|
Insights on just war theory come from the way it is applied in concrete situations. Here we review its application regarding nuclear weapons and recent wars.
|
Nuclear Weapons
U.S. Catholic Bishops.
In their 1983 pastoral letter on war and peace: The Challenge of Peace: God's Promise and Our Response, the National Conference of Catholic Bishops applied just war criteria to the use of nuclear weapons. (See pp. 26-34 for their statement of these criteria.) They offered their moral judgment on different kinds of use.
Counter Population Warfare. "Under no circumstance may nuclear weapons or other instruments of mass destruction be used for the purpose of destroying population centers or other predominantly civilian targets." (p. 46)
Retaliatory Action. "Retaliatory action whether nuclear or conventional which would indiscriminately take many wholly innocent lives, lives of people who are in no way responsible for reckless action of their government, must also be condemned. This condemnation, in our judgment, applies even to the retaliatory use of weapons striking enemy cities after our own have already been struck." (p. 47)
Initiation of Nuclear War. "We do not perceive any situation in which the deliberate initiation of nuclear warfare, on however restricted a scale, can be morally justified. Non-nuclear attacks by another state must be resisted by other than nuclear means."
(p. 47)
Limited Nuclear War. "Our examination of the various arguments on this question makes us highly skeptical about the real meaning of 'limited.' One of the criteria of the just-war teaching is that there must be reasonable hope of success in bringing about justice and peace. We must ask whether such a reasonable hope can exist once nuclear weapons have been exchanged. The burden of proof remains on those who assert that meaningful limitation is possible." (pp. v-vi)
Regarding Nuclear Deterrence the U.S. Catholic bishops accepted the statement that Pope John Paul II made to the United Nations Special Session on Disarmament in 1982:
"In current conditions 'deterrence' based on balance, certainly not as an end in itself but as a step on the way toward a progressive disarmament, may still be judged morally acceptable. Nevertheless, in order to ensure peace, it is indispensable not to be satisfied with this minimum which is always susceptible to the real danger of explosion." (p. iii)
United Methodist Bishops
In their 1986 foundation document and pastoral letter, In Defense of Creation: The Nuclear Crisis and a Just Peace, the United Methodist Council of Bishops drew on several theological perspectives in stating their opposition to any use of nuclear weapons. Among these they cited three just-war principles (p. 34).
First, we are convinced that no actual use of nuclear weapons offers any reasonable hope of success in achieving a just peace....
Second, we believe that the principle of discrimination, whatever the intent of political and military leaders, is bound to be horribly violated in any likely use of nuclear weapons....
Third, we cannot imagine that the norm of proportionality can be meaningfully honored in a nuclear war, since such a war could not be waged with any realistic expectation of doing more good than harm.
These considerations posed by the still-valuable just-war tradition require us to say No, a clear and unconditional No to nuclear war and to any use of nuclear weapons.
The United Methodist bishops parted company with the Catholic bishops on the matter of nuclear deterrence. They stated:
We believe, however, that the moral case for nuclear deterrence, even as an interim ethic, has been undermined by unrelenting arms escalation. Deterrence no longer serves, if it ever did, as a strategy that facilitates disarmament. (p. 47)
The United Methodist bishops further pointed out:
Deterrence has too long been reverenced as the unquestioning idol of national security. (p 46)
It is the idolatrous connection between the ideology of deterrence and the existence of the weapons themselves that must be broken. Deterrence must no longer receive the churches' blessing, even as a temporary warrant for the maintenance of nuclear weapons. (p. 48)
|
Gulf War (1990-1991)
The Gulf War began on August 2, 1990 when Iraq under the leadership of Saddam Hussein invaded Kuwait. The United States responded by deploying troops to Saudi Arabia and working with allies and the United Nations through diplomacy and economic sanctions to get Iraq to withdraw. When this did not happen, President H.W. Bush authorized military action, supported by resolutions from the United Nations and the U.S. Congress, the latter by a narrow margin. Allied bombing started on January 16, 1991, and land forces went into action in Kuwait on February 23. With their rapid success President Bush ordered a cease fire on February 27. Surviving Iraqi troops escaped into Iraq. All fighting ended on March 3 when Iraq accepted the terms of the cease fire.
During the fall of 1990 and into 1991 there was substantial opposition to immediate military action by many religious denominations in the United States and the Holy See. The peace churches were totally opposed to this war as well as all others. Denominations working with just war principles believed that not all peaceful alternatives had been pursued. They determined that by January 1991 war had not become the last resort. Pope John Paul II opposed the Gulf War because it didn't conform to just war principles. He spoke against it 56 times.
After the Gulf War was over two pairs of scholars examined the evidence to determine whether it was a just war. In the following books, the first concluded that just war criteria were not met. The second concluded that it was a just war.
- Alan Geyer and Barbara Green, Lines In The Sand. Louisville: Westminster/John Knox.
- James Turner Johnson & George Weigel. Just War and The Gulf War. Washington: Ethics & Public Policy Center
|
U.S. Invasion of Afghanistan (2001)
Following the attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon on September 11, 2001, President George W. Bush demanded that the Taliban, which governed Afghanistan, deliver Al-Quaida leaders located in that country to the United States. The UN Security Council made similar demands. When this did not occur promptly, U.S. and British air forces began bombing Al-Quaida and Taliban targets on October 7. Later in the month land forces moved in.
On October 13, 2001 the United Methodist General Board of Church and Society adopted a "Statement to the Church on the Terrorist Attack and the US Response." The Board mourned for those killed in the September 11 attacks and condemned "all acts of terrorism, with no exception for the target or the source." The statement also indicated:
We claim the teachings of the Prince of Peace who instructs us to love and pray for our enemies and refrain from responding to violence with violence. As we join people around the world in our resolve to bring terrorists to justice, we understand that war is not an appropriate means of responding to criminal acts against humanity.
Later in October the directors of the Women's Division, United Methodist General Board of Global Ministries urged President Bush to use diplomatic means, rather than the bombing of Afghanistan, to bring those responsible for the Sept. 11 terrorists attacks to justice.
When the United Methodist Council of Bishops met in November, they adopted "A Pastoral Letter to the Whole Church". The letter went through several drafts as the bishops debated whether it should be pastoral or prophetic. In the end it was some of both. For example, the letter expressed " Our fervent and constant prayers are for those who grieve,... for the people who have been placed in harm's way" and for others affected by the emergence of terrorism They also noted: " We, your bishops, believe that violence in all of its forms and expressions is contrary to God's purpose for the world. Violence creates fear, desperation, hopelessness and instability." However, the United Methodist bishops could not agree on what to say about the Afghan War and other military action.
Meeting the same month, the General Assembly of the National Council of Churches of Christ in America, while not indicating whether the war was justified, adopted a statement that, among other things, called for "an early end to the bombing campaign and for all parties to collaborate with the international community to discern non-violent means that may be available by which to bring to justice those who terrorize the nations of the world."
In response to the September 11 terrorist attacks on the United States, Pope John Paul II "said that nations have a moral and legal right to defend themselves against terrorism. .He did not condemn the bombing of Afghanistan, although he did say that such military actions must be aimed solely at people with "criminal culpability" and not whole groups of innocent civilians.
(The New York Times, January 14, 2003)
At their semi-annual meeting in November 2001 the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops offered their views in A Pastoral Message: Living with Faith and Hope After September 11. In a section on "The use of military force", the Catholic bishops gave cautionary support for the Afghan War on the basis of just war principles. However, they noted: "The continuing priority must be to ensure that military force is directed at those who use terror and those who assist them, not at the Afghan people or Islam."
In January 2002 a majority attending a meeting of the Society of Christian Ethics agreed that the military effort in Afghanistan fits the just war principles. However, a minority of those present stood against the war.
|
Iraq War (2003-)
In the summer and fall of 2002 President George W. Bush and his administration increased the level of rhetoric and diplomacy against the Iraqi regime of Saddam Hussein. In October the U.S. Congress gave the president conditional authority to wage war against Iraq. In November the United Nations Security Council adopted a resolution calling for renewed inspection in Iraq for weapons of mass destruction in Iraq and stating that there would be "serious consequences" if the Iraqi government did not fully cooperate. President Bush claimed the authority of these two resolutions to attack and invade Iraq on March 20, 2003.
The build-up toward the Iraq War generated strong opposition from mainline Protestant denominations, the Catholic Church, and peace churches in the United States and from Pope John Paul II in the Vatican. The Catholics and some Protestants insisted that the pending use of military force against Iraq did not satisfy just war criteria. Others invoked other theological grounds.
On October 4, 2002 Bishop Sharon A. Brown Christopher, president of the United Methodist Council of Bishops, sent a pastoral letter to United Methodists in which she wrote: "A pre-emptive war by the United States against a nation like Iraq goes against the very grain of our understanding of the Gospel, our church's teachings and our conscience. Pre-emptive strike does not reflect restraint and does not allow for the adequate pursuit of peaceful means for resolving conflict. To be silent in the face of such a prospect is not an option for followers of Christ."
The United Methodist Council of Bishops endorsed Bishop Christopher's letter in November. The General Board of Church and Society, the General Board of Global Ministry, and the Board of Directors, Women's Division also spoke out against going to war against Iraq.
In September 2000 Bishop Wilton D. Gregory, president of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, wrote a letter to President Bush on Iraq in behalf of the Conference's Administrative Committee. He stated, " Given the precedents and risks involved, we find it difficult to justify extending the war on terrorism to Iraq, absent clear and adequate evidence of Iraqi involvement in the attacks of September 11th or of an imminent attack of a grave nature."
In November 2002 the full U.S. Conference of Bishops issued their own Statement on Iraq. They indicated, "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."
Their objections were based upon considerations of just cause (it doesn't include regime change), legitimate authority (requiring specific United Nations endorsement), probability of success and proportionality ("must not produce evils and disorders graver than the evil to be eliminated"), and norms governing the conduct of war ("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").
In this same period Pope John Paul II spoke out repeatedly against waging war on Iraq. He and other Vatican leaders stated that just war theory does not allow for preemptive or preventive war. In January 2003 the pope told the diplomatic emissaries to the Vatican, "War is not always inevitable. It is always a defeat for humanity."
Many other religious organizations, -- Protestant, Quaker and Mennonite, Orthodox, Jewish -- opposed going to war against Iraq. Some used just war arguments, others offered other theological perspectives.
There has been, however, some religious support for the Iraq war from conservative Catholics and Evangelicals. The latter is represented by an article entitled "John Wesley & Just War" that appeared in Good News Magazine May-June 2003.
In Catholic circles support for the view that military action against Iraq would be just came from some of the participants in three public forums held since September 11, 2001. They are:
|
Preemptive War
The debate over the Iraq War has led to consideration of the broader question whether preemptive or preventative war can be approved by just war criteria or other theological considerations. Two forums have provided a range of views on this matter.
|
|
|
|
