WHY GOING TO WAR MAY SOMETIMES BE RIGHT

 

Christians need to debate when military action might be justified and

responsible, argued Charles Reed, the C of E's International Policy

Adviser, in the Church Times of 16 February, 2007.

 

 

'The Prime Minister (Tony Blair) called for a national debate about

the UK’s armed forces last month. The speech was the latest of

Mr Blair’s 'Our Nation's Future' lectures, in which, in his final days

in office, he has set out the strategic challenges facing the UK, and

their policy and resource implications.

 

A significant difference between this and his other foreign-policy

speeches was his questioning whether Britain has the 'stomach' to

respond effectively to the pressing post-9/11 security environment.

Provoking this debate, he hopes, will lead to a renewed contract

between the military, politicians, and public opinion regarding the

appropriate use of force.

 

It is apposite that this week sees the publication of 'The Price of

Peace: Just war in the twenty-first century,' a collection of essays

co-sponsored by the Church of England and the Roman Catholic

Bishops' Conference of England and Wales. The book represents a

statement on the moral status of war, tackling subjects such as

rogue regimes, terrorism, radical Islam, humanitarian intervention,

and what constitutes a just peace after war. The book was

commissioned with the aim of renewing thejust-war tradition as

part of a broader public and political conversation.

 

The need for debate is not surprising, given the direction of British

foreign policy since 1997, and especially since 9/11. Unlike past wars

of necessity, where national interests were at stake, Britain's more

recent military adventures are seen by some as offensive wars of

choice, involving the promotion of liberal values - whether in Kosovo,

Sierra Leone, Afghanistan, or Iraq.

 

The nation's moral liberal conscience propelled Britain to intervene in

Kosovo. That same conscience has been disturbed by the wars in

Iraq and Afghanistan. The nation's threshold of what it holds to be

an acceptable cost of war, both human and financial, differs markedly,

depending on the type of war that is fought. If Tony Blair is to be

believed, however, the type of operations that we are currently

involved in are an inevitable feature of the post-9/11 landscape.

 

Most public and political debate about defence and foreign policy is

restricted to contesting defence budgets or debating the legality of a

particular use of force. These debates are an important part of any

functioning democracy, and provide a mechanism for executive

accountability and civilian control of the military. But the debates are

episodic, and leave more basic questions unchecked.

 

Christians have an important part to play by ensuring that moral

questions about ends and means feature more prominently. Some

may call on the just-war tradition. This tradition represents a body

of moral reflection, rooted in Christian theology and natural law, which

has evolved through a constant dialogue between secular and religious

sources. The history of just-war thinking suggests that its criteria

will atrophy if they are not reworked in the unprecedented context of

the current international environment.

 

This is uncomfortable terrain for many within the Churches. Churches

have been accused often of foreclosing debate in this area by adopting

a position akin to that of functional pacifism. They do not deny that a

justified war is possible, but they raise the bar so high that no

conflict could ever qualify. As 'The Price of Peace makes plain', this is

attributable to broader cultural influences: the suspicion of power,

post-imperial anxiety - bordering at times on self-loathing - and a

belief that something as terrible as war, especially any war led by the

United States, must be avoided at all costs.

 

The prospects for a healthy debate appear to be prejudiced by the

immediacy of the situation in Iraq and Afghanistan, as well as by Mr

Blair's imminent retirement. A growing proportion of public opinion

hopes that a knight in shining armour quickly extricates Britain from

the Iraq quagmire.

 

With Gordon Brown at the helm, Britain could adopt a softer foreign

policy, finally giving up the imperial pretence of the past, in favour

of Britain becoming a world leader in the fight against climate

change; against global poverty; and for peace and reconciliation. In so

doing, Britain would not inflame Muslim opinion further or become a

terrorist target.

 

There is nothing wrong with Britain's taking the lead in such areas, but

it would be wrong to think that, in so doing, we can evade our

responsibilities in situations that suggest a military option be

considered as one response alongside many alternatives.

 

The world is far too interconnected to allow for such passive

disengagement or an over-reliance on soft power. Frederick the Great,

the 18th-century King of Prussia, probably overstated the case in

arguing that diplomacy without arms is like music without instruments,

but it would be naïve to think that setting aside our hard power would

leave our soft power unaffected.

 

This brings us to Mr Blair's challenge: what part do we want Britain's

armed forces to play in the 21st century? Churches must put aside their

anxiety about entering this debate; for, as General Sir Richard Dannatt

argues in the foreword to 'The Price of Peace', 'What people think they

can achieve by war, how people conduct themselves in war, and how

people set about restoring peace - it is our response to these questions

that ultimately defines our humanity.'