The concept of just peace is full of deep meaning, it is quite timely and useful, and everything should be done to be developed as a theory and implemented practically. We should not strive for any peace but only strive for a just peace. The West is not always perfect enough to consider and rationalize this view.
Connecting the war with terrorism and the strategy of achieving a just peace in a common issue leads us to the following considerations:
• Unfair war
• Just war
In Europe and the West as a whole, many efforts have been made to raise the ideal of a just war philosophically. The foundations of this meta-image were the intelligent investigations of the first modern European theologian, St. Augustine, who formulated this idea; A just war is a just war. This idea was further developed and its principles and rules have been established (divided into two groups, respectively, the rights to enter the war and the rights governing the time of war.
Interestingly, in the early Middle Ages in the ancient lands of Bulgaria, the Bogomils (a spiritual movement close to Manoism and an alternative to the official religion) made a significant contribution to the just war theory and formulated the principle that even a just war should be fought in a just way.
The principles of just war can be applied to the use of violence to achieve political goals. Its necessity stems from a question related to terrorism that still remains unanswered and there is intense debate over it: separating the line between terrorism and the struggle for freedom. If we reject any use of violence, then what should those who have lost all means and ways of peaceful liberation, achieving their goals, dreams and ideals do?
In my opinion, when we are trying to clarify what and the nature of terrorism, we should emphasize the following two questions in terms of the use of violence: Is violence used? And why is violence used?
Now I can make my working hypothesis:
Those who use violence to achieve their political goals are generally divided into two groups:
• Terrorists
• Freedom fighters
When violence is used to impose one’s will, culture, ideology and identity on others, to create chaos and disorder, to destroy the normal course of affairs, we can talk about terrorists. When violence is used to achieve freedom (from slavery, from the oppression of a foreign country, from the imposition of foreign culture, religion, identity and ideology), we can talk about freedom fighters. Therefore, any aggressor or terrorist can raise a higher goal and become a terrorist.
In pursuit of just goals, one should act in a just way. Its theme is that there is a narrow border between freedom fighters and terrorists, which passes through complete, clear and obvious disapproval and destructive categories that deliberately destroy life, health and life. Innocent people’s property is targeted, and it also goes beyond the unacceptability of attacking certain types of infrastructure, such as hospitals, religious buildings, schools and universities, dams, nuclear facilities, and others.
In my opinion, it is impossible to use terrorism to transform an unjust peace into a just peace, even in order to achieve a just peace, we must act in a just way. A truly just peace is achieved only through just means. Let me add a little about a just peace:
In the West, when we think about peace, we think of it as a vital and important special value, which is a value in itself. In our opinion, the existence of peace is enough to guarantee the normal life of society, that is, a life without violence and coercion with freedom and stability, and we only attribute positive attributes to peace.
But the existence of peace by itself does not lead to the realization of all these positive attributes that we have applied to it. Undoubtedly, even if the peace is unjust, it can oppress people and deprive them of freedom and future. Peace is not the end of the process, but just the beginning. Peace is only a prerequisite and a necessary but insufficient condition for a better, safer and more stable life.
Rich, powerful, advanced and successful people seek peace in order to realize their personal interests and achieve their results and achievements. At the same time, the poor, the weak, the progressing and the unsuccessful, if this peace remains, it maintains its shortcomings and does not bring prosperity, security and stability to them, they will not be able to enjoy and benefit from this peace.
From the point of view of the West, peace is a quantitative value, that is, more peace is better, but from the point of view of the East or from the point of view of developing countries, peace is a qualitative value that is measured based on justice. It is really necessary for the West to understand that the developing countries do not just want peace, they want a just peace. Any peace that apparently slows or does not develop these countries, makes it difficult or doubtful to achieve the prospect is not a desirable value from their point of view, because such an incomplete peace from their point of view is the continuation of the old policy (i.e. colonialism, looting and looting, exploitation, occupation, oppression) whose causes have changed.
Of course, establishing a just peace is a question of humanity that has not yet received an answer during the 70-90 century. Big policies have always been in favor of the stronger: at the international level in favor of the most developed countries and at the national level in favor of the wealthiest groups because of the belief that immediate achievement of peace for everyone and just peace for all is possible. It is a utopia, however, the important work that we have to do is the effort and persistence to establish fairer and more united relations among countries and among social groups within countries. If countries and nations can understand how fragile and vulnerable our world is
