Fries are a universal language. If you travel around the modern world there is a definite chance of finding fries. The first time I saw fries was on a busy Pakistani street. There was a kid in green shalwar and kameez (traditional dress) with a cart and an oil heating tub. The tub seemed as an electronic rice cooker. There was certain amount of oil with laces of potatoes swimming in the pot. The fries were delicious. Crispy, salty,long and hot. Then as time went on, I found fries to become an accessory to meals rather then a main dish. Whether it was a burger, fried chicken, fish entre, salad bowl, meat on a stick, milkshake or a bakery product, I always have fries on the side. In simple terms: No freedom, no fries.

One day, me and my Belgian buddy were discussing about fries. He told me that even though the food is fully named as “french fries”, it has nothing to do with France. The origin of fries is Belgian not France. I didn’t venture in the origin story further, so I took his word. It does make sense as Belgians are known for their love of fries. Just as in Pakistan you can find a chai stall on every street, similarly, you will find a fries cart on every Belgian road. Belgium is also known as the “battleground of Europe.” Due to its location and resources, major European powers have fought on its soil to retrieve the banner as the sovereign and ultimate power. The famous battles are as follows: Battle of Oudenaarde (1708, Dutch win against the French forces), Battle of Ramilies (1706, Loss of French empire against the British troops), Battle of Waterloo (1815, Napolean lost his last battle to Coalition forces and was exiled to Saint Helena), Battle of Ypres ( 1914, World War I, approximately million soldiers died), Battle of Bastogne (1944, World War II, US victory against Nazis) etc [1]. I wondered if the triumph party had fries for celebration.

Every generation is impacted by warfare. Millineals will remember the Iraq war (2003-2011), Afghan War (2001-2021), Syrian War, Yemen War and the recent Ukraine War. What makes a war justified? Can there be any justification for such horrendous acts? Is there such a thing as theory of war? These questions lead us to the infamous ‘just theory of war’ [2]. The theory is a doctrine or set of principles that must be met to justify a state to venture into warfare. But after scrutiny we find that just war theory tells us nothing important. It can be placed in three simple questions: Should I go to war or not? How should I conduct the war? what is the general outcome of the war? I will now deal with each question, individually. There are two schools of thought which focuses on the justification aspect, the Groatian tradition of war and the Rousseau’s republican tradition of war [3]. The Groatian tradition stems from the ideas of Hugo Grotius. He was a dutch scholar who is considered as the pioneer of international law. This tradition places war in theoretical framework and uses universal principles or international bodies, such as: UNO or Security Council to dictate the validation of war. I think Grotius ideas fall short for two reasons. First, the universal principles are not clear. There is no clear path or set of rules to follow. It is good to have the laws of war not set in stones as every situation is different and varies greatly. But different interpretation leads to different results and as such the theory can not be verified for its results. Secondly, Grotius is treated as an enigma due to unclarity or vagueness in his thoughts and ideas. This also stems from his merging of theological principles with laws of war, that leads to unclear conclusions. Though his ideas do carry influence as in modern world decisions of war are taken through plural discourse rather then singular motives. Such as: UN, NATO, EU.

The other tradition is based on romantic thoughts of Rousseau. This dictates that war is justified if it is for liberty, equality, revolt against tyranny, freedom of minority, individual rights etc. This traditon is broadly guided through emotions rather then rigid principles. This school of thought is known as Republic Tradition of War, as it emphasises on the actions of elected state representatives and constitutional guidelines. Rousseau placed great emphasis on the individual. His main premise was that the human nature at core is good and peaceful. It is when the man inter-mingles with society that he loses his true nature and becomes dumb, docile and generic. He amalgamates with the culture rather then challange it. Once the selfdom is removed from the man, then he follows the commands of the State. The state dictates the enemies and the warfare. The man ends up being a spectator or participant for an uninformed goal. Rousseau firmly believed that the noblest quality in a man’s life is freedom. It is to live with no constraint, control or subjugation to an empire. Once a man is free then he can express himself and criticize the ruling class. The philosopher emphasized that the justification aspect of any war lies in the heart or subjective view of candidate. Further, the tyrant is mostly the one which initiates the war. It is for the candidate to think, reflect, judge and decide whether the war is justified. The only downside to this notion is what if the man is wrong is his conclusion? There is a large possibility that the man is compelled to war due to racist, prejudice, revenge or self-interest rather then clear reasoning, logical deduction or ideas based on facts. Another aspect to the republican tradition is revolution. This occurs when the oppressed party take arms and action against the tyrannical rulers. As Rousseau states [4]:

 I see unfortunate peoples wailing about from beneath an iron
yoke, the frst human race crushed by a handful of oppressors;a mob painfully overworked and
starving for bread—the blood and tears of whom the rich drink in peace—and everywhere the
strong armed against the weak with the formidable power of the laws. All of this was accomplished peacefully and without resistance: it’s the tranquility of Ulysses’s companions locked up
in Cyclops’s cavern, waiting to be devoured.

Rousseau admired the works of Pasquale Paoli (1725 - 1807) and Tadeusz Kosciuzko (1746 - 1817). Paoli was the President of Corsica and the military leader who fought against the aggressions of the French State. Corsica is a small island in the south seas of France. King Louis XV wanted to annex Corsica to strengthen the French presence and kingdom. Paoli tried his utmost to keep his land free from foreign domination but his efforts were futile. The French forces were able to defeat Corsican in decisive battles. Still, Paoli is remembered as a liberterian and protagonist who stood against the tyrants. Tadeusz, on the other hand, was a Polish soldier who fought against the Russian influence. He is widely remembered who led and won victories against the Russian army, even though Tadeusz had smaller army and limited resources. Rousseau coveted these men, as they stood for liberty, and fought against ruling elites. Another example, in our modern times, is of Soviet Union annexation of Afghanistan (1979 - 1989) or the Vietnam War (1955 - 1975). In both wars, the oppressed were victorious against the oppressors. Rousseau would be delighted.

We find that the real world is much complicated and mostly lies in the middle of these opposing traditions. (Can there be a matrix diagram that shows different options of just war theory?). Rule of thumb is: Follow your gut feeling. It does sound mundane, rudimentary and naive but sometimes the simplest answer is the best answer. 90% of the times, the transgressors are the culprits. 10% lies in the grey area. A good-example of the grey area is Ukraine War. Though Russia is the aggressor and the first notion is to label Russia as the culprit, but the conclusion is superficial. Just as West feels threatened by a strong Russian coalition, similarly Russia feels threatened with NATO expansion in it’s proximity. It must be remembered that I am not supporting the actions of Putin but I am trying to argue whether the war is justified or unjustified.

The second part of Just War is the conduct. How should the war be conducted? Carl Von Clausewitz (1780 - 1831) wrote a seminal work on the topic, named “On War”. Clausewitz was a general in the Prussian army that fought against Napolean forces. He is famously quoted for “ War is the continutation of State’s policy by other means.” Politics and War are opposite part of the same coin. If one state can’t achieve its aim through political discourse then it uses physical or Lenin stated to use forcible means to achieve its objectives. Clausewitz emphasized that every war is different and the leader must prepare each aspect of the war, tentatively. The author stressed on the highest priority of every individually is simply freedom. He wrote [5]:

 I Believe and Profess that a people never must value a thing higher than the dignity 
 and freedom of its existence; that it must defend these with the last drop of its blood; 
 that it has no duty more sacred and can obey no law that is higher; that the shame 
 of a cowardly submission can never be wiped out; thta the posion of submission in the bloodstream of a people will be transmitted to its children, 
 and paralyze and undermine the strength of later generations;

Rousseau will also support this claim as it relates to human nature of freedom, liberty and selfdom. Though war is a reality of human affairs, it must be kept as the last option. Only those who have participated or seen the consequences of war, will tell us the horrendous reality of warfare. It is a catastrophe that can be abated only through diplomacy, wisdom and a bit of luck. But if all else fails, strapping the bullet belt seems to be the last resort.

The last part of Just War is the Justice after war or peace-building. This part occurs after the war is ended and the restoration of human life is to be initiated. Although, this part is not considered and less attention is payed. This is still important to understand and reconcile because war directly or indirectly impacts every citizen on the participates. Further the common citizens normal life, lifestock and environment is devastated. It requires international effort and the confronting states to reconcile, formulate peace treaties and initiate the building process. Mostly, we find the belligerants leave the weakened state and let them handle the calamities. No remorse or consideartion is shown. Human nature at best.

References

[1] https://www.quora.com/Why-is-Belgium-called-the-European-battlefield

[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Just_war_theory

[3] http://ndl.ethernet.edu.et/bitstream/123456789/25395/1/42.pdf

[4] J.J. Rousseau, Principles of the Right of War

[5] Edward M. Collins, War, Politics & Power