Civilians in Pain and Silence: A Critique of Just War Theory.

"[War] is to alter (to burn, to blast, to shell, to cut) human tissue, as well as to alter the surface, shape and deep entirety of the objects that human beings recognise as an extensions of themselves.”

- Elaine Scarry, "The Body in Pain" (1985) p 64.

Instances of conflict greatly shape the lives of humans as well as limiting the ways in which one is able to be human. In this post, I will be looking at exactly this: how civilians are affected by conflict. Undoubtedly, the ways in which civilian lives are broken, represented and reshaped by conflict is extensive and complicated, and therefore cannot be faithfully portrayed here. Instead, I will be looking at the what Just War theory leaves out when attempting to address human injury in conflict: its recognition of suffering being limited to instances of death, the legitimisation of some of these deaths, and the civilian misrepresentation and voicelessness implicit in its normative discourse. It is the facelessness of civilians in such theoretical discourse that is the most damaging: the denial of citizens to have a right to exist with pain and experience, and the removal of their right to tell their stories furthers their injury still. Civilians are commonly the objects of conflict, but are never the subjects. In this way, I do not see Just War theory as only 'falling short' in its representation of civilian suffering, but as actively acting against those living in conflict zones in its theoretical approach to war. It not only fails to amplify the telling of experience, but also acts to silence and reduce. 

When we think about instances of conflict, we know that the pain of subjected lives far extends beyond death. As better described by Carolyn Nordstrom, "The space between violence and theory hasenabled researchers to ascribe a reasonableness to warfare that belies the civilian experience." While theory acknowledges that unarmed civilians become trapped in instances of conflict, modern warfare seems to be increasingly directed to actual civilian attacks, the repercussions of which far extend beyond dead bodies and burnt towns, but also devastates the social and cultural foundations of society, and the cultural and epistemological viability of those whose worlds are on the front lines.

Discussion of the on-going effects of the U.S. invasion in

Iraq on civilians, and the subsequent silencing

of these people in trying to voice their experiences

or response to this.

Just war theory also relegates the civilian to a sub-human status: theorists argue that civilians must not be killed intentionally, however, unintentional killings are justified, as well as those that are considered proportional to the military gains made. Human stories of suffering, experience and injury are reduced to whether civilians physically survived the conflict. Although each civilian has a voice, they are denied their own language within Just War discourse, and many of those like it. Giorgrio Agamben explains that it is almost a condition that civilians be removed from the political process, instead they must be presented in the increasingly meaningless term; innocent victim. Agency is on the side of the military, and the ethics of a conflict (what they may do and what they may do to civilians) is analysed through their prespective.

This term, ‘civilian’, originally defined as a non-combatant, is constantly being redefined and re-purposed in Just War approaches to conflict, in a way that leaves it meaningless to the protection international law offers such subjects. For example, during Bush’s war on terror, and ideological shift was seen where a distinction was made between non-combatants, who were completely innocent, completely uninvolved and those who sympathised with their peoples, their nation, and supported the labelled terrorists politically or spiritually. Therefore, some civilians are far more ‘deserving’ of injury than others, and are victim to the subgroup we assign them to. This means, in the words of Judith Butler, that some lives are “more grievable than others.” This practice has reduced the civilian to an individual who wants to exist and has no agency, identity, or complex ties with the landscape they live in. This practice of “non-combatant immunity”, despite seeming only to want to protect the civilian, instead affects the civilian by producing them as objects that are insignificant and subject to definition: unrecognisable as sentient human beings. They are denied being recognised as culturally intelligent or politically qualified in knowing or identifying their own experience in war or explaining the state they live in and the one they see themselves living in once the conflict ends.

The differential treatment of Nabila Rehman and Malala Yousafazi, is indicative of the limited perspective of Just War theory. While Malala, who talked of her experience living under Taliban oppression was awarded a Nobel Peace Prize, after talking to a full house, Nabila was left to talk only to an empty congress of her pain and suffering from living under drones. While Malala's account is used to reiterate the need for U.S. intervention in the Middle East through Just War norms, Nabila is instead silenced and unrecognised. Drone strikes in the FATA region of Pakistan have killed thousands of civilians and greatly disrupt the social and cultural practices of the area. The numerical data of death, injury and displacement is commonly used (despite being disputed and inaccurate) to assess damage to the area, but this fails to represent further losses. Constant surveillance causes constant fear and anxiety in communities, and cultural practices have been forgone and untaught to younger generations, signalling a loss of cultural identity and familial narratives. What is especially prolific in this case, is the rise of Taliban insurgency in the area, due to more civilians turning to this form of warfare in attempts to retribute their vast losses, and the forfeiture of their lives, meanings and identity by the U.S. government. Just War theory not only denies these experiences of civilians, by silencing it in discourse, but further justifies these deaths as necessary to the War on Terror: eradicating the Taliban. In the linked video, civilians recount their experiences living under conflict to congress, including the famous line, "I no longer love blue skies," indicative of the truly debilitating effect of conflict on the lives of those subject to it.

When we study violence, or its affects, we only count it when it is ‘measureable’, even though the root from which these affects originate is a structural violence that is taught, learnt and embodied into systems, cultures and identities, becoming foundational for rising generations. The War in Syria, for examples, which just passed it’s fourth anniversary has dominated much of the memorable experiences for many child civilians. The conflict, as reported by the Humans Rights Watch commission, has inflicted malnutrition, illness, loss of learning opportunities, psychological impacts, which mean the irrevocable loss of the skills and understandings they will need as adults to reshape their nation, culture, identity and to restore stability to the region. These affects are not acknowledged in the analysis of civilian suffering in Just War theory.

The learnt effects of war are well expressed in this photo, made
famous on Facebook, of a child holding up her hands to save her life
after mistaking a camera for a weapon. it is a symbolic image
to represent a nation desensitised, faceless and ravaged by the violent
proxy-war. 

Such instances show the great affect of modern warfare, which in large is on the civilian, in the form of their 'disposable' status. To be disposable is to be nameless in someone's eyes, even if you are someone to your family and your country: you are still nameless to the people who originally imagines that you were disposable.  When the implicit disposibility in Just War theory exposed, it is clear that conflict and its affect on civilians is poorly understood when done so through battleground casualties or framing through conventional notions of warfare. instead, we need to interrogate the ways in which peoples lives are rendered disposable on a daily basis.

To be indispensible, instead, means to have a name, and to have that name noticed in a way that allows for a recovery of ideas, voice, and most importantly as a complicated self, not simply as the pure victim of war of as collateral damage. When it comes to oppression and marginality, we, as the unaffected, cannot speak for those who are, but not speaking and denying their experience (or categorising and dissecting it) in the discourse through which we analyse, justify and wage war, does not help either.


















.