"Why Do People Wage War?" Translated by Shogo Asami, Commentary by Takeshi Yoro and Tamaki Saito, Kodansha Academic Library

#Rights and #Violence are two sides of the same coin

...(omitted)... You began your argument from the relationship between rights (Recht) and power (Macht). I think it is good to begin our examination from here as well. However, I would prefer to use the more raw and severe term "violence (Gewalt)" rather than the word "power."

Rights (law) and violence—most people today would likely consider these two things to be opposites, things that stand in opposition to each other. However, rights and violence are closely intertwined. Violence emerges immediately from rights (law), and rights (law) emerge immediately from violence.

Now, let us go back to the primitive era and observe how the two became linked. If we do that, perhaps we can easily find a solution to the problem. As I proceed, there may be parts where I speak of things that are already widely known and taken for granted as if they were new discoveries, but please forgive me. By conducting the discussion in this way, the story unfolds more smoothly.

Violence resolves conflict

Conflicts of interest between people are basically resolved through violence. Animals all settle things that way. Since humans are also animals, they, too, settle things with violence.

However, in the case of humans, conflicts of opinion also arise. Moreover, opinions can even clash at an extremely abstract level. Therefore, new solutions other than violence are sought. That said, this is a story that begins after society has become complex. Initially, when humans formed small groups, physical strength determined everything. Who does an object belong to? Whose word prevails? Everything was decided by physical power.

But before long, not just literal physical strength, but weapons began to be used. Those who obtained powerful weapons and those who used weapons skillfully began to emerge victorious. This means that when weapons appeared, superior intellect and talent began to surpass raw physical strength. However, even when using intellect, the goal in war remained the same. The aim was to injure the opponent, paralyze their strength, and reduce them to a state where they could demand nothing.

#People who obtained weapons discovered the advantages of killing

So, how can one thoroughly defeat an enemy? One should use violence to ensure the enemy can never stand up again. Yes, one should kill the enemy. Killing an enemy has two advantages. First, there is no need to face that enemy again. Second, it serves as a warning to other enemies. That is not all. When an enemy is killed, instinctive drives are satisfied (I would like to return to this point later).

To spare or not to spare?

However, when one intends to bury an enemy, a new thought may arise, and one might stop from killing them. After thoroughly instilling fear, one might keep the enemy alive and use them for some kind of labor! One becomes satisfied with merely subduing the enemy rather than killing them with violence. This is nothing less than the beginning of showing mercy to an enemy. Nevertheless, as long as the enemy is kept alive, one must assume that the enemy is constantly harboring a desire for revenge. The safety of the victor is somewhat compromised.

At any rate, in the beginning, those with greater strength held the power of control. Raw violence, or otherwise violence backed by talent, determined the rulers.

As you know, this state of affairs changed little by little as society developed. It changed from rule by violence to rule by law (rights).

But how?

From rule by violence to rule by law

There is only one possible answer. Many weak people must have banded together to oppose the immense power of a single ruler. "Unity is strength!" Violence was crushed by the power of unity. This united human power appeared as law (rights) and opposed the violence of a single person. Law (rights) is nothing other than the power of united people, the power of the community.

However, this power remains violence. If there are people who resist, they will still resort to violence. They use violence to push through their own will and pursue their own goals. The only difference is that it is not the violence of one individual, but the violence of many people that prevails.

────────────

The Rule of Law and the Community

However, in moving from the rule of violence to the rule of new law (rights), something new must also sprout in the human heart. Conditions must be met. The consensus and cooperation of many people must be stable and long-lasting.

What if the cooperation of many people is only fleeting, and the sense of unity is lost after driving away one powerful person? Nothing will have been accomplished. A new person who thinks their power is superior to others will appear and begin a dictatorship by violence once again. This power game will repeat endlessly.

Therefore, we must make the community supported by law and rights sustainable. Create multiple organizations and make society organic. Make rules and take the initiative to prevent rebellions from destroying society. Enforce rules, that is, laws. Establish institutions that can exercise violence in accordance with the law—this must be done.

Let us create such a community supported by common interests. When many people think so, an emotional connection must be born among them. It is a sense of unity. It is because of this emotion that the community can have solid power. I feel that the important things have already been said. For individual brutal violence to be overcome, power must be transferred to a group of many people, and what binds this group of people together is the emotional bond and sense of oneness that arises among the members. What follows is merely a repetition and detailed explanation of this essential point.

Law reflects real-world inequality

Now, if society were composed only of people of equal strength, the problem would not be very difficult. To ensure a safe communal life, to what extent should individual freedom—the freedom to use one's power as violence against others—be restricted? If society establishes this as a rule (law), the problem is solved.

However, the realization of such a balanced state between the individual and the rules of society is only a matter of theory. In real society, people with disparate powers have lived there from the very beginning. There are men and women. There are adults and children. When war and conquest occur, they are divided into winners and losers, and the relationship between winners and losers turns into that of master and slave.

When this happens, the law (rights) of society becomes a reflection of the actual unequal power dynamics. Laws are created by the rulers and become convenient for them. The rights of the ruled are not given much consideration.

Two elements that shake the law

Then, there are two elements in society that shake the law (and at the same time develop it). One is the movement of members of the ruling class. They try to break through the remaining restrictions and push history back from "rule by law" to "rule by violence." The other is the movement constantly carried out by the oppressed people. They try to increase their power and reflect it in the law. Unlike the rulers, they try to transform "unequal law" into "law equal for all."

This second direction appears strongly when the power dynamics in society are changing, for example, during a period of historical transformation. In such cases, the law gradually adapts to the new power dynamics.

However, in many cases, the rulers do not sufficiently grasp the new trends in power dynamics. As a result, rebellions and civil wars tend to occur, "rule by law" temporarily disappears, and the situation reverts to one where violence decides everything. Nevertheless, in the end, a new legal order is created.

(By the way, there is another element that changes the way law is. It is the culture of the members of society. If culture changes, the way law is changes. However, this change takes place without the intervention of violence, and it is not appropriate for the context here. It is a theme that should be taken up in a later context.)

Thus, even if a society "ruled by law" is established once, if a conflict of interest arises, violence will come to solve the problem. This is unavoidable. However, as long as everyone is living together on the same land, we cannot leave the confrontation of naked violence alone forever. Therefore, where social life is established, there is a strong tendency to try to settle problems quickly. The possibility of achieving a peaceful solution increases.

Can #war be a means to achieve "eternal #peace"?

However, if we look at human history, countless conflicts and confrontations have arisen. Conflicts between one society and another, between one society and multiple societies, between large groups and small groups, and conflicts between cities, regions, tribes, ethnic groups, and nations. In almost every case, these conflicts have been settled by a trial of strength known as war. And any group that participated in war ended up with either plunder or total subjugation. War is something that ends when one side conquers the other.

However, we cannot lump all wars of conquest and wars of aggression together and pass a unified judgment on them. Indeed, the wars of conquest by the Mongols and Turks brought nothing but disaster. But there are also wars that have prompted a shift from "rule by violence" to "rule by law." They created larger political units than before, within which "violence" was prohibited and conflicts were settled by the power of legal order.

Think about the conquests made by the Romans. Did they not bring a magnificent "Pax Romana" to the countries of the Mediterranean? Recall the territorial expansion desires of the French kings. Did they not create a peacefully unified country and bring prosperity to France?

If so, it may sound paradoxical, but we must admit the following: War is by no means an inappropriate means to achieve the "eternal peace" that people so yearn for. War can create large-scale societies and build powerful, centralized authorities. By using centralized authority to manage violence, it is possible to prevent new wars from ever occurring again.

However, it cannot be held together by violence

However, in reality, war has not achieved "eternal peace." Why is that? Because the state won through conquest does not last long. Even if various parts and units are forcibly brought together by the power of violence, they cannot be held together forever, and the newly created large unified body eventually collapses.

That is not all. No matter how large-scale the conquest, it has not yet unified the entire world. Each has been only a partial unification, leading to conflicts between the newly formed large units, and a tendency to settle things through violence has emerged even more than before.

What was the result? The countless small wars, or rather the small wars that had been repeated incessantly, faded into the background, and huge wars began to occur. Although the flames of war do not flare up as frequently as before, once a war breaks out, the devastation is tremendous.

What are the two conditions for preventing war?

Based on what we have considered so far, let us look at the current situation. What conclusion will emerge? It is the same conclusion you stated bluntly in your letter. If we want to reliably prevent war, everyone must cooperate to build a powerful, centralized authority, and when a conflict of interest arises, we should entrust the arbitration to this authority. There is no other way.

However, to proceed down this path, two conditions must be met. First, such an institution must actually be established. Second, it must have the power necessary to enforce its own rulings.

Is it not difficult to eradicate war if only one of these conditions is met?

Many people now think that the League of Nations is such a centralized institution. Even if that is the case, has the other condition been met? It has not. The League of Nations does not possess its own authority, the power to enforce its own will. No, the League of Nations can only possess such power in one case. Only when individual nations cede the power they possess to the League of Nations. However, at present, there is almost no prospect of individual nations ceding their sovereignty.

Therefore, one might easily harbor doubts about the significance of the League of Nations' existence. It becomes unclear what the League of Nations exists for. However, we must understand well what kind of experiment the League of Nations is.

This experiment is extremely rare in human history. Or rather, it is an experiment that has never been attempted on such a large scale in human history. It is trying to obtain authority—"the influence to be able to force certain things upon people"—which is usually obtained by holding power—by appealing to a certain ideal! (Omitted)

[All quoted text is from "Why Do People Wage War?" (translated by Shogo Asami)]

────────────

It is right to follow what is right, and it is inevitable to follow what is strongest.

Justice without power is helpless; power without justice is tyrannical.

Justice without power is opposed, because there are always wicked men. Power without justice is condemned. Therefore, we must combine justice and power. To do this, what is right must be made strong, or what is strong must be made right.

Justice is a subject of dispute. Power is very clear and beyond dispute. Therefore, people could not give power to justice, because power opposed justice, saying that it was not right and that it was itself the right one.

In this way, since people could not make what is right strong, they made what is strong right.

Blaise Pascal " Pensées" Chapter 5 Justice and the Reason of Effects 298

The #mathematicsian, #physicsist, #philosophyer, and #theologyan #Pascal had insight into #human nature, which the physicist #Nazi-era physicist #Einstein and psychologist #Freud, at the suggestion of the #League of Nations's International Institute of Intellectual Cooperation, re-examined while exchanging opinions in a series of letters on the theme of "Can #humanity be liberated from the yoke of #war?" As a result, they concluded that to prevent humanity from using violence to impose their will and pursue their own ends, war must be prevented by humanity working together to create a powerful centralized #authority and entrusting the arbitration of any conflicts of interest to this authority, but in order to give the centralized authority body, the League of Nations, the #power to enforce its rulings, individual nations would have to surrender their own authority = violence apparatus = #military force to the League of Nations, but at present, they reached the conclusion that there is almost no prospect of individual nations surrendering their authority = violence apparatus = military force.

In this 21st century, is it not time for individual nations to hand over their power—that is, their #United Nations—to the central #force required to enforce its own rulings, by transferring their own power = violence apparatus = #military force to the United Nations?

And furthermore, should not #Constitution of Japan, which declares that it stands on the international stage as a completely #unarmed #nation (renouncing the maintenance of #war potential and the #right of belligerency), be the very first among the nations of the world to hand over its own #Japan power = violence apparatus = #military force = #Self-Defense Forces to the United Nations?