From: Elizaphanian (Elizaphanian@members.v21.co.uk)
Date: Sat Feb 01 2003 - 22:28:23 GMT
Hi Wim,
> It is good that Anglican priests are free to have an opinion that differs
> from that of their employer. I do expect you to be able to explain why you
> differ, however. Can you explain to me why according to you the
> requirements for a 'just war' ARE met now?
I won't try and justify the hierarchy's perception at the moment; it's not
really the place, particularly as my writing here is on a personal basis
(I'm hardly a chaplain to the MoQ community!)
So: just war theory. Well, not sure I would say I accept just war thinking
in its entirety, but it's certainly a useful tool. Key elements of just war
theory, as I understand it:
##1 A just war can only be waged as a last resort. All non-violent options
must be exhausted before the use of force can be justified.
OK, well we've had supposedly non-violent options used for the last twelve
years. As I said in my post, they're not really non-violent because the
general population of Iraq has suffered grievously from them. Maintenance of
the status quo requires a maintenance of that suffering, which I don't think
is acceptable. So - either all coercion is lifted, or the boil is lanced (to
my way of thinking). I think it is possible to argue that non-violent
options are never exhausted; I don't think that's the intention behind this
element. In my view, this element is met (I think a case could be made that
fewer lives would be lost by a short war than by the maintenance of
sanctions; obviously that's extremely hypothetical and wholly dependent on
the length of any war). It's not as if the Hussein regime has lacked
opportunities to change its ways and reintegrate itself into the world
community.
##2 A war is just only if it is waged by a legitimate authority. Even just
causes cannot be served by actions taken by individuals or groups who do not
constitute an authority sanctioned by whatever the society and outsiders to
the society deem legitimate.
Good question about what constitutes a legitimate authority. Certainly what
has taken place so far has been within UN auspices, and I would expect that
to continue. However, I personally would think democratically elected
governments have greater legitimacy. So this element is, I think, met in
full.
##3 A just war can only be fought to redress a wrong suffered. For example,
self-defense against an armed attack is always considered to be a just cause
(although the justice of the cause is not sufficient - see next point).
Further, a just war can only be fought with "right" intentions: the only
permissable objective of a just war is to redress the injury.
This would seem to be the cast-iron element against the currently proposed
endeavour. However a) this action cannot be understood separately from the
1990 attack on Kuwait (following which there was a conditional ceasefire,
and the Hussein regime is not meeting the conditions) and b) the doctrine or
pre-emption is relevant. Again, I think this element is met, although this
is perhaps the most arguable point.
##4 A war can only be just if it is fought with a reasonable chance of
success. Deaths and injury incurred in a hopeless cause are not morally
justifiable.
I think this element is met, although I think the conflict is potentially
much more fraught than the 1991 war.
##5 The ultimate goal of a just war is to re-establish peace. More
specifically, the peace established after the war must be preferable to the
peace that would have prevailed if the war had not been fought.
I think this element is met in full - although I acknowledge, in saying
that, that events could show that confidence to be misplaced. My judgement
is that Bush is a genuinely good person. I could be wrong.
##6 The violence used in the war must be proportional to the injury
suffered. States are prohibited from using force not necessary to attain the
limited objective of addressing the injury suffered.
I think this element will be met. Certainly judging be other comparable
recent military actions, the risk to eg civilian life is massively lower
than in previous conflicts.
##7 The weapons used in war must discriminate between combatants and
non-combatants. Civilians are never permissable targets of war, and every
effort must be taken to avoid killing civilians. The deaths of civilians are
justified only if they are unavoidable victims of a deliberate attack on a
military target.
Again, I think we can have a high confidence that this element will be met -
certainly for the US/UK side of things.
~~~
So that's the 'just war' analysis - clearly, whether you think the elements
are satisfied will depend upon how you view the evidence in the first place.
I think this is something on which people of good will can have genuine
disagreements. ##1 and ##3 are where the debate has focussed; as I say, in
my judgement the criteria are met. I expect your views on that differ
somewhat!
My qualms about this analysis are that it can lead to some counter-intuitive
results. For example, on a straightforward reading of ##4, Britain should
have sued for peace with Hitler in 1940. I think that Churchill was right to
put two fingers up to that prospect.
By the way, I would be greatly sympathetic to the idea of an international
criminal court, and indeed to the UN being given stronger powers (along with
a more democratic structure). However, the problem exists now, and we need
to deal with it using the institutions that we have to hand.
Cheers.
Sam
"A good objection helps one forward, a shallow objection, even if it is
valid, is wearisome." Wittgenstein
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archive - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
MD Queries - horse@darkstar.uk.net
To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Feb 01 2003 - 22:23:35 GMT