A morality for war?
Editorial
Stabroek News
March 19, 2003
Two events last week marked the shape of the emerging world or to put it more precisely the continuing struggle to shore up international order against threatened disorder. The first was the inauguration and swearing in of the judges of the International Criminal Court in the Hague.
The second and of graver import for the human condition was the diplomatic deadlock in the UN Security Council over a proposed second resolution authorising the use of force against Iraq, a situation to which the US reacted by stating that time had run out, that it would go to war against Iraq with or without the resolution and that it would go it alone if it turned out that its main ally, the UK, was unable to participate.
The first event marked a major advance in the steady progress, at least until now, of the international community of states to move beyond naked national or individual interest to an order in which national and human conduct will be further subject to law. The court has been brought into being through eight-six signatory states. The US has refused to sign but is by no means a pariah in this respect as other states not signing include Russia, China, India, Pakistan, Iraq and Zimbabwe. However, the US in keeping with its current unilateralism has made the court the target of sustained hostility.
The second event, the possible launching by the US of war without the authority of the UN, could lead to the unravelling of the UN system and to worldwide disorder.
Last weekend's summit in the Azores between Bush, Blair and Aznar has been described in sections of the media as concerned with finding a peaceful solution to the Iraq situation. This is clearly a case of the media buying the spin put upon it by the official spokesmen. More probably it sought to devise a war strategy which might save the "skins' of Blair and Aznar from the wrath of their own peoples.
In the grave situation now erupting from the near certainty of war, analysts have begun to dig deeper than into politics and power and to look to the ancient principles through which Western civilization sought to protect itself against the ravages of war. There is now increasing resort to the ancient so called 'just war' tradition.
These are difficult matters but the discussion of them cannot be avoided. The war in Iraq may destroy the fragile economy of the Caribbean, driving up fuel prices to a point where several industries may go under, closing off altogether the already diminished flow of investment and economic assistance into the region, severely curtailing tourism and deepening the neglect of the problems of small states like Guyana as the industrialised countries become occupied with problems of reconstruction in the Middle East. One must therefore be aware of whether our growing difficulties derive from within our own societies or from external factors.
The 'just war' principle had been invoked even earlier by the highest church leaders, Roman Catholic Bishops and Presidents of Protestant Councils in the USA and the UK in condemnation of Presidents Bush's intentions. The Pope, John Paul II, had issued his own strongly worded statement condemning the proposed war as a defeat for humanity; moreover he had launched a powerful diplomatic initiative against the war which as one result had brought Tony Blair to the Vatican.
Now President Jimmy Carter whose commitment to peace has recently been recognised in the Nobel Peace Prize, whose loyalties as a US citizen cannot be doubted, who was once as President, Commander-in- Chief of US military might at a time of recurrent international crises, has on the basis of the 'just war' principles with which he states as a Christian and as President he "is thoroughly familiar", has asserted that "it is clear that a substantially unilateral attack (on Iraq) does not meet those standards". Carter further noted that "increasingly unilateral and domineering policies have brought international trust in our country to its lowest level in memory".
It is a well established practice in US politics that past presidents do not intervene on current controversies. Hence the decision of Jimmy Carter to speak out could not easily have been taken. At the beginning of his article, President Carter has given a judgment which in the force of its condemnation could not be equalled by even hostile political leaders and critics. This is what he wrote:
"Profound changes have been taking place in American foreign policy, reversing consistent bipartisan commitments that for more than two centuries have earned our nation greatness. These commitments have been predicated on basic religious principles, respect for international law, and alliances that resulted in wise decisions and mutual restraint. Our apparent determination to launch a war against Iraq, without international support, is a violation of those premises".
But it is not the case that all who invoke the 'just war' principles condemn the Bush administration. A distinguished US Catholic philosopher George Weigel has stirred up major controversy by his defence of President Bush. Weigel's defence nevertheless provides the occasion for careful rational analysis of Bush's policies.
Weigel insists that the consideration should not begin with the nature or consequences of war but with the study of the "morally worthy political ends", the achievement of which requires the use of military force. Weigel asserts "the just war argument recognises that there are circumstances in which the first and most urgent obligation in the face of evil is to stop it. Which means that there are times when waging war is morally necessary to defend the innocent and to promote the minimum conditions of international order". This, Weigel suggests, is one of those times.
In the definition of worthy political ends Wiegel draws attention to a crucial destruction made in 'just war' doctrine between, to use the Latin words in which 'just war' principles were first formulated, bellum and duellum. "Bellum is the use of armed force for public ends by public authorities who have an obligation to defend the security of those for whom they have assumed responsibility. Duellum on the other hand is the use of armed force for private ends by private individuals". Weigel assumes that the just war falls in the first category bellum. The question is whether this is borne out by the stated or implicit political ends as expressed by the Bush administration or its main ally, Britain.
Bush has himself stated that the aim is to get rid of Saddam Hussein who in 1993 tried to assassinate his father. The initial objective was designated as regime change. It is to be noted that regime change forms no part of the UN Charter nor has it been mentioned in any shape or form in the oft cited Security Council Resolution 1441.
Regime change is made even murkier by the fact that key figures in this Bush administration had at an earlier time played dubious roles in supporting Saddam Hussein. In December 1983, Donald Rumsfeld now Bush's Secretary for Defence was sent by President Reagan as his Special Envoy to Baghdad to restore diplomatic relations. The Iraq-Iran war was at its height and Reagan pledged assistance to Iraq to help it counter the Islamic Revolution in Iraq (Washington Post, 30 December 2002). The US knew that Saddam was using chemical weapons in Iraq but nevertheless supplied him with military and other assistance including missile components and chemical and biological agents (Le Monde Diplomatique, Eng. Edition September 2002). Eventually the relationship went sour over the massacre of the Kurds and reportedly unsuccessful oil deals. Against this background regime change begins to smack of personal vendetta, duellum rather than bellum.
Another stated objective or end is the disarmament of Iraq of weapons of mass destruction (WMDs). This could be a legitimate objective for war (bellum) but the 'just war' principle as articulated by President Carter is that war can be waged "only as a last resort with all non-violent options exhausted". The options have clearly not been exhausted as the weapons inspection process is steadily gaining momentum with the consequent destruction of some WMDs. US spokesmen from time to time refer to underground chambers where WMDs are allegedly stored and the Pentagon has disclosed that it possesses a bomb to penetrate such chambers. If this is so an Iraqi minister has pointed out that the US should provide the Inspectors with the location co-ordinates so that the underground chamber could easily be located.
The objective of destroying WMDs is clearly linked to Bush's contention that the US is exercising its right to self-defence. But that right can only be invoked in response to clear and certain aggression. Where is the aggression? The White House answer is to point to the events of September 11 and the possibility that Saddam will provide terrorists with WMDs. On this point President Carter has stated in his article "Despite Saddam Hussein's other serious crimes. American efforts to tie Iraq to the 9/11 terrorist attacks have been unconvincing."
The inherent right for a state to act in self- defence is indeed recognised in the UN Charter but only until the Security Council has taken measures to deal with the situation. The Security Council has in fact taken measures with growing effectiveness both on terrorism and WMDs.
Another political end to justify war has recently been advanced first by PM Blair in response to British public opinion which is hostile to war. It tries to make the case for humanitarian intervention to "liberate" the Iraqi people. Saddam is indeed running a horrible dictatorship which includes the resort to torture and arbitrary imprisonment, but the case is not made as to why war should be waged at this particular moment. On this point Jimmy Carter has further remarked "The first stage of our widely publicized war plan is to launch 3000 bombs and missiles on a relatively defenceless Iraqi population within the first few hours from invasion with the purpose of so damaging and demoralizing the people that they will change their obnoxious leaders, who will most likely be hidden and safe during the bombardment."
Finally, the least credible of the political ends articulated by the Bush's administration is to transform through war the Middle East by toppling Saddam and establishing in Iraq a showcase democracy. No one can take this seriously in view of Bush's disinclination to expend any political capital or use force to settle the Arab-Israeli conflict. His announcement last Friday of the long delayed "Road Map" leading to a Palestinan state has clearly been made as a last minute gesture to the Arab states.
Those are the political objectives advanced by the US administration in support of war. On the other hand several political leaders and columnists have maintained that the true objective is the seizure of Iraq's vast oil reserves. While this has always been denied, seeming confirmation of this objective may now have unwittingly come from the White House itself. Although the costs of war and of post war construction have never been provided although requested by a cowed and supine Congress, it was recently learnt that five oil firms, one of them being Halleburton of which Vice President Cheney was President, have been awarded 900 million US dollars in contracts for the so called "reconstruction of Iraq". The objective of acquisition through war of Iraq's oil wealth cannot in terms of Weigel's classification be considered a lawful cause for war.
