Order vs. Justice (in 2003)
The most meaningful classes implant ideas in one’s mind that are brought up over and over, constantly. Last year, I took an International Relations course and the key concept that came up again in my thoughts, especially during the election, was Order vs. Justice.
When leaders make domestic and international decisions, they must take the balance of order and justice into account. Firstly, order can be referred to as a precondition to ensure the people’s freedom from violence and chaos. An orderly action is one that maintains state sovereignty while taking into account the potential resulting shift in controlling powers on an international level. On the other hand, justice is the value that enables people to live in a fair, ethical society that maintains human rights. A just decision is one that incorporates morals and public perception. Yet, the justness of an action depends on one’s perspective. Simply put, there cannot be one without the other. In a state consisting of only order, various forms of oppression would arise and inevitably lead to revolts. However, in a state ruled only by justice, anarchy would break out amongst people in a fight to establish a system of hierarchy. This balance is crucial in the state of modern politics because leaders must accept responsibility to act in the people’s best interest, as well as emanate society’s values and norms via actions.
An example of failing to maintain the balance is America’s involvement in the Middle East, specifically in 2003, when President George W. Bush commanded an invasion into Iraq. This invasion was the result of complex U.S.-Middle East relations dating back to the previous Bush’s presidency. The senior Bush acted to defend Kuwait from Iraq’s invasion under Saddam Hussein. After Bush decimated the Iraqi forces, he chose to allow Hussein to retain his dictatorship. The intent behind this decision was to aid an ally while maintaining the order in Iraq by not removing a relatively popular dictator. On the other hand, when the junior Bush invaded Iraq, he removed Saddam Hussein from power. This destabilized Iraq and resulted in a violent “power vacuum” among sectarian groups. Bush 43 acted rashly, claiming Hussein possessed Weapons of Mass Destruction in contrary to foreign intelligence, as well as acted to get justice for the 9/11 attacks. He failed to take into account that such dangerous destabilization would result, the WMD’s did not exist, and Osama bin Laden’s al-Qaeda should have been solely punished after claiming responsibility. Bush sought justice for America, but acted unjustly towards the Middle East and did not recognize the implications of such an invasion on the order of the region. Finally, the lack of sustaining order enabled terrorist groups to rise to power in Iraq, as well as throughout the Middle East.
The balance of order and justice is the most prominent concept in international relations to analyze and understand the successes or failures of leaders during times of war. I have an affinity for this concept and historical example, which I know will help me understand future international conflicts.
