Sounds and Fury

在我上一篇討論伊拉克戰爭的文章中，Wendelin希望我進一步談談Michael Walzer的看法。我雖然書還沒看完，不過先在這裡整理一下，與大家分享。


先介紹一下，Walzer是當代最著名的政治哲學家之一，談正義、談市民社會、談多元文化，他七零年代的書Just And Just War則是這個問題的經典著作。他更是一個積極介入現實的左翼知識份子，他是六零年代學運出身，現在是美國左翼雜誌Dissent的主編。長的很帥的中年毆吉桑。


我在上篇短文其實主要是提出一個觀點：一場現實操作上或進行方式不正義的戰爭，和這場戰爭能否是正義的，是屬於兩個不同的問題。
用Walzer的話來說：
It is an old argument in Just War theory that jus ad bellum (justice of the war itself) and jus in bello (justice in the conduct or the war) are independent. Those are two separate judgments that we make. A just war can be fought unjustly, as say when we fire bombed Dresden or Tokyo or Hiroshima.


也就是說，美國攻打伊拉克的行為是邪惡的，但不代表攻打伊拉克一定是不正義的¬-----當然也不是說必然是正義的。我只是嘗試提出一個思考的邏輯。這個邏輯是，我們應該先去問：
1.有沒有正義的戰爭
2.如果有，標準是什麼。是不是譬如面臨大規模種族滅絕的國家（波士尼亞或盧安達），應該要有人道主義主義介入的戰爭？
3.那麼，推翻海珊算不算這樣人道主義的介入。

這樣的思考是為了反對，許多反對伊拉克戰爭的人，是基於反美的意識型態。問題是，伊拉克戰爭的確應該被反對，但在攻打伊拉克之前的推翻阿富汗的塔里班政權，卻被比較多人認可，Walzer也不反對。所以重點還是要建立一套正當性的標準後，去看個例是否符合這個標準。


來看伊拉克例子，Walzer認為推翻海珊仍是不正義的，因為海珊並沒有到非得由外界推翻的地步。
他說：
spokesmen for the Administration have sometimes attempted to pass the war off as an example of humanitarian intervention. It wasn't that. Indeed, the Iraq war may make it much harder to persuade people around the world to support humanitarian intervention in those cases — and there will continue to be cases where it probably is necessary, as today in the Sudan.

Saddam's regime was brutal and oppressive, but at the time of our invasion it was not engaged in mass murder. A military intervention in 1991, after the first Gulf War, to stop the massacre of Shiites and marsh Arabs in the south might have been justified. But the containment regime imposed after 1991 made any repetition of those killings impossible in the north in autonomous Kurdistan and unlikely in the south.

It is only massacre or ethnic cleansing of mass enslavement in progress that justifies marching an army into someone else's country. That is what humanitarian intervention is, and that is not what the Iraq war was.

Nor was it a necessary engagement in the war against terror. In Afghanistan we overthrew a regime that was not merely harboring the terrorists who had attacked us, but was in active partnership with them, for the Taliban provided al-Qaeda with all the benefits of sovereignty, most importantly with a territorial base where they could bring recruits, open training camps, and prepare these recruits for action around the world.

Iraq, by contrast, was a political supporter of some terrorist groups, most importantly in Palestine, but it was not a partner and it was not providing terrorism with a territorial base. We may be doing that in Iraq today, but Saddam was not doing that in 2003.

So all the justifications failed.



另外，關於正義戰爭的問題還有第三個議題：戰爭後的正義（jus post bellum or justice after the war。這個理論也是認為並非所有佔領都不正義，譬如二次大戰後對德日的佔領。但是標準是什麼？

Given where we are in Iraq today, the occupation, the violence it now requires could possibly be justified if: first, the occupying forces are visibly and certainly prepared to leave within some relatively short time frame, which doesn't go along with building large and permanent-looking bases in the country; second, if the occupying forces are working toward genuinely free elections; third, if they are prepared to leave behind a sovereign state, which means not a satellite state; and fourth and finally, if they make no claim to material benefits from the war and the occupation, like privileged access to Iraqi oil.


好，最後很多人也許會和我一樣想，這些問題和台灣在國際關係中的局勢有什麼樣的關係呢？