Today’s Scripture Reading (February 19, 2020): Isaiah 23
In the
thirteenth century, Saint Thomas Aquinas laid out the conditions under which a
war could be considered to be just. First, it must be instigated by a proper
authority. Rebellion against the king or the duly elected government is never
just. If a war is just, some recognized authority must be at the helm. Of
course, Augustine leaves open the question of what might constitute a “proper
authority.” For instance, during the American Civil War, did President Jefferson
Davis and his government constitute a proper authority to command the
Confederate States to move against Abraham Lincoln and the duly recognized and
elected government of the United States. Your answer to the question likely depends
on where you live, and the side of the racial divide on which you find
yourself. And that is always a problem with the idea of a “just war.”
Aquinas’s
second condition for a “just war” was that it needed to serve a just purpose. A
purpose argued to be “in the nation’s interest” is not just. Neither is a war
that is used as an example of a nation’s power. Bullies are never just, no
matter where you might find them. The United States move against Iraq in Kuwait
in the 1990s was in support of a just cause if the concern was for the Kuwaiti
people and their freedom. It was not just if the United States was more
concerned about obtaining Kuwaiti oil, which was in their self-interest.
Aquinas’s third
condition was the central motive of a “just war” must be peace, even in the
midst of violence. War must never carry us to the place where we are unable to
choose peace because of the anger the fighting has birthed inside of us. When
that happens, the war ceases to be just, if it ever was.
Given these
conditions, there might not have ever been a just war fought on the planet. And
part of the problem is the second condition. As nations, we just don’t seem to
get involved unless it is in “our nation’s interest.” How many times have you
heard politicians argue that national soldiers must be sent to fight a war in
some remote place because, if it is not, that war might come home to our cities?
The nation’s self-interest is one of the common reasons we give for going to
war. And “what does that conflict have to do with me,” which is a selfish
response, is the question that voters invariably ask. The United States, in
both the First and Second World Wars, was quite happy to sit on the sideline
until it became apparent that to continue to do so would hurt American interests.
Only then did they enter the war. But that self-interest meant that either war
was not just, at least not for the United States.
Isaiah comments
that when the defeat of Tyre reaches Egypt, the Egyptians will be deeply troubled.
But don’t think that their worry will be because of the Egyptians deep love of
foreigners or the people of Tyre, a city up the Mediterranean coast in modern-day
Lebanon. The problem for the Egyptians is that if Tyre can be defeated, then
the battle will soon come home to their shores, and they too will be defeated.
If a nation was strong enough to consider and be victorious against Tyre, then
they were strong enough to launch an attack and be successful in the Nile Valley.
Egypt’s anguish was only due to enlightened self-interest, and not because of
any concern about right and wrong.
Tomorrow’s Scripture Reading: Isaiah
24
No comments:
Post a Comment