AGENDA FOR PEACE WITH Mr.Rights: Justifying the unjust war

AGENDA FOR PEACE WITH Mr.Rights: Justifying unjust war By Abdulrazaq O Hamzat

During my extensive reading about the concept of ‘’just war’’ or ‘’holy war’’, I came across several discuss about the morality of just war. In this wide discussion, several references were made to definitions, concepts and examples to justify the concept of war tagged as “just war” or ‘’holy war’’. Some of the examples that caught my attention were the references made to religious concepts both Christianity and Islam which is being cited as justification for war. Before going deep into this discussion, let me define what I mean by just war in this concept. By just war, I mean that war action undertaken by a party or a group of parties to contain the activities of an aggressor or a group of aggressors. It is a war that is waged with justification. Here, we are talking about justice in war-making based on the goodness in the motive behind the violent attitude and action, which is in reaction to an offensive behavior of the other party. (PCR 261). Now, as much as I believe that the concept of “just war” or ‘’holy war’’ can be established in some cases and verified to be truly just if it is non-aggressive, what I find confusing was the manner in which religious historical references were being used by aggressive war mongers, terrorists and others to turn things upside down in an attempt to recruit followers to buy into their heinous act of human destruction. Without any doubt, there may be holy wars, but should a war be described as just simply because it is said to be holy? Or, how can a war be described as just? Should a war be described as just because the aggressors claimed it is just or it must meet certain criteria to be qualified and regarded as such? According to history, leaders or individuals who makes the decision of going to war always claim to do so on the basis of justice, even the most cruel war or individuals always claim to fight for what they believe is just, but most wars are fought out of greed and selfishness of human nature, they are war fought to oppress and deny people of justice. Therefore, It is worth to note that, what parties in war say is their reasons for embarking on a war doesn’t qualify the act of war to be described as just, instead, what the third party, especially experts in the field of peace and conflict resolution established to be truth after proper investigation. Before the emergence of war of principle and war to preserve national integrity, religious believe have always been the singular act used to mobilize people during major war time. However, history show that, both Islam and Christianity fought several wars in their quest for sustainability and spread, but what led to these wars must be clearly understood. Did these religious groups fight to spread their message, crushing every perceived opponent, or they fought to defend themselves against persecution of those who fought them for no just cause, except for their new religion? Did their ideology and belief as enshrined in their holy books and practices encourage the elimination of those who fail to believe in their faith? These and many more questions must be answered for one to be able to ascertain on what the doctrine of the various religious war waged in history were circled around. However, according to history, war became one of the fundamental elements of the Christian faith, writings and teachings as it relates to Christian participation in war against the principled pacifist doctrine of early Christianity. Several Christian political philosophers and thinkers such as St. Augustine, St. Aquinas, Hegel, Treitschke, Mann see war as a mechanism for human development and civilization. Heinrich von Treitschke described war as the greatest activity of mankind, consequent on the noble quest by man to achieve courage, honour and ability, which are more important than any other human endeavours. We deduce from history that, the early doctrine of Christianity was based on pacifism, i.e. total avoidance of war in whatever capacity, a doctrine which frowned completely against war irrespective of situation. This was the original doctrine passed down by Jesus Christ on whose path, the Christian religion was founded. However, war became one of the fundamental elements of the Christian faith after some political philosophers and thinkers that happened to be key figures in the later leadership of Christianity such as St. Augustine, St. Aquinas, Hegel, Treitschke, Mann see war as a mechanism for human development and civilization. The concept of war as a means of Christian civilization and human development was introduced by these set of new Christian leaders which is totally against the early pacifist doctrine of the Christian faith. It is worth to note that, ever since the political aspect which has war as it major doctrine took over the Christian faith; the religion has never remained the same, as the new ideology of war spread far and wide and the Christian faith was synonymous with war. At the eruption of the First World War, Thomas Mann argued that war is a source of purification of the civil corruption caused by peace, through which man can achieve liberation and great hope. This hypothesis dominated the war policy of a number of states and societies in the world. Notable among them was the ancient Greece (Sparta in particular), ancient Rome, Italy, Germany (prior to the 2nd World War), among others. Christian tradition of just war insists that war is just, if it is for the purpose of defending Christian faith and spreading the gospel of Christ but it is forbidden for war to be waged in holy places and the day of worship. Some Christians believe that the Sabbath day is Saturday while others believe that it is Sunday. On the other hand, Muslim tradition of just war forbids any harm against women and children in the prosecution of any armed conflict, and the adherents are admonished to only engage in defensive war (just war) not offensive war (unjust war) as the basic philosophy of Jihad. The moral code of jihad tradition was later exemplified in international law particularly the laws of war in the 20th Century. There are several issues that determine the nature of justice in war according to study, and these include: a. War as a basis for preservation of State or whole just war since the time of Constantine, became an element of a larger Christian theological doctrine, which propelled the idea of marriage between religion and politics where Christians began to perceive a suitable relation between Christian faith and political power (Niebuhr,1940). Hegel affirms that divine or spiritual interpretations of war inform us that morality and individuality are enclosed within a larger spiritual whole. Morality and individuality do not fade away by adopting this larger perspective. Hegel further affirms that it is the whole that man reaches the highest of all goods. Thus, the state is the higher good that should be preserved even at the expense of sacrifices of individuality and moral purity. Hegel goes on to claim that peace causes nations to become “stuck in their ways,” “rigid and ossified.” Indeed, Hegel claims that even if there were peace, a nation would need to “create an enemy” because wars strengthen nations and because nations “gain internal peace as a result of wars with their external enemies” (Hegel, 1991). Study further shows that, indeed, any war waged in the preservation of the state is a just war because it is through the state that man can reach his highest good (greatest achievement in his chosen field). What we are saying here is that it is through collectivism that man can be best fulfilled in life. No man is an Island, you know! If anybody wants to distort the free flow of collectivism in the affairs of man and human relation, any war waged against such person can be said to be just. It further stated that, the justification for waging the war will be an attempt to maintain and sustain the collective welfare of the people. b. War as a Basis for Reconciliation War can just be waged for the purpose of reconciliation. Hegel argues that the effect of tragedy, if taken into account, is basically to reconcile us to ethical conflicts. According to Hegel (1920:323): Reconciliation in tragedy is related to the resolution of specific ethical and substantive facts from their contradiction into their true harmony. It is war that provides the basis for the reconciliation that man desires in realizing the highest good and fulfil his destiny in the collectivism. Hegel believes that human life is dominated by alienation and evident contradictions. The apparent entertainment of evil ideas by man depicts his finitude or human limitations, and this evil idea can be engaged in armed conflict for renaissance and salvation, which justifies policy of war. Therefore, reconciliation takes place when we accomplish the philosophical space in which evil and war are understood as part of the whole. The Christian just war tradition allows Christians to make use of lesser evils in order to obtain greater goods, which is not in conformity with the absolute pacifist philosophy that characterized the early Christianity. Constantine changed the pacifist tradition of Christianity as laid down by Jesus Christ, to the one which operates uniquely under just war theory. The “heresy” of Constantine sacrifices spiritual and ethical purity of the Christian tradition for allegiance to political life (Yoder, 2003). Through the “heresy” of Constantine, many soldiers became Christians, as many Christians partook in military operations in the preservation of political entity. Since then, politicization of religion and politics became institutionalized in Europe, which was also imported to Africa through imperial conquest, not without bitter tales. (PCR 261) St. Augustine also gave a support to the tradition of just war in Christianity, such that man can kill fellow man for the purpose of spreading the gospel of Christ. This was clearly and totally against the philosophy of Jesus Christ and the early pacifist ideology of Christianity, but the Christians adopted these new ideologies having politicized the Christian faith. Evidence show that, early Muslims fought wars against the infidels on several occasions, but were the wars fought because the opponents are infidels? Definitely not. The early Muslims didn’t fight or kill the opponents because they were infidels, they did because the infidels had severally launched an offensive and aggressive attack against the Muslims, killing them in their homes and persecuted them. A failure to defend themselves against such constant attack would amount to exposing their members to risk and subjecting them to a possible extermination. Therefore, Muslim tradition didn’t asserts that it is just war for adopting violence against the “infidels”, it rather asserts that, it is just war for adopting violence to defend the violent and aggressive attack from the infidels. It is against Islamic doctrine to attack an harmless and innocent unbeliever or infidel. And also, Islam didn’t assert that if one dies in the process of waging war against the harmless unbelievers (or even non-believers), the person will be regarded as martyr and he will be greatly rewarded by God with eternal paradise, It rather asserts that, if one dies in the process of waging war against violent and aggressive unbeliever, the person will be regarded as martyr and he will be greatly rewarded by God with eternal paradise, not because he dies fighting against an unbeliever, but because he died fighting the evil, violent, oppressive and aggressive actions of the unbeliever to ensure justice and peace. c. War as a Basis for Patriotism Prosecution of war is important to the wellbeing of modern states because it assists in promoting patriotism and prevents states from falling into contradictions self-satisfaction and stagnation of peace. Hegel argues that a war is just if the motive is to bring the state out of the doldrums of complacency brought by peace stagnation. Long-term peace affects states negatively because it causes states to become “stuck in their ways,” “rigid and ossified.” Hegel goes further to advise states that if there were peace, they should try and “create an enemy” because wars strengthen nations and because nations “gain internal peace as a result of wars with their external enemies” (Hegel,1991:325). If the basis of war is to promote patriotism, such war can be considered to be just. Long decorum created by peace can affect the patriotism among the citizens of a particular state because the best time to put the people’s patriotism to test is during war, and if war is not fought on regular intervals, the people’s patriotism may dwindle to the detriment of the state. d. War as a Basis for Love of Honour The love of honour can also attract incident of war between two or more state and non-state actors. Kant argues that despite the fact that war is horrible, it remains an “indispensable means” of spiritual progress (Kant, 1991:323). Kant, in “Perpetual Peace”, presents a theory of justice in war (also developed in the Metaphysics of Morals). In addition, Kant points out that nature employs war as a way of creating human progress (Kant, 1991: 108-114). This includes stimulating the love of honour, which is essential element of human dignity. Indeed, it is just to wage war for the sake of winning honour. Nigeria has involved in several humanitarian interventions in West Africa and elsewhere, particularly in the area of military peacekeeping operations. The country has committed a lot of human and material resources in keeping peace in Africa. The main reason for the various humanitarian efforts by Nigeria is basically for the love of honour rather than economic benefits. e. War as a Basis for History War can be regarded as just if the thrust of its cause is to contribute to the development of history. Cassirer (1943) maintains that war remains a means that can be applied in realizing the goal of history and that war is a good and desirable thing for the life of a nation. The importance of history in shaping the destiny of a man (nation) cannot be overemphasized (Popper, 1971:8). A country that is less popular can adopt war as strategy to secure relevance in history. The war of terror declared by Al Qaeda network against the Western world has been justified, not basically as a religious war but as war against capitalism and western values, which has a great influence on modern history. Since, the collapse of the Soviet Union towards the end of 1980s, many political commentators and scholars thought that the event of the collapse of the USSR would bring change to the global system from bipolarism to uni-polarism where the US would be the Police of the world, and no state would contest its (the US) supremacy. But now the reverse is the case, as the US is not only tormented by state actors but also by non-state actors like Al Qaeda Network. The current global political situation has created a history of powerful nations becoming preys in the hands of asymmetric non-state actors. PCR 261 The experience in Iraq is also an example of justification of war where the Sunni insurgents have been a thorn in the flesh of the US led coalition forces. The guerrilla warfare adopted by these insurgents is to violently protest against the change in the status quo as facilitated by the US dethronement of Saddam administration in Iraq, which favoured more the Sunnis than the Shiites. Meanwhile, to the Shiites, the US invasion was a just war, against their greatest enemy-Saddam Hussein, but the Sunni Iraqis would regard it as an attempt to undermine their historical relevance in the country. Indeed, the battle for supremacy between the Shiite and Sunni Muslims in Iraq has remained a major source of the historical destiny of Iraqi people. f. War as a Basis for the Respect of Law Just war is essential in creating a network for individual state and non-state actors to conform to the accepted norms and values. Without war, parties will flagrantly disobey the law. The approach of just war in the maintenance of law and order form the basis of “Augustinian” compromise, which subscribes that it is just to employ war or violence with the aim of maintaining tranquillitas ordinis. This order is described by George Weigel as “the order created by just political community and mediated through law” (Weigel, 2003). Bearing in mind the foregoing, one will accept that just war is waged as an essential mechanism to ensure the defense or protection of the tranquility of a well-ordered political community. This is a compromise that allows the use of violence or immoral methods in pursuit of the higher good of defending the well-ordered political community. Christian just war theories might invoke the ideas of sin and grace in order to reconcile us to this compromise. Today, a number of people see just war as legitimate, only if it is backed by international organizations like the United Nations. International Law however, recognizes two forms of war as just, and these include a war waged against an aggressor in the defense of the national sovereignty and territorial integrity; and the war sanctioned by the United Nations Security Council. There are at least five reasons for justification of war in international law. These may include: • Collective intervention in the pursuit of the objectives of the United Nations especially as it relates to advancing peace and security; • Protection of the rights and interests as well as safety of a nation’s citizens by the government. A country can justify any articulation of violence against another country if the intention is to advance the interest and safety of its citizen(s), e.g. Israel’s invasion of Entebbe, Uganda to rescue its citizens held hostage in Uganda by terrorists who were supported by Idi Amin; • Self-defence is another reason to justify articulation of violence by any party; • Aggression against external interference in the internal affairs by another country is justifiable; and • Aggression to contain any violence against a state under a nation’s protection. For instance, any attempt by any nation to attack a nation having a defense pact with the US can be justifiably resisted violently by the US. In conclusion, Study shows that, Just war denotes that war can be fought, if there are genuine justifications in doing so. Although, this concept has been abused and twisted to suit personal and destructive purposes, it has also been distorted to the extent of justifying unjust war in most cases, but in all, there are still some levels of justification in some respect. A party can decide to wage war against another party if there is justification in taking such aggressive decision or action. It is important to know that, it is not every violent action that can be justified, neither can all war which was claimed be just can actually fits in to the right context of it. This is because, every aggressor will definitely have his/her reason(s) for the violent behavior he/she has decided to exhibit and in other to justify such violent actions, they hide under the tutelage of just war. Sometimes, there may be good reasons by a party to carry-out a violent action against another party but such aggressive engagement can be found not to have moral validation. What moral justifications will a nation kill innocent people in another state just because it is pursuing its (national) political interest or any other reason(s)? This certainly cannot be categorized as just war. Again, what moral justification does any group of individual have to kill innocent people in the name of imposing a certain idea on them? Follow me on twitter @Abdool101