Why war is the solution to our problems

British philosopher, former Oxford professor and director of the New College of Humanities, Anthony Clifford Grayling, published more than 30 professional and popular scientific books in the fields of philosophy, ethics, epistemology and the history of ideas. He believes that it is the duty of every intellectual to problematize what is taken for granted, and that this applies especially to philosophers.

...

Grayling study Steering - Research, published in 2017 as part of a book series Vices and virtues which was just published by IP Clio, translated by Ksenija Todorović, searches for the reasons why war is still accepted as inevitable. Meanwhile, due to the gloomy situation in Palestine, Ukraine and other war hotspots, this book has become even more relevant. In the light of recent events, it should be noted that Grayling, in the chapter on the future of war, lists sonic weapons as a major threat to humanity. Not long after this conversation, the conflict between the two nuclear powers, India and Pakistan, began, which further reminds us of the importance of Grayling's warnings.

"WEATHER" What is the role of philosophers and engaged intellectuals in the debate about war, considering that this discussion is mainly conducted in the field of specialized military and security sciences and diplomacy?

ANTHONY CLIFFORD GRAYLING: It is very important that the causes and nature of war be examined and understood in all their complexity and that they be discussed in the general public. Reducing the discussion to the military and diplomatic sphere is actually very limiting and implies the assumption that war is an option, a tool, sometimes a necessity in the current state of the world - it is "out there" and that's it. In order to challenge that assumption and try to eliminate the option of war from human action (or at least to reduce its frequency and consequences), it is necessary to present arguments and win debates about it. This is the duty of philosophy and the intellectual public.

In the book you describe your position as something "the closest one can be to pacifists, without being a pacifist himself". Based on such a world view, what are the most significant limitations of the nonviolent resistance movement?

The biggest obvious flaw is that pacifism allows warmongers a free pass since, at best, it offers nothing more inconvenient than passive resistance, which can be easily trampled by aggressors. Self-defense against aggressors who threaten to subjugate their own people and deny their guaranteed rights is completely justified; it is also justified to go to the defense of vulnerable populations facing the same threat. Initiating an attack is never justified: this should be taken for granted in a world already so disfigured by the horrors of war. My upcoming book For the people deals with the arms trade, which is the main cause (and not just the answer to the continuation) of armed conflicts in the world.

You write about the ease with which people accept dominant narratives about the necessity of war and the protection of national interests. How to fight warmongering rhetoric?

One way would be to more openly portray the reality of war in media reports and to be less accepting of films that glorify war and violence. It is strange that people can happily watch a war propaganda film, but are horrified and disturbed by the actual images of blown up and bleeding bodies - so television news is careful not to show "too much reality", while in movies blood is splattered everywhere. The combined effect of glorifying military heroism in film (and fiction in general) and masking real evidence of the impact of war on human life creates a bizarre distortion. Perhaps dramatic representations of conflict and its effects act as a kind of catharsis, but they also blunt reality by making it "safe", placing it in the frame of a movie that is "just" fiction, after which you can go out to dinner and talk about something else. The true representation of war is limited to televised images of bombed-out buildings and weeping women - but show people real mutilated bodies and victims screaming on hospital stretchers, and maybe people will understand the real cost.

U War you notice that nowadays "it is no longer possible to look at civil and interstate wars separately, without mixing them". How regional conflicts become proxy wars for major powers and why the current proxy wars seem so endless?

Aligning with one of the parties in a "local" war or civil war (many examples: Ukraine, Syria, Gaza, Lebanon, formerly Vietnam) aims to prevent the sponsoring power of the other party from increasing its influence or control over the region, without too much direct involvement and "boots on the ground" - that is, the use of money and weapons rather than direct support in international geopolitical action. This avoids problems with the "bodies in a bag" effect (weakening of support for a war if it results in a large number of casualties among soldiers - see the case of Afghanistan first for Russia, and later for the US and its allies). Supporting one side in a proxy war also drains resources from supporters of the other side, diverts attention from other issues in international tensions, and more importantly, can be accomplished without creating too many domestic political problems.

In the conclusion of the book, you write that the media's presentation of the truth about the war would stop the romanticization of the war"How about introducing disgusting truth therapy - dismembered bodies, blown up children, blood flowing into the drains, people screaming in pain or fear? How about presenting the truth as an antidote to war? " And yet, the possibility that people on social networks follow everything that civilians suffer in Gaza has not changed the general attitudes towards the war, rather, it led to the desensitization of observers to the horrors of war.

Television reports on Gaza mostly show destroyed buildings and children with bandages on one eye and the like - insidiously, this is a "cosmetic" version of the horror. It's amazing how quickly pictures get banned on social media. I saw the hanging of Saddam Hussein on social media (horrific experience) a few hours before that footage was deleted - the question is who and how decides which viral footage gets blocked. There is no doubt that they exist Dark web ways to access credible footage, but as a regular social media user I don't know how to do that, and the regulations that dictate what can be shown on mainstream media greatly limit the portrayal of "real reality". It's true that truthful visual reporting might distract people from watching and therefore won't have the desired effect of educating people about the reality of war and strengthening their resolve to stop it, but on the other hand, the current state of acceptance of war is simply not good enough.

Desensitization to violence is a risk - but the most important thing is accurate and uncensored information about anything, including the reality of war. The availability of such information causes people to consider whether they want to continue to accept war - including the burden of military costs - as something inevitable, about which there is nothing we can do. At the very least, the availability of information provides a strong incentive to bring perpetrators of war crimes to justice in a way that will deter other militaries from violating international humanitarian law.

You also write about the causes of wars.. Could you assess the causes of the Yugoslav wars and whether they could have been avoided?

It is a very complex problem that would require a return to the history of the Ottoman presence in the Balkans, perhaps even further to the Roman conquests - because the establishment of ethnic groups and religious communities in the region, with the traces left by periodic upheavals among them, repeatedly covered the development of perception and tensions. The tragedy of the region could have been avoided if the toxic effects of "identity" politics and feelings had been eliminated in time - I assume that Tito's politics and personality were largely responsible for maintaining a kind of "convivence" (peaceful coexistence) for a certain time, by limiting the influence of identity issues, which then reappeared in the process of Yugoslavia's disintegration. The strength of the sense of identity, and especially Serbian nationalism, makes coexistence in a region like the Balkans insecure at times when socio-economic pressures are increasing. I am not speaking here as an expert, but as an ordinary observer.

You write about the consequences of war., what would you say to readers from the area of ​​the former Yugoslavia?

Throughout history, the process of survival, restoration, trying to fix something, eradicating the causes of divisions within and between peoples, was long-standing. Humanity is still in its infancy, still immature - resorting to violence to solve problems is tangible proof of that. If anything useful can be taken from difficult periods of upheaval and conflict, it is the determination to be more mature, more thoughtful, and to seek strategies and agreements that will ensure and preserve peace, because peace is the basis for almost all the good that human beings are capable of.