環(huán)球英語—816： Conflict, Part 1: Is it Right to Intervene?
Voice 1
Hello and welcome to Spotlight. I'm Marina Santee.
Voice 2
And I'm Steve Myersco. This programme uses a special English method of broadcasting. It is easier for people to understand, no matter where in the world they live.
Voice 1
A small boy stands outside his school building. It is playtime. But this boy always seems to be alone. Suddenly, two older, bigger boys walk over to him. They start to shout at him and push him. The small boy tries to fight back. But he is too weak. The older boys hit him over and over again.
You watch these boys from a distance. You are not particularly big or powerful. But you feel strongly that the big boys' behaviour is completely wrong. You believe that someone should intervene to stop the fight. The small boy has not asked for help. But it is clear that he needs it! You start to wonder if you should go and help him. But what if the bigger boys start hitting you? You may be able to help him this time - but what about the next time? What if they attack the boy again when you are not there to intervene? Will helping him just this once do any good? All these thoughts fly around your mind! You are just about to act when the school bell rings. A teacher appears. And the two big boys run away. The teacher sees the small boy crying. And quickly she takes him away to the school medical officer. You feel happy that the attack is over. But you are angry with yourself too - why did you not do anything to help? Why did you not get involved?
Voice 2
Conflict is everywhere - from the school playground to countries with nuclear weapons. In 2008, there were 30 armed conflicts in the world. Should people intervene to try and stop these conflicts? This is a question that many groups have to answer - the UN, concerned countries, aid groups.
Voice 1
One of the issues that may prevent such groups from acting is sovereignty. A sovereign nation is independent from any other authority. Its government has the freedom to decide how to rule its country. So, any government wishing to intervene and help in another country's conflict meets a problem. Should its leaders ask that country to permit them to intervene? This would avoid threatening that country's sovereignty. But what if that country is treating its own people very badly? It will probably not permit any other country to intervene. So should other countries act without such permission? Surely the right thing to do is to help suffering people - even if it means going against a nation's sovereignty?
Voice 2
The United Nations organization decided on some rules for military intervention in 1945. The Second World War had just ended. And the U N wanted to make sure that future generations avoided a similar terrible conflict. Article 51 of the United Nations document states:
Voice 3
"Nothing in this present document will interfere with the right of an individual country or group of countries to defend themselves against a military attack."
Voice 2
So, a country can go to war if it needs to defend itself against attack. But the UN document does not permit any other military action, except if the UN votes that the action is needed to make and keep peace.
Voice 1
The UN bases its statements about war on the ‘Just War' theory. This theory had its beginning in ancient Greece and Rome. Later, a Christian church leader developed the idea. His name was Augustine. Augustine lived in North Africa and Italy in the 4th and 5th centuries. These were troubled times. And events in his country caused him to develop the Just War theory. As a Christian, he believed that war was always wrong. But, he knew that wars would probably always happen. So, rulers should go to war with sadness. And their aim should always be to bring peace. He wrote:
Voice 4
"We do not seek peace in order to be at war. But we go to war that we may have peace. Be peaceful, then, when you fight. Win against enemies that you fight with, and bring them to a state of peace."
Voice 1
Augustine believed that injustice was a greater crime than war. So rulers going to war to establish justice were right to do so.
Voice 2
Eight centuries later, another Christian thinker developed the Just War theory even more. His name was Thomas Aquinas. He wrote a book called Summa Theologica. In it, he presented a model of just war - how to decide if it was right or not for a leader to go to war. He wrote:
Voice 5
"It must be said that, in order that a war may be just, three things are necessary. Firstly, a country must go to war on the authority of its leader. Secondly, there must be a good enough cause for the leader to go to war. The other country must deserve to be attacked. Thirdly, the people fighting should do so for the right personal reasons. That means to either prevent evil or to do good."
Voice 2
Today, there are two parts to the ‘Just War' theory. People call each part by an ancient Latin name. The first is jus ad bellum. This deals with the conditions and events before the war. Do they really need military force, or not? The second part is jus in bello - how to fight during a war in a moral way. For a war to be just, each of these parts must be true. There has to be a good reason for the war. And people have to fight it in a fair and legal way.
Voice 1
So, the question, ‘Should we intervene?' seems an easy one to answer. Surely it is just a matter of testing the situation using the ‘Just War' theory? Experts on conflict and peace-keeping would say that it is much more complex than that. For example, what if the conflict is not between two states, but between two groups inside a sovereign state? Would concerned countries still have the right to intervene? What if a sovereign state is acting in a way that causes its citizens to suffer? Is the need to protect basic human rights a just reason for other countries to get involved? As the Christian leader Augustine said: "The purpose of all wars...is peace."
Voice 2
We will discuss these questions in a later Spotlight programme. And we would like to hear your opinions on this subject! E-mail us at radio @ english . net.
Hello and welcome to Spotlight. I'm Marina Santee.
Voice 2
And I'm Steve Myersco. This programme uses a special English method of broadcasting. It is easier for people to understand, no matter where in the world they live.
Voice 1
A small boy stands outside his school building. It is playtime. But this boy always seems to be alone. Suddenly, two older, bigger boys walk over to him. They start to shout at him and push him. The small boy tries to fight back. But he is too weak. The older boys hit him over and over again.
You watch these boys from a distance. You are not particularly big or powerful. But you feel strongly that the big boys' behaviour is completely wrong. You believe that someone should intervene to stop the fight. The small boy has not asked for help. But it is clear that he needs it! You start to wonder if you should go and help him. But what if the bigger boys start hitting you? You may be able to help him this time - but what about the next time? What if they attack the boy again when you are not there to intervene? Will helping him just this once do any good? All these thoughts fly around your mind! You are just about to act when the school bell rings. A teacher appears. And the two big boys run away. The teacher sees the small boy crying. And quickly she takes him away to the school medical officer. You feel happy that the attack is over. But you are angry with yourself too - why did you not do anything to help? Why did you not get involved?
Voice 2
Conflict is everywhere - from the school playground to countries with nuclear weapons. In 2008, there were 30 armed conflicts in the world. Should people intervene to try and stop these conflicts? This is a question that many groups have to answer - the UN, concerned countries, aid groups.
Voice 1
One of the issues that may prevent such groups from acting is sovereignty. A sovereign nation is independent from any other authority. Its government has the freedom to decide how to rule its country. So, any government wishing to intervene and help in another country's conflict meets a problem. Should its leaders ask that country to permit them to intervene? This would avoid threatening that country's sovereignty. But what if that country is treating its own people very badly? It will probably not permit any other country to intervene. So should other countries act without such permission? Surely the right thing to do is to help suffering people - even if it means going against a nation's sovereignty?
Voice 2
The United Nations organization decided on some rules for military intervention in 1945. The Second World War had just ended. And the U N wanted to make sure that future generations avoided a similar terrible conflict. Article 51 of the United Nations document states:
Voice 3
"Nothing in this present document will interfere with the right of an individual country or group of countries to defend themselves against a military attack."
Voice 2
So, a country can go to war if it needs to defend itself against attack. But the UN document does not permit any other military action, except if the UN votes that the action is needed to make and keep peace.
Voice 1
The UN bases its statements about war on the ‘Just War' theory. This theory had its beginning in ancient Greece and Rome. Later, a Christian church leader developed the idea. His name was Augustine. Augustine lived in North Africa and Italy in the 4th and 5th centuries. These were troubled times. And events in his country caused him to develop the Just War theory. As a Christian, he believed that war was always wrong. But, he knew that wars would probably always happen. So, rulers should go to war with sadness. And their aim should always be to bring peace. He wrote:
Voice 4
"We do not seek peace in order to be at war. But we go to war that we may have peace. Be peaceful, then, when you fight. Win against enemies that you fight with, and bring them to a state of peace."
Voice 1
Augustine believed that injustice was a greater crime than war. So rulers going to war to establish justice were right to do so.
Voice 2
Eight centuries later, another Christian thinker developed the Just War theory even more. His name was Thomas Aquinas. He wrote a book called Summa Theologica. In it, he presented a model of just war - how to decide if it was right or not for a leader to go to war. He wrote:
Voice 5
"It must be said that, in order that a war may be just, three things are necessary. Firstly, a country must go to war on the authority of its leader. Secondly, there must be a good enough cause for the leader to go to war. The other country must deserve to be attacked. Thirdly, the people fighting should do so for the right personal reasons. That means to either prevent evil or to do good."
Voice 2
Today, there are two parts to the ‘Just War' theory. People call each part by an ancient Latin name. The first is jus ad bellum. This deals with the conditions and events before the war. Do they really need military force, or not? The second part is jus in bello - how to fight during a war in a moral way. For a war to be just, each of these parts must be true. There has to be a good reason for the war. And people have to fight it in a fair and legal way.
Voice 1
So, the question, ‘Should we intervene?' seems an easy one to answer. Surely it is just a matter of testing the situation using the ‘Just War' theory? Experts on conflict and peace-keeping would say that it is much more complex than that. For example, what if the conflict is not between two states, but between two groups inside a sovereign state? Would concerned countries still have the right to intervene? What if a sovereign state is acting in a way that causes its citizens to suffer? Is the need to protect basic human rights a just reason for other countries to get involved? As the Christian leader Augustine said: "The purpose of all wars...is peace."
Voice 2
We will discuss these questions in a later Spotlight programme. And we would like to hear your opinions on this subject! E-mail us at radio @ english . net.
