Engineering Ethics - Academic Journal Article Analysis ( 4 pages)

Chapter 3 Engineering for Peace

The reader may perhaps wonder, as I now myself, that knowing the state of the vile traffic to be as I have here described, and abounding with enormities which I have not mentioned, I did not at the time start with horror at my own employment as an agent in promoting it. Custom, example and interest had blinded my eyes [1].

3.1 Introduction

The greatest tragedy of contemporary engineering is the design, manufacture and use of a great diversity of devastating and indiscriminate weapons. Challenging this grave misuse of engineering should be a very high priority for contemporary engineers. This chapter will build on the analysis of engineering as a practice presented in Chap. 2 to re-evaluate the contribution of engineering to war and peace. This will begin with the incorporation of reliable empirical evidence into an assessment of ‘just war’ theory. Data show that the victims of recent major wars have been mostly, often overwhelmingly, civilians: there is little evidence of discrimination and proportionality in the conduct of modern wars. Furthermore, the requirement of last resort in any commencement of war, a key aspect of ‘just war’ theory, is especially demanding for engineers, for they possess the knowledge and skills to ameliorate many of the root causes of conflict. Hence, much greater attention should be directed to the practical use of engineering resources to avert war. It will be concluded that the logical development of such reprioritisation is a commitment to use engineering knowledge and skills in just engineering—active peacemaking.

W. R. Bowen, Engineering Ethics, DOI: 10.1007/978-3-319-04096-7_3, � Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2014

35

3.2 Victims of Engineering

In November 2010, two sisters, Paeng, aged 15, and Piou, aged 10, were returning from school in central Laos when the younger girl picked up a small object to show her sister. She then threw it to the ground where it exploded. Both girls were taken to hospital in the capital, 3 h away. The younger girl bled to death 30 min after arrival in hospital. Her sister had severe fragmentation wounds in her neck, hand and hip [2].

The younger sister had picked up a cluster munition bomblet, probably dropped by US forces more than 30 years before.1 The design of these submunitions is such that many cause immediate and indiscriminate injury and death, but others remain unexploded until subsequently disturbed. These quiescent submunitions, which are small and often brightly coloured, are especially attractive to children. They have caused the injury and death of tens of thousands of civilians. The death of Piou and the severe injuries sustained by Paeng were typical for these weapons, but their case was especially poignant as it occurred whilst the first meeting of states party to the Convention on Cluster Munitions (CCM), which prohibits all use, stock- piling, production and transfer of such weapons, was taking place in Vientiane, also in Laos.

The design, manufacture and use of cluster munitions require the application of sophisticated engineering across the range of the discipline. Hence, in a real sense, Paeng and Piou were victims of engineering. They were two of the many such victims, for the greatest tragedy of the engineering profession is that during the twentieth and early twenty-first centuries generations of the most able engineers have worked on the development, manufacture and use of many types of weapons of indiscriminate effect and huge devastation potential. War has become the normal business of engineering: almost a third of engineers in the US are employed in military-related activities [4] and the largest single employer of engineers in the UK is an arms-producing company. The resources used are enormous, world military expenditure was at least US$1738 billion in 2011, with weapons sales exceeding US$411 billion [5].2

Such military engineering can be accompanied by an astonishing degree of ethical detachment on the part of individuals, commercial engineering enterprises and professional engineering associations. At the individual level, a leading exponent of ‘nuclear deterrence’ in the UK has described that issue as ‘intellec- tually congenial perhaps because of its combination of complexity and

1 A cluster munition is a means of delivering and scattering a large number of explosive submunitions (bomblets). A single cluster munition may scatter submunitions over an area of 1 km2. The number of submuntions delivered may be enormous: during the 1991 US operation ‘Desert Storm’ in Iraq it is estimated that 11,000,000 were fired from rockets, of which 220,248 were fired in the first 5 min [3]. 2 These figures represent minimum expenditures as much spending in support of military activities is hidden within civilian budgets.

36 3 Engineering for Peace

abstractness’ whilst advising that to reach the Soviet Union’s ‘threshold of horror’ would require up to ten million dead [6, 7]. Again, a senior engineer has described his early work as a weapons engineer dealing with sonar, radar, guns and missiles as the ‘fun hands-on part’ of his career [8]. Commercial engineering enterprises usually take great care to assess fully and make known the effect of their activities on persons, communities, the environment and the economy. However, the annual reports of arms companies do not record the number of civilians injured or killed by their products, and requests for such information are declined on the grounds of not commenting, on principle, on individual customers or individual contracts. Nevertheless, such information has been recorded: for example, analysis of Wikileaks documents shows that 201 civilians have been killed and 498 civilians injured in Iraq by weapons with components from Norwegian arms companies [9]. Finally, professional engineering associations can play an important role in leading informed debate about the role of engineering. However, their contribution to discussion of the suffering caused by military engineering is notably absent.

3.3 The Temptations of Military Technology

Certain types of weapons have been considered so horrendous that their use has been proscribed by international law. Important examples of such restrictions include the Biological and Toxin Weapons Convention (1972), the Chemical Weapons Convention (1993) and the recent Convention on Cluster Munitions (2010).3 These conventions have made valuable contributions to the protection of life. However, they also have limitations. For example, major producers and users of cluster munitions, including Israel, Russia and the United States, have not signed the CCM. Furthermore, there are always temptations to find ways around such legislation or to develop entirely new types of weapons. Two of the many such possibilities will be noted here: the use of drugs as weapons and the use of drones (unmanned aerial vehicles).

Governments, industries and universities are currently undertaking considerable work on military applications of new biological knowledge. Such approaches are often euphemistically described by their proponents as ‘drugs as weapons’ or ‘non- lethal weapons’ and typically target neurological activity, with possibilities for ethnic selectivity. There is ambiguity as to whether they are covered by the BTWC and CWC. Engineering skills are needed for the scale-up of the production, purification and encapsulation of the active ingredients of such weapons, and to

3 Biological and Toxin Weapons Convention (BTWC), Convention on the prohibition of the development, production and stockpiling of bacteriological (biological) and toxin weapons and on their destruction; Chemical Weapons Convention (CWC), Convention on the prohibition of the development, production, stockpiling and use of chemical weapons and on their destruction; Convention on Cluster Munitions (CCM).

3.2 Victims of Engineering 37

provide the theoretical and practical basis for their deployment, probably as dis- persed aerosols.

As the development of such weapons also requires medical skills, the British Medical Association (BMA), which represents doctors in the UK, has published a detailed assessment of the topic [10]. The overall conclusion is that ‘the BMA is fundamentally opposed to the use of any pharmaceutical agent as a weapon’, with key reasons including the need to uphold existing law unequivocally (BTWC and CWC) and the multiple, and probably insurmountable, difficulties that will prevent the use of pharmaceuticals as weapons without causing innocent deaths and dis- ability. This conclusion is consonant with the BMA’s overall guidance on the involvement of doctors in weapons development:

…the BMA considers that doctors should not knowingly use their skills and knowledge for weapons’ development…through their participation doctors are lending weapons a legit- imacy and acceptability that they do not warrant. Doctors may consider that they are, in fact, reducing human misery through their involvement, but in reality the proliferation of weapons shows this to be untrue [11].

This authoritative analysis should also give cause for concern to any engineer approached with a proposal for work in this area.

One of the key promoters of ethical action is proximity. Indeed, as noted in Chap. 1, an ethical act has been perceptively described as ‘a response to the being who in a face speaks to the subject and tolerates only a personal response’ [12]. Correspondingly, it is known that even highly trained soldiers are averse to killing at close range. However, a major current technological priority is the development and use of sophisticated weapons that allow remotely controlled killing at great distances, particularly aerial drones but also land and sea equivalents. These are an attractive option for the military due to their relative cheapness in comparison with manned equipment and because there is essentially no risk to their operators.

Drones are widely used in Afghanistan whilst being controlled from Nevada, USA. Some are used for surveillance, but others are equipped with bombs and missiles. The latter are reported to cause many civilian casualties, though quan- titative data are difficult to obtain as they are often used in remote areas with inadequate monitoring of effects. Well-informed and expert analysts have expressed great concern about their use. Thus, a report to the United Nations General Assembly Human Rights Council [13] has described such weapons, which are operated through computer screens, as giving rise to a risk of a ‘Playstation’ mentality to killing. Again, one of the most senior UK judges has compared drones to internationally forbidden weapons such as land mines and cluster bombs, ‘so cruel as to be beyond the pale of human tolerance’ [14]. A further concern is that the development of drones has facilitated targeted killings (‘state-sanctioned assassinations’) outside of war zones. For example, there were more than 110 missile strikes by US drones in Pakistan during 2010, and they have been used in other states outside war zones, such as Yemen. Such use is authoritatively regarded as being in most circumstances illegal under international law. Human operators currently control most drones, but increasing automation is in progress with the

38 3 Engineering for Peace

aim of computer-controlled selection and destruction of targets. This creates a further distance between the initiator of the action and the victim, and makes less clear the allocation of ethical and legal responsibility for the action.4

Drugs as weapons and drones are just two of the very many types of weapons which are currently under engineering development, with potential for hugely deleterious effects on human wellbeing. Further analysis of the contribution of engineering to war and peace can begin by consideration of ‘just war’ theory.

3.4 ‘Just War’ Theory: A Preliminary Perspective

Recognition that war is one of the most vicious of human activities has led to the formulation of analyses that aim to limit its occurrence and extent, the best known of which is the theory of ‘just war’. The many formulations of this theory have subtle differences, but a representative account notes five requirements dealing with the decision to commence war (jus ad bellum) [15]: (i) there must be a just cause (such as to repel an aggressor); (ii) there must be a just intent (such as to restore peace and justice); (iii) war must be a last resort, every possibility of peaceful settlement having been exhausted; (iv) the declaration of war must be by a legitimate authority; (v) there must be a good prospect of success. There are two further requirements for the conduct of war (jus in bello): (vi) the innocent (civilian non-combatants) must not be directly attacked (acts should be discrimi- nate); (vii) the means used must be in proportion to the end in view. It is usually made clear that all of these conditions must be met for war to be considered just. Recent accounts also suggest that it is important to consider the likelihood of justice after the war (jus post bellum).

Just war theory has been subject to strong criticism. For example, the theory may be viewed as institutionalising conflict assumptions, as it assumes a culture of conflict rather than seeking to promote a culture of peace. The very concept of a ‘just’ war may be doubted, for armed conflict inevitably results in the death and injury of the innocent. The requirements represent a rather idealised state very different from the irrational political disputes that precede the start of wars and the chaotic conduct of wars. It has also been suggested that the very existence of a set of requirements of this sort makes war more likely, for they can be used speciously to justify war. For example, the doctrine may be used to provide justification for pre-emptive war or even preventive war, where any danger is distant, perhaps no

4 Proponents of such technology may refer to ‘autonomous’ systems able to make ‘decisions’. Such terminology seems intended to imply mind-like properties, possibly to distract from the responsibility of manufacturers and operators. However, such ‘autonomous’ drones remain machines.

3.3 The Temptations of Military Technology 39

more than a speculation. Nevertheless, these requirements may provide a useful framework for analysis and discussion. As will be described, the requirements of last resort, discrimination and proportionality are those which are most relevant to engineering.

A substantive recent consideration of the morality of war [16] which is strongly supportive of just war theory notes three features of contemporary war that are pertinent to the present analysis:

1. For Western nations, wars are now undertaken more from choice than from the pressing necessity of territorial defence. For example, there are no current strategic threats to the UK. This increases the need for careful justification of military engagement.

2. War has a protean nature: it readily takes on various shapes or forms. The just war doctrine is primarily directed at war between nation states. However, war now often involves non-state entities such as terrorist and insurgent groups.

It should also be noted that many commercial organisations have a strong financial interest in promoting conflict, including those ‘private military companies’ (mercenary organisations) that engage directly in hostilities, and manufacturers of weapons and supporting systems.

3. Whereas just war theory has been regarded historically as being directed at only the very highest levels of political and military leadership, responsibility is increasingly being devolved to lower levels: politicians in general, civil ser- vants, officers and ‘ordinary service people’.

Furthermore, the responsibility of all is additionally confirmed by the establish- ment in 2002 of the International Criminal Court (ICC) as a permanent tribunal to prosecute individuals, ‘without any distinction based on official capacity’, for four categories of violent military action (genocide, crimes against humanity, war crimes and crimes of aggression) [17]. All three of these features underlie the following discussion.

3.5 Jus In Bello: An Engineering Perspective

Even though responsibility for ‘just war’ is increasingly seen as applying to individuals at all levels, analysis of just war theory continues to be mostly con- ducted in very general terms, though reference may be made to military personnel, bureaucrats and politicians. The analysis of nuclear deterrence by Finnis, Boyle and Grisez is somewhat more specific, considering individually the roles of members of Congress or Parliament, submarine commanders, the rather curiously described ‘key-turners’ and citizens at large [18]. However, there appears to have been no consideration of the specific role of engineers. This is a strange omission, for engineering is the profession that is most essential to contemporary warfare. Engineers are essential for the invention, design, manufacture and use of the

40 3 Engineering for Peace

sophisticated weapons with which wars are fought. In contrast, the specific skills of bureaucrats, politicians and lawyers are not essential for war. Even military personnel, as traditionally understood, are not essential for newer types or war: drones equipped with bombs and missiles are used around the world whilst being controlled from Nevada, USA through very sophisticated engineering.

It is, therefore, important to examine the role of engineers in just war. It can be beneficial to do so whilst drawing on some key engineering principles. First, it is most important to seek reliable empirical evidence. Second, the engineering vir- tues of accuracy, rigour, honesty and integrity suggest that the evidence sought should be as far as possible quantitative and comprehensive. Quantitative evidence is much needed, for philosophical discussion of just war has generally been very qualitative in nature even though several of the requirements suggest that some quantitative assessment is necessary. Comprehensive or systems analysis is also vital, for war is a complex phenomenon that needs to be viewed in all its aspects if an overall evaluation is to be made. Third, we need to recall that a theory is only valid if it is borne out in practice.

The contribution of engineering to war is considered by politicians and the military as being concerned with the conduct of war. In this context, the two requirements of just war theory needing consideration are discrimination and proportionality. Politicians and the military frequently claim that recent wars have been just. So from an engineering perspective a question of the following type is appropriate: Is there evidence that recent wars have been conducted in ways that are discriminate and proportionate? An indication of discrimination might be that the proportion of civilian casualties in a conflict is low. An indication of pro- portionality might be that the overall number of casualties is low. There are many problems in seeking even such simple evidence. For example, the category ‘civilian’ (or some other related category such as ‘non-combatant’) is difficult to define with precision. Furthermore, the term ‘casualty’ needs further definition, for it may include those killed, wounded, or otherwise adversely affected by, for example, psychological trauma, physical displacement or hunger. Even if the term ‘casualty’ is limited to those who die, it may relate to those killed directly by munitions or those who die from other effects of the conflict, such as illness untreated due to the collapse of medical services. Different methods of collecting data will also give different results due to the chaos of war, and casualties in remote places may not be recorded in any way. Additionally, authorities may provide deliberately misleading information. For example, following 7 months of very heavy aerial bombardment of Libya, the Secretary General of NATO, Anders Fogh Rasmussen, stated, ‘We have carried out this operation very carefully, without confirmed civilian casualties’ [19], a statement which is literally incredible unless the words ‘confirmed’, ‘civilian’ or ‘casualties’ are being used in very special senses.

For these reasons, it may be difficult to acquire reliable data for a given conflict and even more difficult to compare and collate data from different conflicts so as to obtain an overall assessment. However, a critical appraisal of data for some major recent wars has been made [20]. For the war in Bosnia-Herzegovina (1991–1995)

3.5 Jus In Bello: An Engineering Perspective 41

two different methods estimated that the number of individuals who died or dis- appeared was 97,207 or 104,732, with 39–40 % being civilians. For part of the war in Iraq (March 2003–June 2006), three studies estimated violent deaths as 58,700, 151,000 and more than 600,000 with a ratio of civilian to military deaths of 3:1, 5:1 and 10:1, respectively. Other conflicts with very high civilian to military death ratios (possibly close to 9:1) are Cambodia (1975–1979), Rwanda (1994), Dem- ocratic Republic of Congo (DRC, since 1996), Northern Uganda (since 1986) and Darfur (since 2003). These latter conflicts are in countries that were impoverished and had poor infrastructures even before the onset of violence, factors that can make civilians especially vulnerable. The total numbers of people dying in these conflicts are also very high. For example, 5,400,000 people may have died in the DRC between 1998 and 2007, 90 % as a result of war-related disease, malnutrition and other causes rather than violence (the DRC population is currently about 71 million). The conclusion of this critical assessment was that ‘[the] civilian is indeed under extreme threat in war today’. Civilians do not seem to have the type of protection that the just war principle of discrimination would suggest. Pro- portionality is more difficult to assess, for it may in principle include a multiplicity of factors. However, the total numbers dying must cast doubt on the proportion- ality of these wars. It must also be remembered that the numbers of persons physically injured, psychologically traumatised, physically displaced or otherwise severely disadvantaged are very much higher. Consequently, an engineer’s assessment would be: if any of these wars were just, then just war theory has not protected civilians; if all of these wars were unjust, then just war theory has not protected civilians. Each of these possible assessments poses serious questions about the validity of just war theory.

It may be claimed that these deaths of civilians were not intended, merely foreseen. That is, in military terms they were collateral damage, a status for which philosophical grounding might be sought from the principle of double effect. A recent careful analysis has cast serious doubt on whether this principle can provide a compelling justification for collateral damage [21]. The principle is, of course, the basis of the elucidation of hypothetical quandaries for which common intuition suggests that it might in certain circumstances be ‘reasonable’ to take an innocent life. However, an evidence-based perspective shows that war inevitably results in the deaths and traumatisation of large numbers of civilians, indeed frequently overwhelmingly civilians rather than combatants. To justify war on the basis of a nuanced distinction between merely foreseen harm rather than intended harm demonstrates a crass neglect of the value of individual persons. Furthermore, such agent-oriented nuances look very different from the viewpoint of the victims.

Manufacturers of weapons frequently make an argument that their most ‘sophisticated’ weaponry is designed specifically to minimise civilian casualties. The indiscriminate and disproportionate injury and death caused by many modern weapons suggests that such a claim cannot be entirely true. Empirical evidence is again needed, and a detailed and careful study of casualties in Iraq in the period 2003–2008 has shown that ‘sophisticated’ weaponry used at a distance resulted in a far greater proportion of indiscriminate civilian deaths of women (46 %) and

42 3 Engineering for Peace

children (39 %) than more primitive techniques used at close range [22]. Experts advise that the patterns found in Iraq are likely to be replicated wherever similar weapons are used. ‘Sophisticated’ weaponry is very unlikely to produce a tech- nical fix to the problem of the death of the innocent in war. Moreover, in the same way that philosophical discussion of the theory of just war often has an ethereal air unrelated to real violence, so statistics of this sort can mask tragedy. A report from a war correspondent may better convey reality:

Despite all the videos you see from the Ministry of Defence or the Pentagon, and all the sanitised language describing smart bombs and pinpoint strikes, the scene on the ground has remained remarkably the same for hundreds of years. Craters. Burned houses. Muti- lated bodies. Women weeping for children and husbands. Men for their wives, mothers, children [23].

Though statistics often focus on deaths, severe injuries are also the cause of immense suffering. Even experienced medical doctors are shocked when they first encounter war injuries, especially those to children [24]. Use of ‘sophisticated’ weaponry produces a great number of casualties with extreme injuries [25]. ‘Sophisticated’ weaponry may also have very long-term detrimental effects on civilians, as exemplified by the high incidence of birth defects in Fallujah (Iraq) since 2003 [26] and the many deaths, injuries and disruptions caused by mines and cluster munitions long after they are deployed.

The search for a technical fix is misguided for a further important reason. As already noted, many of the casualties of war are not the result of major military strikes. They are the result of factors such as the sectarian violence that results from the breakdown of provisions for law and civil order, the collapse of civil infrastructure and the collapse of medical provision. Thus, ‘sophisticated’ weap- onry may increase the initial intensity of conflicts but is very unlikely to promote beneficial outcomes for many civilians.

As war, and especially war carried out with the many contemporary weapons of huge destructive power, has such a disastrous effect on the innocent, it is puzzling that so many engineers have been involved in weapons production. One of the reasons is that engineers are attracted to arms companies by the opportunities offered for working on the development of sophisticated technological artefacts: they are dazzled by the prospects of contributing to technical wizardry. However, analysis of engineering as a practice shows that this involves a misunderstanding of the nature of engineering, for the production of technological artefacts is not the goal of engineering; they are an example of contingent external goods. Engineers need also to consider in a balanced way the other key constituent features of their practice, including ends, internal goods, virtues and the systematic extension of the practice. Advanced engineering will, in particular, seek to balance these constit- uent features in a way that enhances the flourishing of persons in communities. A crucially important point is: advanced engineering is not synonymous with advanced technology.

Another significant reason for the involvement of engineers in weapons pro- duction is related to the nature of weapons companies: they are an example of the

3.5 Jus In Bello: An Engineering Perspective 43

institutions of the practice of engineering. MacIntyre has noted that institutions are ‘characteristically and necessarily concerned with what I have called external goods’ [27]. These external goods include money, power, status and for engi- neering, technological artefacts. Too great a concern with such goods may lead to a distortion of the practice. As noted in Chap. 2, MacIntyre and others have considered whether perverse practices might exist. Maybe it is more appropriate to propose that perverse institutions may arise within practices, and if so, evidence suggests that weapons companies fall into such a category. The products of such companies certainly cause many innocent deaths and immense suffering. Weapons companies are the only entities to benefit unequivocally from violent conflict, often by supplying all sides in a conflict, as occurred recently in Libya. Further- more, corruption in the arms trade is reported to account for 40 % of all corruption in global transactions [28]. Such companies describe the work of their engineers in euphemistic terms and adopt work practices that minimise an individual employee’s appreciation of the overall purpose of his or her work, so as to curtail the imagination of the use of the weapons produced. Nevertheless, an engineer employed by a weapons company risks the corruption of the ethical coherence of his or her life, in a way analogous to that in which a torturer’s life may become corrupted. Additionally, it is difficult to harmonise the activities of weapons companies with the socially beneficial practices of most communities.

3.6 Jus Ad Bellum: An Engineering Perspective

Little attention has been given by politicians and the military to the role of engineering in dealing with a decision to commence war. The five requirements of jus ad bellum appear to be less amenable to empirical or otherwise mutually agreed assessment than the requirements of jus in bello. One certainly does not have to be very sceptical to consider that the first and second requirements have been the subject of cynical political exploitation. For example, rather than careful consideration of just cause and just intent, the US approach to the start of the 2003 Iraq war has been described by a leading proponent of just war theory as ‘another day, another reason’ [29]. The fourth requirement, for declaration of war by a legitimate authority, implies an ordered approach to war by nation states, a situ- ation that does not describe the origins of many contemporary conflicts: over the decade 2001–2010 only 2 of 29 major armed conflicts have been classified as interstate [28]. Non-state entities, such as terrorist organisations and militias, are unlikely to proceed in such an ordered manner. Also, as noted previously, states such as the US are making widespread lethal strikes by remotely controlled drones outside of recognised conflict zones, although these are considered illegal under international law. Many civilians have been killed in this way. The development of drones, which can reduce ethical awareness due to the great distance between agent and victim, could be taken to show that engineering facilitates the circum- vention of just war approaches to conflict. Engineering might be seen as a way of

44 3 Engineering for Peace

meeting the fifth requirement, that there must be a good prospect of success, through the provision of weapons of immense destructive power. However, recent conflicts show that even an overwhelming advantage in both the number and ‘sophistication’ of weapons in no way guarantees military domination.

It is the third requirement that should be of most concern to engineers: that war must be a last resort, every possibility of peaceful settlement having been exhausted. Indeed, as the deaths and traumatisation of innocent civilians are examples of immense injustice, seeking means of peaceful settlement could be seen as an obligation of professional capabilities, as described in Chap. 2, if engineers can offer viable alternatives. Here another key feature of engineering again becomes important: that comprehensive or systems analysis is vital. Engi- neers particularly seek to understand the root causes of problems under investi- gation, rather than simply proximate determinants, for then a lasting solution may be found. In this context, the perceptive analyses by the Oxford Research Group of current threats to peace and of the most effective responses are particularly rele- vant. The Group characterises the predominant current military strategies as fol- lowing a power projection control paradigm—an attempt to maintain the existing state of affairs through military means. It proposes that a more effective approach is a sustainable security paradigm—to resolve cooperatively the root causes of threats using the most effective civilian means available [30, 31]. The Group identifies four factors as the likely root causes of possible future insecurity and conflict:

1. Climate change—leading to loss of infrastructure, resource scarcity and mass displacement of peoples, causing civil unrest, intercommunal violence and international instability.

2. Competition over resources—including food, water and energy, especially involving unstable parts of the world.

3. Marginalisation of the majority world—increasing socioeconomic divisions and the political, economic and cultural marginalisation of the vast majority of the world’s population.

4. Global militarisation—the increased use of military force as a security measure and the further spread of military technologies, including chemical, biological, radiological and nuclear weapons.5

5 Ideologically-inspired terrorism is not included in this list of root causes of major conflicts. Whilst the Group recognises that terrorism represents a threat to communities, it does not regard it as a major strategic threat at present. Furthermore, it is particularly important to note that key experts regard the use of conventional military force to address the threat of terrorism as counter- productive. Thus, the Director General of the UK security service MI5 between 2002 and 2007 has advised that ‘the invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan radicalised parts of a generation of Muslims who saw the military actions as an ‘‘attack on Islam’’…Arguably, we gave Osama bin Ladin his Iraqi jihad’ [32]. At the same time, the Chief of the UK Defence Staff regarded military victory against al-Qa’ida and the Taliban as not possible [33].

3.6 Jus Ad Bellum: An Engineering Perspective 45

There is good evidence for these root causes, some of it surprisingly quantitative. For example, in the tropics there is a climate oscillation known as the El Niño/ Southern Oscillation (ENSO) with a 3 8C variation in sea temperature occurring approximately every 5 years between El Niño (warm) and La Niña (cool). Studies of data from 1954 to 2004 have shown that the risk of organised political violence (‘civil conflict’) doubles, from 3 to 6 %, in affected nations during the warm part of the cycle, with less developed countries being particularly badly affected. The oscillation may have had a role in 21 % of conflicts (out of a total of 230) in the period studied [34]. Many factors are involved, but food availability and cost may be important as crop yields are greatly reduced in El Niño years.

Engineers have the knowledge and skills to play a major role in resolving these root causes of conflict. For instance:

1. As effects such as El Niño can be predicted, action can be taken to reduce their impact.

2. Development of renewable energy sources and transition to low carbon energy economies can reduce global climate change.

3. Improved efficiency, better recycling and the introduction of innovative pro- cesses and materials can reduce resource competition.

4. Generation of wealth through the introduction of appropriate engineering processes in impoverished societies can diminish marginalisation.

5. Reducing or halting weapons development and production, and thereby reducing trade in arms, can limit militarisation.

As an example, consider the conflict in Darfur that has caused extensive loss of life and much suffering. The origins of this conflict are complex, but access to water was an important issue. Darfur was severely affected by a long-term drought in North Africa. The conflict was triggered by the resulting clashes over access to water and pasture between small groups of black African farmers and Arab pas- toralist communities. The conflict escalated as the groups grew bigger. Eventually a government-backed militia, the Janjaweed, became involved. This militia would terrorise local villagers, displacing them from their homes and hence taking control of water sources. The traditional source of water for many villages in Darfur was surface lakes that filled during the rainy season. The drought inter- rupted this supply. An engineering solution is to drill boreholes accessing deeper water and equip them with submersible pumps. A number of NGOs are now involved in such work. The extent of this conflict is a stark reminder of how a timely application of relatively simple engineering for the provision of water might have prevented much suffering. However, water engineering does now have a role in resolving the conflict, and may have a very significant role in relieving tensions related to water that are apparent between a number of states, including: Israel, Jordan and Palestine; Syria and Turkey; China and India; Egypt, Sudan and Ethiopia; Angola and Namibia [35].

46 3 Engineering for Peace

Hence, from an engineering viewpoint, the requirement that war must be a last resort is extremely challenging. There are multitudes of ways in which engineers can seek to provide the conditions for a peaceful settlement to a dispute. These options are particularly important for those Western nations that now undertake wars more from choice than from the pressing necessity of territorial defence. In such circumstances there may be good time for thorough consideration and implementation of non-violent alternatives. The unpredictable forms in which war arises also provide good reasons for addressing the identifiable underlying causes. These options are also very relevant to ‘humanitarian interventions’ around the world. In many of these, appropriate civilian engineering interventions may be more effective than military engagement, which always entails great uncertainty in outcome and very often an incompatibility of means and ends. However, it may be suggested that the acuteness of the humanitarian need demands rapid military intervention. This may sometimes be so, but such situations point to an aspect of military conflict that has been mostly ignored in just war theory: considerations needing attention in preparation for war, which might be termed jus ante bellum.

3.7 Jus Ante Bellum: An Engineering Proposal

The idea of jus ante bellum has received very little attention, and then always from the viewpoint of military personnel. One appraisal has focused on the ethical education of personnel at a naval academy, jus in disciplina bellica [36]. Another tentative proposal has suggested that it might be used as a term for the preparations necessary to produce a competent and effective military force capable of deliv- ering just war [37]. However, the present proposal is much broader in scope and is concerned with the resources used in preparation for war, or to avert war. This consideration may also be viewed as an opportunity of professional capabilities, as described in Chap. 2, arising from the immense suffering which remains unalle- viated as resources are diverted to the production of weapons.

It has been noted that about one third of all engineers are employed in military activities and that the total financial resources used globally in preparation for war are enormous. A key issue in the proposed engineering conception of jus ante bellum is whether such expertise and resources could be used in better ways both to promote human flourishing and to avert conflict. An example will be given for the case of access to water. It has been noted that access to water was a significant factor in the war in Darfur and is the source of tension in many other places. A range of engineered processes, both simple and advanced, is available for the production of safe drinking water and for sanitation. Developed countries can afford the costs of installation of advanced and expensive processes. However, even simple processes are often not available in developing countries. As a result, and despite some recent progress, 783 million people do not have safe drinking water and 2.7 billion people have no provision for basic sanitation [38]. As a result, 3,000 children die daily from diarrhoeal diseases, and the social and

3.6 Jus Ad Bellum: An Engineering Perspective 47

economic consequences of adult ill health are also enormous. It is in such developing countries that water stress is presently most likely to lead to violent conflict. If there is genuine commitment to seek appropriate and cost-effective means of averting such conflicts, it is pertinent to compare military and water costs.

The costs and benefits of water and sanitation improvements at a global level have been quantitatively evaluated [39]. Five levels of intervention were consid- ered, two of the most significant of which are:

(a) Halving the proportion of people who do not have access to improved (simple) water resources and improved (simple) sanitation facilities by 2015, a Millennium Development Goal target.

(b) Access for all to a regulated piped water supply and sewage connection into their houses.

All interventions were compared to the situation in 2000 and costed to include full investment and annual running costs. The total annual costs of the two outlined here were estimated to be (a) US$11.3 billion, (b) US$136.5 billion. It is easy to lose an awareness of individuals in global calculations of this type, so it is helpful to consider the annual cost per person receiving interventions: (a) US$5.4, (b) US$20.6. These are very modest sums in the context of the benefits to the individuals. There are, of course, many uncertainties in such calculations and detailed country case studies are required. However, it should be noted that the annual cost of the least expensive intervention is a tiny 0.7 % of world annual military expenditure. Even the annual cost of the most expensive intervention is only 8 % of world annual military expenditure. That many deaths and much suffering could be relieved by the diversion of relatively small amounts of the budget for the preparation for war to the supply of essential resources to the poorest of the world’s population is a major injustice that should be of widespread concern.6

However, continuing to focus on this particular resource, jus ante bellum could also consider access to water supplies as an opportunity rather than a problem. In particular, water provision could be seen as an instrument for socio-economic development, security and peace, an approach that has been termed Blue Peace [40]. This approach has been proposed, at high engineering and political levels, particularly for those areas of the Middle East where tensions about water supply exist: first, the northern countries (Turkey, Syria, Iraq, Lebanon and Jordan), and secondly the southern countries (Israel and Palestinian Territories). Collaboration in establishing common standards for measuring water flow and quality, setting and implementing goals for sustainable water resource management, and promo- tion of regional strategies to combat drought arising from climate change could provide a shared investment in the most essential of resources and hence provide an important motivation for peaceful coexistence.

6 The costs of universal provision of electricity are compared to military expenditure in Chap. 5.

48 3 Engineering for Peace

Greater awareness of the need to consider jus ante bellum should lead to greatly reduced expenditure on the development and manufacture of ‘sophisticated’ weapons. This would lead to an additional important benefit, for weapons man- ufacturing is research intensive, employing a high proportion of the most able engineers [41]. Release of these highly qualified but adaptable personnel to other forms of employment could give a great boost to the development of imaginative means of promoting jus ante bellum engineering approaches to the other root causes of conflict.

3.8 Just Engineering and Active Peacemaking

The phrase jus ante bellum still suggests a culture of conflict and eventual prep- aration for violence. Indeed, a number of approaches to peace are also closely linked to responses to war. Peacekeeping implies a response to existing violence or threat of imminent violence. It is one of the few forms of peace to which states expressly commit resources, though this commitment is small compared to com- mitments in preparation for war. For example, the UN peacekeeping budget for 1 July 2011–30 June 2012 was US$7.84 billion [42]. Activities such as peacemaking and peacebuilding are also usually understood to refer to post-conflict activities, though they may be understood, at least in part, to refer to activities not connected with existing conflicts if more precisely designated by terms such as just peace- making [43] or strategic peacebuilding [44].

Peace in itself is mostly neglected, and an important reason for this neglect is that although war and preparation for war are seen as activities, peace is regarded as a condition [45]. This is partly a reflection of the nature of our culture and its focus on singular events that occur on the timescale of a news cycle; war takes place more rapidly and is more dramatic than peace. However, it reflects more profoundly a failure of analysis and perception, particularly a forgetfulness of the value of each human life and of the inadequacy of approaches such as that of classical just war theory to protect such life. Jus ante bellum shows that there are other approaches, and a full expression of these approaches is a commitment to active peacemaking as the preparation that can best ensure the flourishing of all persons. Various types of active peacemaking have been proposed previously, such as Gandhian satyagraha, Quaker consensus and various types of negotiation techniques. However, it is proposed here that engineering has a particularly important role to play, and this type of engineering may be termed just engineering.

Engineering provides a range of knowledge and practical skills that may be used to address the key roots of conflict. In particular, just engineering can uniquely contribute to active peacemaking by providing solutions to some of the crucial needs identified in strategic analyses:

1. Just engineering can provide practical solutions to local needs whether they arise from competition for resources, economic marginalisation, climate change or other factors. Such concrete (sometimes literally so) solutions can foster just

3.7 Jus Ante Bellum: An Engineering Proposal 49

and sustainable development. Sustainable economic development is a key promoter of peace [46].

2. Just engineering activities can directly commit communities in potential conflict to common projects of benefit to all. This shared commitment may be enhanced if engineering that employs the skills of local people is prioritised. In many places in the world this may involve the application of labour intensive engi- neering to meet basic needs rather than the use of the latest technological devices. Insufficient attention to the everyday needs of the population has been a weakness of previous peacemaking activities that have focused too greatly on force and security [47].

3. Just engineering can provide non-violent means of meeting humanitarian needs and of preventing the build-up of tensions, both of which are presently asso- ciated with the temptations of preventive or pre-emptive military action. Such non-violent interventions could be initiated by states, but they could also be initiated by commercial organisations or charitable bodies either internationally or locally. These latter possibilities are free from the restrictions which inter- national law currently places on state interventions.

Just engineering makes particular use of an important characteristic of engineering identified in Chap. 2: it is an enabling activity that enhances the agency of others by providing them with the means for advancing their goals and values. This is particularly useful in the case of peace, for a major challenge is to change the perception of peace from that of a condition that somehow has arisen to an activity that requires continual commitment and imaginative input.

Furthermore, just engineering has a number of key features that are absent from just war approaches:

respect for the full and equal human status of every person; congruence of non-violent means and ends in the promotion of peace; recognition that peace involves much more than the absence of conflict.

Just engineering, the long-term commitment to use practical knowledge and skills in active peacemaking, is a task that engineers should promote and in which they can take a leading role.

References

1. J. Newton, quoted in W. Phipps, Amazing Grace in John Newton (Mercer University Press, Macon, 2001), p. 202

2. A. Buncombe, Cluster bomb kills another child as nations reach accord, The Independent, 13 Nov 2010

3. R. McGrath, Cluster munitions—weapons of deadly convenience? Reviewing the legality and utility of cluster munitions. Presentation at Meeting of Humanitarian Experts, Geneva, 11 Nov 2004

4. J.S. Gansler, Integrating civilian and military industry. Issues Sci. Technol. (2003), http:// www.issues.org/19.4/updated/gansler.html. Accessed March 2013

50 3 Engineering for Peace

5. Stockholm International Peace Research Institute, SIPRI Yearbook 2012, Armaments, Disarmament and International Security (Oxford University Press, Oxford, 2012)

6. R. Mottram, Sir Michael Quinlan: leading strategist in the MOD during the cold war and defender of nuclear deterrence, The Guardian, 2 March 2009

7. R. Edwards, Secret files from 70s reveal Trident strike needed to kill 10 m Russians, The Guardian, 26 Nov 2010

8. A. Duckett, A view from the top, The Chemical Engineer, Sept 2008, p. 20 9. Ø.B. Skille, E. Andersen, D.V. Krekling, V. Westhrin, G. Imrie, Norske våpen involvert

i drap på sivile under Irak-krigen, Norsk Rikskringkasting, 28 Oct 2010, http://www.nrk. no/nyheter/verden/1.7355609 (Norwegian weapons involved in killing of civilians during the Iraq war.). Accessed March 2013

10. British Medical Association, The Use of Drugs as Weapons (BMA, London, 2007) 11. British Medical Association, Recommendations for the Medical Profession and Human

Rights: Handbook for a Changing Agenda (BMA, London, 2001) 12. E. Levinas, Totality and Infinity (Dudesque University Press, Pittsburgh, 1969), p. 219.

Originally published as Totalité et Infini (Martinus Nijhoff, The Hague, 1961) 13. United Nations General Assembly, Report of the Special Rapporteur on Extrajudicial,

Summary or Arbitrary Executions, Philip Alston, A/HRC/14/24/Add.6 (UN, New York, 2010)

14. T. Bingham, Interview with the British Institute of International and Comparative Law, Reported in R. Verkaik, Top judge: use of drones intolerable, The Independent, 6 July 2010

15. R.G. Jones, Peace, Violence and War, in Christian Ethics, ed. by B. Hoose (Continuum, London, 1998), pp. 210–222

16. D. Fisher, Morality and War (Oxford University Press, Oxford, 2011) 17. Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court, Articles 25 and 27 (adopted 1998, entered

into force 2002) 18. J. Finnis, J. Boyle, G. Grisez, Nuclear Deterrence, Morality and Realism (Clarendon Press,

Oxford, 1987), pp. 342–364 19. C. J. Chivers, E. Schmitt, In strikes on Libya by NATO, an unspoken civilian toll,

Washington Post, 17 Dec 2011 20. A. Roberts, Lives and statistics: are 90% of war victims civilians? Survival 52, 115–136

(2010) 21. D. Lefkowitz, Collateral Damage, in War, ed. by L. May (Cambridge University Press,

Cambridge, 2008), pp. 145–164 22. M.H.-R. Hicks, H. Dardagan, G.G. Serdan, P.M. Bagnall, J.A. Sloboda, M. Spagat, The

weapons that kill civilians—deaths of children and non-combatants in Iraq, 2003–2008. N. Engl. J. Med. 360, 1585–1588 (2009)

23. M. Colvin, Our Mission is to Report these Horrors of War with Accuracy and without Prejudice, Speech given in London, Nov 2010, http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/ 2012/feb/22/marie-colvin-our-mission-is-to-speak-truth. Accessed March 2013

24. D. Howden, Children with horrific wounds pay price of Sudan’s bloody war, The Independent, 13 July 2011

25. M. Gilbert, E. Fosse, Inside Gaza’s Al-Shifa Hospital. Lancet 373, 200–202 (2009) 26. S. Alaani, M. Savabieasfahani, M. Tafash, P. Manduca, Four polygamous families with

congenital birth defects from Fallujah, Iraq. Int. J. Res. Public Health 8, 89–96 (2011) 27. A. MacIntyre, After Virtue, 2nd edn. (Duckworth, London, 1985 [1981]), p. 194 28. Stockholm International Peace Research Institute, SIPRI Yearbook 2011, Armaments,

Disarmament and International Security (Oxford University Press, Oxford, 2011) 29. M. Walzer, Just and Unjust Wars, 4th edn. (Basic Books, New York, 2006), p. xii 30. Oxford Research Group, Global Responses to Global Threats (ORG, Oxford, 2006) 31. Oxford Research Group, Reviewing Britain’s Security, International Security Monthly

(ORG, Oxford, 2006)

References 51

32. E. Manningham-Buller, Evidence to the Chilcot enquiry. Reported in H. Siddique, Iraq inquiry: Saddam posed very limited risk to UK, ex-MI5 chief says, The Guardian, 20 July 2010

33. D. Richards, Reported in K. Sengupta, Head of armed forces says victory over Al-Qa’ida is not possible, The Independent, 15 Nov 2010

34. S.M. Hsiang, K.C. Meng, M.A. Cane, Civil conflicts are associated with the global climate. Nature 476, 438–441 (2011)

35. W.R. Bowen, Water engineering for the promotion of peace. Desalin. Water Treat. 1, 1–6 (2009)

36. R. Wertheimer, Empowering Our Military Conscience (Ashgate, Aldershot, 2010) 37. S. Haines, Jus Ante Bellum: Myth or Reality, lecture at The Enduring Legacy of Just and

Unjust War—35 Years Later, New York, 8–10 Nov 2010, http://www.nyutikvah.org/events/ docs/papers/Haines_Jus_Ante_Bellum.pdf. Accessed March 2013

38. World Health Organisation and United Nations International Children’s Emergency Fund, Progress on Drinking Water and Sanitation 2012 (WHO/UNICEF, 2012)

39. G. Hutton, L. Haller, Evaluation of the Costs and Benefits of Water and Sanitation Improvements at the Global Level (World Health Organisation, Geneva, 2003)

40. Strategic Foresight Group, The Blue Peace: Rethinking Middle East Water (SFG, 2011) 41. M. Chalmers, N.V. Davies, K. Hartley, C. Wilkinson, The economic costs and benefits of UK

defence exports. Fiscal Stud. 23, 343–367 (2002) 42. http://www.un.org/en/peacekeeping/resources/statistics/factsheet.shtml. Accessed March 2013 43. G.H. Stassen (ed.), Just Peacemaking (The Pilgrim Press, Cleveland, 2008) 44. D. Philpott, G.F. Powers (eds.), Strategies of Peace (Oxford University Press, Oxford, 2010) 45. G. Cox, The Ways of Peace (Paulist Press, New York, 1986) 46. N. Sambanis, How Strategic is UN Peacebuilding?, in Strategies of Peace, ed. by D. Philpott,

G.F. Powers (Oxford University Press, Oxford, 2010), pp. 141–168 47. O.P. Richmond, Conclusion: Strategic Peacebuilding Beyond the Liberal Peace, in Strategies

of Peace, ed. by D. Philpott, G.F. Powers (Oxford University Press, Oxford, 2010), pp. 353–368

52 3 Engineering for Peace