I need rewriting of what I will attach because my friend will turn it in to the same professor so...

Secessions and Civil Wars

There are many countries in the world that have faced dissent from a particular group or community who are concentrated on a specific area of the country. These groups challenge the authority of the central government in either peaceful or violent ways. Secessionist movements try to separate themselves from the central government and form their own nation. They do this for various reasons such as political, religious, social or cultural factors. Most movements are formed on the basis of being oppressed politically as well as their cultures not being valued highly enough to their liking. When a community feels dissatisfied with how the central government is treating them, they encourage members of that community to favor a move away from that country.

The most famous secession movement ever recorded was the attempt by the United States Confederacy to separate from the Union. The Confederacy which was made up of states from the South wanted to form its own country because of the political differences with the North. The Union had the advantage of being the administrative superior and had the capital city as well as the most important cities in America. The Union also had the advantage of a bigger military force. The issue of slavery was among the issues that really pushed the Southern states to attempt secession. The Confederacy favored the use of slaves while the Union wanted to abolish it. The Confederacy did not share those views and argued that the development of the South was hinged on agriculture and therefore slave trade was necessary. This was the most important period of the United States as it defined the future of the nation. It happened only a few decades after independence and established the unity that is still in place to this day. The war resolved the issues that threatened to divide the nation for good. Rather than the country breaking up into many sovereign states, it remained a united sovereign nation. The victory for the Union also symbolized the nationalistic ideals that the country still holds onto. The most important of these is the right to freedom. The abolishment of slavery indicated that America was a nation that allowed every citizen their right to liberty.

The Kosovo war was an event that caught the attention of the world. The Soviet Union had already broken up into several states, one of which was Yugoslavia. A group called the Kosovo Liberation Army was formed a few years. This group was formed with the intention of liberating the region of Kosovo from the rest of Yugoslavia. The main cause of this attempted secession was the harsh laws that seemed to discriminate against members of that region. As the rebellion grew in intensity, so did the acts of retribution by the Yugoslav government. The Yugoslav military presence was increased in Kosovo to destroy the resistance movement. This led to a forced relocation of Kosovars from their land as a way of completely stamping out any future rebellions. This was met with global disapproval as other nations denounced the acts of inhumanity. While some nations such as the United Nations seemed to favor the Yugoslav government, many others expressed their defense of the Kosovo liberation. It required the intervention of the United Nations and NATO forces to end the war. The intervention of the United States brought more controversy than support as critics argued that civilians were more at risk than before the US took action. They accused the US military of creating an environment that resulted in more bloodshed as the Kosovo War had actually seen only a few deaths before the world sent armies to Kosovo. The US was also heavily criticized by countries from the Eastern world which claimed that their sole intention was to destroy Yugoslavia and weaken the region.

Spain has faced threats of secession from different regions for several decades. This was a result of the oppression that most of the country went through during the tenure of the dictator General Franco. The most persistent attempts at secession are by people from the Basque region. There is also a militia called ETA that fights for the independence of the Basque country. Most of the people in this region favor secession but do not agree with the methods used by ETA to achieve this. The movement is still going on to this day with citizens expected to vote on this issue.

More recently, there have been secession movements in countries such as Libya and Sudan. In Libya, the Eastern part of the country has seen a revolution grow in intensity in the last three years. After the ousting of Muammar Gaddafi, Libya had a power vacuum, which resulted in a civil war between the West and the East. The Western side was home to the central government while the East contains huge reserves of oil, which the biggest source of income for the government. The Eastern rebels felt that the national government had simply been taking advantage of the region for decades. They felt that their resources were being used by the Western side without improving the lives of people from the East. While secession movements are usually opposed, it is sometimes the option that holds the best interests of both sides. In most cases, the separated countries maintain peace in the region with economic development being the major cause of concern. However, this could also lead to years of civil wars as the parent country tries to regain control of the seceded country.

Humanitarian Intervention and Regime Change

Civil wars usually require humanitarian intervention of more powerful military forces in order to end them. The intentions behind these interventions however, have come into question over the last few decades. Powerful countries now take civil wars as opportunities to meet their own interests. This is usually driven by the need for strategic location, such the intervention of the United States in Kosovo, which placed them in an area near their rivals such as China, North Korea and Russia. It could also be caused by the need to access resources that may be vital to that country.

It is almost impossible to determine the interests that countries hold when staging an intervention. For instance, there have been reported cases of genocide and mass rape in countries that have civil wars yet no countries would attempt to help the victims of war. This should be an automatic reason for nations to provide military assistance in the war zone. There should nonetheless be laws put in place to determine the suitability of a country in war intervention as well as whether there is need for such actions in the first place. These laws should allow for military assistance in areas that have a blatant disregard for human rights.

Orend proposed that countries should provide military intervention if a country is unjust to its citizens. But the obvious problem is that developed nations may choose to make unwarranted military movements into less developed nations in order to meet its own interests. The question therefore, is what exactly defines a country as minimally just. Some nations such as Cuba may seem as unjust because of the perception of it gained from the negative coverage it receives from media largely controlled by the United States. The two nations have been at odds with each other for decades now, largely because of the refusal of Cuba to agree to the demands of United States. The proposal put forward by Orend will only lead to cases of unnecessary military presence in nations that do not need it. Political instability will be the norm in all parts of the world because of this.

Humanitarian intervention has also been used as a cover to gain access to a particular country in order to remove the current regime. If the ruling government is not in line with the interests of powerful countries, a civil war within that country will give other nations the opportunity to push out the leaders of that government and replace them with others who will meet their interests. For the incoming leaders, this is a price that they are willing to pay just to be in power. The phrase “puppet regime” is commonly used but unknown to many people; this is actually the case in several nations all around the world. Even if humanitarian intervention is necessary in a country struggling with civil wars, it is not the responsibility of the assisting nations to remove or instill a regime. This should be a decision agreed upon by the citizens unilaterally. There is still a loophole in this though as the nation providing humanitarian intervention may simply offer to “oversee” the changeover in power. They offer to ensure the safety of the citizens as elections are conducted but they could also use that period to ensure that their candidate of choice gets financial backing to win the elections. This is still a forced regime change, albeit indirectly. The case of Libya is a delicate predicament as there was an urgent need for intervention before the issue got out of hand. However, even if the United Nations approved of the assistance of a country such as France or the United States, there has to be a limit on the amount of assistance it may offer. A humanitarian intervention should strictly be for maintenance of peace. While some would argue that a regime change is vital to this, it should not be up to a foreign country or body to determine the future leaders of any country. The US and NATO forces would therefore not be justified in any way if they force the current regime to dissolve and instill their own choice of government leaders.

In any civil war, you find foreign nations taking sides depending on which side they believe is right. Angola had a civil war that threatened the peace of the whole region of Southern Africa. The rebels had waged war against the central government, accusing it of mistreatment of a section of the population. South Africa intervened on the basis of maintaining the political stability of the region by attempting the ruling government to relinquish power in order to enable the rebels to have their views heard. The Angolan government had also caused disharmony with its neighbors for seemingly aligning itself with the Soviet Union which was a villain to most nations for its extreme views on communism. Angola then made a strategic choice when they called on the Cuban government to assist its efforts at retaining power. Cuba was also a communist that shared the interests of the Soviet Union and governed its citizens in the same way as the Soviets. Cuba therefore offered its help based on its own interests although this does not necessarily justify its actions. South Africa was more justified in the intention of ensuring the peace process. The issue however, was that South Africa was actively practicing discrimination during that period with majority of the world nations being strongly against apartheid rule.

National Liberation Struggles and Guerilla Warfare

Guerilla wars are usually associated with national liberation struggles because of the widespread backing these movements get. People might not join the movement in their numbers, but they do state their support of the organization waging the war. Guerilla fighters have the right to fight for their cause even though they are not accorded these rights under official terms. They should have such rights issued to them as they are risking their lives for what they believe is the greater good. This should take into account the legitimacy of the reason why they are fighting the ruling government. Nevertheless, they should be treated just as the official government and not always be viewed as a rebellion that should be opposed by the international community at all costs. The international community should also consider the opinions of the citizens in the country. These are the views of those that the guerilla movement is fighting for as well as those who are either neutral or against the guerilla fighters. This will determine what the local community really thinks of the actions against the government.

If the guerilla fighters are to be granted almost equal war rights with the official government, they should also be able to compromise on some issues. While most guerilla movements already do this, they should be required to wear military uniforms and emblems that distinguish them from any other military force in that country. This however, should be a requirement of those movements that have a significant number of troops as well as the weapons to help their cause. This is because if a small movement is required to wear distinct uniforms, they may not stand a chance against the much bigger military force of that country. The loophole here is that guerilla movements will use this to their advantage. They may simply tell their soldiers to dress as civilians and gain by having the element of surprise as it will be impossible for the government forces to tell if a civilian is a guerilla fighter. Wars are very tactical and need intelligent planning and execution of plans. I would be willing to support in a guerilla movement if there was careful planning on the part of the leaders. Such a tactic as disguising ourselves as civilians will do us more good than harm. Even if the ruling government was very oppressive, they would not be so careless as to use armed force against civilians everywhere just because they cannot tell who is part of the guerilla movement or not. Battlestar Galactica is a television series that focuses on rebellion and liberation struggles in a fictional land. In one episode titled “Occupation”, we get to see how guerilla wars work. There is an uprising against the group of people that invaded and took control of the home country of many of the characters. This uprising gets more intense with each attack but is still not quite enough to impact the military force of the invaders. There is also a difference in opinion among the people with some being against the liberation struggle while others support the attempts. Those who are against the struggle argue that the invading nation is too strong for them and thus a guerilla war would result in casualties for the participants. Those who support it seem to do it based on the love they have for their country. They would rather die in what is likely to be a suicide mission than live their lives without the freedom they relish. In every country experiencing guerilla warfare, there is always this crisis, with the people taking these two stances on the war.

In his essay, Van Der Linden argues logically but unfairly, in favor of the “probability of success” factor during an invasion. He argues that there is no need for a weaker nation to resist an invasion by a much superior country. While this is actually quite logical, it is unjust in every sense of the word. The Just War Theory would therefore serve no purpose in war. This would give the superpower countries complete freedom to invade any country as they see fit. The end result would be a new form of colonialism where the countries with powerful military forces would compete to take control of as many foreign nations as possible. It would be unfair for the smaller nations as they would be under constant threat of invasion from the stronger nations. They would also have very little options in trying to resist. Van der Linden argues that the government of a smaller nation should surrender before trying to initiate a resistance of any sort. A good example of the misuse of military force is the invasion of Afghanistan and Iraq at the beginning of this century. The United States used self-defense as the main reason why they invaded the two countries. The attacks on the World Trade Center by the Al Qaeda prompted the United States to take action and stamp out the threat from their purported homelands. This war did reduce the security threats around the Middle East and almost completely stopped attacks on American soil. However, critics have argued that this was actually just a plot by the United States to gain easy access to countries with unpopular regimes which also happened to have abundance of oil reserves. Oil was in huge demand in America during that period while Iraq and Afghanistan produced more oil than they needed. It is argued that the real home base of the Al Qaeda was Pakistan and not the two countries that were invaded. Pakistan of course, was much stronger than both Iraq and Afghanistan and could explain why America sought the much easier strategic targets.

It would still be in the best interests of the government of the invaded nation to seek a solution that would work more effectively in the long term. A country may assess its options and then decide on the immediate course of action to take. It may be advisable to initiate and empower guerilla organizations that will spread the struggle to all parts of the country. If that nation has allies that would be willing to help in the liberation struggle, they could do as much as possible to ensure the success of the struggle. It will be morally incorrect for a country to surrender too easily because they are required to protect the sovereignty of that country. They are also responsible for the security of their citizens. The Vietnam War is a reminder for the smaller nations that it is possible to get a victory in a war that looked like an impossibility for the weaker nation. There were concerted efforts by the guerilla movements in Vietnam that inflicted small but multiple losses on the American losses. The war became hugely unpopular in the United States and more people started to voice their opposition against this war because of the unnecessary casualties that were realized.

Terrorism

Terrorism can be defined as the threat or use of action to influence a government or public with the purpose of advancing political, religious or sociological causes. A general definition of terrorism can be the use of force for the purposes of intimidation, coercion or ransom. State terrorism refers to the use of military action by a country against another country while non-state terrorism is normally used to describe the acts of groups against a country or groups against other groups. There should be no reason whatsoever used to justify terrorism. There are better ways to handle international crises and the victims would be innocent civilians in these cases. Countries in recent times have used humanitarian intervention and assistance to liberation struggles as ways to pursue their own national interests. Chomsky writes about how the Cuban missile crisis developed in the 1960s. Unknown to most people, the United States seemed to try all attempts possible at making the Cuban government launch an attack against a neighboring country or the United States itself. This would have given the US government the moral right to invade Cuba as they had been planning to for years. This is a clear indication that state terrorism is both morally wrong and should not be permitted unless in extreme cases. These cases would still be hard to determine as there are many covert operations that a country such as the US could take to instigate a war that will actually benefit it more. There are some incidences where state terrorism may be the only path to take, such as the Nazi government of the 20th century or the Cylon occupation that we watched in class on Battlestar Galactica. In these cases, the impact of continued rule by that government would be much greater than an effort by foreign nations to force a regime change. The global community would have to take a stand based on humanity and therefore the moral thing to do would be to agree to state terrorism as the most effective solution.

Luis Posada was a key figure in the attempts by America to seize control of Cuba. He is regarded as a terrorist because of the actions that he agreed to carry out on behalf of the United States. Several US regimes have used people like Posada to undertake missions in other countries. They would look for disgruntled members of government or society and train them in the art of guerilla warfare. Posada was held responsible for several attempts at an overthrow of the Cuban government. He is also accused of having masterminded several acts of terror in various nations in Central and South America. But today, he is a free man living in Miami. This may be attributed to the unwillingness of the US judiciary system to sentence him to prison as he is a government asset and is regarded as a hero by the Cuban community in Miami that is largely anti-Castro. In the wake of actions carried out by Posada, the Cuban government sent five spies to primarily infiltrate the Cuban community in Miami. These would be known as the Cuban Five. They would report on the happenings within that community which included plans that were made to support or undertake a revolt against the government. They were arrested but were treated unfairly by the biased system in Miami. Despite rulings made by an Atlanta court to reduce their charges, the Supreme Court upheld the convictions and sentenced three of them to life in prison while the other two got 15 years each in prison. The stark contrast in how these two cases were handled is clear to see. Posada got preferential treatment in the courts because he helped the government in the quest for control of Cuba. The Cuban Five on the other hand, were viewed as national enemies because they did what their government asked them to do. Posada admitted to some of the accusations leveled against him but is a free man while the Cuban Five were not explicitly found guilty of any of the charges brought before them. Some top military officials even testified in their defense that they had no hand in the charges against them and also were found to pose no threat to national security. They actually uncovered a terrorist plot against Cuba but were jailed for relaying this information to the government. This is a clearly unjust system that the US government used in these two cases. It is arguable that Cuba should have taken more care in this operation as they alerted the authorities to the presence of the Cuban Five in Miami. However, this may be a good alternative for countries that feel threatened by the possible terrorist acts of another nation. They could send a small group of spies to determine the probability of such attacks and possible timelines. It is morally unjust that the US government is prepared to carry out such covert operations in other countries for national security while it strongly opposes such actions in its own land.

Torture

This is a strategy that is necessary to gain advantage in any war but should be used minimally. It should only be used when it is in dire need such as the extraction of vital information needed in that situation. It can therefore be regarded as effective in some cases but the moral justification is dependent on what you would be willing to do to win a war. A blanket prohibition would be a very good idea and an effective way of reducing cases of torture in war situations. While it already exists in almost every national constitution in the world, it allows for too many loopholes that are easily and repeatedly exploited by nations with the use of terms such as “national security” and “political stability” supporting the need for torture. There should therefore a stricter enforcement of torture laws and prohibitions against every country or military outfits such as rebel groups. Attempts made by any country to legalize the use of torture should be strongly opposed by the international community as a whole. This is because torture is technically a crime, even though it has been found to be effective at creating good in some cases. It would hence be against the law to legalize a crime no matter how its impact is felt on society. Torture is morally wrong in all cases as it is simply not possible to defend a crime. It is however, morally justifiable in some instances where it is required to prevent a situation such as a terrorist act or any loss of lives. Moral justification should be dependent on the moral good of any country or group. The question of a morally heroic action should not be encouraged but still used nonetheless. This would leave perpetrators of torture at the mercy of the judicial system. Their actions might have been for the greater good but the courts are required to make judgments based on facts and evidence and not moral sentiments. It would lead to cases of defendants being convicted of attempted murder or related crimes even though they may have helped in ensuring the safety of other people.

Resistance Movements in Battlestar Galactica

According to LOIAC laws, participants in wars should wear distinctive uniforms and emblems that are primarily for the purpose of distinguishing them from civilians. These laws do not take into consideration the different situations that combatants find themselves in during any war. As with the human resistance in Battlestar Galactica, there is the need to do all you can to gain the advantage over an enemy with superior weapons and troops. The use of uniforms for a guerrilla movement that does not stand a real chance will only lead to the quick crushing of the rebels. Using this example, Iraqi and Afghan resistance fighters should not be regarded as war criminals. They are simply following the moral obligation of any patriot to fight for the freedom of that nation. Their efforts will definitely not succeed in a straight battle against the might of the United States and the other occupying forces. They are forced to pursue other actions such as the use of such guerrilla tactics. In the case of a suicide bomber being deployed to eliminate targets that are perpetrators of morally wrong actions, this would still technically be an act of terrorism. It does or should not matter whether the intentions are for the greater good; the action is still an act of terror on the victims. Therefore while it would be morally justifiable to carry out such an action, it is still morally wrong. The case in real world situations such as suicide bombers in Iraq and Afghanistan fall under this same category. In this case, the means justifies the end. The result is that different sides in a war find themselves engaging in morally wrong actions in an effort to ensure victory.

In the event that one side uses force that it knows will result in civilian deaths or friendly casualties, it can still be considered an act of terrorism. As mentioned before, terrorism applies to any case where threat or use of action is used to intimidate, coerce or hold the other side to ransom. It is therefore an act of terrorism with the added result of unnecessary civilian deaths. The tactic of endangering the lives of innocent people to attract attention of outside forces should never be used as a war strategy. There is no excuse for demanding the cooperation of people in becoming suicide bombers to further the cause. It should as well as not be used by the invading country to target large civilian targets in an attempt to force the other country into surrendering. It is neither morally justifiable nor acceptable in war. Even on an openly oppressive regime, this should not be used as the civilian deaths in any war are unjustifiable and unnecessary.