The Churches' Center for Theology and Public Policy
Washington, D.C.
Copyright 2003
E-mail us with your response to the paper and your thoughts on the topic.
Introduction
The Churches' Center for Theology and Public Policy was founded in 1976 to offer informed theological analysis of public policy issues. The Center is broadly ecumenical. Although its Board is not officially elected by religious bodies, its members include women and men who hold or have held positions of leadership in a number of Christian denominations and agencies (Protestant and Roman Catholic). The Center's work is designed to serve thoughtful Christians and their churches as they seek to express their faith in the public arena. Based in Washington, D.C., the Center has generally addressed policy issues facing American government. Nevertheless, it has been cognizant of the worldwide ramifications of many of those issues. The United States exists as a part of an intricately interwoven global community, and its unprecedented military and economic power within that community confer responsibilities that must be addressed with utmost care.
During the 1980s, the Churches' Center gave major attention to the threat of nuclear war, providing the principal analysis underlying the United Methodist Bishops' pastoral letter, In Defense of Creation. Other Center studies have focused upon such diverse matters as economic issues, environmental problems, refugee policy, health care, the 1998-99 presidential crisis, welfare policy, and policies on aging. A major current focus of the Center is the continuing danger posed by nuclear proliferation.
The end of the Cold War in the late 1980s provided significant relief from international tensions in a world polarized between the United States and the U.S.S.R. But as the world has moved into the 21st century, new military issues confront American policy and the international community. The terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001 had a searing effect on American public opinion, with a heightened sense of vulnerability. President George W. Bush had wide support for a "war on terrorism." By and large, the rest of the world reacted with warm sympathy for America at this time of tragedy and with outrage at its perpetrators. Credible evidence pointed to the al Qaeda network and its leader, Osama bin Laden, as responsible for the attacks, and to the Taliban rulers of Afghanistan as providing them with sanctuary. Accordingly, there was also widespread national and international support for military action to remove the Taliban from power and to attempt at reconstitution of the government of Afghanistan.
During the spring and summer of 2002, the U.S. administration focused upon Iraq, alleging that its ruler Saddam Hussein had continued to flout a major condition of truce ending the 1991 Gulf War by proceeding with the development of chemical and biological and nuclear weapons of mass destruction. The administration sought to establish linkages between Iraq and the international network of terrorists, raising fears that such weapons might be placed in the hands of terrorists for further, and possibly even more terrible inhumanities. Policy statements by the President and other administration officials announced the readiness of the United States to attack Iraq militarily to pre-empt that country's possible use of weapons of mass destruction. The United States would be prepared to intervene with or without the approval of other nations or the United Nations-although it was argued that the legal basis for intervention already existed through previous UN actions. The President sought and gained a Congressional resolution approving such a unilateral intervention. But faced with substantial international criticism, he agreed to await the results of renewed inspections in Iraq by the United Nations. Meanwhile, there has been increased debate within the United States over the propriety of pre-emptive military actions, especially if conducted unilaterally.
Similar issues have been posed by other conflicted parts of the world. The international community struggled with the inhumanities of genocide and "ethnic cleansing" in Cambodia, the Balkans, and Central Africa. Do such situations warrant military interventions by other nations? Moreover, weapons of mass destruction have been developed successfully by India, Pakistan, and North Korea, each involved in tense international conflict. Could the world community successfully intervene in such areas to pre-empt possible use of such weapons?
Faced with these and other issues, Christians and their churches in the United States have had to focus in new ways on issues of war and peace. The following discussion is intended to help clarify the theological importance of those issues and how they might be resolved by Christians.
Historic Christian Attitudes Toward War
In his classic study of Christian thought on war (1), Roland Bainton outlines three basic approaches: pacifism (the rejection of all war, often accompanied by withdrawal from public life), the just war (qualified acceptance of war as a sometime necessity, under certain circumstances and with defined constraints), and crusade (war waged against those identified as the enemies of God, with very little constraint). Crusade is easily dismissed theologically, although it has not infrequently expressed absolutist views of what is at stake in war. Pacifism and just war have been the attitudes most characteristic of serious Christian thought. But all three of these attitudes are displayed in the current Christian debates over war. Each has theological basis and ramifications.
Why Serious Christian Thought is "Almost" Pacifist
In a discussion of war, the great Swiss theologian Karl Barth summarizes his starting point in these words:
"All affirmative answers to the question [of war] are wrong if they do not start with the assumption that the inflexible negative of pacifism has almost infinite arguments in its favour and is almost overpoweringly strong." (2)
Barth elaborates this view by summarizing the horrors of war, against which the Christian conscience must protest. He writes,
even if the message of the Church cannot be the simple one of pacifism, it should surely have been a light in the dark world, at least to the extent of arousing and keeping alert a sense of the enormity of war at any rate amongst its own members and even beyond, and thus of constituting and interposing a strong restraining factor in this matter.... The primary and supreme task of Christian ethics in this matter is surely to recover and manifest a distinctive horror of war and aloofness from it." (3)
Barth was not a pacifist. He spoke of war as sometimes preferable to "a worthless peace." (4) The operative word in his view is "almost." The arguments for pacifism are "almost overpoweringly strong."
Today there are Christians who, in good faith, find they cannot live with the word "almost." For, to them, war is simply and always wrong, always against everything they believe as Christians. Even those who are not pacifist (undoubtedly a majority of Christians worldwide) should, like Barth, at least be seriously tempted by that "inflexible negative of pacifism." For war, set over-against major themes of Christian theology, is profoundly disturbing.
Christians consider the Bible to be the primary source of theological understanding. But our recognition of the gravity of war is not a simple matter of citing biblical texts. There are, of course, passages that can be cited in both Old and New Testaments that glorify even holy crusades: Such for example are the wars of conquest, wherein ancient Israelites were commanded by God not only to defeat, but to exterminate, their enemies-taken thus to be also the enemies of God. Thus, Joshua is depicted as exterminating the entire population of ancient Jericho, saving only the harlot Rahab and her family, who had given refuge to Hebrews, an act of genocide to be followed by a similar extermination of the inhabitants of Ai. (Joshua 6 and 8). Thus also, King Saul was commanded by God, through Samuel, to kill all of the Amalekites and harshly judged when he failed to carry out the entire order. (1 Samuel 15). The New Testament apocalypse of Revelation depicts the final battle of Armageddon in which the enemies of Christ will be destroyed in bloody combat. (Revelation 16) Against such passages there are of course the eloquent words of Isaiah concerning the yearning for peace amidst the follies of war and the teachings of Jesus in the Sermon on the Mount concerning love for one's enemies and non-resistance to evil.
Serious Christian thought about war does well to forgo the selective use of particular biblical texts in support of one's views. Christian thought must be grounded in the Bible, but it struggles to discern there the deeper theological insights by which faithful Christians live. In respect to war, there are two particularly promising theological entry points.
The first is the basic biblical conception of the divine-human covenant, whereby human beings are affirmed by God and drawn into mutual love through community. The covenant is expressed biblically as God's steadfast love for humanity. It is the grace of God, expressed through Christ: God's continued love despite human undeserving. To Christians that grace is best revealed in the self-giving love of Christ, including especially his death on the cross. The deeply personal love of God is offered freely, despite human undeserving. Jesus referred to God in different ways, but the most compelling term is abba, or Father, a word in that culture expressing the most intimate kind of love. The love of God is what enables human trust at the most basic levels; it is what makes it possible for people to live out their faith in God by love of fellow humanity. On the basis of that faith and that love, we grasp the fundamental reality of our kinship with one another. Our lives intersect with the lives of everybody else on earth, our actions and our prayers have rippling effects far beyond our seeing or our knowing. Love thus understood is not merely sentimental; it is sturdy and dependable. Because of such deep trust in the love of God, it is possible for people to take great risks for the sake of realizing God's intended community of love and justice.
The second theological entry point is the doctrine of creation. The whole cosmos is God's creation. In all of its intricate beauty, creation is what enables the realization of human life and community. From the awestruck words of ancient poets contemplating the beauties of earth and skies to the creative ventures of modern scientists and explorers of outer space, human beings have sought to comprehend the grandeur that stretches beyond full understanding. And yet we know, by faith, that this cosmos is created as our home. We were not created as disembodied spirits; creation provides structure and identity; its wonders and its possibilities challenge us.
These doctrinal entry points, with all of their ramifications, stand in judgment against the harsh realities of war:
If we Christians are serious about the love of God, we must be very serious about the evils of war!
War as Response to Sin and as Expression of Sin
But another profound theological problem lurks in the shadows of all Christian talk about war: it is the reality of human sin. The very fact of war illustrates it; so also the persistence of other evils and injustices in our life as people. This, too, is an enduring part of the biblical drama. It is God's steadfast love and grace, to which human kind responds with rebellion. As put in Isaiah's striking metaphor, Israel is a lovely vineyard, planted with choice vines. The Lord "expected it to yield grapes, but it yielded wild grapes.... The vineyard of the Lord of hosts is the house of Israel, and the people of Judah are his pleasant planting; he expected justice, but saw bloodshed; righteousness, but heard a cry." (Isaiah 5) God's intentions for humankind, through creation and grace, are altogether loving and good. But humankind persistently seeks to find its own good in the ruin of God's intended good. That is the tragic reality of sin. It is exacerbated by hubris, the pride and arrogance by which people are led to false confidence in their own wisdom and goodness and to neglect the counsel of others.
The pacifist/anarchist tradition associated with the Russian novelist-philosopher, Leo Tolstoy assumes that human sin is caused by faulty institutions. Were it not for the coercive instruments of state power-the police, the prisons, the military-the innate goodness of human nature would flower like a garden, with no more violence and evil-doing. Other pacifists, more realistic about sin, still hold that methods of non-violent resistence to evil can be counted upon to change the hearts of evil-doers. Many Christians who are not pacifists gratefully acknowledge the sometimes stunning success of non-violent efforts in societies as diverse as India, America, and South Africa. Gandhi's campaigns of non-violence to achieve India's independence from Great Britain were remarkably effective. Through the method of Satygraha, thousands of disciplined and committed Indians, under his leadership, were able to effect change while minimizing legacies of bitterness and animosity-not to say, the minimization of actual bloodshed. Martin Luther King, Jr. and other American civil rights leaders achieved similar success in the struggle against racial segregation in this country. In Africa, leaders like Archbishop Desmond Tutu and President Nelson Mandela, using non-violent methods of reconciliation, avoided the huge blood bath that many predicted.
Such leaders were important, not only in action but in thought about its implications. They helped us understand why non-violence is effective and how deeply it is rooted in our fundamental values.
Still, some Christians who are pacifists are also skeptical that non-violent campaigns can be effective in every instance and in every respect. Dr. King, for instance, while deeply committed to the methods of non-violence was quite willing to go into Federal District Court to secure injunctions requiring the Federal government to provide physical protection for civil rights marches. When the final march from Selma to Montgomery, Alabama occurred in March, 1965, it was led by Dr. King but it was also with protection by highly visible and well-armed troops..
The great Mennonite theologian John Howard Yoder was fully persuaded that sin is deeply rooted in human nature. Yoder was totally committed to non-violence, but he harbored no illusions that it will always win over the perpetrators of injustice. We must, he wrote, trust that in the long run it is the way of God that will prevail. Thus, he held that any use of lethal force to be contrary to God's way of love, but without believing that alternatives, such as non-violent resistance, will always be immediately effective.
Many other Christians, who are not pacifists, are more concerned about the immense human consequences of evil in the short run and of our responsibility to deal with it. Police or military force cannot be counted upon to change hearts and minds, but it can sometimes restrain or deter people who are bent upon doing evil things. Twentieth century Christians wondered what the world would have been had there not been forcible resistance to Nazi power, while also pondering the question whether more timely use of power could have spared the lives of six million Jews in the demonic holocaust. More recently, Christians wonder whether a timely international intervention in Central Africa might have spared the lives of hundreds of thousands who were killed in the "ethnic cleansing" there. And whether anything short of military intervention could have "worked" in the Balkans. History does not disclose its alternatives, and yet the human cost of inaction-or of ineffective action-must be weighed alongside the costs of police and military actions taken.
So war, undertaken in response to sin, can be perceived by faithful Christians as necessary for the sake preserving something of God's intended human good that might otherwise be lost. But even those who hold this view must also acknowledge that war is often not only a consequence but also an expression of sin. Even when perceived as necessary, war invariably does violence to much that is good. War is always tragedy. Christians, contemplating war or the prospect of war, grieve over what might have been.
The "Just War" Tradition
Christians who cannot accept either the "inflexible negative" of pacifism or the pretensions of "crusade," are likely to identify themselves with the "just war" tradition. That way of viewing the possible moral necessity of war has a very long history. It is possibly anticipated when the apostle Paul voiced approval of the ruler's coercive power, in Romans 13. It appears in the thought of St. Augustine in the fourth and fifth centuries, a.d., in the work of St. Thomas Aquinas nearly a thousand years later, in the Renaissance theologian Francisco Suarez, and in a variety of 20th century thinkers. It has been appealed to consciously or unconsciously by more recent church leaders in response to the challenges of nuclear weaponry in the Cold War and by the dilemmas of more limited conflicts in situations like Vietnam, the Balkans, and the Middle East.
In brief, the "just war" tradition sets forth the conditions that should be met before Christians can, in good faith, approve of or participate in war. The following criteria are usually cited, in one form or another, as necessary conditions justifying resort to war and as guidelines to govern the conduct of war once it has been resorted to:
These are very exacting moral standards-always relevant but, unfortunately, all too rarely observed. Four points must be emphasized whenever these standards are employed.
These points do not mean that military action, when truly necessary, should be undertaken half-heartedly. A military or police action can be undertaken vigorously and effectively, even as one grieves over its necessity. It is not necessary to hate those who must be restrained. Hate is contrary to the gospel of love and generally corrupting to the intentions of those who feel they must undertake war.
Good vs. Evil in Human Form
One of the tragic consequences of war is the tendency to define one's adversaries as evil, without qualification. This absolutizing of evil carries overtones of an early and persistent theological tendency against which the mainstream of Christian thought has had to struggle. In the ancient world this appeared as the Manichaean doctrine that both good and evil exist as absolute forces in the structure of the universe.(7) The theological problem is that this tendency severely questions the ultimate power of the goodness of God.
Of course, evil does exist in human form. And, while all are sinners, it is undeniable that some are more evil than others. Nevertheless, when we make a sharp distinction between "good people" and "evil people," we risk exaggerating the goodness of the former and the wickedness of the latter. Nobody is perfectly good, nor is anybody absolutely evil. That is not to deny the urgency of counteracting evil, particularly when it manifests itself as injustice and oppression. But too sharp a distinction between good and evil people risks the conclusion that we can destroy evil by getting rid of evil people.
The biblical story of Noah and the flood illustrates the problem. God, according to the story, was dismayed by the persistence of evil on earth and resolved to get rid of it once and for all by drowning all humanity. Only the good Noah and his family, along with a reproducible pair of all other species, should be saved via the ark. All the bad people were destroyed. But that didn't get rid of evil on earth! Noah, himself, is depicted in the next chapter of Genesis as getting drunk and cursing his grandson. (Genesis 6-9)
An engaging rabbinic interpretation helps set the theological significance of the story for us. God, as the biblical narrative relates, did resolve to kill a humanity except for Noah and his family. But, seeing the immense suffering and death of all those people caused the compassionate God to grieve. And thus God resolved never again to try to deal with evil in that way. Instead, God would grant humanity freedom and seek to influence their behavior through love, not compulsion.
Evil, by any account, cannot be abolished through the destruction of sinful people. It may be necessary to use force to resist evil, but that should never be with the illusion that it can be destroyed-nor with the illusion that those who are doing the resisting are themselves altogether good. Thus, it was too simple for one President of the United States to refer to the former Soviet Union as the "evil empire" or for another President to identify three countries as an "axis of evil." No doubt that USSR and those three countries have embodied much injustice, oppression, and danger to world peace. But no other country, including our own, is altogether pure, and some good things can be said about even the worst of the nations on earth.
Moreover, when the evil of countries is absolutized, it is too easy to forget that large numbers of people in all countries are relatively innocent victims. They can be victims, both of oppression and of the violent actions taken to free them from oppression.
Warlike actions should only be undertaken, therefore, with restraint and care.
Just Cause for War in the 21st Century
According to the just war tradition, warlike force can only be used to counter aggressive violence or oppression, and only when the evils are greater than those of the warlike force itself, and only when less violent means (such as non-violent resistance) would not be successful. Police protection generally meets these standards, provided the police use the least force compatible with the objective of protecting the community and its people. Revolution can meet these standards, provided it is against real tyranny and it is directed toward establishing institutions of justice. International war can meet these standards, provided it is a defense against aggression by other nations. When nations come to the defense of other nations, that, too, can meet these standards-as illustrated, perhaps, by British and French declarations of war against Nazi Germany after the latter invaded Poland in 1939. Historically, these have been commonplace circumstances, sometimes meeting, sometimes not meeting all of the standards posed by just war doctrine. The larger problem presented in the 20th century by the Cold War was whether thermonuclear war-and preparations for such war-could ever meet the exacting tests of just war doctrine. In its analysis of this problem for the United Methodist Bishops, the Churches' Center discussed the very great perils of nuclear war, raising the question whether nuclear war or even a deterrent nuclear capability could be compatible with the deeper meanings of just war doctrine.
That problem has not evaporated with the ending of the Cold War, since several countries have now acquired the capacity to deploy nuclear weapons. But four additional issues must now be considered with great urgency.
Terrorism
The first of these questions is how a people are to respond to terrorism. The attempt to change people's minds by fear of unprovoked acts of violence, striking suddenly without warning, is not altogether new. But in recent decades it has taken on new dimensions. The destruction of the World Trade Center towers (and the attack on the Pentagon) in September 11, 2001, brought a new sense of urgency to the American people. The use of suicide bombings in Israel and elsewhere has proved very difficult to combat. The transmission of deadly Anthrax spores through ordinary envelopes delivered by unsuspecting postal workers to unsuspecting recipients, while not widespread, cast a cloud of anxiety across the whole nation. Two snipers were able to spread fear to a whole region by striking out of the blue with high-powered rifles.
Terrorism thus wages war on whole societies. It is and has been a reality in many parts of the world, sometimes sanctioned and even implemented by respectable powers.(8) Even though it cannot strike everywhere, it seems able to strike anywhere, without warning and with deadly effect. Against this threat, massive armaments of powerful societies seems to have little effect. It, more than mobilized forces of a visible adversary, is effective against the highly industrialized and very wealthy "first world" countries of the 21st century.
Use of police and military forces to counter this threat clearly meet the most important tests of the Just War tradition-that is, when such force can be used effectively and proportionately. Given the fears engendered by terrorism, there is always a certain risk that the means used to combat its dangers will erode the mutual respect and trust by which every civilized people must live. For instance, great care must be taken lest basic rights-such as freedom of speech and press and usual judicial rights-not be damaged. The ways in which the struggle against terrorism is pursued can have the ironic effect of leading to more terrorism and to more insecurity, while undermining values central to the community of love and justice which our faith proclaims. Moreover, we all need to be aware that political fanaticism and demagoguery thrive on the fears of an intimidated people. Christians and other people of faith can contribute to a higher level of maturity in a society's response to terrorism.
Still, the dangers are real and must be confronted realistically. That includes effective police work and, in some instances, military action.
But we must bear in mind that terrorism itself is largely motivated by fanaticism. That is clearly true of terrorist actions that are suicidal, like suicide bombers. If the number of people attracted to such fanaticism has increased in recent years perhaps it could diminish in the future. The national image of a great and powerful nation is not irrelevant to the degree to which it provokes hatred, nor is the kindling of hope unrelated to the actions of alienated people. Christians of all people should be at work in those hope-engendering activities that help to remove the fuel from the fires of terrorism. That is not a substitute for effective police and military response, but it is a necessary addition.
Pre-emptive War
Then there is the question whether nations should undertake war in order to prevent anticipated acts of aggression. The question is not altogether new, as the consequences of military mobilizations prior to World War I illustrate. It appears in a new form with the assertion by American leadership that it might find it necessary to invade Iraq to force that country to cease production of weapons of mass destruction (nuclear, biological, chemical) and to destroy any such weapons already on hand. These restraints were a condition of peace concluding the Gulf War of 1991, in which Iraq was thoroughly defeated and in which America and its allies could presumably have continued until the regime of President Saddam Hussein was overthrown. In 2002, prompted in part by increased dangers of global terrorism, the Bush Administration concluded that war alone would succeed in removing the danger of future Iraqi use of weapons of mass destruction.
The just war ethic has historically taken a dim view of pre-emptive war. Some ethicists rule it out categorically, presumably because it is inherently vulnerable to manipulation and fraud, and is resistant to being regulated by moral principle. The concept of pre-emption is rightly seen as a very dangerous commodity because it undercuts the principle of nonintervention. However, some ethicists concede that under immediate and grave threats when waiting to receive the first blow in a battle, a party may strike first as an act of self defense. Even under these circumstances, pre-emption should be seen as a rarely invoked exception, not something to be normalized.
The argument employed by the Bush administration in support of pre-emptive war is embodied in its September 2002 document, "National Security Strategy of the United States." It contains a truly radical position that lacks all moral nuance. In effect the administration upended both international law and the just war ethic by claiming an unrestricted right to attack enemies pre-emptively whenever and wherever it should see fit, without moral or legal restraint. The document asserts that the United States must adapt the concept of imminent threat to the capabilities and objectives of today's adversaries. But it offers no criteria to replace the old imminent threat standard. It asserts that we will pre-emptively strike our enemies under any conditions we dictate. This new doctrine is so radical in its scope that it obliterates the old legal and moral standards that attempt to rein in pre-emption, that is the concept of the necessity of an immediate and grave threat.
This doctrine is not a morally defensible position. If it were to become normalized in the international system, it would lead to significantly more bloodshed around the world. In several conflicted areas, such as South Asia and the Korean peninsula, both sides could make plausible similar arguments. Furthermore, it is hypocritical for one country to claim such a right of intervention for itself, without extending it to all nation states.
In U.S. history there are precedents of pre-emption, such as the Mexican War (hardly an ampt illustration of justified war), as well as precedents of effective restraint, such as in the Cuban missile crisis and tensions with the Soviet Union in the early 1950s.
Even where the restraint of imminent threat is still in place, pre-emptive action carries a heavy burden of proof. If it is true that another nation (1) has or likely will have weapons of mass destruction, and (2) has clear intent to use them, then is it not reasonable to act militarily to remove that danger?
In response, we must remember that war itself is destructive. Even the most sophisticated weapons, such as the "smart bombs" and missiles capable of striking selected targets with precision can cause what is euphemistically termed "collateral damage." Non-combatants are killed or wounded who simply are in the wrong place at the wrong time. Bombs strike targets unintentionally (such as the unintended bombing of the Chinese embassy in Belgrade during the Kosovo conflict). When utilized on the battlefield, anti-personnel bombs spread lethal death and anguish across many acres of land. If the United States possesses overwhelming force, as generally supposed, that translates into the uses of such weapons. Is it permissible under just war doctrine for such force to be used pre-emptively? Bearing the enormity of human suffering in mind, this must bear a correspondingly heavy burden of proof. Nor, in calculating this cost, is it theologically permissible to consider only that deaths and injuries suffered by those who embark on pre-emptive war. Christian love embraces all people, including enemies. Included among those hurt and killed will also be enemy soldiers serving under duress and civilians who fall victim to unintended action.
In meeting this heavy burden of proof, factual evidence is correspondingly important. Does the potential adversary actually have those weapons of mass destruction? Is there credible evidence of further development of such weapons? Is the intention to use such weapons very clear? Are there other ways, short of war, of protecting other countries against this danger?
International Interventions in Oppressive Nations
The existence of oppressive regimes poses more difficult dilemmas for the global community. When is it proper for other countries, alone or in concert, to intervene to "set things right"? There are sound reasons why this should not be a common practice, not least the temptations to substitute one oppression for another. But what about the known instances of genocide (or "ethnic cleansing"), such as we have witnessed in the Balkans and Central Africa? What about situations in which conflicting forces have fought each other to a stand-still, but without resolution as the killing keeps going on, such as the world still sees in Israel/Palestine and has recently pondered in West Africa?
Such painful realities remind us that inaction has consequences. Might hundreds of thousands of murdered people in Rwanda and Burundi still be alive if the global community had bestirred itself to intervene? Might more thousands of people in the Balkans have died if the world had not (finally) intervened there? We cannot know for sure.
And it yet seems apparent that a central question facing the world community in the 21st century will be exactly when such interventions ought to be undertaken. Clearly, it cannot be whenever there is any sign of oppression, for most countries in the world have some of that. Whether oppression has become so egregious as to warrant military intervention by outsiders is doubtless a judgment call, but sometimes the call may need to be made.
Here, the traditional just war criteria can also be helpful. For example, the acts of oppression by rulers against their own people (or by one body of people against another) are not dissimilar in moral effect from the attack of one country upon another. Moreover, the just war criterion of last resort can also apply, reminding us that there may be ways short of war to end the oppression. Then, there should be some prospect of success.
But the unwillingness to intervene should not be based upon falsely absolutizing national sovereignty. Behind most objections to interventions by the international community there lies the assumption that self-determination is a fundamental right of all nations. There are problems with this.
In the first place, there is the question who speaks and acts for the nation in determining the course of its "self-determination." When a regime is repressive that almost invariably means that some of the nation's people are excluded from the nation's self-determination. If one were to speak of the "self-determination" of Germany during the Nazi period, were Jewish Germans included? Sometimes a majority of people within a nation are oppressing a minority; sometimes it is a small power elite oppressing the vast majority. But almost always, when there is cause for intervention in behalf of human rights, "self-determination" is a mockery of those who basic rights are being denied.
In the second place, it helps to remember that the nation-state system itself is a relatively recent development in world history. The modern system developed essentially within the last thousand years, and in any currently recognizable form only half that length of time. True, even in the absence of nations as we know them, political sovereignty has existed in some form from time immemorial-from tribes and city states to various kinds of kingdoms and great empires. Which of these enjoys special status theologically? The answer is, probably none. When the Bible refers to "nation" it is often a pejorative term for peoples in defiance of God, even in the case of the chosen people of Israel in Hebrew scriptures. Most of the nations of the world today were utterly unknown in ancient times.
In the third place, developments over the past century have created global political problems that cannot be handled effectively by traditional models of balance of power in a nation-state system. The point was made by Pope John XXIII in his widely appreciated encyclical, Pacem in Terris. While not condemning the nation-state system as such, Pope John questioned its adequacy in coping with newly emergent problems. Referring to the traditional Roman Catholic doctrine of Subsidiarity, in accordance with which problems should be dealt with at the most immediate or local level possible, he went on to observe that in our time some urgent problems can only be handled effectively at the global level:
"In the past rulers of states seem to have been able to make sufficient provision for the universal common good through the normal diplomatic channels, or by top-level meetings and discussions, treaties and agreements; by using, that is, the ways and means suggested by the natural law, the law of nations, or international law.
"In our own day, however, mutual relationships between states have undergone a far-reaching change. On the one hand, the universal common good gives rise to problems of the utmost gravity, complexity and urgency-especially as regards the preservation of the security and peace of the whole world. On the other hand, the rulers of individual nations, being all on an equal footing, largely fail in their efforts to achieve this, however much they multiply their meetings and their endeavours to discover more fitting instruments of justice. And this is no reflection on their sincerity and enterprise. It is merely that their authority is not sufficiently influential.
"We are thus driven to the conclusion that the shape and structure of political life in the modern world, and the influence exercised by public authority in all the nations of the world are unequal to the task of promoting the common good of all peoples." (9)
The preservation of at least some minimum level of human rights would seem to be among those urgent human needs that cannot always be met within the limitations presented by the current nation-state system-at least not when national sovereignty is considered absolute under all circumstances. The existence of terrible oppression and massive genocide are obvious illustrations of situations in which international intervention may be morally required.
But by whom? Under what auspices?
War Initiated Unilaterally
There is thus the further question whether a war, otherwise justified, can be conducted by one nation. Obviously, a people who have been attacked and whose plea for support from the international community has not been heeded can, in accordance with just war doctrine, defend themselves. Such a people are not, however, the initiators. They are responding to an injury inflicted upon them.
War should never be initiated by any nation except for the gravest of reasons. When there appears to be sufficient basis to initiate hostilities, it appears all the more important for this to be done, not by a single country, but by the broader international community.
That is partly because the perspective of every country is bound to be somewhat limited. Even the largest and most powerful of nations can be blind to important aspects of a situation that can be offered by others. Every country's perspective is bounded to some extent by its own history and culture. The wider international community can help correct for this limited vision. When other countries have serious doubts about the wisdom of initiating war, those uncertainties must be weighed carefully.
Moreover, the involvement of the wider international community can help correct for the tendency of nations to seek their own narrow interests through war. If war is ever to be justified theologically, it cannot be for the sake of narrow interests but for the sake of the good of all.
Furthermore, when nations initiate war unilaterally their capacity to succeed is limited to their own resources and perseverance. The broader the coalition, the greater the prospect of success, and quite possibly the greater the ability to limit the damage inflicted by war.
And also, the wider the international involvement, the more likely it is that the war will be accepted as necessary and, therefore, the easier it will be to contain the residues of hostility and bitterness that always accompany war. If war is ever to be waged, it must be for the sake of a better peace. The positive work of peacemaking can scarcely be done by a single nation, no matter how justified its cause appears to be. The legacies of war are so generally tragic that even the wider international community finds it difficult to bind up the wounds.
Again, even the widest coalition of nations should initiate war only for the gravest of reasons. But the willingness of such a coalition to go to that extreme is an important test of whether those reasons are sufficient.
Toward a New World Order
At the time of the Gulf War, President George H. W. Bush proclaimed as one of its central objectives the establishment of a "new world order." The term was not, in fact, original with him. It had been used by churches in the midst of World War II as they contemplated the basis for peace and justice in the post-war world. The Methodist Bishops launched an ambitious program, The Crusade(10) for a New World Order, mobilizing millions of Methodists in support of global cooperation and collective security.(11) Its leadership sought to avoid the tragic post World War I American mistake of not joining the League of Nations. Cooperating with other denominations of the Federal Council of Churches, the Methodists endorsed the "Six Pillars of Peace," a program broadly supporting an international organization, including control of military establishments everywhere and providing for economic cooperation. Broadly speaking, the churches' goals anticipated the organization of the United Nations as an instrument of peace and cooperative programs of various kinds.
It was possible in subsequent decades for the United Nations and related agencies to accomplish a great deal, but until the 1990s its efforts to establish dependable institutions of collective military security were constantly frustrated by the Cold War conflict between the U.S. and U.S.S.R. The end of the Cold War raised anew the possibility that the United Nations might be an effective peace-maker at the global level.
Implicit in the project of a New World Order is recognition that national identity is finally a lesser claim upon us than the humanity all peoples have in common. Nations and empires have existed almost throughout recorded history, and yet the contemporary forms are relatively recent. Often, in the past four or five centuries, nations have served the common good of their people. Historically, in such major European countries as Germany, Italy, France, and the United Kingdom, the achievement of national unity helped overcome regional conflicts, feudalistic oppression, and economic inefficiencies. And yet, the rise of nationalism also brought with it murderous wars and new forms of political idolatry.
In recent years, the quest by groups to achieve separate national sovereignty has been the source of further bloody conflict. The fact of such movements is a reminder that the human and civil rights of ethnic minorities are a precondition of social peace. But it is not necessary for every people to achieve national statehood. Indeed, the vision of a New World Order includes recognition that national sovereignty itself can never be absolute. No nation, not even the world's remaining super-power, has an unlimited capacity for self-determination. Nationhood in the present world situation is still a protection against imperialism in all its forms, but the greater task of our time is to forge political institutions at the global level that are capable of protecting the human rights of all people.
The Historical Role of the United States of America
It is not yet clear whether that dream can be fulfilled. Much depends upon the United States of America, the world's one remaining super-power. This country does not have unlimited power, but its military and economic dominance in the world at the beginning of the 21st century can be a great positive force for good for the whole global community, or it can make things much more difficult. It is not yet clear which way America will go.
We are reminded of prophetic words written by the Swedish sociologist Gunnar Myrdal as he concluded the monumental study of American race relations during World War II.
[Americans] stand warmheartedly against oppression in all the world. When they are reluctantly forced into war, they are compelled to justify their participation to their own conscience by insisting that they are fighting against aggression and for liberty and equality. America feels itself to be humanity in miniature.... The main trend of its history is the gradual realization of the American Creed. (12)
Shorn of triumphalistic implications, such a statement is a reminder that America does have a tradition of higher values. Those values have deep, though not exclusive, rootage in Christian faith, for they express a commitment to mutual caring, equality, and the value of every person. But never in the history of this country have the higher values gone unchallenged by baser forms of arrogance and selfishness. Myrdal interpreted the "dilemma" in American race relations as the question whether the higher values of the "American Creed" would prevail over the demons of racism. He thought they would, but it would not come automatically.
Do we face a similar "dilemma" today? Will American power serve the yearning of humankind for peace and justice? Or will it yield to the temptation toward newer forms of national dominance? Perhaps the answer to that will also depend upon the faithfulness of people of good will, including Christians.
In the period immediately following September 11, 2001, there was an impressive outpouring of sympathy for this country from all over the world, including the predominantly Muslim lands. That included a measure of support for American efforts to combat terrorism at home and abroad. Even the military actions in Afghanistan enjoyed broad international support.
Much of the support was dissipated through 2002 and 2003 by the U. S. Administration's intervention in Iraq-especially its announced intention to make war pre-emptively and with or without broad international participation. Thoughtful Americans, including many religious leaders, pondered whether we had squandered the moral high ground and the opportunity to lead the world toward a new world order based upon mutual security with increased peace with justice for the whole global community. About the oppressive rule of Saddam Hussein there could be little doubt. The capacity of that regime to use weapons of mass destruction internationally remained unclear; it was even more doubtful that that regime had serious ties to international terrorist organizations, especially al Caeda. Thoughtful Christians have had grave misgivings about the buildup toward war. The factual truth of claims and counter-claims will become evident through time. There remains a serious question whether there might have been another way to achieve the desired goals short of war.
Americans need to think long thoughts about the decades ahead. Will we slip imperceptibly from the necessary tasks of deterrence-deterring the hand of those who would make war against innocent peoples-to a world in which we ourselves will seek to dominate? Will we move from empathy for the sufferings of others to the creation of empire for ourselves? Have we overreached in recent months and years? Will we have invited further instabilities in an already unstable world for the years to come? We pray not; we cannot know for sure. We know that the world will be better the more committed we are to the tasks of positive peace-making and the wise uses of power.
For Christians, and all other persons of good will, the issues and the opportunities remain open. We have the continuing task of reminding our fellow citizens and the national government that war is always a last resort, to be entered into only when it is very clear that the inevitable suffering will be offset by greater good. Our counsel to the nation, and to the nations, must include a sober reminder that God has made us for community, one with another, transcending all of the barriers that human sin can erect. But this admonition is accompanied by the Christian hope: God is always with us in our efforts to give substance to the intended community of love and justice, taking the small contributions of each of us and weaving them into a tapestry of good that is far beyond our imagining.
Notes:
(1) Roland H. Bainton, Christian Attitudes Toward War and Peace (Nashville: Abingdon Press, 1960). Return to text.
(2) Karl Barth, Church Dogmatics, III/4 (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1961, 455. Return to text.
(3) Ibid., 456. Return to text.
(4) Ibid., 463. Return to text.
(5) James F. Childress illustrates this criterion as a requirement that the war is "to protect the innocent from unjust attack, to restore rights wrongfully denied, or to reestablish a just order." He continues: "Because war involves overridding important prima facie obligations not to injure or kill others, it demands the most weighty and significant reasons." See his "Just-War Criteria," in Richard B. Miller, ed., War in the Twentieth Century (Louisville: Westminister John Knox Press, 1992), 358. Return to text.
(6) U.S. Catholic Bishops, "The Challenge of Peace: God's Promise and Our Response," in Richard B. Miller, ed., op. cit., 377. Return to text.
(7) St. Augustine was strongly attracted to Manichaeanism early in his life but later concluded that its teaching was basically heretical. Return to text.
(8) Even the word "terrorism" is clouded by ambiguity. People perceived as "terrorists" by some may be viewed as "freedom fighters" by others! Still, the underlying methods of terrorism, seeking to influence the will of people by fear of unprovoked acts of violence, are a disturbing reality of our times. Return to text.
(9) Pacem in Terris, in Proclaiming Justice and Peace: papal Documents from Rerum Novarum through Centesimus Annus (Mystic, CT: Twenty-Third Publications, 1991), 148-51, paragraphs 133-135. Return to text.
(10) The word "Crusade" was used generically and carried no implication glorifying the Medieval crusading wars against Muslims in the Holy Land. Indeed, the Crusade for a New World Order was specifically opposed to imperialism. Return to text.
(11) See Walter G. Muelder, Methodism and Society in the Twentieth Century (NY and Nashville, Abingdon Press, 1961), 186-195. Return to text.
(12) Gunnar Myrdal, An American Dilemma (NY: Harper and Brothers, 1944), 1021. Return to text.