Pacifism

Pacifism is a topic that has elicited fierce debates in many parts of the world, with people having varied opinions about it. However, pacifism can be preferable in some situations although it can be irrelevant at times. In many cases, pacifism of any nature whether it is religious or political has more benefits when applied compared to when it is not. This is because the sole philosophy behind this concept is opposed to war, or it proposes peaceful settlement of conflicts. In other words, pacifism has more things that are positive and should be embraced in most if not all situations.

Peaceful approaches in solving disputes can be said to be beneficial to a society in a number of factors. First, war is an expensive affair. This means that using war to solve conflicts comes with immense budgetary repercussions that are left in the hands of a country’s budget. This means that a country can spend a lot of money pursuing its enemies by means of war and destroy lives. For instance, the engagement of the United States of America is the Middle East is a historical event that has led to colossal unnecessary federal spending. The United States reportedly experienced economic down turn with some economists attributing this to the military operations in the Middle East. In addition, many soldiers have lost their lives in the war, leading to a public demand that the war be terminated. It is arguably true that these huge sums of money could not have been spent if peaceful approaches were used. After all, the region is still unstable, meaning that war could not have been the best way to solve the problem. Pacifists can use this argument to support their views especially by using the results of war.

Pacifism is also sensitive to the future of the human race. This is because it is built upon the fact that war can destroy an entire society. This implies that war can lead to wiping of an entire population and even lead to long-term effects of the war. A good example of this possibility is the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki using atomic bombs. From this event, people living around this place are still affected by the chemicals that are used to make such weapons. Some people are born with biological defects while other suffered different health problems from the effects of the bombs. If peaceful negotiations were used by the involved countries, this could not have happened and the effects seen today would not have been there. If pacifism is also sought in the current stalemate between Iran and the United States, another effect of war such as the one witnessed in Japan could be avoided.

A case for humanitarian intervention

As much as people may want to be left alone to enjoy freedom, the world should regulate and monitor how this is done. The monitoring should be done via intergovernmental operations. This means that humanitarian intervention should be coordinated and supervise ethically for the benefit of the targeted populations. This should be the new rule because collective measures are likely to yield fair and just reason as to why a war should be launched in certain cases. This means that there should be a collective responsibility of justifying a war, especially when defending the innocent.

According to the just war theory, war should be used sensibly especially by controlling the manner in which armed forces are organized. Such organizations should reach an agreement to venture into a war if there are sufficient reasons to do so, especially on humanitarian grounds. This implies that weapons should be handled in the most humane manner with the ultimate aim of establishing peace and justice. The Arab revolution in the recent past is a superb example of how just war can be used. It was evident beyond a reasonable doubt that the people of Libya have suffered so much in the hands of their slain leader Muammar Gaddafi. The decision by NATO to launch attacks against that Gaddafi regime was reached after it was agreed that these people deserved their freedom back. Although the decision by the allied forces attracted some criticism from some quotas, it can be defended by the fact that involved countries have no common political interests.

The ongoing debate about Syria is a case that can be used to sort out the question of who to protect and who not to protect on a humanitarian basis. The ruling regime that has been branded as autocratic by the people of Syria is equally determined that it crashes any opposition that may arise. The incidents there show that it may be impossible for ordinary citizens to free themselves. Under such a situation, a just war approach should be considered with the aim of identifying who to protect. If what we see in such incidents is anything to go by, then a humanitarian action ought to be taken in the form of war for the sake of the citizens. The most valuable thing is to use a new intervention rule that will involve a reasonable global venture. Otherwise, deliberating about such decision individually may not work well because any war that would benefit a nation will be justified, leading a war prone world. The reason why there have been frequent wars after the World War II is that involved nations had private agendas, some of which were not accomplished to hitherto. Therefore, a war should be justified on an international platform.