War, Pacifism and the Nation State

There has always been an element of pacifism running through the psyche of mankind. From the dawn of civilisation, man has given a high value to peace and has condemned and punished killing within both his group and his species. However, whilst peace has been a moral imperative it has also been, and still is, very precarious. Indeed, the concept of Just wars and bad wars was created in order to give validity to his war making desires. The Just war helped to ease the Christian conscience so that there could be a distinction between wars that were permissible and wars that were not. The Crusades are a classic example of the justification of a war to give it credibility.

However, there have always been dissenters who insist that war is irredeemably wrong. They have spoken out against the evil of war but it had little effect. It was not until the time of the Revolutionary and Napoleonic Wars that things began to change. Their savagery and duration shocked the sensibilities of people and had a similar effect on people’s opinions as the battles of the First World War. It led to an attempt by the victors and the vanquished to create a more stable international order, a status reinforced by the increasing industrialisation of society and the rich profits that they could reap which could only really be achieved in a peaceful world.

However, things never work that smoothly or logically and wars continued to be fought culminating in the shocking destruction of the First World War. The scale of destruction of humanity and property acted as a catalyst for a more radical approach. The League of Nations made the first move towards more peaceful relations between countries to try and temper the unwritten right to make Just war.

If one malefactor committed a recognisable misdemeanour then it was perfectly acceptable for the victim and/or their agent i.e. another country to give retribution. The League of Nations attempted, unsuccessfully, to annul this right but success did come with the inauguration of the United Nations after the Second World War. As part of its founding ethos the UN took away the state’s right to make war and, up until recently, most states have respected this.

Up until now I have been looking at the macro opinion, in other words that of the state. But what of the general populace? What opinions did they have? In the past, they have never had much of a voice as wars affected few of them directly and even fewer indirectly. The rise of the popular press and the beginning of modern democracy boosted their chances of being heard and, together with their increased exposure and participation in conflicts, whether willingly or unwilling, it gave their attitudes to war a new significance. The people were now better informed on war’s capabilities and destructiveness.

However, despite this increased exposure, this phenomenon did not add much weight to pacifism. The popular majority, and I include members of peace societies amongst them, have either openly or tacitly approved the wars that their states have involved them in despite their increasing destructiveness. Things are beginning to move away from this view as evidenced by the recent and on-going protests against the war in Iraq. Whilst only a small percentage of the population took to the streets to protest, there was a distinct sense of general unease about the reasons for the war and a number of countries were openly against it. However, once we were involved the general populace got behind the troops and the sacrifices they were making.