Sunday, March 30, 2008

Jus Ad Bellum (Part 4)

As you can probably tell by the title, this is my fourth entry about the Justice of War. The last post primarily dealt with the spheres of authority and how some nations view it as within their realm of authority to exercise control or dominion over other countries. The objection I often get to this is that Saddam was a terrible man, did great evil to his people and meant for great evil in the area and the world. In this post, I would like to offer further clarification of MY OPINION (which I happen to believe is based on scripture)

I liken the above scenario with Saddam to a more domestic situation (and objectors tend to agree with this likening). Lets us suppose my neighbor and his wife have not been getting along. Then let us further suppose that I see bruises on her face someday and she confides to me that she has been beaten by her husband. What moral authority do I have in this situation? Do I have the moral authority to stop it and keep it from happening again? If so, what measures are appropriate? Do I have the moral authority to punish the man?

Scripture clearly teaches that we are to care for the oppressed and to help them and love them. As a neighbor, I have a moral (and probably legal) obligation to see that this situation is rectified, that the woman is protected, the man is punished, and that it the situation does not repeat itself. Justice demands it and justice must be served. BUT, Justice will only be served justly. If I attempt to serve justice in an unjust manner, then justice will be demanded for me.

If I went into the man's house and gave him bruises in the same way and manner he gave them to his wife, that would be clearly wrong. Why? Paul tells us in Romans, that God has given the sword (and perhaps we can also add the whip) not to men as individuals, but to those who govern. The governing authorities must intervene in the lives of their 'subjects' to protect and punish as is their responsibility. God has granted that authority to the state/nation/governor. It is my responsibility to assist them and notify them and even to hold them accountable.

Now, how does this relate to sovereign nation/states? When a dictator or regime or political system of a nation/state commits wrong or evil upon its own citizenry, what is the responsibility of the neighboring states/nations (in our small world, its an easy case to say all nations neighbor each other)? In the domestic situation described in the previous paragraphs, the neighbor had the responsibility to care for the oppressed and assist her in her plight. The neighbor also had the responsibility of entrusting the matter to the governing authorities. So also in this case. The difference, however, is that the governing authority here is the One who is sovereign over all creation, the One who establishes nations and their boundaries and their governing authorities. The neighboring countries must offer shelter to the oppressed and then entrust the matter to the vengeance of God.

Let me conclude with this small note. When the authorities of a sovereign nation commit a crime against another nation or its citizenry, then it is the responsibility of the victimized nation to retaliate and punish and perhaps even conquer the guilty country. The extent of the punishment must be fair and proportional, worth the money and lives/blood spent, and must be carried out by the proper channels of authority. This however is another subject for another time (known as Jus In Bello as opposed to Jus Ad Bellum).

The point of this post, and the previous, was to show from a biblical perspective the unjustness of the current doctrine of foreign policy of the United States, i.e. that of intervening in the internal affairs of other nations. It is not about the justness of the current conflicts in Afghanistan or Iraq. We did not go to those countries, as some claim, to settle their own injustices, nor would it be right for us to have done so. Our reason for going to Iraq was altogether different, but I disagree with that reason also and will blog about it another time.

2 comments:

  1. Micah;
    Thanks for thinking about this stuff, makes me think, also.
    Your critical old dad here - are you comparing 'apples & oranges' in the example of the neighbor & his wife? In that case, there is a higher earthly authority to appeal to; in the case of nation-states, there is none (as you note).
    Another question: Are nations ruled by the same ethic as individuals? In other words, does the U.S. have a 'moral duty' to intervene in the internal affairs of another nation? I just read a piece from South Africa suggesting that country should depose Mugabe.
    I'm not so sure that you can construct a national ethic out of individual ethics. I think you might have to start somewhere else.
    On another tack; how does one deal with co-belligerents?
    Gotta run;
    Dad

    ReplyDelete
  2. Dad,
    Does the United States have a moral duty (authority) to intervene in the internal affairs of other nation/states? I have not found anywhere in scripture where God grants that authority to nations. Would it be nice if all the nations of the world could be controlled and run peacefully and ethically with there own citizens? Yes, but it is my understanding God has not given the authority to any nations and therefore it is His alone.

    As to co-belligerents, I suppose that might be fine in some situations, like when we were allied with our enemy the soviet union in WWII. However, I guess I'm not really sure how you're applying it to today.
    If you're applying it to Iraq and Al-Qaeda, I believe that it was proven there was no such link, that is was invented by Mr. Chenney and friends.

    Also, I have been meaning to write sometime about this whole notion of the war against fear or terror. Basically, i don't see how a country can wage war on a tactic. I think it's miss-named for one. Two, I don't think its at all winnable, ever (especially since we don't even have a clear idea of what 'win' would be), which goes against one of the tenets of doctrine of just war. Three, war, in the real sense of the word, is conflict between nation/states. Our conflict with terrorists, is generally not a conflict with nation/states but rouge people within nation/states. There is a separate method of justice granted in our constitution to deal with those people (letters of marque and reprisal - "To declare war, grant letters of marque and reprisal, and make rules concerning captures on land and water" Article I, Section 8 - under enumerated powers). This sort of thing reminds me of what happened in 1803 with the Barbary states. Congress never declared war but did instruct Jefferson to use military force to recover money and hostages and even take prisoners if needed. It was never officially a war nor was if officially a marque and reprisal but practically it was the latter.

    As far as I know, we're not even trying to get justice for the attacks on 9/11/01, but rather trying to follow the advice of president Wilson and making the world safe for democracy. I believe before we ever even concerned ourselves with Iraq or Saddam we should have punished those who were responsible for attacking us. Then, considered other threats, supposed or real (we do know that there we were in no immediate danger of attack from Saddam. We managed to find him, because we made him a priority but we left bin-laden to the hands of the Afgan war-lords. As far as I know, he nor his henchmen have ever been brought to justice.)

    so much for a short reply. sorry
    micah

    ReplyDelete