With atrocities of war unfolding in front of our own eyes, what was deliberately waged can’t be rewound no matter how bitterly we cry, “I didn’t think this could happen to us.” And the grudge leads to a vow for retaliation. Our enemy will do likewise, as hatred will only escalate into more attacks. There’s no true ending to the acts of violence.
 
Wars can produce short-term victories, but never a permanent solution. It’s because wars breed extreme hatred through unbearable downpour of injustice. And the hatred keeps multiplying and spinning out of control. A long-term, lasting world peace can’t be attained through A mass murder called war.
 
It’s because moral ends can’t be reached through immoral means.

Read Next: Wars Can Be Averted (2)【Problem B: Deliberate Choice】
 
Complete Series: Wars Can Be Averted (1)～(4)
[1]   [2]   [3]   [4]   
​
Read Theme: Violence/Peace