• Intervention in Syria – does not meet criteria for a just war

    I am not a pacifist. If I was, then I would simply argue against intervention in Syria because armed intervention was always wrong.

    Instead, I think that there are circumstances where it is right (not by any means good) for armed force to be used.

    Christians have a fairly well developed tradition of thinking about this which is called Just War Theory. This attempts to work out whether it is legitimate to go to war. There’s a reasonably good Wikipedia page about it if you want to take a look here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Just_war_theory and there’s a helpful summary on the BBC website which I’ll use below to show how I come to the conclusion that there is not a case for regarding military intervention in Syria at the moment as a just war.

    The first thing to note is that Just War theory is a developing tradition. There are people working on it all the time looking at new situations that arise. The particular thing that we must ask ourselves in our own time is whether intervening for humanitarian reasons is justification for armed conflict.

    Let’s take the basic criteria though and work through them.

    In order for a war (or armed action) to be considered just then the following conditions must be met:

    1. The war must be for a just cause.
    2. The war must be lawfully declared by a lawful authority.
    3. The intention behind the war must be good.
    4. All other ways of resolving the problem should have been tried first.
    5. There must be a reasonable chance of success.
    6. The means used must be in proportion to the end that the war seeks to achieve.

    1 The war must be for a just cause

    It is certainly the case that any intervention in Syria that could be said to be aimed at ensuring that further lives would not be lost could be said to be a just cause. This condition is probably met though there are significant questions to be asked about why we might be intervening here where there is said to be a dictator doing bad things to his own people and not in, for example, Zimbabwe.

    2 The war must be lawfully declared by a lawful authority

    There would be no ambiguity about this if the UN Security Council authorised action. In that case this condition would be met. If that is not met, then a case has to be made by the government justifying its actions. We have seen no arguments yet so this is as yet, not proven.

    3 The intention behind the war must be good

    This is a highly subjective area. There will be those who argue that if we believe chemical weapons are intolerable then we must act against whoever has used them. The complicating factor is that we don’t have any conclusive proof in the public domain that such weapons were used by the Assad regime. Proof that the weapons were used is not proof that Assad authorised them. An obvious argument is that there was an obvious motive for using such weapons by armed opposition groups in Syria if they were attempting to draw foreign powers into the conflict to finish off Assad. The danger for the government if this is the case is that it will be accused of firing missiles for Al-Qaida and other unsavoury elements. There are not many good guys to get behind in this conflict.

    Again, if the intention of an action were to surgically remove from the Assad regime any possibility of launching chemical weapons attacks by removing chemical weapons production plants then this might meet this condition. Once again, this is not proven. We simply don’t know enough about government plans to draw a conclusion here.

    4 All other ways of resolving the problem should have been tried first.

    With the UN desperately asking for more time for diplomatic solutions, it is clear this condition is not met.

    5 There must be a reasonable chance of success

    Again this is subjective. It might be argued that “surgical strikes” against chemical weapons plants could meet this condition. However, there seems to be a strong view both from commentators and the general public that involvement in this conflict could well have unforseen consequences. If we don’t know what success would look like then this condition is not met. I don’t believe that a convincing case has been made that there is a successful outcome to intervention that is possible. My judgement is that this is not met.

    6 The means used must be in proportion to the end that the war seeks to achieve.

    The government will argue that “surgical strikes” are precisely designed to be a proportionate response. However, it needs to answer the question as to what it will do if the consequence of such strikes was further chemical weapons attacks. Without some idea of this, it is difficult to argue that this condition is met.

    Because I don’t believe these conditions are all met, my conclusion is that military intervention is not at this stage justified. That does not mean that I am opposed in principle to the use of force. It simply means that I’m not convinced today. I suspect a very great number of religious and non-religious people will agree.

10 responses to “Blogging”

  1. Lisa Avatar

    First, let me argue that Bishop Paul Marshall — who wrote that letter you cite — is not one of the great liberals of the Episcopal Church in the U.S. He is widely respected and regarded as a moderate. What he wrote in that letter is a frustration that many of us share: Why can the Archbishop meet privately with the most extreme conservatives of the Episcopal Church in the U.S., but consistently refuses to meet with our bishops assembled? I think that is a fair and valid question. I would urge folks to read Bishop Marshall’s whole letter and not just Ruth Gledhill’s biased “gloss” on it.

    I agree the overall tenor of dialogue on U.S. Episcopalians’ blogs is worrisome. But I do not believe it’s the “liberals” that have gone out of bounds. If you want to read true venom, go to Virtue Online or StandFirm.

  2. David Avatar

    It would be great to have a meet up and blether!

  3. kelvin Avatar
    kelvin

    Thanks for the comments

    Lisa – it was precisely standfirm and virtueonline that I had in mind.

    You’re presuming that I don’t have sympathy for Paul Marshall. I have a great deal of sympathy for his position. I think he is angry. And I think he is right to be angry. I deliberately linked directly to his piece rather than Ruth Gledhill’s stuff about it, which people can find for themselves.

    Perhaps if I had written “Those of us with strong liberal convictions…” my own position would have been clearer.

  4. Tim Avatar

    Sociability good. (And arguably good for online interactions too – there are several notable folks whose adventures I read, whom I could happily put in a room together with a football and lock the door 😉

  5. Frank Avatar
    Frank

    There comes a time to toss convention and start communicating. I have a tea party in mind.

    cheers

  6. Raspberry Rabbit Avatar

    Kelvin, I think the whole blogging machine on the right in the U.S. has been set up for a good long while now. They’ve become proficient at it – the ‘blog storm’ if you like which sees itself quite self consciously as ‘generating’ public opinion for particular ends. The amount of support which ‘social conservatives’ will lend to religious conservatives as ‘deserving cousins’ allows those involved in the present TEC dispute access to an immense network.

    I agree with the first comment about Bishop Marshall being middle of the road and not particularly liberal.

  7. Raspberry Rabbit Avatar

    Oh and with respect to SEC bloggers. A meeting might be a good idea

  8. Dennis Avatar
    Dennis

    Kevin: Just discovered your blog through MadPriest’s blog. I’ll add you to my regular visits.

    It is exciting for me, an American far away from the Episcopal Church of Scotland, since I was confirmed at St Mary’s Glasgow back on Pentecost Sunday in 1988 – your church is where I became an Episcopalian – Fr John Turner was the chaplain at GU. Fr Malcolm was provost.

    How exciting. Glad to find your blog.

    Dennis

    The world of political blogs in the US isn’t really that bad. The most important blog in the US for political progressives is DailyKos (www.dailykos.com) – I’m over there quite a lot – worth watching – it has a lot of voice and influence in the US Democratic party for supporting and raising money for underdog candidates last year who happened to win.

  9. Dennis Avatar
    Dennis

    make that Kelvin, not Kevin. sorry about that!

  10. Lisa Avatar

    I’ve corresponded privately with Kelvin about this, but let me make a few comments here in public.

    I usually have to do my reading and writing on “things Anglican” after a full day at work. I regret to say that means I am sometimes too tired, and I miss the nuances. Which clearly happened in my public reply here. I apologize for that, and I apologize for making unwarranted assumptions about Kelvin’s stance.

    One of the things I am realizing is that we in the Anglican Communion really do not understand enough about each other’s cultures and ethos. Over here in the U.S., we are very much hoping that the churches in the U.K. (and a few other provinces) will allow us to “work out our salvation with fear and trembling,” as St. Paul urged. I fear that our colonial past [of which most U.S. Episcopalians repent most sincerely] is working against us. We do not want to “export” our positions to others in the Communion; we don’t want to tell others they must do as we have done. We simply want the space in which to walk the path that seems right to us — and that path already has a 30-year history of prayerful discernment, both about the place of women in ordained ministry and about the place of gay men and lesbians in the Church and ordination.

    Unfortunately, in the larger U.S. culture now, both “liberal” and “moderate” are anathema. A very scary conservativism (verging on — dare I use the term? — fascism) is taking hold.

    When folks say the Episcopal Church is “bowing to popular culture,” they could not possibly be more wrong. “Popular culture” now in the U.S. is strongly capitalist, imperialist, nationalist, sexist, and anti-gay. Our church is “bucking” that tide, and we are paying a great price for what we truly believe to be a Spirit-led, prophetic witness.

    It remains to be seen whether others in the Anglican Communion will trust us to continue in this time of discernment.

    These are very, very hard times for all of us. And I hate how the positions are being polarized.

    At our church’s General Convention [Do you call it a synod?], several people spoke about how the “diverse center” had spoken. I hope and pray that the “diverse center” will find their voices in Tanzania.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Previous Posts

  • Office Dogs

    Was it because it is the Feast of St Francis today that two dogs were to be found in the office this afternoon? I’ve never known any dogs visit before, so two at once was rather an event.

  • What people are looking for

    Here’s a list of things that people have been searching google for which have resulted in them arriving at this page recently, in order of popularity: pancake receipt kelvin’s head tim bennison apaisyl how to baptise midge bites how to baptise mp3 music easter vigil exsultet what is kelvin jo mallone

  • Sermon – 1 October 2006

    Where are the boundaries of God’s community? Who draws the lines which decide who is part of God’s realm of justice and joy? Our Gospel reading this morning takes up from the gospel readings that we have had over the last couple of Sundays. The disciples are squabbling. They don’t seem to have been a…

  • Ordinations

    Three ordinations this morning in the Cathedral. Lots of goodwill and love for the candidates, Judy, Eamon and Paul. An incident with a prominent member of the clergy and a staple nearly resulted in blood sacrifice at the altar, but this was averted by some nifty serving. A plaster was obtained from the first aid…