“Do you think God stays in heaven because he, too, lives in fear of what he’s created?”

Yes, that is an oddly profound quote from Spy Kids 2.[1] Yes, this is an academic paper. Please, bear with me. I was melting my brain by doom scrolling on Instagram—is anyone else concerned with how a catastrophising discourse is permeating popular culture in reflection of insecurity and anxiety at the current state of international affairs and global inaction on climate change? No, just me? Okay—and this oddly profound quote from a 2002 children’s film was juxtaposed with Trump’s comments on NATO’s financial parity and obligations to protect member-states within the established alliance. I cannot speak to what the algorithm that placed these two side by side in my feed was considering, but the absurdity of Trump’s comments that encouraged Russia to do, “whatever the hell they want”[2] fit almost too well with Steve Buscemi’s iconic line that underscores the ethical responsibility of men in power. Trump’s comments here are frighteningly relevant, because the possibility of ‘a revenge term’[3] is on the 2024 bingo card. Trump’s rhetoric is not new, but as the archetypical mad man[4] in international relations, he draws useful attention to the perpetration of violence internationally as a means to an end. In this essay, I will explore whether the use of violence by self-interested actors can be considered ethical. Does intent and motivation matter? How does the tension between the Responsibility to Protect (R2P) and national self-determination devalue the possible ethical use of violence to resolve an international crisis? Disconcertingly, I will argue that the perpetration of violence by self-interested actors can be ethical—in limited circumstances—justified through the good outcomes that result from their actions where international altruistic actions, or lack thereof, would have been insufficient otherwise.

Ethical violence does feel like an oxymoron. For this reason, I will take a brief moment to touch on ethical and unethical violence in international affairs. Working with the assumption that violence can be justified, here I am focusing on the narrower question of whether it can still be justified when waged for reasons of self-interest. It is conceptualised in several ways, both informal and formal, state sanctioned and condemned, and there is a distinct temporal element of when specific forms of violence may be considered ethical. It is also highly subjective, and there are good arguments made from feminist pacifists that participating in violence at all reinforces the structures that support its perpetration.[5] However, for the purposes of this essay, we will use the term ethical violence to refer to both informal and formal variations which align in principle to Just War Theory, without violating the UN Charter, international humanitarian law, and other dominant normative standards like R2P. As a current case, but also illustrating the nuance of ethical violence, Michael Walzer in his interview with Zeit Magazin defines Israel’s 2023 and ongoing violent intervention in Palestinian territory as consistent with the principles of jus ad bellum—that is, an ethically sound reason to go to war—but not jus in bello—that is, their conduct in the Just War is unethical.[6] Walzer’s reasoning for determining this use of violence as Just stems from the attack on Israel on October 7, 2023. In response to that event, Walzer argues that Israel is exercising its right to self-defence, in line with Article 51 of the UN Charter.[7] But this brings us back to that temporal element, as others argue that this conflict began in 1948—or even earlier still—and that October 7 was a continuation of ongoing unethical violence.[8] Further, framing of the Israelis in terms like colonial settlers—such as in this compelling piece by Michael Powell,[9] and in this article by Hughes, Velednitsky and Green which highlights a disingenuous rhetorical strategy from Israel[10]—reveals that there may be self-interested motivations beyond retaliation against the most recent use of violence by Hamas. This conflict is unfolding, and frankly too raw, so while it is important to write about, I will use historical case studies in the remainder of this essay.

Vietnam’s 1978 armed intervention in Cambodia presents quite a compelling case of ethical violence by a self-interested actor. There was international awareness that something very bad was happening in Cambodia. In 1977, the Economist shockingly described the Khmer Rouge’s atrocities as, “brutality that would make Hitler cringe.”[11] It is worth noting that civil society was well engaged during this time and actively advocated for intervention in some form.[12] However, global inaction was profound. Then, on the 25 December 1978, Vietnam carried out a well-planned, swift, and successful military operation that overthrew Pol Pot’s regime.[13] Of particular interest, for our purposes, is that Vietnam did not use a humanitarian argument to justify their intervention.[14] No, they were motivated, explicitly, by self-defence, and implicitly, for geostrategic ends.[15] They were, plain as day, self-interested—and just happened to remove a genocidal tyrant as well. Incomprehensibly, their actions were internationally condemned. The Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) and the United Nations unequivocally denounced Vietnam’s self-interested but arguably ethical use of violence as violating Cambodia’s right to national self-determination.[16] Ironically, this only served to economically isolate Vietnam and force it to form a closer alliance with the Soviet Union, who presumably was the actual cause of the international condemnation of Vietnam’s ethical violence. Yes, Vietnam installed a puppet government in Cambodia, and concernedly, they were “reindoctrinating” defectors and prisoners;[17] it is no excuse but weren’t they just replicating what the West had modelled? Hearts and minds.

To further labour this point, Vietnam’s self-interested but ethical use of violence in Cambodia appears to hold up across time. As stated earlier, in regard to Israel’s armed intervention in Gaza, the right to self-defence is enshrined in Article 51 of the UN Charter. Vietnam was experiencing border incursions from Cambodia,[18] and thus had the right to defend themselves. A full-scale intervention may not be proportionate as far as Walzer is concerned,[19] but their violence was ethically fortified by the 1948 Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide.[20] And, to violate the apparent temporal condition of ethical violence, their actions align with the contemporary dominant normative standards set out in R2P.[21] Were their motivations—or alliances—that severe of a geopolitical treason for the international community? Is the right to national self-determination for Cambodia really more ethically significant than ending genocide? This point has some substance. Adom Getachew writes about how R2P undermines sovereignty in a particularly neo-colonist way. She states that, “self-determination set formal limits on domination in the international sphere,” but the conception of sovereignty as responsibility legalises inequality; “the rise of international institutions and human rights law since 1945 have set normative limits and constraints on the exercise of sovereignty.”[22] Getachew once again knocks dominant, white, normative framing off its feet. However, and despite all the substance of this argument, I cannot see how sovereignty and the right to national self-determination could possibly be elevated—or attempt to be elevated—above the prevention and punishment of genocide. I am not suggesting that was Getachew’s intention by any means, but as we are learning, intention may not matter when weighed against outcomes.

Finally, and briefly, the cases of Somalia and the Rwandan Genocide amplify the argument that violence by self-interested actors can be considered ethical and justified when balanced against insufficient international action, or lack thereof. Samantha Power scathingly refers to the US’ absenteeism in the Rwandan Genocide as being a calculated no-cost avoidance strategy.[23] Like Cambodia, there was widespread knowledge of the precarious political instability in Rwanda; it was, “a Somalia waiting to happen.”[24] But due largely to the raw and well publicised events in Mogadishu, the US not only refused to intervene, but crippled the efficacy of UN Peacekeepers and other states’ intervention to prevent or end the Rwandan Genocide.[25] Early critics pointed out that the international response to Somalia pre-late 1992 was an abject failure, so the US’ armed response should not be judged too harshly,[26] but this only reinforces my argument here that insufficient violence with humanitarian intention does not necessitate ethical justification. The US’ use of altruistic ethical violence in Somalia had terrible consequences, not least of which is their apparent altruistic nonviolence in Rwanda. Moreover, Robert Patman persuasively draws links between the US’ Somalia Syndrome, subsequent, “risk-averse approach to intervention in civil conflicts,”[27] and the rise of al Qaeda and 9/11. When contrasted with Cambodia, Vietnam’s self-interested violence appears to be ten-fold more justifiable than the US’ insufficient ethical intent in Somalia and Rwanda. This is not to say that altruistic motivations for the perpetration of violence should cease altogether, but rather acknowledge that self-interested actors may be more committed to outcomes.

In limited circumstances, such as those demonstrated in the case of Vietnam and Cambodia, the use of violence by self-interested actors can be considered ethical. Further, when contrasted with altruistic nonviolence, such as the hesitancy displayed by the US with regard to Rwanda, it begs the question, do motivations truly matter? My reference to a Spy Kids 2 quote in the title of this essay was not intended to make light of the severity of this topic. No, it actually resonated with me in two ways. First, the character who spoke this line unintentionally caused violence, and the parallels with this topic and his redemption arc felt worth acknowledging as we proceeded to explore the tension between intent and motivations on outcomes. Second, fears about international ethical culpability and responsibility have been persistent in popular culture throughout the decades. Sci-fi films and literature during the Cold War were a loose allegory for existentialism, communism and nuclear threat.[28] However, this was a children’s film. Though it is not explicitly stated by the director,[29] I cannot help but see the emotional turmoil of this character as an expression and dialogue of the fear and pain of the general public post 9/11 and the early days of the Global War on Terror,[30] communicated to a young audience in terms they could understand. Frustratingly, it is exceedingly unlikely that Trump, too, will have a redemption arc. But as demonstrated in this paper, motivations and intentions may not matter if the outcomes are good. In one of the tamer Trump quotes from 2015 speaking about ISIS and Russia, “What the hell do we care?”[31] And disappointingly, I think he is right.

Anica Broman is a Master of International Relations student at Australian National University. She holds an undergraduate degree in Psychological Science from La Trobe University (Australia).

Bibliography

Amer, R. “Vietnam’s Intervention in Cambodia in International Law (Book Review).” Journal of Contemporary Asia, 21, 1 (1991): https://virtual.anu.edu.au/login/?url=https://www.proquest.com/scholarly-journals/vietnams-intervention-cambodia-international-law/docview/1292876608/se-2.

CBS News. “Trump Gets Down to Business on 60 Minutes.” September 27, 2015. http://www.cbsnews.com/news/donald-trump-60-minutes-scott-pelley/.

Etalk. “THAT iconic ‘Spy Kids’ quote explained by director Robert Rodriguez.” September 23, 2023, video interview. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g3W7hU3JHuE&ab_channel=Coachella.

Fertel, R. “This Archetype Explains Donald Trump.” Washington Monthly, December 2017: https://washingtonmonthly.com/2017/12/29/this-archetype-explains-donald-trump/#:~:text=The archetype that Trump is,into and out of trouble.

Geier, Brittany A. "A Defense of the Science Fiction Literary Genre: The Interplay between Science Fiction and American Society during the Cold War.” a Senior Thesis submitted in the Honours Program Liberty University, (2020): https://digitalcommons.liberty.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2024&context=honors

Getachew, A. “The limits of sovereignty as responsibility.” Constellations, 26 (2019): 225-240, DOI: 10.1111/1467-8675.12387.

Hervouet, G. “The Cambodian conflict: the difficulties of intervention and compromise.” International Journal, 45, 2 (1990): 258-291, https://virtual.anu.edu.au/login/?url=https://www.proquest.com/scholarly-journals/cambodian-conflict-difficulties-intervention/docview/1290357301/se-2.

Huddy, L., Feldman, S., Lahav, G., & Taber, C. (2003). “Fear and terrorism: Psychological reactions to 9/11.” In Framing Terrorism, edited by Pippa Norris, Montague Kern, and Marion Just, 255–278. New York: Taylor & Francis Group, 2003: https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203484845

Hughes, S., Velednitsky, S., and Green, A. “Greenwashing in Palestine/Israel: Settler colonialism and environmental injustice in the age of climate catastrophe.” Nature and Space, 6, 1 (2023): 495-513, DOI: 10.1177/25148486211069898.

Hutchings, K. “Pacifism is dirty: towards an ethico-political defence.” Critical Studies on Security, 6, 2 (2018): 176-192, https://doi.org/10.1080/21624887.2017.1377998.

Ibssa, L. and Kim, S. R. “Trump says he’d ‘encourage’ Russia ‘to do whatever the hell they want’ if a NATO country didn’t spend enough on defense.” ABC News, February 2024: https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/trump-russia-nato-defense-funds/story?id=107136736.

Jeffrey Clark, "Debacle in Somalia," Foreign Affairs 72, 1 (1992/93): 109-123, https://heinonline.org/HOL/P?h=hein.journals/fora72&i=123.

Nassar, M. “The Gaza Strip – why the history of the densely populated enclave is key to understanding the current conflict.” The Conversation, October 2023: https://theconversation.com/the-gaza-strip-why-the-history-of-the-densely-populated-enclave-is-key-to-understanding-the-current-conflict-215306.

Patman, R. “The roots of strategic failure: The Somalia Syndrome and Al Qaeda’s path to 9/11.” International Politics, 52 (2015): 89-109, https://doi.org/10.1057/ip.2014.39.

Powell, M. “The Curious Rise of Settle Colonialism and Turtle Island.” The Atlantic, January 2024: https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2024/01/curious-rise-settler-colonialism-and-turtle-island/677005/.

Power, S. “A Problem from Hell": America and the Age of Genocide. New York: Basic Books, 2002.

Renye, D. “Donald Trump Represents the Abusive Father Archtype.” LinkedIn Pulse, October 2020: https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/donald-trump-represents-abusive-father-archetype-dr-denise-renye.

Smith, D. “’A revenge term’: what would another four years of Trump look like?” The Guardian, November 2023: https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2023/nov/11/donald-trump-president-2024-biden-poll.

Spy Kids 2: The Island of Lost Dreams. Directed by Robert Rodriguez. August 2002; USA: Miramax.

United Nations General Assembly. 2005 World Summit Outcome. GA Res. 60/1, UN Doc. A/RES/60/1. October 24, 2005. https://undocs.org/A/RES/60/1.

United Nations. Charter of the United Nations. 1 UNTS XVI, Article 51: https://www.un.org/en/about-us/un-charter/full-text.

United Nations. Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide. December 9, 1948. United Nations Treaty Series 78, no. 1021. https://treaties.un.org/doc/Publication/UNTS/Volume 78/volume-78-I-1021-English.pdf.

Walzer, Michael. Just and Unjust Wars: A Moral Argument with Historical Illustrations. 4th ed. New York: Basic Books, 2006.

ZEIT Magazin. “What is a Just War?” Interview with Michael Walzer by Paul Middelhoff, April 2024: https://www.zeit.de/zeit-magazin/leben/2024-04/michael-walzer-just-war-israel-gaza- english/komplettansicht.

[1] Spy Kids 2: The Island of Lost Dreams, directed by Robert Rodriguez (2002, USA: Miramax).

[2] Lalee Ibssa and Soo Rin Kim, “Trump says he’d ‘encourage’ Russia ‘to do whatever the hell they want’ if a NATO country didn’t spend enough on defense,” ABC News, February 2024: https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/trump-russia-nato-defense-funds/story?id=107136736.

[3] David Smith, “’A revenge term’: what would another four years of Trump look like?” The Guardian, November 2023: https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2023/nov/11/donald-trump-president-2024-biden-poll.

[4] Though some maintain that he is more the trickster, or worse, the Abusive Father archetype: Randy Fertel, “This Archetype Explains Donald Trump,” Washington Monthly, December 2017: https://washingtonmonthly.com/2017/12/29/this-archetype-explains-donald-trump/#:~:text=The archetype that Trump is,into and out of trouble. and Dr Denise Renye, “Donald Trump Represents the Abusive Father Archtype,” LinkedIn Pulse, October 2020: https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/donald-trump-represents-abusive-father-archetype-dr-denise-renye.

[5] Kimberly Hutchings, “Pacifism is dirty: towards an ethico-political defence,” Critical Studies on Security, 6, 2 (2018): 184, https://doi.org/10.1080/21624887.2017.1377998.

[6] ZEIT Magazin, “What is a Just War?” Interview with Michael Walzer by Paul Middelhoff, April 2024: https://www.zeit.de/zeit-magazin/leben/2024-04/michael-walzer-just-war-israel-gaza- english/komplettansicht.

[7] United Nations, Charter of the United Nations, 1 UNTS XVI, Article 51: https://www.un.org/en/about-us/un-charter/full-text.

[8] Maha Nassar, “The Gaza Strip – why the history of the densely populated enclave is key to understanding the current conflict,” The Conversation, October 2023: https://theconversation.com/the-gaza-strip-why-the-history-of-the-densely-populated-enclave-is-key-to-understanding-the-current-conflict-215306.

[9] Michael Powell, “The Curious Rise of Settle Colonialism and Turtle Island,” The Atlantic, January 2024: https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2024/01/curious-rise-settler-colonialism-and-turtle-island/677005/.

[10] Sara Hughes, Stepha Velednitsky and Amelia Green, “Greenwashing in Palestine/Israel: Settler colonialism and environmental injustice in the age of climate catastrophe,” Nature and Space, 6, 1 (2023): 498-500, DOI: 10.1177/25148486211069898.

[11] Economist, “Out of the Silence,” September 10, 1977 in Samantha Power, "A Problem from Hell": America and the Age of Genocide (New York, 2002), 131.

[12] Power, “A Problem from Hell,” 133.

[13] Gérard Hervouet, “The Cambodian conflict: the difficulties of intervention and compromise,” International Journal, 45, 2 (1990): 258, https://virtual.anu.edu.au/login/?url=https://www.proquest.com/scholarly-journals/cambodian-conflict-difficulties-intervention/docview/1290357301/se-2.

[14] Ramses Amer, “Vietnam’s Intervention in Cambodia in International Law (Book Review),” Journal of Contemporary Asia, 21, 1 (1991): https://virtual.anu.edu.au/login/?url=https://www.proquest.com/scholarly-journals/vietnams-intervention-cambodia-international-law/docview/1292876608/se-2.

[15] Hervouet, “The Cambodian conflict,” 259.

[16] Hervouet, “The Cambodian conflict,” 260.

[17] Power, “A Problem from Hell,” 142-143.

[18] Power, “A Problem from Hell,” 142.

[19] Michael Walzer, Just and Unjust Wars: A Moral Argument with Historical Illustrations, 4th ed. (New York: Basic Books, 2006), 129-132.

[20] United Nations, Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide, December 9, 1948, United Nations Treaty Series 78, no. 1021, https://treaties.un.org/doc/Publication/UNTS/Volume 78/volume-78-I-1021-English.pdf.

[21] United Nations General Assembly, 2005 World Summit Outcome, GA Res. 60/1, UN Doc. A/RES/60/1 (October 24, 2005), paragraphs 138-140, https://undocs.org/A/RES/60/1.

[22] Adom Getachew, “The limits of sovereignty as responsibility,” Constellations, 26 (2019): 234-237, DOI: 10.1111/1467-8675.12387.

[23] Power, “A Problem from Hell,” 326.

[24] Power, “A Problem from Hell,” 329.

[25] Power, “A Problem from Hell,” 331-332.

[26] Jeffrey Clark, "Debacle in Somalia," Foreign Affairs 72, 1 (1992/93): 109, https://heinonline.org/HOL/P?h=hein.journals/fora72&i=123.

[27] Robert Patman, “The roots of strategic failure: The Somalia Syndrome and Al Qaeda’s path to 9/11,” International Politics, 52 (2015): 89, https://doi.org/10.1057/ip.2014.39.

[28] Brittany A. Geier, "A Defense of the Science Fiction Literary Genre: The Interplay between Science Fiction and American Society during the Cold War,” a Senior Thesis submitted in the Honours Program Liberty University, (2020): https://digitalcommons.liberty.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2024&context=honors.

[29] Etalk, “THAT iconic ‘Spy Kids’ quote explained by director Robert Rodriguez,” September 23, 2023, video interview, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g3W7hU3JHuE&ab_channel=Coachella.

[30] L. Huddy, S. Feldman, G. Lahav & C. Taber, “Fear and terrorism: Psychological reactions to 9/11,” In Framing Terrorism, eds Pippa Norris, Montague Kern, and Marion Just (New York: Taylor & Francis Group, 2003), 255–278.

[31] CBS News, “Trump Gets Down to Business on 60 Minutes,” September 27, 2015, http://www.cbsnews.com/news/donald-trump-60-minutes-scott-pelley/.