Saturday 3rd November, 2001.

Archbishop declares ‘War against terrorism’ justified; Christian

Peacemaker Team Reservist disagrees.

The Archbishop of Canterbury, Dr. George Carey, has just spoken about

the war against terrorism, saying that it was justified. It is a

serious claim for the Head of the Anglican Communion to make, thereby

declaring this a ‘Just War’.

The Just(ifiable) War Tradition (JWT) has a long history, coming into

existence in the 4th Century, after the Emperor Constantine had a

religious experience. He co-opted the church, and used it to expand the

empire, thus requiring Christians to participate in war. Prior to that

time, the church was almost exclusively pacifist.

The teachings and lives of Jesus and his followers in the early church

give no support for Christians to engage in warfare. His message was

for people to love God, love their neighbours, and to love their

enemies.

While the aims of the JWT are valid in seeking to limit the horror of

war, in reality neither governments nor churches have ever really

applied it. If they had, then there would have been consistent calls

over the centuries from churches, for governments to stop going to war.

Sadly, instead of this, churches carried out the crusades and the

Spanish inquisition.

Government leaders including Tony Blair and George Bush, frequently

state that there is a ‘just cause’; this was used in the crisis,

and also in the current ‘War against terrorism’ However, a ‘Justifiable

War’ has many other criteria related to the decision to go to war, and

the means of war. These are pretty much unknown, or deliberately

neglected, and governments’ frequently ignore them, preferring only to

use the ‘just cause’ statement, seemingly to convince us that the war is

just.

The criteria are :

Just Cause: – September 11 is clearly a just cause

Legitimate authority: – I have not checked the UN resolutions, nor

whether the US President had authority to engage in these actions. Only

this week has a vote been taken in parliament. The authority is

therefore questionable.

Last resort – there are many other ways that bringing the perpetrators

of September 11 to justice might have been done; in pursuing a ‘War

against terrorism’ there are certainly many other methods. Having built

a coalition which seems to be able to withstand military action, it

presumably would have been even more ‘solid’ in bringing non-military

actions against Bin Laden and the Taliban. Many major events of recent

history (e.g. the ‘people power’ revolution in the Philippines, the

Berlin Wall coming down, the transition in South Africa, and the

revolution in Iran) were not predicted by analysts; some of them were

the result of people acting justly in a non-violent manner, and waiting

for an opportune time. It is impossible to accurately predict either

success or failure of various actions. You can, however, learn from

history. History shows that other options are available, and therefore

this is not the last resort. Thus I do not believe that this criterion

is met.

Proportionality – limited aims + means: – the current strategy and

tactics certainly do not show evidence of being proportional to the

threat, and neither the means nor the ends are limited. In using

phrases such as ‘we must win, we will win’ George Bush shows clearly

that he will use whatever it takes to defeat Bin Laden. That is not

consistent with proportionality. Additionally, in the ‘war against

terrorism’ there seems no limit to what is proposed, and as this is

declared as a ‘long haul’ the means used will grow. Consequently I do

not believe that this criterion is met.

Good intent: – the intentions of removing terrorism are good – but only

if this is applied consistently. To remove terrorism from Afghanistan,

while permitting other countries – including Israel – to engage in

terrorism and assassination does not show good intent.

Probability of success: – it is highly improbable that the ‘war against

terrorism’ will be won. Has the ‘War against Drugs’ or the ‘War against

Crime’ ? In using the strategies and tactics that are being used, it is

very likely that many more people will offer themselves as terrorists

either to enact revenge or cause other conflicts. Regarding bringing

Bin Laden to justice, it also seems improbable, as he may well not allow

himself to be captured alive – and unless the re is a trial with him

able to answer charges, then much of the world will not be satisfied

that justice has been done. For these and other reasons, I do not

believe that this criterion is met.

Discrimination – non-combatant immunity: – A century ago typical wars

resulted in 90% combatant casualties, with only 10% non-combatant.

Recently these figures have been reversed. Even with very accurate

targeted bombing, many non-combatants will die as a direct consequence

of military actions, and even more in the humanitarian disaster

produced. In recent wars US and UK forces have shown a considerable

reluctance to accept casualties, which has led to greater risks for

non-combatants. The use of cluster bombs is hideous, and will almost

inevitably target civilians. Consequently I do not believe that this

criterion is met.

No glorying if successful : – this is related to ‘Good intent’, in that

the Justifiable War response to success would be sorrow rather than

elation. We must wait to see on this one.

For these reasons I do not believe that this is a Just War, and I do not

believe that the Archbishop is correct in this matter.

Lets also remember that it was Gandhi who taught us that the ends we get

are a product of the means we use; if we use violent means, we are

likely to get violent ends. He also observed that it seemed only to be

Christians who did not believe that Jesus was a pacifist.

I believe that the call to Christians – including Tony Blair and George

Bush – is the call of Jesus, to love God, our neighbours, and our

enemies.