Are the rights of non-combatants being respected? Photo: DVIDSHUB/flickr CC
What is a just war?
Leslie Stevenson explores the criteria and applies them to Afghanistan
There have been two broad traditions about war within Christianity. Pacifism was dominant in the first three centuries, but the theory of a ‘just war’, developed by Augustine and refined by others, has since been the majority Christian view.
It is to be noted, however, that the ‘just war’ view does not say that war is good, only that in certain limited circumstances Christians will not be condemned for supporting and participating in war.
The seven generally accepted criteria of the theory are as follows:
legitimate/right authority – there must be a formal declaration of war by a recognised government or international organisation;
just cause – it must be defensive not aggressive;
right intention – it should attempt to secure justice or remedy injustice;
last resort – all other means must have been shown to be impractical or ineffective;
reasonable hope of success;
proportionate means – the use of arms must not produce evils greater than the evil to be eliminated;
non-combatant immunity.
There is a series of important subsidiary questions: Who decides what is just or legitimate? How predictable are the ‘unintended’ consequences (for example, significant civilian casualties)? Who assesses whether the war is really the last resort? What is the balance of evil against good? What is the likely outcome? How is ‘success’ to be defined?
It is against the background of a ‘just war’ theory that the working party set up by ACTS (Action of Churches Together in Scotland) recently approached the difficult task of making a judgment about the present military operations in Afghanistan. These do not have a clear-cut objective; the notion of a ‘war on terror’ is very slippery and ill-defined.
First, we asked, is the war legitimate? There are two supposedly distinct operations in Afghanistan. While the International Security Assistance Force (ISAF) operates under arguably legitimate UN authority, there is serious doubt as to whether Operation Enduring Freedom can be classified in 2010 as legitimate self-defence by the UK, or any other nation. There is also a problem if British forces are asked to operate outside Afghanistan.
Second, is there a good prospect of success? Our government endorses the objective of establishing a non-Taliban government, with effective control of the country, a strong police force and army, and effective programmes for economic development. It is very difficult to argue that this is feasible. The Taliban have substantial support in parts of Afghanistan.
Our conclusion is that there is no real chance of success with the present strategy, and that UK security may be more at risk as a result of continuing military involvement.
Third, is the harm prevented outweighed by the harm caused? War is destructive of people and of social capital. The people of Afghanistan have suffered conditions of civil strife for most of the past thirty years. This has been worse when foreign troops have been present. It can be argued that working for development with the various tribes is more likely to lead to stability and an improvement in human rights, rather than a heavy presence of foreign troops.
Fourth, are the rights of non-combatants being respected? The treatment of non-combatants, civilians, and wounded and captured combatants gives grave cause for concern.
The information available paints a picture of death and injury caused to civilians and non-combatants. Non-combatant immunity is fundamental to ‘just war’ theory.
The ACTS working party argues that the Churches have a responsibility to make clear that they are resolutely opposed to the continuation of the war, and that alternative approaches of negotiation, peace-making and conflict resolution should be urgently pursued.
The government’s argument for continuing engagement ultimately rests on reducing the threat of terrorism, thus increasing our security. But the Christian perspective tells us that, despite all the best human, technological and military efforts, we can never be completely secure in a physical sense while we perpetuate injustice as we claim to strive for peace. Security lies with God alone, and in our closer relationship with God and one another.
Leslie Stevenson, of St Andrews Meeting, has been a member of a working party set up by ACTS (Action of Churches Together in Scotland) that has compiled a report on the above theme.
