Loading...
Politics
Politics
PoliticsFeb 2, 2025
Economic Sanctions and the Just-War Doctrine
International diplomacy has traditionally used economic penalties as a tactic to penalize or dissuade governments from acting immorally or illegally. However, sanctions create an ethical conundrum when analyzed through the prism of the Just-War Doctrine, a framework that has historically been employed to assess the morality of armed combat. Is economic coercion an illegitimate kind of aggression, or can it be justified under the just war principles? Understanding the Just-War Doctrine: The Just-War Doctrine, deeply rooted in Christian theology and philosophy, particularly in the works of St. Augustine and St. Thomas Aquinas, establishes moral criteria for the initiation and conduct of war. These criteria generally include: Just Cause – War must be waged for a morally justified reason, such as self-defense or preventing grave harm. Legitimate Authority – Only a recognized governing body has the right to wage war. Right Intention – The intention must be to secure justice and peace, not for revenge or conquest. Last Resort – All non-violent measures must be exhausted before resorting to force. Proportionality – The harm inflicted must not outweigh the benefits gained. Discrimination – Warfare should distinguish between combatants and non-combatants to avoid unnecessary suffering. While originally applied to military conflict, these principles can be extended to non-military coercive measures such as economic sanctions. Economic Sanctions as a Just-War Alternative: Sanctions are often seen as a non-violent means of achieving diplomatic objectives without direct military intervention. They are imposed to pressure governments into changing policies deemed unjust or harmful. However, they raise several ethical concerns when evaluated under just-war principles: Just Cause and Right Intention: Sanctions are typically imposed to counter human rights abuses, aggression, or nuclear proliferation. However, their effectiveness in achieving these goals is debatable. If sanctions primarily serve the political interests of powerful nations rather than justice, they may fail the test of moral legitimacy. Proportionality: Economic sanctions frequently harm civilians more than the ruling elite. For example, comprehensive sanctions on Iraq in the 1990s led to widespread malnutrition and medical shortages, disproportionately affecting innocent populations. If the suffering inflicted outweighs the intended benefits, sanctions may not be morally justifiable. Discrimination: Unlike military action, which (ideally) targets combatants, economic sanctions often punish entire populations. Civilians bear the brunt of economic hardship, while authoritarian regimes find ways to insulate themselves. This indiscriminate impact challenges the ethical justification of sanctions. Last Resort: While sanctions are often framed as a peaceful alternative to war, they are sometimes imposed without fully exhausting diplomatic channels. In some cases, they become a precursor to war rather than a deterrent. Are Economic Sanctions a Form of Economic Warfare?: Some argue that economic sanctions are a form of warfare by other means. They inflict harm on a nation’s economy, disrupt trade, and degrade living conditions—all without direct military confrontation. If sanctions function as an economic siege that leads to widespread suffering, they may violate just-war principles, particularly proportionality and discrimination. A Path Forward: Ethical Sanctions?: If economic sanctions are to align with just-war ethics, they must be designed with moral considerations in mind: Targeted Sanctions: Focusing on political leaders, military officials, and economic elites rather than imposing blanket restrictions on an entire nation. Humanitarian Exemptions: Ensuring access to food, medicine, and essential goods for civilians. Clear Objectives and Exit Strategies: Establishing measurable goals and timelines to prevent indefinite suffering. Multilateral Oversight: Engaging international bodies like the United Nations to ensure fairness and prevent sanctions from becoming tools of political dominance.
PoliticsJan 26, 2025
The Massacre at Sabra and Shatila
The massacre at Sabra and Shatila in September 1982 remains one of the darkest atrocities in modern history, a brutal act of inhumanity orchestrated and enabled by the Israeli military. Over the course of three days, thousands of unarmed Palestinian refugees, including women, children, and the elderly, were systematically slaughtered in an orgy of violence that was as senseless as it was barbaric. Prelude to Genocide: In the midst of the Lebanese Civil War, Israeli forces invaded Lebanon under the pretext of driving out the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO). By September 1982, Israeli troops had seized control of West Beirut, surrounding Palestinian refugee camps, including Sabra and Shatila. Despite assurances of safety for the refugees following the evacuation of PLO fighters, what unfolded was a cold and calculated betrayal. On September 16, under the watchful eyes of Israeli forces, Lebanese Christian Phalangist militias—Israel's allies—were given the green light to enter the camps. The Israeli military surrounded the camps, sealed all exits, and provided flares to light the night skies, ensuring the killers could carry out their mission with precision. The Slaughter Begins: For three horrifying days, the refugees in Sabra and Shatila endured unspeakable terror. The Phalangist militia, with full Israeli complicity, unleashed a bloodbath, indiscriminately massacring unarmed civilians. Men were dragged from their homes and executed. Women were raped and murdered. Children were butchered in front of their families. Eyewitness accounts describe bodies littering the streets, homes drenched in blood, and the air heavy with the stench of death. Entire families were wiped out in a calculated effort to exterminate the Palestinian presence. The images of mutilated bodies, many of them women and children, shocked the world. Israeli Complicity: A Crime That Cannot Be Forgotten: While the Phalangist militia carried out the physical slaughter, Israel bears full responsibility for enabling and facilitating the massacre. The Israeli military controlled the camps’ perimeters, prevented refugees from escaping, and provided logistical support to the killers. This was no act of ignorance or negligence. Israeli leaders, including Defense Minister Ariel Sharon, orchestrated the conditions that allowed the massacre to unfold. The Kahan Commission, an Israeli inquiry into the events, concluded that Sharon bore “personal responsibility” for the massacre—a damning yet insufficient acknowledgment of his role in the atrocity. A Story of Loss and Betrayal: Among the countless victims was a young boy named Ahmad, who watched as his family was torn apart. His parents were executed before his eyes. His younger sister, barely old enough to speak, was killed while clinging to their mother. Ahmad survived by hiding under a pile of corpses, too traumatized to cry or move. This story is not unique. It echoes the experiences of hundreds of survivors who carry the scars of that massacre, both physical and emotional. For the Palestinian people, Sabra and Shatila are more than just camps—they are symbols of their unending suffering and the world’s indifference to their plight. The Aftermath: Justice Denied: Despite global condemnation, justice for the victims of Sabra and Shatila remains elusive. Ariel Sharon, far from facing accountability, later became Israel’s Prime Minister, a grim testament to the impunity enjoyed by those in power. The Phalangist leaders responsible for the killings were never held to account, and the survivors have been left with nothing but their grief and memories.
PoliticsSep 9, 2024
Bangladesh Moves to Extradite Deposed PM Sheikh Hasina from India on Charges of Mass Killings
Bangladesh is preparing to take urgent action to extradite former Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina from India in order to try her on charges of mass deaths committed during recent student-led anti-government rallies. The upheaval, which climax on August 5, compelled Hasina to resign and flee to India, posing a serious diplomatic challenge. Md Tajul Islam, the top prosecutor of Bangladesh's International Crimes Tribunal, announced that legal steps will be launched to issue arrest warrants for Hasina and other accused individuals under the current extradition pact with India. The tribunal's rebuilding process, sparked by the departure of former judges and prosecutors after the interim government led by Nobel laureate Muhammad Yunus assumed office, aims to allow for a more thorough probe. This tribunal will now be in charge of hearing the high-profile cases against Hasina, who is accused of genocide and crimes against humanity during the deadly crackdown from July 15 to August 5. According to Interim Health Adviser Nurjahan Begum, approximately 1,000 people were murdered and hundreds injured during rallies against Hasina's government. The tribunal has tremendous obstacles, including gathering extensive evidence and rebuilding a credible prosecution team capable of handling politically contentious cases. The prospective extradition of Hasina, who has led Bangladesh for three decades and is a key role in South Asian affairs, may create a dangerous precedent. The intricate legal and diplomatic process between Bangladesh and India include deciphering international conventions and dealing with potential political repercussions. Hosting the deposed leader amid these charges heightens geopolitical tensions in India, whereas Bangladesh's move demonstrates its commitment to holding its leaders accountable for alleged abuses of power. Experts believe the case may have broader consequences for international law, particularly in how countries handle extradition petitions involving political figures accused of serious human rights breaches. Bangladesh's initiatives reflect a growing trend in South Asia, where legal processes are being used to remedy historical political misdeeds. If the extradition process is successful, it will be a big step forward in Bangladesh's long struggle with political violence and accountability. As Bangladesh prepares to pursue the following legal steps, the tribunal's decisions will be widely followed, both domestically and globally. The pursuit of justice for those slain during the protests could reshape political accountability in the area, highlighting that no leader, regardless of stature, is immune to the law.