In Defence of Preventive War

Abstract

Emeritus Professor of Economics at McGill University, Irving Brecher's most recent article, Terrorism, Freedom, and Social Justice, appeared in International Journal (winter 2001-2002). He was also editor of Human Rights Development and Foreign Policy: Canadian Perspectives (Halifax: Institute Research on Public Policy 1989); and co-editor (with Donald J. Savoie) of Equity and Efficiency in Economic Development: Essays in Honour of Benjamin Higgings (Montreal & Kingston: McGill-Queen's University Press 1992).FORMER US PRESIDENT JIMMY CARTER--a richly deserving recipient of 2002 Nobel Peace Prize--has said War may sometimes be a necessary evil. But no matter how necessary, it is always an evil, never a good.(1) I respectfully disagree, because a negative event like war, with its toll on human lives, may produce a highly positive outcome like enhanced global freedom. Indeed, a war that simply stops gross human rights abuses in a single country, or that saves a country from an aggressor, may be said to have brought about a good.President Carter has also declared that for powerful countries to adopt a principle of preventive war may well set an example that can have catastrophic consequences.(2) With this I agree. I must, however, add obvious truth that possibility of catastrophic consequences is not synonymous with their inevitability.THE LOGIC OF PREVENTIVE WARAt first glance, logic of any country striking a perceived enemy before being attacked may seem fatally flawed--bearing in mind that such preventive or pre-emptive action, apparently, has no standing in international law.(3) There are, however, related precedents. Consider United States' air strike on Libya in 1986, NATO's 78-day aerial bombing of former Yugoslavia in 1999, or ongoing search international consensus on preconditions justifiable humanitarian intervention in killing fields created by bitter civil wars or totalitarian repression.The issue of preventive war, however, goes much deeper. There are, of course, those who, on pacifist grounds, oppose any kind of war. There are also those who argue that 11 September 2001 attacks on United States will ultimately take their place, alongside other awful acts of terror, as relatively low bumps on long road towards world peace. I do not share either of these views. Indeed, I submit that 9/11--in its global scope, in manner of its execution, in its choice of targets, and in its economic and psychological impact on world's only super-power--will persist as a sea change in thought and action throughout 21st century. From this perspective, I believe that case preventive war, given some vital constraints, is a compelling one.FOUR CONSTRAINING TESTSI begin by emphasizing that dialogue and diplomacy are always preferred instrument seeking security and peace, and that unconstrained preventive war leaves us in a world where every country is self-judging [in] what it does [about national security], and that leads to world anarchy.(4) In latter context, therefore, the search legitimacy has to be taken [very] seriously.(5)In an ideal world, a predominantly democratic, cohesive international community would select and remove--preferably by diplomacy, but by force, if necessary--any national government deemed to be brutalizing its own people. Unfortunately, we are far from that kind of world; but by no means does this imply that gross violations of human rights should be subject only to verbal condemnation. On contrary, absence of such abuse should be viewed as one of several major gateways through which any country must pass in order to avoid preventive attack. In other words, gross human-rights abuse is a necessary, but not sufficient, condition legitimate preventive war.A second important prerequisite is possession of weapons of mass destruction (WMDs)-chemical, biological, and/or, most alarmingly, nuclear. …