All,
Carter's reasoning, especially as a Christian moralist, seem to me to contain several troubling aspects. Once I "correct" Carter's statement for the seeming inconsistencies with Christian morality and take the statement as contingent on the factors that Carter names I am left with this conclusion: a war may just, then again, maybe not.
The Inconsistencies with Christian Morality:
1) If a war is wrong then no matter of support and agreement from other nations or international bodies makes it right. Conversely, substantial opposition to war does not make it wrong.
Carter seems to make the votes of the UN Security Council some kind of moral icon. This all might not be a problem for some theories of morality but they sound strange in an argument that professes itself to be Christian.
2) "Its violence must be proportional to the injury we have suffered." Carter ties this injury solely to a connection with 9/11. He makes no recognition of other impacts and injuries. I find it strange for instance that for Carter does not speak to massive injuries suffered by the people of Iraq. Again some other systems of belief may not find this a problem but in the context of a Christian theology I find this quite strange.
When a man seems to deviate so strongly from the principles that he aligns himself with I begin to wonder about what is going on.
Other Issues:
Legitimate representation. This has nothing to do with Christian morality but Carter elaborates his final point in a strange manner.
> The attackers must have legitimate authority sanctioned by the society
>they profess to represent.
As "the attackers" would be draw heavily from the US military I expected Carter to speak about the US society. It is amazing to me that in the long paragraph he never once mentions the US Congress or US public opinion. Doesn't the US military profess to represent us? I appreciate an internationalist perspective but in this context a solely internationalist perspective strikes me as more than passing strange.
Contingency. Finally, much of the argument is based upon a number of assumptions about how and when the US will act, what the UN decides, and how the war will be conducted. Much of Carter's argument is highly contingent on a number factors that at this point are based on assumptions and predictions of actions not yet taken.
Carter IMO tends to down play the contingencies. If, for instance, the UN Security Council votes to re-open the Gulf War what would be his position then? If the military action is highly limited and governed by strict guidelines to minimize civilian casualties would that make a difference to Carter?
Once I "correct" the statement for the seeming inconsistencies with Christian morality and take the statement as contingent on a number of factors I am left with this conclusion: a war may just, then again, maybe not. If I might be allowed a moment of humor ... Maybe or maybe not; that is certainly a 'diplomatic' analysis.
Cortlandt Wilson
(650) 966-8555
>-----Original Message-----
>
>>From today's NY Times:
>
>=======================================
>
>OP-ED CONTRIBUTOR
>
>Just War — or a Just War?
>
>By JIMMY CARTER
>
>ATLANTA -- Profound changes have been taking place in American foreign
>policy, reversing consistent bipartisan commitments that for more than two
>centuries have earned our nation greatness. These commitments have been
>predicated on basic religious principles, respect for
>international law, and
>alliances that resulted in wise decisions and mutual restraint.
>Our apparent
>determination to launch a war against Iraq, without international
>support, is
>a violation of these premises.
>
>As a Christian and as a president who was severely provoked by
>international
>crises, I became thoroughly familiar with the principles of a just
>war, and
>it is clear that a substantially unilateral attack on Iraq does not meet
>these standards. This is an almost universal conviction of
>religious leaders,
>with the most notable exception of a few spokesmen of the Southern Baptist
>Convention who are greatly influenced by their commitment to
>Israel based on
>eschatological, or final days, theology.
>
>For a war to be just, it must meet several clearly defined criteria.
>
> o The war can be waged only as a last resort, with all nonviolent
>options exhausted. In the case of Iraq, it is obvious that clear
>alternatives
>to war exist. These options -- previously proposed by our own leaders and
>approved by the United Nations -- were outlined again by the
>Security Council
>on Friday. But now, with our own national security not directly threatened
>and despite the overwhelming opposition of most people and
>governments in the
>world, the United States seems determined to carry out military and
>diplomatic action that is almost unprecedented in the history of civilized
>nations. The first stage of our widely publicized war plan is to
>launch 3,000
>bombs and missiles on a relatively defenseless Iraqi population within the
>first few hours of an invasion, with the purpose of so damaging and
>demoralizing the people that they will change their obnoxious leader, who
>will most likely be hidden and safe during the bombardment.
>
> o The war's weapons must discriminate between combatants and
>noncombatants. Extensive aerial bombardment, even with precise accuracy,
>inevitably results in "collateral damage." Gen. Tommy R. Franks,
>commander of
>American forces in the Persian Gulf, has expressed concern about
>many of the
>military targets being near hospitals, schools, mosques and private homes.
>
> o Its violence must be proportional to the injury we have suffered.
>Despite Saddam Hussein's other serious crimes, American efforts to
>tie Iraq
>to the 9/11 terrorist attacks have been unconvincing.
>
> o The attackers must have legitimate authority sanctioned by
>the society
>they profess to represent. The unanimous vote of approval in the Security
>Council to eliminate Iraq's weapons of mass destruction can still
>be honored,
>but our announced goals are now to achieve regime change and to
>establish a
>Pax Americana in the region, perhaps occupying the ethnically
>divided country
>for as long as a decade. For these objectives, we do not have
>international
>authority. Other members of the Security Council have so far resisted the
>enormous economic and political influence that is being exerted from
>Washington, and we are faced with the possibility of either a
>failure to get
>the necessary votes or else a veto from Russia, France and China. Although
>Turkey may still be enticed into helping us by enormous financial
>rewards and
>partial future control of the Kurds and oil in northern Iraq, its
>democratic
>Parliament has at least added its voice to the worldwide expressions of
>concern.
>
> o The peace it establishes must be a clear improvement over
>what exists.
>Although there are visions of peace and democracy in Iraq, it is quite
>possible that the aftermath of a military invasion will destabilize the
>region and prompt terrorists to further jeopardize our security at home.
>Also, by defying overwhelming world opposition, the United States will
>undermine the United Nations as a viable institution for world peace.
>
>What about America's world standing if we don't go to war after
>such a great
>deployment of military forces in the region? The heartfelt sympathy and
>friendship offered to America after the 9/11 attacks, even from formerly
>antagonistic regimes, has been largely dissipated; increasingly unilateral
>and domineering policies have brought international trust in our
>country to
>its lowest level in memory. American stature will surely decline
>further if
>we launch a war in clear defiance of the United Nations. But to use the
>presence and threat of our military power to force Iraq's
>compliance with all
>United Nations resolutions -- with war as a final option -- will
>enhance our
>status as a champion of peace and justice.
>
>========================================
>
>
* To join/leave the list, search archives, change list settings, *
* etc., please visit http://raven.utc.edu/archives/hp3000-l.html *
|
