+ Follow

Source - Pixabay

War: A Perpetual Presence

Ever since Earth came into fruition, wars have been one of its prime intrinsic features. Each conflict differs in size and brutality; some battles encompass gory massacres, complex artillery and ingenious military strategy. Others are simply business-related matters, whereby two competitors engage in a petty Cold War to best one another. Regardless of how varying each war may seem, they all share one key factor in common: each of them must be resolved to prevent further harm. Although this may seem like an obvious statement, the true wonder lies deeper within the matter. The real question we should be asking, is how do we go about resolving such disputes? To many, the answer is simple: reparations. However, there are many pros and cons that come with it. Hence, in this article, I will be assessing and concluding whether entities at war should be entitled to reparations from aggressors, and if so, how?

Money Talks - Or Does It?

Source - Pixabay

At first, reparations seem like the key to solving all aggressions. If State X violates the premises of State Y, they should pay by providing financial aid, or perhaps granting the affected victims of State Y the right to land, health care and housing. That way, the aggressor has paid for their crime, and the victims have been served justice. The UN Charter explicitly states that victims can seek reparations for violations of territorial integrity or political independence. Similarly, the civil, constitutional and international laws of a country all come into play when settling reparations between private parties (e.g. businesses, individuals, etc). Thus, reparations can be seen as a form of justice, for harmed individuals and states.

When it comes to recovering reparations, victims have a bone to pick (or, rather a wallet to fill). After all, they have seen what we lose sleep over; from seized land to extrajudicial killings, the most an aggressor can do is compensate for the damages caused. This can be done via monetary means such as compensation or restitution (e.g., returning seized businesses, reimbursing for medical expenses, etc). Additionally, simply guaranteeing non-repetition of aggression counts as a form of payment. Essentially, reparations provide financial and social means for rebuilding harmed states and private parties. Without them, many countries would be nothing but plains of ruined land, like France after WW1.

“What about non-financial aggressions,” one may ask. As the cliché saying goes, “Money doesn’t buy happiness,”. However, rehabilitation can. Let’s take, for example, the Truth and Reconciliation Commission in South Africa. It provides counselling and support for victims of apartheid, whilst also reinforcing something- the term ‘reparations’ does not only refer to financial aid. Even if an aggressor is an LEDC or financially incompetent, providing medical support via therapy or counselling (e.g., dispatching some of its doctors to the harmed state/ area), also counts as an apology.

The Raw Reality

However, reparations aren’t entirely the saving grace we assume them to be. The very fundamentals of this concept are arguably flawed.

You see, the main aim of compensating a state is to prevent further animosity from harbouring. The pathetic irony behind this is that the opposite often happens.

Think back to the end of WW1, and the Treaty of Versailles. It declared that Germany should pay £6.6 billion in reparations. Instead of making the aggressor feel sorrowful for its involvement in the war, it caused cries of German outrage, so full of anger that Hitler managed to steer it around and gain support for the Nazi party. In essence, reparations led to the rise of Nazi power—a ludicrous statement to some, but nothing further from the truth.

Perhaps if reparations had been lowered, or even removed, we wouldn’t have to read about Hitler’s war crimes in every history textbook we come across. Thus, reparations can be seen as an explanation for increasing hostility between countries

The reality is reparations can only be applied to MEDCs or financially competent individuals. If a weaker country or entity were to harm a state/ individual, how would you go about demanding they pay? Ask them for a ridiculous sum of money, and cause hyperinflation (in the case of a state) or leave them drowning in debt? Even when an aggressor can pay reparations, some scenarios prove to be irreparable, for instance, ethnic cleansing. What form of finance, therapy or restitution would compensate for the lives lost?

“Avoiding danger is no safer in the long run,” Helen Keller once narrated. In this context, reparations can be seen as a way of avoiding and addressing underlying issues, that led to aggression occurring in the first place. How does payment (whether monetary or non-monetary) directly resolve issues? For example, the Slave Trade, which was a systematic, institutionalised form of discrimination. Many argue that the US should pass federal legislation to provide reparations for African Americans, and 'make up' for the historical injustices committed. However, would that address the underlying cause of that issue? Perhaps tightening domestic criminal laws may lead to a decrease in racism and sever the root cause of slavery.

Conclusion

Unfortunately, society is imperfect, and aggressions will continue to occur; whether it be civil wars or business-related disputes, there will always be a delay and denial of rights and justice throughout the world. However, regarding the question proposed, there is no definite answer. It truly depends upon the type of aggression that has occurred, and whether the aggressor and victim are able to find a middle ground. Reparations are better suited for monetary-based aggressions (e.g., the seizing of territory), and outright violations of human rights. However, in the case of minor harm, or when reparations would exacerbate existing conflicts, compensation could serve to cause more injustice, rather than put a stop to it. Making amends, addressing issues and taking responsibility may suffice as enough.

.    .    .

Sources:

Discus