What is in Kelvin's Head?

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

28/08/2013
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.
just war, syria

10 responses to “Response from the College of Bishops”

Father Ron Smith

12/01/2015

Thank you, Fr, Kelvin, for making the contents of the SEC Bishops’ Response to the Letter from 50 people concerned about their attitude towards the openness of the Church to the prospect of its eirenic treatment of clergy and Church members – desirous of solemnising Same-Sex monogamous relationships in the context of Marriage.

It seems to me – an outsider, but a member of the New Zealand Anglican Church – that the Letter has challenged your Bishops to positive action on behalf of Christians – and others – who consider faithful Gay relationships to be equally acceptable to God as those of heterosexuals. The Church, surely, must act to affirm faithful monogamous relationships on both sides of the spectrum.

Let’s hope your General Synod will move ahead to affirm such relationships, so that the Church may get on with other aspects of its mission; knowing that human justice for ALL people is paramount in the propagation of the Gospel. If SEC is pro-active in this important matter, it can only encourage churches like my own – in ACANZP – to follow suit.

Reply
1. Kelvin
  
  12/01/2015
  
  The General Synod is, to some degree, inhibited from sorting this out until the bishops themselves decide to back a proposal which would allow all to flourish in the church.
  
  The synod contains the bishops and they have an effective veto on canonical legislation.
  
  I’m baffled at the moment as to why they have not rallied around a position which allows all of us, both those in favour and those against, to act according to our consciences in this area. I think that this is a position which would re-unite the church again. I know those who disagree with me on the substantive question about lesbian and gay relationships who are as mystified and as frustrated as I am that we are taking so long to deal with this and who, like me, want to get on with the business of letting Scotland’s people know that God loves them.
  
  Everyone I know says they want to come to a resolution which does not de-church other Episcopalians. The position that the bishops have taken comes very close to de-churching some of us and I remain greatly concerned for the Province as a whole.
  
  Reply
2. Christine McIntosh
  
  13/01/2015
  
  Amen.
  
  Reply
Pam

12/01/2015

From my reading, it’s a carefully worded document that attempts not to pre-empt what may happen at Synod. Talking to each other face-to-face is always better than written communication, in my opinion. This issue does need a resolution and I’m sure that people on both sides of the debate, in good faith, would want to honour each other. Bishops have a tough job but so do the people who don’t get the opportunity to attend Synod, for whatever reason.

Reply
Chris Hansen

12/01/2015

I don’t know about you, but I’m tired of being talked about by people who would rather not talk to me. This “listening process” that the C of E is going through is bull. They’ve been doing variations on that for years. Nothing comes out of it except more conversations. No progress is made thereby.

The trick is to push the bishops to take a stand and do some prophetic leading.

Reply
1. Kelvin
  
  12/01/2015
  
  The current process in the Church of England is related to the Cascade Process that we’ve had in Scotland.
  
  Some people have benefitted from the process here. There’s no getting away from that. It has been a good thing for some but by no means all.
  
  Some have felt very disappointed and upset that the bishops themselves now appear not to have been working in accord with the principles of the process itself.
  
  And some, like me who have been working for change in this area for years, were excluded from the design of the process and from its major set piece provincial event.
  
  Reply
FakePete

13/01/2015

I feel very angry reading that.

Reply
Steven

13/01/2015

Dear Kelvin

Interesting developments. Not much in that letter really.

What would you do if you were Primus?

The reality is the SEC has always (at least in my mind) been open to a more progressive stance on this kind of issue and yet does contain those for whom this would be (very?) difficult.

Would you seek to maintain unity by some kind of compromise (CoE and women Bishops) or would you forge on ahead with prophetic change leaving those who didn’t like it to make their own choices (like the Episcopal Church)…?

The New Testament Christians didn’t seem to care much for unity at the expense of integrity and justice.

For my own part I think it is better for churches not to try and fudge this issue (look at the terrible mess in the Church of Scotland) but to agree a position and then firmly pursue same, come what may. People would not tolerate an institution that allowed a minority of people to adopt racist positions and so it should not really be any different for those who want to maintain positions that discriminate against same-sex couples.

All this is – of course – easy for me to say.

Steven

Reply
1. Kelvin
  
  13/01/2015
  
  What would I do if I were the Primus? Well that’s a good question.
  
  The first thing I’d remember is that the Primus is simply the spokesperson for the College of Bishops and doesn’t have the authority that, for example, an archbishop might think he possesses.
  
  I would however as a bishop argue in a favour of a solution which allowed people to act according to their conscience in this area. I don’t agree that people should be forced to “firmly pursue” a particular stance over this issue. It isn’t who we are. In fact I think the problem at the moment is that people are being forced to pursue a position that they don’t agree with and that situation is unsustainable.
  
  The reasons for not forcing people to marry gay couples are these:
  
  1 – No gay couple wants to be married by someone who has been forced to do so but who would really prefer not to.
  
  2 – It would be illegal anyway and our canon law determines that we will abide by Scots Law.
  
  3 – We already have a precedent with divorce – no-one is forced to marry anyone who is divorced, they can chose whether or not to do so. I think that is a reasonable compromise and it has served the church well.
  
  4 – I don’t think anyone should be compelled to marry anyone and that is the situation that we currently have.
  
  However there are some positive things that a Scottish bishop could do at the moment. Although I agree that same-sex marriages cannot take place in churches or be done by SEC priests until there is a decision made by General Synod I don’t agree that it is the case that someone cannot affirm allegiance to the canons of the church because they happen to be in a same-sex marriage.
  
  I think de-coupling those two issues is urgent.
  
  I would argue in favour of an equal opportunities policy for the church.
  
  I would try to seek a way of bringing forward a synodical resolution which would allow same-sex marriage, allow those who don’t want to be party to it not to have to be and I’d argue in favour of that as a godly compromise that would allow us to get on with our gospel business of sharing the good news.
  
  If I were the Primus I would probably be encouraging the College of Bishops to allow me to say publicly that we regretted that some people had been excluded from the Cascade Process and I’d seek to commit the College to a more consultative leadership style. In particular I’d want to say that there should never be a process about people that did not include them in the design of the structures of the conversation. I’d want to say that we would never construct a conversation about the ministry of women without women being involved, we would never construct a conversation about ethnic minorities in the church without appropriate consultation with people who belong to ethnic minorities and I’d commit the church never to make the mistake that has been repeatedly made of constructing a conversation about LGBT people without their involvement.
  
  If I were wise, I’d be learning a lot more about the experience of trans people because I’d realise that trans issues are inevitably coming our way.
  
  Does that answer the question?
  
  Reply
  1. Steven
    
    13/01/2015
    
    Yes, it does rather. Thanks.
    
    For the avoidance of doubt I would not advocate forcing anyone to marry anyone. When I said it is better to adopt a position and then pursue that I meant in terms of whether or not to permit equal marriage in the SEC (which is not the same as saying that all priests would therefore be compelled to marry gay folk).
    
    We have just filed an equal marriage petition in Belfast, so thoughts and prayers all welcome!
    
    Steven
    
    Reply