Rawen's Musings

We sadly live in a time of a lot of unnecessary conflicts. And because we like to stand on the “right side of history”, we tend to take sides with which we sympathise with. But that choice may not be as straight-forward. And we quickly forget that there are two basic rules, at least by my book, which should be applied at the same time.

---

Fighting for independence and/or recognition and self-determination doesn’t give you permission to commit acts of terror or oppression.

AND

Defence against acts of terror doesn’t give you right permission to oppress and/or erase your perceived enemy.

---

For starters, a little confession from my end. I … originally only followed the first one. Mainly because I have a small personal beef with various kinds of activism where even if I relate to the idea they’re fighting for, I so strongly disagree with the methods that it often buries the message. And let’s be honest, the kinds that are usually the most visible still give me the idea that there’s something wrong between their ears. I’ll be taking a look at this too in the series but not right now. It was the recent developments in the world that started forming the second part and eventually set it in the stone with that strong AND between them.

Alright, let’s dive into the first one. The reason why that formed initially and where it comes from is mainly due to my place of origin. I come from a country that was effectively deleted from the face of Europe for 3 centuries, integrated into one of the powerful monarchies. Then, once we got our recognition, we got screwed over by the West and East alike (hence why I sometimes crawl up the wall when talking about this stuff with Westerners). During these times however, we always fought for our recognition and at least some bits of independence but largerly without acts of open terror. Attacking civilians was pretty much a no-no, even though we would be in a position to pass the message throuhg these means. Hell, we ended the “Red Overlords” era through peaceful revolution. One could say, dressed in velvet (wink wink).

So whenever I see people fighting for these values and going as far as attacking everyone, effectively appliying collective punishment (I’ll be getting separately into this too), I can’t really sympathise with that. Because by doing this, you throw away any moral high ground you would have, undermining your goal. Because if you’re capable of doing this to someone else, what guarantee can you give me that I won’t be your target at some point?

Now for the second part. This comes with the view of the recent conflicts, one that is extremely uncomfortably close and the other that’s boiled over into a total mess. In the case of the former, it is built on a false premise and delusion of grandeur but it still provides crucial base for the idea. Because even if the issues the “protectors” are addressing exist, they have no right to act in the manner they are under any and all circumstances. At most, a joint defence force should be applied and copious amounts of diplomacy should be done. But well, the “protector” in this case has no ground to stand on and needs a swift kick in the teeth to wake up.

In the other mentioned conflict which has been decades long mess from the start, it very nicely fits into the quote at the beginning. Mainly because the reaction of the defender is insanely disproportionate and at this point devoid of its original cause. And the lack of scrutiny from allies seriously undermines the values they often uphold. Simply put, just because you got punched doesn’t mean you can burn your attacker and their family alive. And then raze the entire town they lived in to make a point.

So, let’s tie the two quotes together. Because they MUST apply BOTH AT THE SAME TIME. Why? Because if one doesn’t, then you allow for enforcing the will of one or the other through means of power. And if you allow for such, then no amount of rules matter. If the former isn’t observed, then you can extort people by attacking innocents. If the latter isn’t observed, then we’re living in a world where the strogner are free to oppress the weaker, effectively dialing back to pre-historic ages.

So, my dear reader, whenever you take a look at a conflict and want to pick a side, make sure that side observes the above rules. And if it doesn’t think about your decision. Because sometimes the choice may not be simply binary, no matter how much we’d like it to be.

R.R.A.