Pacifism, just war and peace-making

A paper titled "Pacifism, Just War and Peacemaking: New Dimensions in the Twenty First Century" explores the dramatic changes that have taken place in the way war is now conducted. New styles of warfare present new ethical problems. Dr Brian Edgar discusses the validity of radical pacifism, just war theory and peacemaking in the context of the 21st century. Dr Edgar taught theology and ethics at BCV until the end of 2003 and is Convenor of the Evangelical Alliance's Theological Commission. This article appeared in an abridged form in the Alliance's journal Working Together.

PACIFISM, JUST WAR AND PEACE-MAKING

AT THE START OF

THE TWENTY FIRST CENTURY

While peace remains the same, war just isn’t what it used to be.

Unfortunately, individuals, coalitions and governments are finding new and diabolically creative ways of causing death, pain and hardship. This article reviews some of the changes that are taking place with regard to war and then makes some comments on three of the most common Christian responses: pacifism, just war theory and peace-making.

Some of the changes which war is undergoing can actually be interpreted as a return to previous patterns. Western culture in the middle ages was characterized by city-states, regional alliances, aristocratic estates with private armies, loose confederations and so forth. There was private violence, religious conflict which caused chaos and confusion, multiple loyalties and conflicts, invasions and crusades, pirates and bandits, aristocratic duels and peasant revolts, city-states, and regional lords who had the right to call on peasants to serve in their armies. The lack of any coherent, legitimate authority led to constant fighting. This chaotic situation was one of the influences which led to the creation of the modern, secular state which controlled and pacified regions by creating centralized authority structures which we now call ‘nations’. In the process these new states sought to reduce or eliminate the authority of the kings and lords who had been prone to wage war (known as ultima ratio regum – the last resort of kings). They developed national legislation and got rid of private, local and regional armies, only to replace them with highly institutionalized, professionalized and centralized armies. The new states reserved to themselves the right to wage war and in order to eliminate religious conflicts they tended to opt for secular – rather than religiously based - approaches to authority. While this had some advantages the costs included the potential for even greater conflicts as states were bigger and alliances of nations could now produce huge armies. Hence the terrible effects of World Wars I (‘the war to end all wars’) and II. There was also the problem that a powerful central government could itself become the instrument of state oppression of those supposedly under its care. It also inevitably led to large scale and dangerous alliances. Another cost was the development of nationalism – the conviction that one nation is superior to another - a blight on human relationships.

The positives which resulted from these developments included the fact that, as a result of a combination of Christian peace-making influences, the development of secular liberalism opposed to religious intolerance or totalitarianism of any kind and the horrific effect of the world wars there arose a new desire for peace-making between nations. This led to the gradual de-legitimization of wars of conquest (but not their elimination) and increasing support for pacifism. There was also the legitimation of conscientious objection as part of a pluralist, liberal democratic society and, some would argue, a reduced enthusiasm on the part of people for external wars. It also resulted in the search for a legitimate and independent authority: the League of Nations and then the United Nations.

As a result of all this there are now varieties of war. There is international war which will remain a threat as long as nationalism, injustice, poverty and other differences between nations remain. There are also intra-national wars which are internal to a state and which have become a greater problem than international wars. One set of figures suggests that in the twentieth century 155 million people were killed within their own state compared with 35 million killed in inter-national wars. The tragedy of these internal situation has led to internationally co-operative interventions. Obviously these are controversial. Are they, morally, akin to police operations within a state? Is the UN a suitable legitimate, independent authority? The various forms of intervention vary significantly. The US sought to intervene in the atrocious situation in the Balkans without having US soldier setting foot on the ground. The prime weapon was bombing with guided bombs and missiles. Televisions showed supposedly precise, safe and surgical bombing. It was what Michael Ignatieff called ‘war with impunity’. One army could engage in a war without any real danger to its own troops. The desire to fight a war without casualties came in response to the intervention in Somalia which was reckoned to be a disaster. 17 US soldiers and 2 helicopters lost compared with 800 Africans, but it was reckoned a defeat of the US forces because of their unwillingness to take casualties in a foreign country. Milosovic could not defeat US with his army but perhaps if he had been able to get hold of a little anthrax powder and think laterally it might have been different. The US-UK-Australian invasion of Iraq has been based on war at a distance until it became relatively safe to put troops on the ground.

Back