From: Wim Nusselder (wim.nusselder@antenna.nl)
Date: Sun Feb 09 2003 - 22:03:55 GMT
Dear Sam,
You wrote 1 Feb 2003 22:28:23 -0000 about why according to you the
requirements for a 'just war' are met if the USA (plus a few others) starts
war now to remove Saddam Hussein from power.
Unlike you I am in the situation that my opinion happens to be largely in
line with the generally accepted opinion in my religious community, the
Quakers. That doesn't mean that I'm not able any more to have my own
independent opinion.
'Just war' almost counts as a contradiction in terms among Quakers. I'm glad
you refresh my memory of the 'key elements of just war theory', as I
wouldn't have been able to reproduce them myself, given its lack of standing
among Quakers. Quakers feel they are directly instructed by God not to use
arms themselves and to pass on these instructions at various occasions to
others. Unfortunately history has proved that argument to be not very
convincing, so we resort to others types of reasoning also. (-:
I believe using violence against other people can be excused, but has no
moral justification in the end. Excuses can be of the biological variety
(instinctive fright, flight, fight reactions), the social variety (blind
in-group solidarity, defending 'one's own' against its enemies) and the
intellectual variety (end justifies means reasoning).
'Just war theory' is a relatively sophisticated specimen of the intellectual
type:
##1 It recognizes that violence is less desirable than all other means.
##2 It recognizes that means cannot be justified by any end if the means
undermine society, i.e. its authority structure. (We might clarify: It's no
use to attain an end if the society that is needed to safeguard that result
is severely weakened in the process.)
##3 It only recognizes ends that serve overall justice.
##4 It doesn't justify violent means that are meant to attain the just end,
but run too much risk of failure.
##5 The violence must be finite and reduce the risk of further violence.
(The end-result must be more peaceful than the result of the best possible
alternative action or inaction.)
##6 No end justifies more violence than the minimum necessary to serve
overall justice. It should be proportional to the injustice to be cured.
##7 Only violence against combatants and unavoidable violence again
non-combatants can be justified.
Taking all together 'just war theory' justifies very little -if any-
violence. It is only a tiny little bit less radical in its condemnation of
violence than Quakers were in their statement to the English King Charles II
in 1660 (which is still often quoted among Quakers):
'Our principle is, and our practices have always been, to seek peace, and
ensue it, and to follow after righteousness and the knowledge of God,
seeking the good and welfare, and doing that which tends to the peace of
all. All bloody principles and practices we do utterly deny, with all
outward wars, and strife, and fightings with outward weapons, for any end,
or under any pretence whatsoever, and this is our testimony to the whole
world. That spirit of Christ by which we are guided is not changeable, so as
once to command us from a thing as evil, and again to move unto it; and we
do certainly know, and so testify to the world, that the spirit of Christ
which leads us into all Truth will never move us to fight and war against
any man with outward weapons, neither for the kingdom of Christ, nor for the
kingdoms of this world.'
In MoQish I'd say:
Dynamic Quality never guides to violence. The migration of static patterns
of value toward Dynamic Quality is one away from justifying violence:
- at the biological level violence is normal,
- at the social level it is only accepted against 'others',
- at the intellectual level it is only acceptable if it guarantees a better
situation for most people, a common good,
- so beyond that, where religions aim, it can't be justified any more.
We cannot only live 'beyond', so even Quakers accept the necessity of police
and minimal violence to keep our instincts in check and to enforce
solidarity if people are not yet able to see that fellow-people are not
'others' but part of 'us'.
(As a sidenote: I always find it strange that people like Platt, who tend to
interpret almost any government action to enforce anything INTERNALLY -e.g.
solidarity- as 'using jackboots to impose views', are most supportive of
government action enforcing interests and imposing views EXTERNALLY with
these same 'jackboots'. It's hard to find something meeting 'just war
theory' requirements less than their 'doctor versus germs' thinking.
I can't help thinking that it must have something to do with the social
level's 'us' versus 'them' distinction. What's accepted against 'them' is
not accepted among 'us'. That's not to imply that their views ARE a 'social
pattern of value' -as David B. will be only too quick to infer-, but that
the inconsistency of such ideas can only be explained by their EXPRESSING
not only a -relatively low quality- intellectual pattern of value, but also
a social pattern of value.)
I don't think war against Iraq is the last resort. Much more inspections -as
France has proposed-, backed (yes) by UN (not mainly USA) forces is the way
to go now, I think. Keeping a closer watch on the Iraq regime might even be
used to ensure that the imports which are allowed benefit the population (as
intended) and not only the regime. To help the regime accept (by playing on
their pretence to be serving the interests of the population) the sanctions
could be gradually lifted (lessening the suffering of the population) the
more external checks the regime accepts on its operation.
My hypothesis (backed by a lot of historic war experience) would be that the
suffering of the Iraqi population can hardly become less by war. THEY can
choose the risk of more suffering in exchange for a chance for more justice
(who know what regime they will get after a war), but I haven't read
anywhere clear signals supporting war from Iraqi refugees or from UN
officials that are in close contact with the Iraqi population in the context
of the 'food for oil' program. Why doesn't the US government produce that
kind of support for war in the Security Council?
I don't think a democratically elected government can legitimately go to war
against another government. One of the main reasons for setting up the UN
was preventing governments to go to war against each other. War between UN
members can only be legitimate (in the limited sense of 'excusable') if even
the UN (i.e. the Security Council, which is mandated by the UN members to
deal with such issues) sees no other options and gives some members a
mandate to go to war. The main reason for there being few other options is,
that UN members haven't drawn the obvious conclusion from their intention to
prevent wars: relinquish their ability to make war against each other and
equip the UN with a global police force.
If 'just war theory' permits war to redress a wrong suffered, it obviously
(I thought) only does so in the case of a party that suffered the wrong and
goes to war against a party that inflicted the wrong (and in the absence of
an impartial police force). The US has not suffered a wrong from Iraq, is
not impartial in the conflict between Iraq and Kuwait and has no mandate (as
yet) from the Security Council to punish Iraq for not meeting the conditions
for the cease-fire in 1991.
Whether a war against Iraq could be successful depends on its purposes. I
don't think that a peace that means an Iraq that is even more economically
destroyed than it is now and that is an US protectorate AND Islamic peoples
all over the world that have become ever more embittered against the US and
the West than they are now (the probable outcome of a war) is preferable to
the peace attainable with more inspections and a less dominant role for the
US in backing them up.
The injury that you suppose should be redressed by war against Iraq is the
injury suffered by Kuwait when it was attacked in 1990. Iraq is less able
now than it was in 1990 to threaten Kuwait. (The 1991 war and subsequent
inspections and sanctions have reduced Iraq's capacity for war.) There was
no further injury suffered by Kuwait since the Gulf war that legitimizes was
now.
I'm sure the US and UK will avoid being seen to kill civilians. I'm equally
sure that they're the ones that are best equipped to reach their goals
without killing civilians. I'm almost sure that the Iraqi regime will
nevertheless try and manage to put the US and the UK in a position in which
they will have to kill a lot of civilians to reach their goals.
With friendly greetings,
Wim
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 : Sun Feb 09 2003 - 22:05:22 GMT