How do we pursue an ethical defence policy?
March 2000
by Major-General (retd) the Reverend Ian G C Durie CBE
published in Conservatism magazine

A discussion led by Major-General (retd) Revd Ian Durie

· Defence policy governs the circumstances in which the nation might use lethal force. It is therefore essential that it should have a moral foundation.

· Just War theory provides the moral framework, although it needs to be brought up-to-date to address the changing character of modern warfare and conflicts.

· It is essential that those implementing or supporting Defence policy have a thorough understanding of Just War theory, otherwise the armed services might be required to implement immorally dubious or illegal orders. Politicians must ensure they have a thorough grasp of the moral issues involved.

*****

When can the State use lethal force?

In the business of Defence, the starting point is the end point. Defence policy must look to how and in what circumstance the nation might use lethal or sub-lethal force. Although we have international laws and protocols, which govern the use of force, let me urge Christians to know and understand 'Just War' theory, which provides the moral framework for these laws. Although 'Just War' theory needs to be updated to address the situations faced today, a basic understanding of its roots and application will allow Christians to judge the issues for themselves.

Just War Theory

In the Cold War era the attention of Christian ethical war studies was focused on the issues surrounding nuclear weapons and their use. This has left 'Just War' principles sidelined to some extent, although nothing more suitable has replaced them. Ignorance of these principles, on the one hand, and a failure to redevelop and update them, on the other, has left us in a fragmenting world. The only ethic seems to be an unhealthy "might is right" pragmatism dependent on the wisdom and semi-enlightened self-interest of the USA and her principal allies to dictate where and when force is used by the more developed nations to protect the innocent and to promote peace and justice throughout the world. The rest can "go hang".

The principles of 'Just War', dependent as they are on the absolute truth Christianity claims for itself, should have an abiding and universal application, which is hard for any ethical system to refute (other than from a wholly pacifist position). Anyone in the business of developing, supporting or implementing Defence policies must have a sound understanding of these underlying principles.

Principles of Just War' theory

1. Just Cause. The only just cause is defence against violent aggression against the state, or against a neighbour state unable to defend itself.

2. Just Intention. The only just intention is to restore peace to friend and foe alike. There must be no motive of revenge or retribution. Just intention also demands proper conduct.

3. Last resort. The use of military force must be a last resort.

4. Proper Authority. The decision to go to war must be made by the highest lawful government or supra-government authority and should be marked by an official declaration of war.

5. Limited Ends. A war must be waged for limited ends only - sufficient to repel aggression and to redress injustice.

6. Proportionality. The means used to wage the war must be proportional to the offence and necessary to achieve the end intended.

7. Protection of non-combatants. Violence must only be directed against enemy combatants. Non-combatants must be protected.

8. Reasonable chance of success. Because, if a just peace cannot be achieved, the additional suffering caused by the war would serve no purpose.

In relation to conventional war, this short summary seems clearly to meet the Christian principles for the use of violence. They emphasise that war must never be undertaken lightly. They have a universal application, and give a proper recognition of the evils of war. They also inhibit states from lightly committing themselves to such a course. But they must always be scrutinised and properly developed.

Application of Just War

In some ways the Gulf War and the allied approach to Operation Desert Storm seems to me to be a model for the proper use of force to redress a most serious wrong. The same cannot be said of the bombing of Iraq following the expulsion of the UNSCOM weapons inspectors in 1998. While agreeing that Saddam Hussein is an unscrupulous tyrant with evil motives, it is difficult to be convinced that the bombing campaign was justified.

The extent to which we have lost our moral foundation is demonstrated by the indecision and ambiguity of our reaction to the series of crises in the Balkans. I am very dubious, in spite of the terrible plight of the Kosovo Albanians about many aspects of that operation. Under what legitimate authority did NATO attack? Is the NATO plea "what else could we do" enough to legitimise such action? The NATO air attacks, conducted without significant risk to NATO lives, seem to me to be cynical and immoral. The effect the tactics had on the selection of often inappropriate targets, and the lack of effective targeting of legitimate objectives, seemed more akin to the playground bully with the big stick, than to the appropriate conduct of an army.

The duty of political leaders

There is a vital need for clear-thinking people of principle and influence to be active in persuading their governments to take a lead in international efforts to seek and insist on pursuing the way of justice, equality and reconciliation world-wide.

Pilate asks, "What is truth?" The answer is of course standing in front of him - Christ; and his teaching. Pilate's example of missing the truth, and therefore having no standard on which to anchor his moral judgment, led him down the slippery slope of compromise, where no compromise was justified.

Politicians need firmly to grasp the nettle of moral truth. 'Just War' sets a sound basis for policy development without compromise. The question for you is whether you have the will to restore the moral framework, and see it up-dated to meet the realities of today. Then you can set out Defence policies in accordance with that framework, that do not leave the long-suffering armed forces implementing dubious and possibly illegal orders.

QUOTES

"I have seen war... I hate war." Franklin D. Roosevelt

"War is the continuation of politics by other means." Von Clausevitz

"If you want peace, prepare for war." Vegetius