War in Iraq:
A just war?
by Simon Longstaff
Given the realities of Australia’s alliance with the United States, it now seems inevitable that we will line up as part of the President George W Bush’s “coalition of the willing”.
Soon, we will be at war with the people of Iraq. For all the pretence that war will be waged against Saddam Hussein, the reality is that the calamity of war will fall most heavily on hundreds and thousands (perhaps millions) of innocent people in Iraq and the immediate theatre of war.
There is nothing inevitable about this war. Whether you think that ultimate responsibility lies with Saddam Hussein and his plain refusal to accept the lawful demands of the United Nations that he disarm, or that it is President Bush who sits with his finger on the trigger, it is still just two men who will, between them, unleash the dogs of war. Either man could choose peace. Neither will do so.
Given that war is a matter of choice, then how might we decide the justice of what is about to be done by Mr Howard in our name? Although many people completely reject the notion of any war being ‘just’, the basic conditions under which people may resort to war have been outlined over many centuries.
There are two sets of criteria that must be satisfied by any belligerent. First, a war must be fought for a just cause and secondly it must be fought in a just manner. I will take it for granted that the war-planners will do all in their power to limit the carnage – employing the minimum force necessary to bring about peace and sparing non-combatants as they are obliged to do. If not, they will stand condemned. Instead, I want to look at the notion of a ‘just cause’ for war in Iraq.
Somewhat ironically, the only reason ultimately allowed to justify war is that it be prosecuted in order to secure the peace. If this sounds familiar, it is because President Bush and his allies have been scrupulous in putting this argument in public. However, they need to remember that there is a further condition that must be satisfied in order to justify war. This is that the ‘quality’ of the peace must be superior to that which would have prevailed if the war had not been fought. This is, of course, a further element in the arguments of those ready to wage war.
The Unites States is unambiguous in its war aim that Saddam Hussein be removed from power in Iraq. The US and its allies are painting a picture of the peace that they hope to secure; an image of Iraq as a stable and flourishing democracy – the first of its kind in the Arab world of the Middle East.
Such an outcome is highly desirable – and could be a key element in any fuller justification of this war. However, given the internal conflicts between Sunni and Shia, Kurds, Assyrians and Chaldeans (not to mention secular Arabs and those of a more religious outlook) the establishment of a peaceful Iraqi democracy will be a remarkable achievement; probably only attained after many years of institutional reform under some kind of international protectorate.
The last time a regime was changed in this part of the Middle East, we saw the installation of the Shah of Iran (with US support) and the subsequent revolution led by the Ayatollah Khomeini and his successors. Decades on, democracy is still struggling to spread its roots in Iran! Then there is the precedent of Afghanistan after the Taliban – order in Kabul; warlords everywhere else.
A further justification has been offered along the lines that Iraq must be subdued as a credible demonstration of the United States’ will and capacity to maintain global security. Specifically, it has been suggested that countries like North Korea will only bow to responsible international demands if they know that the US will enforce its will.
It would be marvellous if the world could be shaped so as to ensure that international law is enforced without fear or favour. Unfortunately, there is little reason to believe that victory in Iraq will achieve this outcome. For example, will an omnipotent US submit itself to international law? Will it impose this standard on its allies? Unfortunately, if the past is any guide to the future, then we should not expect too much.
Yet, even if we think there could be a positive change following a war in Iraq, we might still pause to wonder if it is just and defensible that the oppressed people of Iraq pay the ultimate price for the attainment of this improbable goal?
Finally, we are told that war is the best (and some would say ‘only’) option for disarming Iraq of its weapons of mass destruction. We are told that containment cannot work in Iraq – despite having succeeded during the Cold War. Perhaps the decisive change in the world is the rise of terrorist networks like Al Q'aeda. If so, then why not neutralise these groups and restore a strategic environment in which containment is a viable option?
Instead, we are left to assume that until such time as the terrorist threat recedes we will have to threaten war against all hostile states armed with weapons of mass destruction and ruled by regimes refusing to abide by the dictates of the UN. Or will fear of the US and its allies cause all but the most powerful to disarm – making the complex of problems more manageable?
The United States is a generally benevolent power with a democracy strong enough to correct the occasional excesses of its leaders. However, other powers will rise and make use of precedents set at this time. The UN Charter forbids nations to wage war unilaterally. That is the law – even if it is routinely ignored and never invoked. Yet, is it too much to hope that any decent peace could be of a kind that moves us beyond a time, in international relations, where ‘might’ is ultimately ‘right’?
I am not a committed pacifist. I believe that wars can be justified as a last resort in the face of evil that would otherwise overwhelm us. Wars are sometimes the least bad alternative. As such, I fail the test of people like Gandhi, Mandela and (most radically) Jesus Christ; who taught people to love their enemies and turn the other cheek (not much ambiguity there). So, I could be convinced that some wars are just. But for me, the case for war in Iraq has not yet been made. In particular, I am not convinced that the threat is so imminent as to render other options irresponsible.
My need for good reasons is not just a product of academic interest. I cannot forget that, living in a democracy, Mr Howard will go to war in my name and that of every other citizen of Australia. As such, we each share a measure of responsibility for the blood that will be shed. If blood must be shed, then let there be no other alternative and reasons that withstand the closest scrutiny.
discuss this articleDr Simon Longstaff is Executive Director of St James Ethics Centre.
A version of this article was submitted to The Sydney Morning Herald in February 2003.
© St James Ethics Centre