Global Justice during the Afghanistan Conflict

 Eli Webb

IR Blog Post #4


Global Justice

The readings on November 15th about Global Justice were very intriguing as we discussed the role the United States has around the world and the power we have in terms of institutional, structural, and productive. In terms of Nhina Le’s article on whether or not human rights are universal or culturally relative, the United States many times has overstepped their powers and decided to interfere with other countries' cultural ideas. People might consider this a good thing, others might see it as bad. Considering the question asked for the second analytical paper about non-governmental organizations and if their benefits outweigh the problems they cause, I would view the United States in a similar category when they try to interfere with other countries. Some instances it is absolutely worth the interference, like in the case of the Muslim treatment in China today, or the apartheid in South Africa, however, instances like Vietnam and Cuba are where the United States is thinking too highly of its power around the world. This blog post is not to bash on United States interference or consider its powers on the global scale, but it is to focus on the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy: Global Justice section 3.1 where they discuss “the proper use of force, military intervention, and its aftermath” (**reading Nov 15) 

Much discussion this year has been based on the actions of President Joe Biden in August and the removal of troops from Afghanistan. All I could think about when reading the Global Justice assigned article was this action and how it could have been different and how it should have been different. What caught my eye while reading was the “Jus Post Bellum” which “concerns how the war concludes and the transition back to a situation of peace” as well as the “Jus Ex Bello” with justice in exiting the war. (**) The removal of our troops from Afghanistan, and in case the ‘end’ of the ‘forever war’ was by no means a clean and well executed operation. It resulted in more deaths than had foreseen as well as a picture that was compared to the exiting of Saigon. So this idea of Jus Post Bellum and Jus Ex Bello is one that fascinates me. The whole idea of war is to kill the others, get what you want, and win, and yet these conventional theories of treating the others with respect while engaging in war with them is one to admire. Admire when done correctly, yet the actions by both the United States and the Taliban prove that these are only theories for war. In real cases, the actions turn to true human violence and not a respected exile. So who is at fault? Are the theories of just war impossible to reach, or did the United States or Taliban just do it so poorly? I believe the United States should have been better. Biden should have had a better plan and a more secretive way to leave so the Taliban could not pounce on mistakes and take over the country quicker than thought. I do continue to wonder, however, with the Geneva Conventions, and the hopes for respectful, proper, and just use of force in times of war, does the Taliban deserve to be punished for their treatment during war and their treatment of human rights. Should countries continue to step in and affect other countries' laws for the rights of females in Afghanistan and others around the globe.

Comments

  1. Annabelle VeithDecember 2, 2021 at 1:42 PM

    You bring many interesting examples and ideas into you post, Eli! This is quite a large question, but relating to how you said that "some instances it is absolutely worth the interference", I was wondering what makes a foreign interference worthy. What justifies or, even yet, what do countries claim justify their "need" to interfere with foreign issues?

    ReplyDelete
  2. Eli WebbDecember 3, 2021 at 8:21 AM

    Thank you for your comment Annabelle, and I do wonder as well what makes a foreign interference worthy? I do think it is culturally relative, and we should accept and respect the traditions and customs of other cultures, however, it sometimes is greater than that. The problem is we think it is greater than that, yet for others, it is completely normal and we should not interfere. I do think the western interference is worth it when it comes to women's rights in Afghanistan and other places, or Muslim's rights in China. But once again, it is just our western view versus non-western views and we just got to realize that we might not be the best, we might not have to force our lifestyle on others. We have helped in many cases, but sometimes we have messed up and it all depends on the extremity of the case and whether it is worth resources and that is decided way above my level of knowledge.

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

  Thomas White     Mutually Assured Destruction, or MAD, is typically taught as law and inherent to global politics. Often, the theory is misconstrued, something that I myself never fully understood. It is not just that the world will be destroyed if there is another nuclear war; a nuclear war cannot happen due to the resulting chaos. This is typically not emphasized when discussing this theory, as the view gives the impression that the destruction is more key, not the actual peace that results from it. In some ways, this is dangerous, as it misconstrues how people view this idea, and it clouds what should be asked; does the atomic weapon protects us all?     MAD is typically seen in many global theories and politics as an inherent truth, but some believe it should not be considered a fact. There has only been one true international affair that the concept of MAD has acted in, which was the Cold War. There was peace in their states, created by both the USSR and the USA having nuclear w
Read more

Terrorism

  Thomas White Professor Shirk International Politics 11-29-2021 Personal Experience with Terrorism     Terrorism is the greatest threat to immediate security in the 21st century. Defined by the FBI as two different concepts, there is both international and domestic terrorism. In class, international terrorism was obviously discussed more, and that is something that most in the US think less about, both because it less often affects their daily lives and also because the US government does not want to draw attention to actions they take that may be considered international terrorism. Domestic terrorism will be the topic of this Blog Post, both my personal experience with it and how a community can deal with its aftermath.     Terrorism is a concept that is impossible to fully understand until it affects you or someone in your community. Oftentimes, the media creates a narrative of sympathy for victims instead of empathy, where individuals are meant to feel bad for the victims of the t
Read more

Cybersecurity/Warfare

  Thomas White The New Technological Age of Warfare     Throughout this course, warfare was one of the most consequential and influential factors within the International system. As we learned, there’s an entire system of viewing international politics that says war is the most fundamental interaction between states or governmental bodies. This concept, known as realism, is one that I have previously discussed in a blog post, where I attempted to prove why it is an incorrect viewpoint for the 21st century. I discussed how in the modern age there is too much interaction between states that is not driven by war or seeking power. However, this post is meant to be an exercise in arguing the other side and in an atypical lens. Today, as social media has been skyrocketing to unprecedented and previously unimaginable heights, warfare has taken what may be a new look. Two examples of this are TikTok and the Russian SolarWinds hack on the US, both of which are different scenarios with different
Read more