War and International Justice: A Kantian Perspective by Brian Orend (review)

136 LETTERS IN CANADA 2000 sort. If he has not entirely demonstrated to the reader that anything should flow from that insight, he has at least helped to delineate the middle path down which such a demonstration might go. (HAMISH STEWART) Brian Orend. War and International Justice: A Kantian Perspective Wilfrid Laurier University Press. xii, 300. $49.95 War is a journey into a vast human darkness. The concern to reconcile the practice of war with theories of morality lies at the heart of the just war tradition. Brian Orend contends in his new book that Kant=s theory of international justice not only accommodates that tradition=s understanding of the morality of war, but improves it. Indeed, Kant deemed the practice of resorting to war to be morally permissible in the non-ideal circumstances in which states found themselves. Orend=s original contribution lies in his contention that in addition to the just war tradition=s preoccupation with principles governing the resort to war (jus ad bellum) and the conduct of war (jus in bello), Kant created a new category in just war theory, focusing on issues of justice after war (jus post bellum). This neglected category is Kant=s main concern, as it is vital to the ultimate function of just war theory, which is to eliminate war or, failing that, to reduce the incidence and destructiveness of war in the future. The main strengths of Orend=s book lie in its clear writing, theoretical analysis, and insightful interpretation of Kant=s theory of international justice as well as his views on the morality of war. Unfortunately, the book is much weaker in its discussion of contemporary cases. The most glaring errors occur in the book=s account of the Rwandan genocide of 1994, including an unfortunate misidentification of the genocide=s main victim group. It is not possible here to offer a thorough correction; however, some points from Gérard Prunier=s The Rwanda Crisis: History of a Genocide (1997) may suffice. Rwanda was colonized by Germany prior to the First World War, then transferred to the Belgians, who systematically favoured the minority Tutsis over the Hutus in the administration of their colony. With the prospect of independence and the rise of an ideology that equated demographic majority with democratic government, politics in Rwanda took a nasty turn. In 1959, the majority Hutus, resentful of their inferior status, took power with the help of the Belgians, who felt betrayed by the anti-colonial Tutsi elite. Between 1959 and 1964, then again in 1972B73, the Hutu majority perpetrated revenge on the minority Tutsis, resulting in massacres and an exodus of Tutsis to neighbouring countries such as Uganda. Exiled Tutsis eventually formed the Rwandan Patriotic Front (RPF), and civil war plagued the country from the early 1990s. At the same time, the implementation of World Bank structural adjustment policies deepened an economic crisis. HUMANITIES 137 The Hutu government increasingly courted extremist views that played on Hutu insecurities and fears of the minority Tutsis. Despite rising human rights violations and heightened propaganda dehumanizing the Tutsi population, the French government offered unconditional support to the Hutu government in its struggle against the RPF. The ensuing genocide between April and June of 1994 claimed between 500,000 and 800,000 lives, mainly Tutsis and moderate Hutus. In the early days of the genocide, the United Nations, instead of reinforcing its mission in Rwanda, cut back its presence, resulting in an exercise of futility that nearly destroyed the mission=s commander, Canadian General Roméo Dallaire. Although Orend=s discussion of this case focuses on the question of whether the United States would have been justified in intervening in Rwanda, it would have been more appropriate to discuss the responsibilities of France, as well as of the UN. (Indeed, France did act later, but, it seems, mainly to help Hutus, including former genocidaires, who were retreating upon the advance of RPF forces.) Ultimately, the Rwandan tragedy points to the central inadequacies of just war theories that are predicated on a problematic intervention/non-intervention distinction. No state is an island, and cases of intrastate violence typically do not occur in an international vacuum...