Sunday, July 23, 2006
Bush Doctrine - My take
Today the world is terribly divided over the so-called "Bush Doctrine" and as a world citizen I too have a take on it.
The Doctrine, put roughly, says : "An entity has the right to strike pre-emptively on any source which it deems to be a threat to itself". It is the old self-defense argument cloaked in a new garb. If you know that your adversary will kill you, you have a right to kill him first, in self-defense. The Bush doctrine is taking this simple logic and stretching it. But what decide that the threat is "reasonable" enough?
Lets look at a scenario : You are rational, mature and educated individual. You value your life dearly and want to live peacefully without hurting anybody (lets say people like us). Suppose another person (lets call him the 'mad man') does not value his life that much. He is willing to kill and die for real and imagined causes. He thinks that you have wronged him in some manner and hence he should kill you. He does NOT share the same values of tolerance, fairplay and dignity of life. He is out to kill you regardless. No rational logic will appeal to him. So what do you do with this kind of individual/entity, this mad-man ? Today he does not have the means to kill you ; however there is a possibility, however remote, that in the future, he can attain the capability to kill you.
Do you kill him pre-emptively today or do you wait till he has acquired the means to kill you, leading to mutual destruction. Since, you do not wish to die you follow the 'survival instinct' and kill him first, when you have the opportunity ?
However, International Law is contrary to this survival logic. It states that till you are "attacked" by an entity, you do not have the right to retaliate. It is based on the assumption that all countries share the idea of tolerance, fair-play and dignity of human life.
Frankly, some of them don't. It is a beautiful law when applied in an ideal world. However, we do not live in an ideal world. But the relevance of International Law also cannot be denied as without this semblance of order, the world will become a chaotic place. It will be in effect declaring that 'might is right' and the law of the jungle prevails.
Every country may have it's own set of relative values and principles. But there are some "absolutes" in our Global village (tolerance, non-agression, fair-play, etc.) that are, and should be, non-negotiable.
"Does a country have the right to affect a regime change in another country ?" Personally, I believe that if any country is DIGRESSING from the absolutes, then the answer has to be 'YES'. The only question is what parameters does one use for checking this digression and its potential magnitude?
Some people oppose war because a huge number of innocents will also be killed in the ensuing conflict . They should understand that in any war there are casualties. The innocent do die. Wars are fought on 'ideas' and sometimes should not be shied away from only because of the possible casualities.
Someone in the world has to do something about regimes that pose a threat to world peace and to the ideals that we hold onto so dearly. If the mad-man needs to be put out by force, then so be it, for he is not going to have a change of heart.
The "absolutes" need to be protected, even at the cost of an armed conflict.
The Doctrine, put roughly, says : "An entity has the right to strike pre-emptively on any source which it deems to be a threat to itself". It is the old self-defense argument cloaked in a new garb. If you know that your adversary will kill you, you have a right to kill him first, in self-defense. The Bush doctrine is taking this simple logic and stretching it. But what decide that the threat is "reasonable" enough?
Lets look at a scenario : You are rational, mature and educated individual. You value your life dearly and want to live peacefully without hurting anybody (lets say people like us). Suppose another person (lets call him the 'mad man') does not value his life that much. He is willing to kill and die for real and imagined causes. He thinks that you have wronged him in some manner and hence he should kill you. He does NOT share the same values of tolerance, fairplay and dignity of life. He is out to kill you regardless. No rational logic will appeal to him. So what do you do with this kind of individual/entity, this mad-man ? Today he does not have the means to kill you ; however there is a possibility, however remote, that in the future, he can attain the capability to kill you.
Do you kill him pre-emptively today or do you wait till he has acquired the means to kill you, leading to mutual destruction. Since, you do not wish to die you follow the 'survival instinct' and kill him first, when you have the opportunity ?
However, International Law is contrary to this survival logic. It states that till you are "attacked" by an entity, you do not have the right to retaliate. It is based on the assumption that all countries share the idea of tolerance, fair-play and dignity of human life.
Frankly, some of them don't. It is a beautiful law when applied in an ideal world. However, we do not live in an ideal world. But the relevance of International Law also cannot be denied as without this semblance of order, the world will become a chaotic place. It will be in effect declaring that 'might is right' and the law of the jungle prevails.
Every country may have it's own set of relative values and principles. But there are some "absolutes" in our Global village (tolerance, non-agression, fair-play, etc.) that are, and should be, non-negotiable.
"Does a country have the right to affect a regime change in another country ?" Personally, I believe that if any country is DIGRESSING from the absolutes, then the answer has to be 'YES'. The only question is what parameters does one use for checking this digression and its potential magnitude?
Some people oppose war because a huge number of innocents will also be killed in the ensuing conflict . They should understand that in any war there are casualties. The innocent do die. Wars are fought on 'ideas' and sometimes should not be shied away from only because of the possible casualities.
Someone in the world has to do something about regimes that pose a threat to world peace and to the ideals that we hold onto so dearly. If the mad-man needs to be put out by force, then so be it, for he is not going to have a change of heart.
The "absolutes" need to be protected, even at the cost of an armed conflict.
# posted by Abhijat @ 3:54 AM 
