Class on Peace and War: Overhead projections last revised 2-11-04
Factual question from prior class (about wealth and global justice) that I found the answer to and might be part of this discussion today as well: • “Right now, the United States uses 25 percent of the world’s oil production even though it has only 4 percent of the world’s population and 3 percent of its reserves.”1 • 1“Ending the Oil Addiction,” editorial, NYT, 2-18-02. • World population in late 1990s was 5.8 billion - census bureau • USA population 281 million - census bureau
Challenge of Peace (1983) Several principles are in tension, to start with: • presumption against war and the principle of legitimate self-defense • individual justice options and national justice options • right to self-defense and options besides armed force • confusion between pacifism or non-violent resistance and passivity • love is possible & the only real hope and force, even deadly force is sometimes justified • presumption against war and the principle of legitimate self-defense
“The Christian has no choice but to defend peace, properly understood, against aggression. This is an inalienable obligation. It is the how of defending peace which offers moral options. We stress this principle again because we observe so much misunderstanding about both those who resist bearing arms and those who bear them.” (73)
individual justice options and national justice options individual justice options and national justice options • We observe so much misunderstanding about both those who resist bearing arms and those who bear them. Great numbers from both traditions provide examples of exceptional courage, examples the world continues to need. (73) • Catholic teaching sees these two distinct moral responses as having a complementary relationship, in the sense that they both seek to serve the common good. They differ in their perception of how the common good is to be defended most effectively, but both responses testify to the Christian conviction that peace must be pursued and rights defended within moral restraints and in the context of defining other basic human values. (74) • In all discussion of distinct choices, of course, we are referring to options open to individuals. The council and the popes have stated clearly that governments threatened by armed, unjust aggression must defend their people. This includes defense by armed force if necessary as a last resort...(75)
right to self-defense and options besides armed force • Governments threatened by armed, unjust aggression must defend their people. This includes defense by armed force if necessary as a last resort....but some choose not to choose armed defense and adopt other methods of defense... (75) • None of this is to suggest “that armed force is the only defense against unjust aggression, regardless of the circumstances.” (77)
confusion between pacifism or non-violent resistance and passivity • There is a rich history of nonviolence in Christian tradition (111-115) • Nonviolence is not passive about injustice (116) • Includes conscientious and selective conscientious objection (118) • Nonviolence is stressed as a legitimate option for Christians (119) • Nonviolence is interdependent with just-war teaching in common presumption against force (120)
love is possible & the only real hope and force, even deadly force is sometimes justified • “We believe work to develop non-violent means of fending off aggression and resolving conflict best reflects the call of Jesus both to love and to justice... • We must recognize the reality of the paradox we face as Christians living in the context of the world as it presently exists, we must continue to articulate our belief that love is possible and the only real hope for all human relations, and yet accept that force, even deadly force, is sometimes justified and that nations must provide for their defense.” (78)
Just War Criteria Goals: to prevent war & limit the fighting in war (81-84) There are two sets of principles in Just War Theory (1) Jus ad bellum (just reasons for engaging in war: the when and why of war) • The determination ofwhen conditions exist which allow the resort to force in spite of the strong presumption against it is made in light of the jus ad bellum criteria. (84) (2) Jus in bello (just ways to wage war) • The determination of how even a justified resort to force must be conducted is made in light of the jus in bello criteria. (84)
Jus ad bellum (just reasons for engaging in war: the when and why of just war)Requires: Just Cause - only in real and certain danger (86) • War is permissible only to confront “a real and certain danger” i.e. to protect innocent life, to preserve conditions necessary for decent human existence, and to basic human rights. As both Pope Pius XII and Pope John XXIII made clear, if war of retribution was ever justifiable, the risks of modern war negate such a claim today. (86) Competent authority - must be declared by legitimately responsible public officials (87- 88) Comparative justice - rights and values involved justify killing (92) • In a world of sovereign states recognizing neither a common moral authority not a central political authority, comparative justice stresses that no state should act on the basis that it has “absolute justice” on its side. (93) • Given techniques of propaganda and the ease with which nations and individuals either assume or delude themselves into believing that God or right is clearly on their side, the test of comparative justice may be extremely difficult to apply. Clearly, however, this is not the case in every instance of war. Blatant aggression from without and subversion from within are often enough readily identifiable by all reasonably fair-minded people. (94)
Jus ad bellum continued right intention - war in pursuit of peace and reconciliation (95) • During the conflict, right intention means pursuit of peace and reconciliation, including avoiding unnecessarily destructive acts or imposing unreasonable conditions (eg unconditional surrender). (95) last resort - all peaceful alternatives exhausted (96) • For war to be justified, all peaceful alternatives must have been exhausted. (96) probability of success (98) proportionality - damage to be inflicted must be proportionate to the good expected (99) • Proportionality means that the damage to be inflicted and the costs incurred by war must be proportionate to the good expected by taking up arms...Hence a nation cannot justly go to war today without considering the effect of its action on others and the international community. (99)
Jus in Bello (how war is to be conducted) • Even when the stringent conditions which justify resort to war are met, the conduct of war (i.e. strategy, tactics, and individual actions) remain subject to continuous scrutiny in light of two principles which have special significance today precisely because of the destructive capability of modern technological warfare. These principles are proportionality and discrimination. (101)
Proportionality - the response to the aggression must not exceed the nature of the aggression (103, 105-106) • When confronting choices among specific military options, the question asked by proportionality is: once we take into account not only the military advantages that will be achieved...and the harms reasonably expected to follow from using it, can its use still be justified?...It is of utmost importance, in assessing harms and the justice of accepting them, to think about the poor and the helpless, for they are usually the ones who have the least to gain and the most to lose when war’s violence touches their lives. (105)
Discrimination - not directed against innocent non-combatants (104, 107) • This raises a series of questions about the term “intentional,” the category of “non-combatant,” and the meaning of “military.” (107) • It is not always easy to determine who is involved in a “war effort” or to what degree. (108) • Which targets are “military” ones and which are not? To what degree, for instance, does the use (either by revolutionaries or regular military forces) of a village or housing in a civilian populated area invite attack? What of a munitions factory in the heart of a city? Who is directly responsible for the deaths of noncombatants should the attack be carried out? To revert to the question raised earlier, how many deaths of non-combatants are “tolerable” as a result of indirect attacks - attacks directed against combat forces and military targets, which nevertheless kill non-combatants at the same time? (109)
A Pastoral Message: Living With Faith and Hope After September 11, U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops,November 14, 2001 (on web) (11 pps)http://www.nccbuscc.org/sdwp/sept11.htm • In our response to attacks on innocent civilians we must be sure we do not violate the norms of civilian immunity and proportionality. We believe every life is precious whether a person works at the World Trade Center or lives in Afghanistan. Traditional moral norms governing the use of force still apply, even in the face of terrorism on this scale. • Our nation... has a moral right and a grave obligation to defend the common good against mass terrorism
Use of military force • National leaders bear a heavy moral obligation to see that the full range of non-violent means is employed. We acknowledge, however, the right and duty of a nation and the international community to use military force if necessary to defend the common good by protecting the innocent against mass terrorism. ....but military action must always be taken with a sense of deep regret. • Military force must be used in accordance with principles such as: • non-combatant immunity, • proportionality, • right intention, and • probability of success. • Non-combatant immunity: • definition: civilians must not be the object of direct attack and military personnel must take due care to avoid and minimize indirect harm to civilians • Proportionality: • definition: efforts must be made to attain military objectives with no more force than is militarily necessary and to avoid disproportionate collateral damage to civilian life and property
“In light of the teaching that the use of arms must not produce disorders graver than the evil to be eliminated, the effect of military action on the Afghan people must be closely monitored on an ongoing basis.” Thousands of innocent USA civilians killed by terrorists. • Who were the terrorists? • They destroyed 4 planes, killed over 3000 non-combatants (unlike Pearl Harbor) • Who did USA go to war against? Why? • What did Afghanistan do to USA? • How many Afghanistan civilians were killed (directly and indirectly) in the military response? • How many bombs were dropped in the war? • Are the people of the world safer after the war? • Are the people of the USA safer after the war? • Are the people of Afghanistan safer after the war? • Are the people of the region safer after the war?
Probability of success • definition: • arms may not be used in a futile cause or in a case where disproportionate measures are required to achieve success • “This is particularly difficult to measure when dealing with an amorphous, global terrorist network. Therefore, special attention must be given to developing criteria for when it is appropriate to end military action in Afghanistan.” • Has the war in Afghanistan ended? • Has the war on terrorism ended? • When it is appropriate for military action to end?
Pursuing Justice and Peace after September 11 • September 11 made ever more clear that globalization is a reality requiring greater moral scrutiny. If the problems of Afghanistan or Central Asia seemed irrelevant to Americans before, that is no longer the case. • We cannot remain indifferent to the poverty, war, and instability in the world today: • One-fifth live on less than $1 a day • 20 countries are involved in armed conflict • Poverty corruption and repressive regimes bring suffering to millions
Reflect: • Over the last six years, about 25,000 people have died from acts ofterrorism, worldwide.Over that same period, 52 million people have died from preventablehunger; about 24,000 people per day. Sources: Patterns of Global Terrorism, Bureau of Public Affairs, U.S. Department of State, 2000. http://www.state.gov/s/ct/rls/pgtrpt/2000/Significant Terrorist Incidents 1961-2001, Bureau of Public Affairs, U.S. Department of State, 2002. • Hunger Fact Sheet, OXFAM International, 2001. http://www.oxfamamerica.org/fast/OxfamFastFactSheet.pdf
Scandal of Poverty • Global: Intolerable extremes of misery and growing gulf between “haves” and “have nots” • US contributes 1/10 of 1 percent of GNP in official development assistance, compared to the 0.7% target. • Poverty at home as well. Poor and vulnerable families at home and abroad cannot be asked to bear disproportionate burden of the sacrifices that will have to be made.
Principle of world tension • “Right now, the United States uses 25 percent of the world’s oil production even though it has only 4 percent of the world’s population and 3 percent of its reserves.”2 NYT 2-18-02 • 2“Ending the Oil Addiction,” editorial, NYT, 2-18-02. • World population in late 1990s was 5.8 billion - census bureau • USA population 281 million - census bureau
Statement on Iraq, United States Conference of Catholic Bishops, November 13, 2002 • This letter, which was authorized by the U.S. Bishops' Administrative Committee, raised serious questions about the moral legitimacy of any preemptive, unilateral use of military force to overthrow the government of Iraq • No illusions about the behavior or intentions of the Iraqi government. • Based on the facts that are known to us, we continue to find it difficult to justify the resort to war against Iraq, lacking clear and adequate evidence of an imminent attack of a grave nature. With the Holy See and bishops from the Middle East and around the world, we fear that resort to war, under present circumstances and in light of current public information, would not meet the strict conditions in Catholic teaching for overriding the strong presumption against the use of military force.*
Just cause • The Catechism of the Catholic Church limits just cause to cases in which "the damage inflicted by the aggressor on the nation or community of nations [is] lasting, grave and certain." We are deeply concerned about recent proposals to expand dramatically traditional limits on just cause to include preventive uses of military force to overthrow threatening regimes or to deal with weapons of mass destruction. Consistent with the proscriptions contained in international law, a distinction should be made between efforts to change unacceptable behavior of a government and efforts to end that government's existence.
Legitimate authority • In our judgment, decisions concerning possible war in Iraq require compliance with U.S. constitutional imperatives, broad consensus within our nation, and some form of international sanction. As the Holy See has indicated, if recourse to force were deemed necessary, this should take place within the framework of the United Nations after considering the consequences for Iraqi civilians, and regional and global stability
Probability of success and proportionality • The use of force must have "serious prospects for success" and "must not produce evils and disorders graver than the evil to be eliminated" We recognize that not taking military action could have its own negative consequences. We are concerned, however, that war against Iraq could have unpredictable consequences not only for Iraq but for peace and stability elsewhere in the Middle East. The use of force might provoke the very kind of attacks that it is intended to prevent, could impose terrible new burdens on an already long-suffering civilian population, and could lead to wider conflict and instability in the region. War against Iraq could also detract from the responsibility to help build a just and stable order in Afghanistan and could undermine broader efforts to stop terrorism.
Norms governing the conduct of war • The justice of a cause does not lessen the moral responsibility to comply with the norms of civilian immunity and proportionality. While we recognize improved capability and serious efforts to avoid directly targeting civilians in war, the use of military force in Iraq could bring incalculable costs for a civilian population that has suffered so much from war, repression, and a debilitating embargo. In assessing whether "collateral damage" is proportionate, the lives of Iraqi men, women and children should be valued as we would the lives of members of our own family and citizens of our own country. • Addressing Iraq's weapons of mass destruction must be matched by broader and stronger non-proliferation measures. Such efforts, grounded in the principle of mutual restraint, should include, among other things, greater support for programs to safeguard and eliminate weapons of mass destruction in all nations, stricter controls on the export of missiles and weapons technology, improved enforcement of the biological and chemical weapons conventions, and fulfillment of U.S. commitments to pursue good faith negotiations on nuclear disarmament under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty.
There are no easy answers. We invite others, particularly Catholic lay people -- who have the principal responsibility to transform the social order in light of the Gospel -- to continue to discern how best to live out their vocation to be "witnesses and agents of peace and justice" As Jesus said, "Blessed are the peacemakers" (Mt. 5). • We pray for all those most likely to be affected by this potential conflict, especially the suffering people of Iraq and the men and women who serve in our armed forces. We support those who risk their lives in the service of our nation. We also support those who seek to exercise their right to conscientious objection and selective conscientious objection, as we have stated in the past. ____________________*"Just war teaching has evolved…as an effort to prevent war; only if war cannot be rationally avoided, does the teaching then seek to restrict and reduce its horrors. It does this by establishing a set of rigorous conditions which must be met if the decision to go to war is to be morally permissible. Such a decision, especially today, requires extraordinarily strong reasons for overriding the presumption in favor of peace and against war. This is one significant reason why valid just-war teaching makes provision for conscientious dissent." The Challenge of Peace: God's Promise and Our Response (1983), #83.