The Decisions of Post - War
As a war comes to an end, the main controversial issue is the peace treaty that is signed and the outcomes of the war. However, ending a war is significantly more complicated than the mere content publicized. There are many methods of approaching the aggressor of war; primarily retribution or rehabilitation. The concepts and effects of both models will be analyzed and applied to a debatable contemporary situation.
Revenge and Retribution After war, the model of retribution assumes that “the good side” triumphs over “the aggressor” and punishes the “aggressor” accordingly and appropriately. With regards to its structure; first and foremost, a public peace treaty is signed between both sides. The basic details of the treaty are generally publicly announced so that everyone knows that the war is over and the basic consequences and results of the war. Afterwards, the winners and the losers both exchange all prisoners of war captured during the conflict. Once that has been handled, the aggressor must proceed to giving a public apology by admitting fault and guilt for causing the war. However small this task may be, it is generally very controversial because it is the most sincere (and probably only) thing a country can do for other countries that it has harmed. Next, war crime trials are held for soldiers and officers who may have violated various war agreements. For example, the murder of innocent citizens and torturing of POW’s are crimes that one can be charged for. People that do so are properly brought to justice after the war ends. Recently in 1998, the Treaty of Rome was passed which created the international war crimes tribunal that prosecutes all war crimes committed by all sides in the war. Their judgment is designed to be as fair as possible and the lawyers and judges are from countries not part of the war. In addition to trials, the aggressor in war must surrender any gains in terms of land and resources that it made. They are unjust gains and the aggressor is either pressured or forced into surrendering them. For example, Germany conquered numerous countries such as Austria, Poland and France. After the end of World War II, Germany surrendered control over its conquered countries. Additional key points with regards to retribution are that the aggressor must be demilitarized and suffer further losses. Regarding demilitarization; the international community must feel the assurance of its safety. Consequently, the aggressor loses the majority of its military assets and weaponry. It also has limits placed on the size of its armed forces and its ability to rebuild its armed forces to the point where their military is ineffective. In addition, what makes retribution unique is that the aggressor is further punished. The punishers believe in that the aggressor(s) should be made worse compared to before the war happened as a means to make them feel the error of their actions and to give them a bitter idea of what they did wrong. In addition, the punishers hope to prevent future aggressions from the aggressors and deter others who may have similar ideas. In order to do so, there are two general penalties often used. The first one is reparations payments to the victims and other relevant countries. This is a way of making up for the losses of the victims and also sets the aggressor back compared to other countries since it also has to reconstruct and rebuild. The second punishment is sanctions that are meant to hurt the aggressor’s economic growth for a period of time and also to limit their ability obtain resources to create tools of war.
Strengths of this model are that the aggressor will be severely maimed after the war and will find it extremely difficult to engage in another war. The aggressor will have to invest a lot of time in rebuilding and restructuring its society whilst developing its economy so that it can sustain itself in the future. However, it will meet many challenges on the way as well because of the sanctions imposed. The aggressor will be significantly worse off in terms of wealth and military ensuring peace for a handful of years after the war ends. Overall, the aggressor(s) will be unable to perform any military activity or aggressions in the future for a substantial number of years and likely suffer from economic depressions rendering them weak. They will act as a model for any other potential aggressors in the near future.
However, there are many weaknesses to this approach that most revenge – hungry victims fail to consider after the war ends. For example, it is commonly known that revenge and retribution will lead to more revenge and the cycle generally tends to continue until someone falters; “an eye for an eye makes the whole world blind” (Gandhi). For example, World War II started because Hitler had the charisma and leadership skills to unite the suppressed Germans and fight against the oppression of the Allied Forces. After World War I, Germany quickly fell into economic instability which led to civil unrest. During this complex crisis, Hitler took advantage of the confusion and disruption by uniting the Germans by scapegoating the Jews for Germany’s problems. As Hitler’s name and power slowly spread throughout Germany, so did his success by revitalizing the economy. He significantly contributed to the promotion of the Volkswagen (Volks means the people; so it was “the people’s car”) and even improved Germany’s infrastructure through the construction of highways. He also violated all the agreements of the previous peace treaties by cancelling the reparation payments and stimulated the economy through the development of military armaments. Through deals with foreign countries such as Russia, Germany produced massive weapons of war and even developed extremely powerful weapons such as the Panther and Tiger (Panzers) tank which could destroy a handful of American M3 tanks single – handedly. Ironically, even though the ideals of the peace and retribution – based treaties were to prevent Germany from ever rising up again from World War I, Germany grew even more powerful than before with a greedy yet extremely powerful leader. Treaties are only effective if countries and its people are there to enforce it. This may be extremely costly and require high commitments to perform well. Evidently, the League of Nations had failed to do so and was nothing more than a powerless figurehead. As a result of Germany’s uprising from its depths of despair, it grew in rage and anger which eventually lead to World War II resulting in millions of dead people. The consequences of this World War were even direr than those of the first one. The disorder that retribution creates for an aggressor country opens the opportunity for people, and generally not the best leaders, to become dictators and play with the country in the palm of their hand. Overall, retribution will eventually lead to a greater desire for revenge and movements or underground organizations can discreetly avoid surveillance of monitoring countries/people as they plan for their uprising. It also damages the country’s economy and stability which allows people to take advantage and unite the country under a mutual hate for a scapegoat. More bloodshed and anger will follow and the cycle of war and grief may possibly never end.
Rehabilitation
Rehabilitation is another method that countries can take against aggressor countries. The model of it is very similar to the model of retribution. To begin with, there is always the traditional need for a public peace treaty that announces its conditions. The aggressor country has to issue official apologies and exchange prisoners of war with their respective home countries. Afterwards, trials for war criminals will be conducted and there will be some demilitarization just to reassure the world of its security. In addition, the aggressor country must surrender any unjust gains made during the war.
What sets rehabilitation apart from retribution are three major topics. First, the idea of sanctions is rejected. Secondly, there will be no compensation payments made. This is because both ideas generally cause harm to the citizens of the country in the long run. Finally, the most key point to rehabilitation is that investments should be made in redeveloping and restructuring the aggressor country. The old regime is forced to change for the better so that a new and non – aggressive country will be created that can be a progressive member of the international community.
The Strengths of this model can be summarized in two main points; there is a very low possibility of an aggression from the same aggressor and there the aggressor has the potential to grow into strong international community members. By helping the aggressor country rebuild and restructure its political system, the country will be able to fix recuperate itself and redevelop back to its previous state. There would be minimal desire for a future aggression as well since they are being offered aid to rebuild. Citizens will not suffer any significant consequences in the long run. In addition, the old regime can be rebuilt so that a new one can be raised to properly maintain order and peace within the country. In the long run, the aggressor country will have the potential and have some friends to develop it to be better than before; rather than being left to crumble as seen in the retribution model. Good examples of rehabilitation successes include Japan and West Germany. After Japan lost in World War II, foreign countries went in to help them recuperate from their losses; particularly the destruction of two of their cities. Following the rehabilitation of Japan, Japan currently sits in the world as a center of technology, innovation and high quality products. It is now a significant player in world trade and contributes to the daily lives of many people around the world with products like the Wii.
The Weaknesses of this model is that it is extremely costly and that it can be invasive of the aggressor’s culture when it comes to rebuilding and restructuring their country. After a war, both sides suffer damages and losses. In order to help rebuild the aggressor’s country, that means that not only would countries have to invest millions to rebuild themselves, they also have to invest more money into the country that caused all the damage. Truly ironic, the aggressor attacks a country and the victim eventually triumphs but pays for all the damage it brings to its aggressor. This brings about the disharmony because most victims would be very unwilling to help their aggressor; especially those that were conquered or experienced huge losses. For example, during World War II, Russia was an ally to Germany until Hitler turned his back on them and pushed the German army nearly to the heart of Russia. Hitler’s campaign failed but millions of Russians were killed in the process bringing them great grief and anger. After the end of World War II, the rehabilitation model was put into action; however, Russia wanted a significant portion of control over East Germany. To this day, East Germany is not performing as well as it could be due to the influence of poor restructuring and aid from Russia. This brings about another problem; the victims of the aggressor have to be trusted and reliable so that they can actually help the aggressor rebuild; otherwise, they may bring more trouble and problems along the way. Lastly, by allowing an external force fix the aggressor’s old regime, the external force(s) may be imposing their own political system on them. For example, during the Cold War, USA was pro – Democracy and used its power to bring democracy throughout the world whereas Russia was Communist. Consequently, countries under USA’s influence were generally led towards a Democratic government whereas Russian influenced countries generally took a Communist approach. The newly imposed systems may not be suited to the people of the aggressor country but nonetheless, they are rather forced to accept the changes at times. Overall, it is very difficult for victims to reach out to the defeated aggressor and provide aid for them. In addition, the aid and restructuring provided may not necessarily what the aggressor country’s citizens want.
Which Model Is Preferred?
Both models are excellent choices but in order to choose one, it would be best to analyze the world’s economic situation and other factors such as population. With regards to the contemporary world, the model I would choose would be retribution/revenge. It is overall less costly for the victimized countries and allows them to rebuild at a more efficient and effective pace. The aggressor may suffer from many problems and relative disadvantages, but they are responsible for their own actions and should suffer the consequences accordingly. The despair that is brought by retribution generally leads to disorder and the uprising of more armed conflicts. However, this weakness can also be a strength in many aspects. War has the obvious downsides have deaths and destruction. However, there are many good aspects of it that can solve many contemporary problems. Firstly, war can act as a means of population control. This will allow for more sustainable development of human growth since there are fewer people and relatively more resources available for everyone. During war, governments and the military enforce rationalizing food and resources. People will become forced to adapt to living a humble yet resource efficient life; hence less wastage. Many trends from war carry on to post - war life (such as income tax) and efficiently using resources may be one! Vast amounts of resources may be consumed in the short run but in the long run, there will be less people to use the remaining resources; relatively more resources available per person in terms of long run. In addition, the demand for labor will rise in order to fuel the efforts of war. Women will gain more equality and opportunities to work. Many may even get to continue to find work elsewhere in similar industries after the war. Finally, war provides incentive for scientists and researchers to invent new products! These products may be designed in the short run for military usages, but they can also be converted into civilian based products. Many great inventions have been created for the military such as the radar and the internet and they become a part of people’s lives! Overall, it can be said that the model of retribution generally leads to war which can bring many benefits. Even if it doesn’t, countries can learn from their mistakes and wrongdoings to strive to be a better international citizen. I would like to conclude with this statement of preference that this topic is extremely debatable based on the reader’s perspective and that certain situations would tend to favor the rehabilitation model.
Post – War Reconstruction in Iraq and Afghanistan
Taking on the application of these models, let us apply the model of rehabilitation towards Iraq and Afghanistan. Currently, with regards to the post – war situation, Iraq is safer than before the war. This is due to the stationing of 50,000 American soldiers that will protect key infrastructure whilst training Iraq’s military. However, there is an unemployment rate of nearly 50% and the economy is an extremely poor situation. Given the poor situation of the country, it would be extremely helpful if external countries such as America invested money into developing Iraq’s infrastructure and economy. By doing so, there will be an increase in the stability and self – development of the country. Otherwise, the country may simply erupt in civil war and destroy itself. Since the international community has the power to prevent this, they should do so through the investments and development in Iraq. With regards to Afghanistan, the security level is rather high around the capital since American forces guard it. However, the security and stability in the rural areas and on the border of Pakistan is extremely vulnerable and dangerous. In addition, the economy in Afghanistan is extremely weak. Consequently, the international community should strive to help the country’s development. Afghanistan has suffered the turmoil of war because of the irresponsibility of certain individuals. The country has a whole does not deserve to suffer the crimes of a handful. By applying the concepts of rehabilitation such as restructuring the old regime and investing in the economy, Afghanistan has the potential to operate under a well – formed government that acts in the interest of its people. Furthermore, Afghanistan has an abundance of land that can be developed with infrastructure. Consequently, it has the potential to be better than it is before with the help of the international community. For example, Russia has signed an agreement with Afghanistan that it will aid in the control of opium because Russia has been experienced large inflows of opium from Afghanistan. This encourages other countries to also step in and help Afghanistan for the sake of its people and stability. Through analysis of the two post – war models, one can gain insight on the two different kinds of models that can be generally applied. There are various situations and experiences from the past and the effectiveness of each model is well illustrated. Through proper judgment, one can apply the appropriate method towards the post – war situation. In the instance of Afghanistan and Iraq, rehabilitation is a highly recommended and stressed method that should be adapted for the good and better of the country’s people. Perhaps in the future, initiatives such as the formation of institutions can be taken to better control and execute campaigns to solve post – war problems in the contemporary world.