07 Apr Ratner in FP on the Geneva Conventions
Steve Ratner has a nice turn at the “Think Again” column in the latest Foreign Policy (teaser here – let this be a good reason to subscribe). Steve takes on various elements of the popular conventional wisdom on the Geneva Conventions, including the line that they are obsolete:
The conventions won’t prevent wars—they were never intended to—but they can and do protect innocent bystanders, shield soldiers from unnecessary harm, limit the physical damage caused by war, and even enhance the chances for cease-fires and peace. The fundamental bedrock of the conventions is to prevent suffering in war, and that gives them a legitimacy for anyone touched by conflict, anywhere and at any time. That is hardly quaint or old-fashioned.
Not all from one side, though: the piece also notes that the GCs don’t require Guantanamo’s closure, and labels as “absurd” the assertion that the US flouts the regime more than any other nation.
I would question whether the views are “popular” “conventional” or “wisdom” on the Geneva Conventions. More like the effort being pushed by a few who want to make them appear “quaint”. No aspersions being cast on you Peter.
Best,
Ben
The Geneva Conventions make it possible for a person holding a broad set of ethical, moral and/or religious scruples commonly described as ‘decency’ (but not pacifism, obviously), to join the military in good conscience.
Prof. Organ-Failure-or-Death’s Quaintness Project would have the military descend to the misguided, amoral mindset for which ‘in good conscience’ is completely irrelevant–decent human stay away. This would have a corrosive impact on the military internally and on its external popular support.
I’ve quoted you and linked to you here.