What leads people to
wage a war? What justifies waging a war? And is it justifiable to justify waging a war? This moral issue has been raised throughout
the human history yet nobody had succeeded in coming up with a clear answer. It was mainly due to the gap – a great ditch –
between reality and ideality. Depending
on the approach how people attempted to narrow the gap between the two created
a variety of perspectives and attitudes on war ethics. On top of that, different interpretation of ideality
itself caused a birth of other perspectives.
Bellicism, for instance, which was popular from the eighteenth century to
mid-twentieth century, advocated – even glorified – waging of a war. It was because this view presupposed (idealized)
that there is no eternal peaceful condition in the human society – if there is,
it is nothing more than an illusion. (cf. Johann Valentin Embser) Rather, it understood that war is an
inevitable, ideal, and blessing as an indispensable and stimulating law of development,
which must be repeatedly emphasized. (cf. Friedrich Von Bernhardi)
Even so, unlike
bellicism, two most distinctive and traditional war theories, namely, Just War
theory and pacifism, considered war as an evil, which should be ultimately eradicated
and evaded. Although they agreed on the negativity
of warfare but they differed from each other with regards to how they relate
reality more to ideality. How much they could
narrow the gap between those two extremities was the core controversial
issue. And it seems like Just War theory
is prevailing against pacifism in a sense that people consider Just War theory
to be more realistic and applicable to a real situation. That is, people thought Just War theory narrowed
the gap between reality and ideality more than pacifism so that they, more
likely, adopt the former one rather a latter one for their decision making
criteria (cf. Obama administration – war on Iraq). In contrast, people generally regarded pacifism
as unrealistic assuming that it maybe only possible in theory not in a real
world. Thus, current pacifists such as Richard
Norman and Stanley Hauerwas are treated as the outliers.
Even though pacifism has
been abandoned in the real world by most of people for its lack of realism but its
approach was not been completely disregarded in their thought world. Many of them are still attracted by its spirit
of rejecting of all violence, even in self-defense, and moved by the stories
and teachings of Jesus, Buddha, Gandhi, and King. Yet, when it comes to their real life, people
choose Just War theory over pacifism thinking that pacifism (absolute
self-sacrifice) is impossible to apply to their life. In this respect, Just War theory is like an
escape route, or the last resort for incapable human beings who are not at all free
from the mindset of self-defense and self-interest. Stephen Carter supported this idea of self-defense
which he believed to be natural and axiomatic, by giving a following example: “If
you are walking down the street and a mugger attacks you, you might try to
flee. If you can’t get away, you will
likely try to defend yourself. If you
injure your attacker in the process, no jury is going to convict you. No
prosecutor is going to try. The law
follows what has come to be our shared ethical understanding: you have the
right to defend yourself.[1]”
Accepting this fact – human nature, or human
incapability – was, actually, a beginning of a realism – that was, at least,
what Reinhold Niebuhr argued about. Niebuhr
explained why he stood in this “realist” tradition by saying that “Christianity
does not hold out redemption from history as conflict, because sinful egoism
continues to express itself at every level of human life, making it impossible
to overcome the contradictions of human history[2].”
Therefore, he criticized pacifists for
their excessive confidence in human perfectionism as well as their lack of
comprehension on the Reformation doctrine of “justification by faith”. He, basically, accused pacifists for their
lack of realism how absurd it is to expect the idealism based on the
impossibility to achieve.
But there are some people
who actually went against human nature or human incapability but conducted an
absolute self-sacrifice. Let’s say you
became a conscientious objector during wartime where millions of people including
his or her own families were dying from a war.
This means that you respected and saved your enemy’s life by your
self-sacrificial non-violent action but is it a really just to leave your
family members dying from that enemy as well as leaving the country being destroyed? If a Good Samaritan arrived at the site where
robberies were still at the scene beating and stealing the Jew, what would he
have done? In regards to these issues,
unlike pacifists, who still believe that they should not do anything, but many turned
to Just War theory standpoint by accepting an inevitability (or, reality) of war. In this respect, Thomas Aquinas said, “war
principally not as a means to defend one’s self, but as a sacrifice one makes
for others[3].” In the same manner, Martin Luther in the
sixteenth century pointed out the unavoidability of war in this way: “What men
write about war, saying that it is a great plague, is all true. But they should
also consider how great the plague is that war prevents.[4]” He also added that “Christians do not fight
for themselves, but for their neighbor. So if they see that there is a lack of
hangmen, constables, judges, lords or princes, and find they are qualified they
should offer their services and assume these positions.[5]”
Likewise, compared to pacifism
that seemed to be unrealistic in terms of lack of understanding of human nature
as well as not applicable to protect a bigger humanity, Just War theory was
more relevant to the real world by reflecting the human nature. In other words, Just War theory is more likely
a humane, or human-oriented perspective so to speak. However, even though Just War theory has been
ruled over human ideologies since the fourth century to use of war as a last
resort for both Jus ad bellum
(Justice in going to war) and Jus in
bello (Justice in the conduct of war), but it is so true that this theory has
many limitations just as much as pacifism – or, even more.
First of all, Just War
theory attacked pacifism for its lack of understanding of human incapability. (cf.
Reinhold Niebuhr) But this challenge is
self-contradictory since Just War theory also lacks understanding of the human inability. Simply put, Just War theory never had been
applied to a real situation. The purpose
of war (right intention), for instance, as Luther puts it, “has to do with a
work of love for other neighbors[6].” David Baer and Joseph Capizzi maintained that
“the intention for going to war be so understood is an expression of love for
the enemy just to the extent that the lasting order be one that encompasses the
interests of the enemy.[7]”
But let’s look at the reality. Think about wars happened in human history. We do not need to go too far but think about wars
and conflicts occurred within ten years – to name a few: Iraq War (2003- ), Shia
insurgency in Yemen (2004- ), Civil war in Chad (2005–2010), Lebanon War
(2006), War in Somalia (2006–2009), Gaza War (2008- ), Libyan civil war (2011-
), and so forth. Did any of these wars
and conflicts applied right intention (love for their neighbors) to initiate
the war? I doubt it. Who would think that the United States started
a war in both Afghanistan and Iraq for the love of neighbors or for their
benefits per se? Foreign policy of each government has always operated
by the national interest. “The first and
most vital task of government is the security of the nation.[8]”
Apparently, in reality, practicing a
foreign policy, including waging a war, had nothing to do with a universal
welfare or, interest of others (loveing neighbors). In this perspective, Stanley Hauerwas refuted Just
War theory by saying, “the idealism of such "realist" justifications
of just war is nowhere better seen than in these attempts to fit just war
considerations into the realist presuppositions that shape the behavior of
state actors.[9]” Moreover, there was a slippery slope problem
in regards to the work of prevention of war.
Since national defense has been not only a key responsibility but also just
cause, it was by no means clear how much and when a government should use of
violence against other powers such as preemptive attacks. Too early, too late, too much, or too short
will always bring about a problem morally and realistically.
This ambiguity,
however, caused a bigger problem that people may and actually used Just War theory
as a foundation to justify their warfare.
Iraq war, for example, according to Stanley Hauerwas, did not meet the
Just War category. Hauerwas presented
three reasons what made it possible for the United States conduct the second
war against Iraq: “First of all, America
had a military leftover from the Cold War, which was a war that was fought
according to an amoral realism. In
addition to that, America could go to war in Iraq because nothing prevented
America from going to war in Iraq.
Finally, the war was justified as part of a war against terrorism.[10]” However, Hauerwas rebutted that it is unclear
to fight a just war against terrorism.
It was because a just war supposed to have an end but war on terrorism,
apparently, has no end. Another reason he
argued why the Iraq war was not a just was relevant to the Civil War. Hauerwas asserted that “Americans are a
people born of and in war - particularly, the Civil War - and only war can
sustain our belief that we are a people set apart.[11]”
And he quoted Harry Stout who explained “the
Civil War began as a limited war but ended as total war[12]”
which led Americans to pursue even more devastating total wars in the twentieth
century. “They thought they must go to
war to insure that those who died in our past wars did not die in vain. Thus
American wars are justified as a "war to end all wars" or "to
make the world safe for democracy" or for "unconditional
surrender" or "freedom"[13].” This implies that many wars during and after
the twentieth century Americans waged were not really based on Just War theory
but was a product of a national heritage transcended from the founding fathers:
“A free people ought to be armed” said George Washington.
Therefore, it can be
concluded that Just War theory is de facto
irrelevant to reality. Although it
sounds more plausible and applicable compared to pacifism but there is no
virtual difference – it failed to narrow the gap between realism and idealism. Rather, Hauerwas insisted that “attempts to
justify wars begun and fought on realist grounds in the name of just war only
serve to hide the reality of war.[14]” Pointing out limitations of Just War theory,
Hauerwas, indeed, finalized his argument by addressing that pacifists are “real”
realist. Despite accepting the “realism”
associated with Augustine, Luther, and Niebuhr whom has taught us about how the
world works, but Hauerwas realized the “real” realism does not remain in this
world but in Jesus Christ.
The way of life and
thought of Jesus Christ was, literally, anti-human nature, or unrealistic from
the worldly view. Unless people
experience a fundamental paradigm shift by the power of the Holy Spirit, which enables
us to see the Kingdom of God in this world, it is impossible to neither
understand nor accept and follow the way of Jesus. “Jesus gave us a new way to deal with
offenders – by forgiving them. He gave us
a new way to deal with violence – by suffering. He gave us a new way to deal with money – by
sharing it. He gave us a new way to deal
with problems of leadership – by drawing on the gift of every member, even the
most humble. He gave us a new way to
deal with a corrupt society – by building a new order, not making the old. He gave us a new pattern of relationship between
man and woman, between parent and child, between master and slave, in which was
made concrete a radical new vision of what it means to be a human person. He gave us a new attitude toward the state and
toward the enemy nation.[15]” John 18.28-38 clearly revealed “how Jesus's
kingdom is not like other kingdoms of this world, but rather his kingdom is one
that is an alternative to the kingdoms of this world.[16]” When Pilate asked Jesus, “Are you the King of
the Jews?” (v33) Jesus answered, “My kingdom is not from this world.”
(v36a) Again, Pilate asked Jesus, “So
you are a king?” (v37a) and Jesus replied, “You say that I am a king. For this
I was born, and for this I came into the world, to testify to the truth.
Everyone who belongs to the truth listens to my voice.” (v37b) Finally, Pilate questioned Jesus, “What is
truth?” (v38) We could find this answer
from John 14.6, “I am the way, and the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.” Jesus Christ is the “real” reality who called
his followers to be the part of his body and blood (Church). That is, we, as a church body, are the “real”
realism that needs to be an alternative of “faked” realisms in this world that
has nothing to do with narrowing the gap between the reality and ideality. Unless we realize the “real” reality we are
not be able to reach to the idealism. “When
Christians lose that reality, that is, the reality of the church as an
alternative to the world's reality, we abandon the world to the unreality of
war.[17]” The Church is the hope in this world.
Bibliography
1. Stanley
Hauerwas. “War and the American Difference” MI. Baker Academic. 2011.
2. Stephen
L. Carter. “The Violence of Peace” NY. Beast Books. 2011.
3. Stanley
Hauerwas. (April 2012) “What's love got to do with it? The politics of the
cross.” ABC RELIGION AND ETHICS. (Australian Broadcasting Corporation).
[http://www.abc.net.au/religion/articles/2012/04/05/3471386.htm]
4. Trevor
Sather. Editor. “Pros and Cons” (18th ed.). Routledge. NY. 1999.
p29-30.
5. Sangryuel
Kwon. “Moral Theological Study on Just War Theory” (Masters Thesis). The
Graduate School, Catholic University of Daegu. Daegu. 2004.
6. Sangjin
Kim. “Just War Theory and Humanitarian Intervene” (M.Div Thesis). Methodist
Graduate School. Seoul. 2008.
7. Lecture
note.
8. NRSV
Bible.
[1] Stephen L. Carter. “The Violence
of Peace” NY. Beast Books. 2011. p13
[2] Stanley Hauerwas. “War and the
American Difference” MI. Baker Academic. 2011. p23
[3] Stephen L. Carter. “The Violence
of Peace” NY. Beast Books. 2011. p160
[4] Ibid. p22
[5] Stanley Hauerwas. “War and the
American Difference” MI. Baker Academic. 2011. p23
[6] Ibid.
[7] Ibid. p25
[8] Stephen L. Carter. “The Violence
of Peace” NY. Beast Books. 2011. p7
[9] Stanley Hauerwas. “War and the
American Difference” MI. Baker Academic. 2011. p25
[10] Ibid. p26
[11] Ibid. p27
[12] Ibid. p27
[13] Ibid. p32
[14] Ibid. p34
[15] Stanley Hauerwas. (April 2012)
“What's love got to do with it? The politics of the cross.” ABC RELIGION AND
ETHICS (Australian Broadcasting Corporation)
[http://www.abc.net.au/religion/articles/2012/04/05/3471386.htm]
[16] Ibid.
[17] Stanley Hauerwas. “War and the
American Difference” MI. Baker Academic. p34
No comments:
Post a Comment