War and Compromise Between Nations and States: Political Issues Under Debate – Vol. 4

287 Pages·2020·3.637 MB·English

by  Egbert Jahn

Egbert Jahn
War and Compromise
Between Nations
and States
Political Issues Under Debate – Vol. 4
War and Compromise Between Nations
and States
Egbert Jahn
War and Compromise
Between Nations
and States
–
Political Issues Under Debate Vol. 4
Translated by Anna Güttel-Bellert
EgbertJahn
UniversityofMannheim
Mannheim,Baden-Württemberg,Germany
Translatedby
AnnaGüttel-Bellert
Berlin,Germany
ISBN978-3-030-34130-5 ISBN978-3-030-34131-2 (eBook)
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-34131-2
TranslationfromtheGermanlanguageedition:
“PolitischeStreitfragen-Band5:KriegundKompromisszwischenNationenundStaaten”
byEgbertJahn,#SpringerVS2019
#SpringerNatureSwitzerlandAG2020
Thisworkissubjecttocopyright.AllrightsarereservedbythePublisher,whetherthewholeorpartofthe
materialisconcerned,specificallytherightsoftranslation,reprinting,reuseofillustrations,recitation,
broadcasting,reproductiononmicrofilmsorinanyotherphysicalway,andtransmissionorinformation
storageandretrieval,electronicadaptation,computersoftware,orbysimilarordissimilarmethodology
nowknownorhereafterdeveloped.
Theuseofgeneraldescriptivenames,registerednames,trademarks,servicemarks,etc.inthispublication
doesnotimply,evenintheabsenceofaspecificstatement,thatsuchnamesareexemptfromtherelevant
protectivelawsandregulationsandthereforefreeforgeneraluse.
The publisher, the authors, and the editorsare safeto assume that the adviceand informationin this
bookarebelievedtobetrueandaccurateatthedateofpublication.Neitherthepublishernortheauthorsor
theeditorsgiveawarranty,expressorimplied,withrespecttothematerialcontainedhereinorforany
errorsoromissionsthatmayhavebeenmade.Thepublisherremainsneutralwithregardtojurisdictional
claimsinpublishedmapsandinstitutionalaffiliations.
ThisSpringerimprintispublishedbytheregisteredcompanySpringerNatureSwitzerlandAG.
Theregisteredcompanyaddressis:Gewerbestrasse11,6330Cham,Switzerland
Preface
Thisisthefourthvolumeintheseries“PoliticalIssuesUnderDebate”.Thefirstthree
volumes International Politics, German Domestic and Foreign Policy and World
PoliticalChallengeswerepublishedin2015.Thisnewvolumefocuseson“Warand
Compromise Between Nations and States”. Here, the term “states” refers to the
193 member states of the United Nations, which mutually recognise each other as
sovereign (nation) states, and the small number of de facto states that are not
internationally recognised. “Nations” here refers to large societal groups, usually
consistingofbetweenmorethantenthousandandonebillionpeople,amongwhom
eithermajorityaspiretoanexistingstateorwhowishtoformorreinstatetheirown
nationstate.Accordingly,adifferentiationshouldbemadebetweenstatenationsand
statelessnations.Thedesirefornationstatehoodcanalsobelimitedtotheestablish-
mentofamemberstateinafederalstateoranautonomousterritoryandinrarecases
also to a personal-cultural corporation. In such cases, nations exist in a (federal)
nation,inthesamewayastherearealso(member)stateswithin(federal)states.
ThecreationofnationstatesaftertheUSAmericanandFrenchrevolutionsatthe
end of the eighteenth century, in which the (national) sovereignty of the people
forged the legitimisation for the modern state, has involved numerous, often
extremelybloody and barbaric,wars.They split populationsofpolyethnic empires
into enemy nations while at the same time also welding them together. Thus, war
simultaneouslyhasadisintegrativeandanintegrativefunction.Peaceoftentakesthe
formofapeacethroughvictory,andisthustheresultofadiktat,achievedthrough
military action, by one warring party over the other, who has suffered a heavy
military defeat. In some cases, however, nation sates can separate peacefully from
pre-nationorfederalnationsates,aswasthecasewithNorway,Slovakia,theUnion
republicsoftheSovietUnionandMontenegro.Insuchcases,peaceistheresultof
negotiationsthathaveledtoapoliticalcompromisebetweenthedisputingnations.
Currently, the aspiration among stateless nations for a state of their own and
national conflicts over territories are still playing a significant role and create the
potentialforwar.Peaceandconflictresearchersaresearchingforopportunitiesfora
peacefulcompromisebetweentheconflictingparties,ideallybeforeapotentialwar
breaksout.However,thisapproachisalsoappliedaftersuchawar,sincefrequently
aftersuchawarhascometoanend,preparationsarealreadymadeforthenextone,
in order to revoke the unsatisfactory, unsatisfying result of the previous one. After
v
vi Preface
all, peace through victory rarely creates a lasting peace. Real peace cannot be
secureduntilapoliticalcompromisehasbeenachieved.
Thisvolumefocusesonthetwoaspectsofthisproblem.Ontheonehand,itlooks
attheissueofguiltinwarsofaggressionandincidentsofmassmurder(Chap.1)and
anti-terrorist violence (Chap. 2), while on the other, it discusses several specific
nationalconflicts,suchasthedisputesurroundingislandsandsmallerlandfeatures
intheSouthChinaSeathathavethepotentialtoescalateintoaworldwar(Chap.3)
andthewarsinUkraine(Chaps.7and8)andinSyria(Chap.10).Itremainsuncertain
whether efforts to attain national independence in Catalonia and the insistence by
Spainoncentraliststatehoodwillleadtoextensiveviolence(Chap.14).Againstthis
background,itmakessensetoexamineingreaterdetailthewayinwhichotherstates
handlenationalandlinguistic-culturalconflictsinapeacefulmanner.Inthisvolume,
Switzerland (Chap. 15) and Canada (Chap. 13) serve as examples. Here, complex
compromiseshavebeenachieved,whichfromtimetotimehavebeenadaptedtonew
requirementsoverthecenturies.
Thetwentiethcenturywasdominatedbytheeast–westconflict,i.e.betweenthe
socio-political, liberal democratic capitalist and socialist-bureaucratic communist
orders, both of which claimed the sole right to representation of mankind on the
global political stage. Both orders competed with each other when it came to
integration. They had their most powerful protagonists in the USA (Chap. 4) and
in the Soviet Union. In this volume, their fundamental concept of peace will be
examined in greater detail and in the case of the Soviet Union also the ideas for a
“solutiontothenationalquestions”withinandbetweenthestates(Chap.9).
While for many contemporaries, the European Union had long been considered
an alternative to the nation state, it is increasingly evident today that European
politics still has no consistent answer to the wide range of national issues. These
includemigrationbetweentheEUstatesandmigrationfromoutsidetheEUintothe
Union,whichisdiscussedinthesectionsonBrexit(Chap.12)andtheGermanand
European refugee policy (Chap. 11, which has been published already in:
МИРОВАЯ ЭКОНОМИКА И МЕЖДУНАРОДНЫЕ ОТНОШЕНИЯ 2016
том60№9and№10).ThereismuchtosuggestthattheEUwillonlysurviveinthe
futureasaunionofevermorecloselycooperatingnationsatesandnationalcitizens,
andnotasaunionofpurelyEUcitizenswithoutanationstatebase.
The volume is rounded off by two articles on the fundamental policy of
non-violence, the most important inspiration for which came from Mohandas
K. Gandhi. One article focuses on the role of Gandhi in the struggle for Indian
nationalindependence(Chap.5)andtheotheronhisuniversalimportance(Chap.6).
This goes far beyond peace policies between nations as a form of diplomatic
compromisebystateleadershipsandleadstoquestionsregardingtheopportunities
and limitations of peace policies in civil society. As already suggested in Volume
4,thestudiespresentedindicatethatpeacepoliciesthathavethepotentialtosucceed,
and which aspire to long-term world peace, should be regarded as a multidimen-
sional process that combines strictly non-violent civil society movements with
low-levelviolentstatepolicies,whichbothmustattempttofindwaysofregulating
conflictsbetweenthenationsandstates.
Preface vii
The texts in this volume were written in preparation for lectures which I have
beenregularlygivingsinceMay2004,inotherwords,towardstheendofmyregular
professional activity, under the heading “Controversial Political Issues from the
PerspectiveofContemporaryHistory”(PolitischeStreitfrageninzeitgeschichtlicher
Perspektive).After fifteenyears, sixty-six lecturesonhotlydebatedpolitical topics
from all over the world are now available in print. All have been published in
German, almost all in English and many also in Russian. Until December 2009,
these lectures were given at the University of Mannheim, where I held the profes-
sorshipforPoliticalScienceandContemporaryHistoryfrom1993to2005,andfrom
October 2009 onwards at the Johann Wolfgang Goethe University in Frankfurt-
Main,whereIamstillalecturertoday.There,IwasProfessorforPoliticalScience
andPoliticalSociologyfrom1975to1993,andfrom1971to1990alsoworkedasan
academic specialist and then research director at the Peace Research Institute
Frankfurt (Hessische Stiftung Friedens- und Konfliktforschung). These lectures are
attendedbybothregularstudentsandmanyseniorcitizensfromthe“Universityof
theThirdAge”,asthismostworthyestablishmentisrathereuphemisticallyknown.
Iunderstandpoliticalscienceasbeingastudyofpoliticsthatisnotreallyableto
be unbiased and impartial, since all the key elements of this field of science
inevitablyinvokevaluejudgement.However,onecanandshouldbeverycautious
when it comes to expressing political value judgements and using strongly biased
and emotional language. To the extent that political recommendations are given,
they should expressly be identified as such, so that an analysis of the past and a
prognosis of what is possible and probable in the future on the one hand and
normative statements on the other can remain clearly separate from each other. In
myview,contemporaryhistoricalscienceisanessentialbranchofpoliticalscience,
and was also undisputedly so when after 1945 political science was established at
Germanuniversitiesasascienceofdemocracy.
Contemporaryhistoryashistorythatextendsintothefutureis,Ibelieve,aglobal
historyoftheeraofthesovereigntyofthepeopleasaconceptthatisgraduallybeing
asserted.Untilnow,ithasbeendividedintothreetime periods: the“longcentury”
from1176/1789to1917,inwhichtheforcesforformingmodernliberalandsocial
democracy slowly unfolded; the “short century” from 1917 to 1991, which was
characterisedbyantagonismbetweenliberaldemocraciesandtheircommunistand
NationalSocialist/fascistantipodes;andthenewcenturythatbeganin1991.During
this latter century, it is clear that new, serious challenges such as the Islamist-
theocratic one have emerged for the democracies. Over the coming decades, they
arecertaintobejoinedbyothers.Violent,belligerentpoliticswillnotdisappearfrom
thescene,andwilltimeandagainraisequestionsaboutthepossibilitiesforpeaceful
politics. It remains an objective of peace and conflict research to explore possible
answerstothesequestions.
Ofallformsofrule,democracyistheonethatrequiresindependentlyjudgingand
responsible political citizens. The citizen who regards him or herself as being
apoliticalisunavoidablypoliticalinthesensethattheysupportthecurrentpolitical
rulers by declining to give their vote for a better alternative. For democracy, it is
moretruethanforallotherformsofrulethatthepopulationofeverycountryhasthe
viii Preface
governmentthatitdeserves;ifapopulationwishestoseeimprovementsingovern-
ment, it must first improve itself. What is meant by this is that it must improve its
powerofpoliticaljudgementanditspoliticalactivity.Inademocracy,everycitizen
ofagerepresentsonevoteinelectionsandreferendathatisnon-transferable.
As someone who has had the privilege of being able to study politics and its
socio-historicalbackgroundandoriginsforalmostallmylife,IhopethatInowhave
a certain ability to critically examine current events and to procure background
informationthatenablesotherstotraintheirpowerofpoliticaljudgement,regardless
oftheirnationalityorfundamentalpoliticalconvictions.Forthisreason,Ialsopermit
myself to address topics about which I have not conducted my own thorough
research. With a brief analysis with a contemporary historical reference point, my
aimistoenabletheaudienceandreadersofmylecturestofurtherdeveloptheirown
politicaljudgementgroundedintheirpreviousknowledge,theirvaluepremisesand
interests and inevitably also their unrecognised and unconscious prejudices, by
clarifyingtherequisites,contextsandpossibleconsequencesofthisorthatpolitical
decision.Thelectureswouldfailintheirspiritandpurposeiftheyweretobejudged
according to the conclusions at which I arrive more or less clearly and decisively
withregardtothedebatedissueinquestionattheendofthelecture.Toafargreater
extent, what matters is whether the listeners and readers can profit from my
observations in that they are able to recognise new dimensions, requisites and
possible consequences of the subject under dispute, and of the dispute itself, of
which they had not previously been aware. Some of the reactions I have received
fromlistenersandreadershaveconfirmedthatthishassucceededinsomecases,and
thisgivesmeencouragementtocontinuewiththeexperiment.
Ascientistshouldnotmisusetheirlecternforpoliticalsermonsandconfessions
offaith,butshouldilluminateaconflictfromallpossibleandusefulpoliticalsides,
analyseitcarefullyintermsofitselementsandthereasonswhyitemergedandthen
represent and explain it in terms of its social and historical development. Conse-
quently,five-sixthsofthelectureconsistsofscientificanalysis:acloserdefinitionof
the subject of dispute, the citing of the most important positions held in the public
sphereinrelationtoit,anexplanationofthehistoricalbackgroundtothedisputeand
a presentation of the likely consequences that the realisation of the one or other
politicalpositionmighthave.
Duringmytimeteachingatuniversity,studentswouldoccasionallyaskmeabout
mypersonalpoliticalviewsonissuesandcurrentaffairsandwerenotsatisfiedwith
onlyhearingascientificanalysis.Iwasopenaboutmypoliticalopinionasacitizen
onthematterinquestion,notonlyinpersonalconversationsbutalsointhelecture
hall or seminar room. During the lectures on political issues under debate, I now
expressmyownideasfromthestart.Inaseparatefifthsection,Igiveabriefoutline
ofhowinmyviewtheissueinquestionmightbedealtwithinapeaceful political
way, which I would recommend to politicians or political activists if they were to
seekmyadviceorreadmylecturescripts,ashasoccasionallybeenthecase.
In order to make the considerable amount of work required to cover each topic
more worthwhile, I produce a text of strictly limited length which I then make
availableon the Internet. However, Ialwaysgive the lecture freely, since a lecture
Preface ix
shouldnotbesimplyreadoutfromawrittendocument.Asaresult,thereisaclear
difference between the manuscript that I have created and the more precise and
detailedoralpresentationoftheissuesunderdebate.Quitefrequently,currentevents
fromthesameweekormonth,andsometimesevenfromthesamemorning,havean
impactonthetopicofthelecture.Ithereforesometimesmakedirectassociationsin
thelecturewithcurrentdevelopments,whicharenotincludedinthewrittenversion.
Formylectures,Iamable todraw onarich source ofmaterial andexperiences
gathered from over forty years of research activity on issues relating to east–west
relations and sociopolitical developments in the former communist-ruled countries
of Europe, as well as on national movements, nationalism and the formation of
nationstates.However,IalsopermitmyselftoapproachtopicsaboutwhichIhave
not formerly conducted any research of my own, for which I draw solely on
secondary literature and current newspaper reports and documents. In order to
checkmyfindingsandopinionsonthedifferentpositionsinthedispute,Isendthe
manuscript of each lecture to specialist colleagues with specific expertise in the
relevantcountryandsubjectofthelectureandaskfortheircriticalfeedback.Iwish
tooffermyheartfeltthankstoallthesefriendsandcolleagues,allofwhomIcannot
namehere,fortheirideasandobjections.Iwouldalsoliketothankthelistenerswho
gavemesomevaluablesuggestionsandwhowiththeirusefulquestionsandintelli-
gentcriticismcontributedtothefinaltext.Thegratifyinglevelofinterestduringthe
courseofthepasttenyearsandtheinformedquestionsandcriticalcommentsoffered
by my listeners and readers encourages me to continue the experiment of the
50 lectures that I have given to date on the ongoing subject of “Controversial
PoliticalIssuesfromthePerspectiveofContemporaryHistory”inthefuture.
MyparticularthanksgotoAnnaGüttel-Bellertforhermeticuloustranslationand
excellent cooperation in the sometimes difficult process of rendering specialist
political terminology, which is loaded with bias, from German into English. Once
again, my heartfelt thanks go to the publishing company and its staff, in particular
Mr. Johannes Glaeser. They have shown great understanding for a project by a
politicalscientistandpeaceandconflictresearcherwhowishestotacklecontrover-
sialcurrentpoliticalissueswithexpertsocio-historicalarguments.
Aswiththefirstvolumes,Iwouldagainliketoinvitereaderstovoicetheircritical
objections, comments and questions. I can be contacted directly at the following
emailaddress:[email protected]@soz.uni-frankfurt.de
MannheimandFrankfurt/Main EgbertJahn
July2019
Contents
1 GuiltinWarsofAggressionandMassMurders:Who
IsthePerpetrator,WhoIsResponsible?. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
1.1 OntheDifferenceBetweenLegalandPolitical-Moral
Guilt. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
1.2 ResponsibilityforPoliticalActsofViolenceasMerit
orasGuilt. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
1.3 TheSlowHistoricalProcessoftheDelegitimisation
ofForeignRule,WarandPoliticalMassMurder. . . . . . . . . . . 8
1.4 TheTentativeAdmissionofGuiltinWarsandActsofMass
Murder. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
1.5 Future-OrientedAwarenessofOne’sOwnPotentialGuilty
Behaviour,InsteadofthePredominantDemand
forPunishmentandCompensationfortheGuiltofOthers. . . . 16
1.6 YetinMostCases,ItIstheOthersWhoAreStillRegarded
asBeingGuilty. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
References. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
2 OntheImpossibilityofRemainingInnocentWhenanAeroplane
IsHijackedbyTerrorists. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
2.1 TheKillingofInnocentsastheLesserEvilintheFace
ofPotentialMassMurder. . . .. . . . . .. . . . .. . . . . .. . . . . .. 22
2.2 TheProhibitionIssuedbytheFederalConstitutionalCourt
onKillingInnocentPeopleinOrdertoPreventMassMurder
astheFocusofCriticism. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
2.3 OntheDifferenceBetweenthePlayandtheReal-LifeEvents
of11September2001. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
2.4 “SupportforTerror”Versus“EmergencyBeyondtheLaw”. . . 31
2.5 OntheDifferenceBetweenLegalandMoralGuilt. . . . . . . . . 34
2.6 ThePotentialImpactoftheTVFilm. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37
References. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38
xi