In this chapter, I have mounted a justification for two kinds of intervention in the internal affairs of belligerents during the transition from war to peace: the deployment of peacekeeping forces on the one hand, and military occupation on other hand. Both are sometimes justified, or so I argued, not just as a matter of right, but also as a matter of duty—the latter as an instance of a general duty to provide assistance to those in need, irrespective of borders. Both are subject to moral norms which are relevantly similar to and as stringent as the resort to and conduct in war. But while the tasks of peacekeepers are relatively restricted, military occupiers, who take on the reins of government, actually form relationships with occupied civilians. Negotiating those relationships—literally living with the enemy—does not always require grand decisions and solemn gestures. More often than not, it is to be exposed to the daily necessity of acts of moral compromise, many of which might seem insignificant when taken on their own but whose cumulative effect can corrode one’s self-respect and moral integrity. That is the harsh reality of military occupation, and it is partly for this reason that it must end as soon as possible. To this issue, and more generally to the issue of properly building peace, I now turn.

< Prev   CONTENTS   Source   Next >