Have you ever noticed how great powers suddenly become “humanitarians” when it comes to weapons and methods of war? On paper, it all looks beautiful: “we ban chemical weapons, biological weapons, nuclear weapons because we are good.” But let’s look at this whole affair without rose-colored glasses. Doesn’t it seem to you that such bans are not at all about concern for humanity, but a clever trick to maintain the global hierarchy? It’s as if the world boxing champion banned all opponents from using their left hand. Why? Because it makes it easier for him to win!
Take, for example, the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT). Five countries (USA, Russia, China, France, UK) officially gained the right to possess nuclear arsenals. The others were told: “You can’t! It’s dangerous!” Why? Because when you have an atomic bomb, no one risks touching you. Recall the fate of Libya: Gaddafi abandoned his nuclear program, and then his regime was blown to smithereens. North Korea, in turn, decided to avoid this, and now Kim Jong Un has nuclear weapons, and for some reason, no one is bombing him. Or take chemical weapons. For decades, the USA turned a blind eye to the chemical attacks of Saddam’s ally against Iran, but suddenly remembered these atrocities when Iraq stopped being a friend. It looks like selective amnesia.
But it’s even more interesting with the rules of warfare. According to international laws, rebels are forbidden from hiding among civilians. It seems reasonable: fewer casualties among the civilian population. But what is a poor partisan to do if the enemy has drones, satellites, tanks, and aircraft? Go out into the field with an open visor? That’s a guaranteed one-way ticket. It turns out that the great powers tell the weak: either fight by the rules and be guaranteed to lose, or fight as best you can and you will be declared terrorists.
By the way, it is interesting that “legal terror” is only available to the state. The carpet bombing of Dresden in World War II, the nuclear strike on Hiroshima, NATO missile hits on Belgrade bridges and the television center in 1999—these are not terrorism, but “military necessity.” But one explosion by rebels is already a terrible sin. Of course, no one here is justifying violence against civilians, but why can the state do such things while a rebel cannot?
Let’s also remember humanitarian law in conflicts like Afghanistan or Iraq. Western countries always emphasize that they fight “cleanly” and by the rules. But as soon as the rules get in the way, they are easily forgotten. Remember Abu Ghraib? Torture and abuse of prisoners who were “unlawful combatants.” The rules exist, but we don’t apply them to you because you are “not dressed in uniform.”
And then there are psycho-chemical weapons—substances that are meant to selectively and temporarily affect the brain without causing long-term harm to the enemy’s health. A typical example is the incapacitant BZ, which the USA experimented with during the Vietnam era. Officially, it is a “non-lethal means of suppression,” but in a large dose, it turns a person into a helpless zombie. Or take the opioid hybrids used in 2002 during “Nord-Ost”: hostages were put to sleep with a fentanyl-based aerosol—130 people suffocated, yet formally this is not a “combat toxic agent,” but a special tool. Convenient: when the strong need magic dust, it is an “anti-terrorist gas,” but if the weak try to do the same, they instantly become violators of all conventions.
Supporters of humanitarian law say: “Yes, the rules are imperfect, but at least there are some standards.” But if the rules work only in one direction, the question ultimately arises: could it be that they were created not to protect the weak, but to maintain the balance of power in favor of the strong?!
P.S. When authoritarians call libertarians “free-riders,” suggesting we demand that everyone “for free” agree with our “wants” (observe the NAP), they should realize that non-interference in their nervous system, for example, using drugs for forced reinforcement of the violence inhibitor, is self-restraint and a final attempt to peacefully establish a dialogue, not a technical impossibility!
