US Foreign Policy in the Middle East - Is it Biblical? (Part 5) - The Just War Theory and the Founding Fathers on WarSubmitted by Pastor Chad Wagner on Wednesday, July 3, 2013.
7. The Just War Theory. (This is not Bible, but is a theory which has it roots in Christian philosophy). The following was taken from Wikipedia. A. Jus ad bellum (the right to go to war). i. Just cause - The reason for going to war needs to be just and cannot therefore be solely for recapturing things taken or punishing people who have done wrong; innocent life must be in imminent danger and intervention must be to protect life. A contemporary view of just cause was expressed in 1993 when the US Catholic Conference said: "Force may be used only to correct a grave, public evil, i.e., aggression or massive violation of the basic human rights of whole populations." ii. Comparative justice - While there may be rights and wrongs on all sides of a conflict, to overcome the presumption against the use of force, the injustice suffered by one party must significantly outweigh that suffered by the other. Some theorists such as Brian Orend omit this term, seeing it as fertile ground for exploitation by bellicose regimes. iii. Competent authority - Only duly constituted public authorities may wage war. "A just war must be initiated by a political authority within a political system that allows distinctions of justice. Dictatorships (e.g. Hitler's Regime) or deceptive military actions (e.g. the 1968 US bombing of Cambodia) are typically considered as violations of this criterion. The importance of this condition is key. Plainly, we cannot have a genuine process of judging a just war within a system that represses the process of genuine justice. A just war must be initiated by a political authority within a political system that allows distinctions of justice". iv. Right intention - Force may be used only in a truly just cause and solely for that purpose—correcting a suffered wrong is considered a right intention, while material gain or maintaining economies is not. v. Probability of success - Arms may not be used in a futile cause or in a case where disproportionate measures are required to achieve success; vi. Last resort - Force may be used only after all peaceful and viable alternatives have been seriously tried and exhausted or are clearly not practical. It may be clear that the other side is using negotiations as a delaying tactic and will not make meaningful concessions. vii. Proportionality - The anticipated benefits of waging a war must be proportionate to its expected evils or harms. This principle is also known as the principle of macro-proportionality, so as to distinguish it from the jus in bello principle of proportionality. B. Jus in bello (right conduct within war) i. Distinction - Just war conduct should be governed by the principle of distinction. The acts of war should be directed towards enemy combatants, and not towards non-combatants caught in circumstances they did not create. The prohibited acts include bombing civilian residential areas that include no military targets and committing acts of terrorism or reprisal against civilians. Moreover, combatants are not permitted to target with violence enemy combatants who have surrendered or who have been captured or who are injured and not presenting an immediate lethal threat. ii. Proportionality - Just war conduct should be governed by the principle of proportionality. An attack cannot be launched on a military objective in the knowledge that the incidental civilian injuries would be clearly excessive in relation to the anticipated military advantage (principle of proportionality). iii. Military necessity - Just war conduct should be governed by the principle of minimum force. An attack or action must be intended to help in the military defeat of the enemy, it must be an attack on a military objective, and the harm caused to civilians or civilian property must be proportional and not excessive in relation to the concrete and direct military advantage anticipated. This principle is meant to limit excessive and unnecessary death and destruction. iv. Fair treatment of prisoners of war - Enemy soldiers who surrendered or who are captured no longer pose a threat. It is therefore wrong to torture them or otherwise mistreat them. v. No means malum in se - Soldiers may not use weapons or other methods of warfare which are considered evil, such as mass rape, forcing soldiers to fight against their own side or using weapons whose effects cannot be controlled (e.g. nuclear/biological weapons). C. Jus post bellum (justice after war) i. Just cause for termination - A state may terminate a war if there has been a reasonable vindication of the rights that were violated in the first place, and if the aggressor is willing to negotiate the terms of surrender. These terms of surrender include a formal apology, compensations, war crimes trials and perhaps rehabilitation. Alternatively, a state may end a war if it becomes clear that any just goals of the war cannot be reached at all or cannot be reached without using excessive force. ii. Right intention - A state must only terminate a war under the conditions agreed upon in the above criteria. Revenge is not permitted. The victor state must also be willing to apply the same level of objectivity and investigation into any war crimes its armed forces may have committed. iii. Public declaration and authority - The terms of peace must be made by a legitimate authority, and the terms must be accepted by a legitimate authority. iv. Discrimination - The victor state is to differentiate between political and military leaders, and combatants and civilians. Punitive measures are to be limited to those directly responsible for the conflict. Truth and reconciliation may sometimes be more important than punishing war crimes. v. Proportionality - Any terms of surrender must be proportional to the rights that were initially violated. Draconian measures, absolutionist crusades and any attempt at denying the surrendered country the right to participate in the world community are not permitted. VII. The USA is not obeying its own laws and traditions concerning war. 1. The Constitution on war. A. "Congress shall have power to declare War" - US Constitution, Article 1, Section 8 B. Congress has not declared war since WWII. 2. The founding fathers on war and nonintervention. A. George Washington. i. "Hence, likewise, they will avoid the necessity of those overgrown military establishments, which, under any form of government, are inauspicious to liberty, and which are to be regarded as particularly hostile to republican liberty;" - George Washington's Farewell Address, September 17, 1796. ii. "Observe good faith and justice toward all Nations; cultivate peace and harmony with all. Religion and Morality enjoin this conduct; and can it be, that good policy does not equally enjoin it?" - Ibid. iii. "In the execution of such a plan, nothing is more essential, than that permanent, inveterate antipathies against particular Nations, and passionate attachments for others, should be excluded; and that, in place of them, just and amicable feelings towards all should be cultivated. The Nation, which indulges towards another an habitual hatred, or an habitual fondness, is in some degree a slave. It is a slave to its animosity or to its affection, either of which is sufficient to lead it astray from its duty and its interest. Antipathy in one nation against another disposes each more readily to offer insult and injury, to lay hold of slight causes of umbrage, and to be haughty and intractable, when accidental or trifling occasions of dispute occur. Hence frequent collisions, obstinate, envenomed, and bloody contests. The Nation, prompted by ill-will and resentment, sometimes impels to war the Government, contrary to the best calculations of policy. The Government sometimes participates in the national propensity, and adopts through passion what reason would reject; at other times, it makes the animosity of the nation subservient to projects of hostility instigated by pride, ambition, and other sinister and pernicious motives. The peace often, sometimes perhaps the liberty, of Nations has been the victim." - Ibid. iv. "So likewise, a passionate attachment of one Nation for another produces a variety of evils. Sympathy for the favorite Nation, facilitating the illusion of an imaginary common interest, in cases where no real common interest exists, and infusing into one the enmities of the other, betrays the former into a participation in the quarrels and wars of the latter, without adequate inducement or justification." - Ibid. v. "The great rule of conduct for us, in regard to foreign nations, is, in extending our commercial relations, to have with them as little political connection as possible. So far as we have already formed engagements, let them be fulfilled with perfect good faith. Here let us stop." - Ibid. B. Thomas Jefferson. i. "Equal and exact justice to all men, of whatever state or persuasion, religious or political; peace, commerce, and honest friendship with all nations, entangling alliances with none;" - Thomas Jefferson's First Inaugural Address, 1801. ii. "Having seen the people of all other nations bowed down to the earth under the wars and prodigalities of their rulers, I have cherished their opposites, peace, economy, and riddance of public debt, believing that these were the high road to public as well as private prosperity and happiness." - Thomas Jefferson. iii. "Believing that the happiness of mankind is best promoted by the useful pursuits of peace, that on these alone a stable prosperity can be founded, that the evils of war are great in their endurance, and have a long reckoning for ages to come, I have used my best endeavors to keep our country uncommitted in the troubles which afflict Europe, and which assail us on every side." - Thomas Jefferson. C. John Quincy Adams. i. America, in the assembly of nations, since her admission among them, has invariably, though often fruitlessly, held forth to them the hand of honest friendship, of equal freedom, of generous reciprocity. She has uniformly spoken among them, though often to heedless and often to disdainful ears, the language of equal liberty, of equal justice, and of equal rights. She has, in the lapse of nearly half a century, without a single exception, respected the independence of other nations while asserting and maintaining her own. She has abstained from interference in the concerns of others, even when conflict has been for principles to which she clings, as to the last vital drop that visits the heart. She has seen that probably for centuries to come, all the contests of that Aceldama the European world, will be contests of inveterate power, and emerging right. Wherever the standard of freedom and Independence has been or shall be unfurled, there will her heart, her benedictions and her prayers be. But she goes not abroad, in search of monsters to destroy. She is the well-wisher to the freedom and independence of all. She is the champion and vindicator only of her own. She will commend the general cause by the countenance of her voice, and the benignant sympathy of her example. She well knows that by once enlisting under other banners than her own, were they even the banners of foreign independence, she would involve herself beyond the power of extrication, in all the wars of interest and intrigue, of individual avarice, envy, and ambition, which assume the colors and usurp the standard of freedom. The fundamental maxims of her policy would insensibly change from liberty to force. The frontlet on her brows would no longer beam with the ineffable splendor of freedom and independence; but in its stead would soon be substituted an imperial diadem, flashing in false and tarnished lustre the murky radiance of dominion and power. She might become the dictatress of the world; she would be no longer the ruler of her own spirit.... Her glory is not dominion, but liberty. Her march is the march of the mind." - JOHN QUINCY ADAMS, address to U.S. House of Representatives, Jul. 4, 1821 D. The Monroe Doctrine. i. "In the wars of the European powers in matters relating to themselves we have never taken any part, nor does it comport with our policy so to do. It is only when our rights are invaded or seriously menaced that we resent injuries or make preparation for our defense." - The Monroe Doctrine, December 2, 1823. ii. "Our policy in regard to Europe, which was adopted at an early stage of the wars which have so long agitated that quarter of the globe, nevertheless remains the same, which is, not to interfere in the internal concerns of any of its powers; to consider the government de facto as the legitimate government for us; to cultivate friendly relations with it, and to preserve those relations by a frank, firm, and manly policy, meeting in all instances the just claims of every power, submitting to injuries from none." - Ibid. VIII. We have adopted the unbiblical concept of debt and paper money which our wars are fueled by. 1. Wars are costly, both in terms of lives and money. A. Wars used to be financed either by borrowing or taxing the people. B. Over the years, governments got wise to this and decided it would be easier print currency to pay for the war rather than tax people or borrow it. C. This ultimately ends up creating inflation and sometime hyperinflation which destroys the currency. i. This is what happened in the Revolutionary War in the 1700s in which the colonies printed Continentals to pay for the war to the point they became worthless, which is where the saying originated, "Not worth a Continental". ii. The same thing happened to the Greenback dollar during the Civil War. iii. The same thing happened to Germany after WWI in the 1920s. 2. The Bible discourages borrowing and debt. A. The scripture says to "owe no man anything" (Rom 13:8). B. The borrower is servant to the lender (Pro 22:7 c/w 1Co 7:23). C. The USA is now the largest debtor nation on earth. D. Who is going to be ruling who in the future? 3. Saving and investing are encouraged in the scriptures. A. Fools spend everything and save nothing (Pro 21:20; Pro 21:17). B. China has been saving, investing, and buying up natural resources while the USA has been building bombs and making war. C. Who are the wise ones? 4. Paper (fiat) currency, which finances wars, is unbiblical. A. Money should be defined by weight (Gen 23:16; Gen 43:21; Jer 32:9). B. The law of Moses required just weights and measures (Lev 19:35-36). C. God hates falsifying balances and robbing people by deceit (Amo 8:5 c/w Pro 20:10). D. This is what inflation does to the savers in society; it robs them by deceit. E. Wars would be fought far less frequently on a gold standard.
|US Foreign Policy in the Middle East - Is it Biblical (RTF).rtf||4.4 MB|
|US Foreign Policy in the Middle East - Is it Biblical.doc||185.9 kB|
|US Foreign Policy in the Middle East - Is it Biblical.PDF||426.4 kB|