The
Juris North Group invites you to attend to the discussion on the following paper this
term:
Week Three [Wednesday 25th March 2015, at 3pm,
NBS3.13] – Dr James Pattison, Professor, School of Social Sciences, The
University of Manchester, “The Ethics of
Arming the Rebels”
•
The respective
papers will be distributed by email before each event (please make sure you are
added to the distribution list).
•
There are limited places available (30 in total).
•
Please find complete details following the link below. RSVP
THE ETHICS
OF ARMING THE REBELS
Dr James
Pattison
Professor of
Politics, University of Manchester
I.
INTRODUCTION
The arming
of rebel groups in states where there is severe oppression, low-level conflict,
or civil war is one of the most notable ways that states attempt to realise
their foreign policy goals. Notorious examples include the US arming, training,
and financing of the Nicaraguan Contras against the Sandinista government
(including the covert funding of the Contras without Congressional Approval in
the ‘Iran-Contra Affair’); the British arming, in contravention of a UN arms
embargo, of Sierra Leone through Sandline, a UK-based private military and
security company (PMSC) (the ‘Arms-to-Africa Affair’); US arms to the mujahedeen
in Afghanistan during the Soviet occupation; and Russian supplying of arms
to various pro-Russian separatist rebel groups in former Soviet states (e.g.
Ukraine). There have also been numerous cases of the arming of rebels in
potentially more morally justifiable cases. These include the supply of arms by
the US and Islamic groups to the Bosnian Muslims during the break-up of the
former Yugoslavia and Soviet and Cuban military support for anti-apartheid
forces in South Africa.
The arming
of rebel groups was been particularly patent during the Arab Spring. After the
uprising in Libya in 2011, various states provided lethal and nonlethal arms to
the forces opposed to Gaddafi’s regime. This included material and financial
support from the Libya Contact Group, as well as arms from France, Qatar, and
the UK. In Syria, the arming of the various parties by external actors became
one of the central dynamics of the conflict. It was reported that, on the one
hand, Qatar and Saudi Arabia (and others) supplied arms to the Free Syrian Army
(FSA), the UK and France provided it with ‘nonlethal support’, and the US and
Turkey facilitated and coordinated the supply. On the other hand, Russia and
Iran supplied weapons such as missile systems, mortars, and rockets to the
Assad regime. In 2012, the UK even secretly drew up plans to train and equip a
100,000-strong Syrian rebel army abroad, which would then strike at Assad in a
manner similar to the ‘Awe’ and ‘Shock’ strikes on Iraq in 2003. And, in
September 2014, the US Congress approved President Obama’s plan to train and to
equip ‘moderate’ Syrian rebel groups.
Despite the
centrality of the arming of rebels as a foreign policy option, there is very
little, if any, detailed engagement with the ethical issues surrounding this
option. There is a growing literature on the ethical issues surrounding civil
wars and, more specifically, the conditions for engaging in just rebellion. The focus of this
literature, however, is largely on the question of the justifiability of the rebels
engaging in civil war and their conduct when doing so, rather than the
permissibility of the arming of rebel groups by other agents. There is
also a huge literature on the ethics of humanitarian intervention. Within this
literature, an often-cited just cause is intervening in support of rebels who
are fighting against an oppressive state. However, the arming of rebel
groups is only briefly noted as a potential, additional option in this
literature, rather than being subject to detailed analysis. Instead, the
literature largely focuses on the problems that come with sending troops and/or
planes in such cases, such as the worries about collaterally harming civilians
with bombing raids.
This
paper therefore considers the ethics of arming the rebels. Overall, it argues
that arming the rebels should be generally eschewed, but may be occasionally
morally permissible. More specifically, the paper seeks to establish that
arming the rebels is (a) exceptionally morally permissible, even when
the rebels are engaged in unjust wars, but (b) generally impermissible.
The former, far more permissive claim will be established in the first part of
the paper. The latter, more restrictive claim will be established in the second
part of the paper. Here I will also consider what the international law on
arming rebels should be. The conclusion will consider the relation between
these two claims and its import for Just War Theory (JWT).
No comments:
Post a Comment