Trinicenter.com - An unjust conflict

by Pervaiz Iqbal Cheema, www.jang.com.pk

The existing circumstances and environment generally provide the stimulus for political and moral theorisation. While in the process of clarifying the notions upon which the whole structure of thoughts is to be based, a thinker gives a careful consideration to the decomposition of the political, religious and social institutions of the past societies on one hand, and the gradual deterioration and degeneration of the contemporary societies on the other. Such considerations are often reflected in their writings. A religious political thinker St Thomas Aquinas who enjoyed tremendous respect within the Christendom outlined the concept of 'Just War' highlighting the conditions that differentiate a just war from that of an unjust war. The basic purpose of this short piece is to highlight the basic tenets of the theory of just war and testing the American driven Iraq war.

St. Thomas Aquinas lays down three conditions for a just war. First of these conditions is the legitimate authority of the ruler by whose command the war is to begin. Given the existing American political system, the war is to be declared by the President with the consent of its legislature. As the legitimate ruler is entrusted with the tasks of looking after the welfare of the society and to declare war if the need arises though a constitutional procedure has to be followed. Second, the war must be declared for a just cause. The legitimate authority must have a just cause for waging a war. Finally, the war should be waged with rightful intentions. It should be waged for the advancement of good or the avoidance of evil.

Implicit in these conditions is the suggestion that not only the ends should be good but also the means employed to achieve those ends should be equally good. In other words, wars are to be waged with good ends as the ultimate objective and the conduct of war must not be allowed to degenerate which can alter the ultimate objective as well as the process of fighting. A war should be fought within limits of the rules of the game and these rules should be good rules. The over riding concern seems to be the uplifting of good and securing peace. Although this peace may be identified with the peace of the injured state itself, it is nevertheless arguable that one of the factors involved in just war is that it should also sub serve the good of those against whom the just war is prosecuted. Having outlined St. Thomas' conditions of just war, let us now examine whether or not these conditions are met in the modern day world and more specifically in the ongoing Iraq war.

Among the three conditions the first one deals with legitimate authority of the ruler who declares war. It needs to be asserted here that St.Thomas Aquinas evolved his concept during the medieval ages but the underlying tenets are still as applicable they in those days. Is Bush entitled to declare war against any body? The American Constitution sets a procedure to declare a war by the legitimate authority. While there is no doubt that the people of United States elected Mr Bush in accordance their election procedure, the Constitution empowers him to follow the procedure and declare war against any country. But the question that needs explanation is that why didn't Mr Bush declare the war against Iraq without placing the case before the United Nations Security Council (UNSC)? The obvious answer is that the US and its allies were seeking the permission of the UNSC. But when it was realised that the requisite permission might not be given, the US then reverted back to other interpretation of the previous resolutions. It needs to be highlighted here that once the case was tabled before the UNSC then it is only appropriate to seek the final result over it through voting. Admittedly the second resolution giving the approval of the UNSC was never put to vote for fear of losing it, the question that needs some explanation is that why was it placed before the UNSC if its approval was not deemed necessary. The logical explanation indeed is that the UN's approval of war would have impacted upon the world opinion rather differently.

Given the inability of the US and its allies to secure the UNSC approval the question that has subsequently risen relates to the legality of the war. While Bush and Blair believe that the necessary legal authority to use force in ridding Iraq of WMD was inbuilt in the earlier resolutions. Three earlier resolutions 678, 687 and 1441 are frequently quoted in order to justify the invasion but an overwhelming majority of the people believe that no specific permission to invade Iraq was given in those resolutions. This difference in interpretations is indeed vast. In addition it needs to be added here that St. Thomas also stressed that even if the legitimate authority for a just cause declares the war, it must also have rightful intentions. If we judge the way the current Iraq war has started, it becomes quite clear that this war was started neither with the just cause nor with the right intentions.

What was the cause? Initially it was alleged that Iraq is secretly building weapons of mass destruction (WMD). To ascertain whether or not Iraq was indulging in this forbidden pursuit, the UN was asked to warn Iraq and also practically look into the Iraqi arsenal in order to search and destroy the alleged WMD. The UNSC authorised the UN Inspection team to visit Iraq and report their findings to the UNSC. It needs to be emphasised here that the United States was party to this decision. Within the first two reports that were submitted to the UNSC, it was becoming clearer that the result are likely to favour the view that Iraq may not have the WMD. This indeed appeared to be totally unacceptable to the US. A new resolution was passed with the stress that if Iraq commits a material breach, it would entitle the legitimate authority to take a serious view of the situation and may even contemplate to undertake punitive measures.

Capitalising on the gaps that were part of the reports submitted twice to the UNSC by Hans Blix and El Baradi, the US began to stress that Saddam has not been fully cooperating as was envisaged by the UN resolutions. However, the inspection team emphasised that cooperation from the Saddam regime was continuously increasing which implied that the work of the inspectors has been regularly facilitated. Perhaps that is why the chief inspectors began to stress that verification of whether or not Saddam has WMD could be completed within months. This of course did not suit the American game plan. All the conditions appear to have been violated. Since the case was before the UNSC, it is only logical to assume that in this case the legitimate authority was the UNSC and not President Bush. Had the case not been taken to the UNSC, in that eventuality the legitimate authority could the President himself.

The second condition is that the war is waged for a just cause. The reports published in various international magazines and papers frequently highlighted many objectives of the American inclusive the hidden agenda. Initially when the case was presented to the UNSC, the cause was to take out or destroy the WMD, which allegedly Iraq possessed. Soon the international media began to stress that the real objectives include total control over Iraq's rich oilfields, strengthening of the Zionist state of Israel, to change the map of Middle East and to dominate the region etc. Since the invading armies have so far discovered no weapons of mass destruction, it can be safely assumed that other motives may have had influenced the American decision makers. Neither of the other motives appears to be just. Many people and nations view the notion of regime change as preposterous.

The third condition revolves around rightful intentions. Again a close examination of the events leading to this war and during the prosecution of it clearly reflects the non-existence of rightful intentions. Rightful intentions could not be expected to undergo frequent transformations. But this is not the first time that the Americans have changed their objectives during the prosecution of war. The UN mandate during the Korean War was to push the enemy beyond the 38th parallel. When the Americans realised that they had quickly attained the stated UN objective, they changed it from pushing the enemy beyond the legitimate borders of South Korea to the destruction of North Korea's war machine. Still later when the Chinese volunteers joined on the side of the North Korean, once again they changed the stated objective and reverted back to the original objective. So neither the US had legitimate authority to start the war as it was unable to get the approval of the UNSC nor it was initiated for a just cause as the notion of pre-emptive defence is still to gain international approval nor the intentions of the US can be viewed what St.Thomas Aquinas stressed as "the rightful intention". Having tested the condition set out by the Christian religious-political thinker St. Thomas Aquinas, one is likely to conclude that the ongoing war is indeed an unjust war.

Pervaiz Iqbal Cheema works for Islamabad Policy Research Institute