Pope Benedict Calls For Suspension of The Use of Arms In Libya
After an article in L’Osservatore Romano decried France’s hasty call for arms over Libya, and after the Pope has already said the civilians in Libya should be protected, it should not be surprising that Pope Benedict is now speaking out on the Libyan situation and calling for an end to the use of arms over Libya.
It should surprise no one that I believe that the strikes are gravely unjust. While there might be a good cause behind it (though the objective has not been properly stated in a way which satisfies just war requirements), the path to hell is often paved with good intentions. The reasons why the Church has established its just war requirements is not only to prevent warmongers from taking the path of violence, but also, to make sure those who have good intentions don’t let the cycle of violence use those same intentions for evil. When just war requirements are ignored, the destruction which follows are the result of all those involved in such actions. While we might desire the situation in Libya to be better, as long as one believes in salvation by violence, the only peace we can expect in the land is the nihilistic peace of death. No one who loves life, no one who is a follower of the God of life, can accept this. No one.
Comments are closed.
I find your point that the Church requires strict just war conditions not only to prevent warmongering, but also to prevent the well-intentioned from being caught in the cycle of violence very helpful. The things about humanity is that we always need to check our violent impulses and be constantly reminded that violence cannot end violence.
The logic of violence is very seductive: If you use it, you will be able to bring peace. In other words, you will be like unto God. Of course God showed us how to combat violence. Any Christian peacemaker teams in Libya yet?
Right, one of the things just war theory is to do is point out limitations in war, something so many people forget. It is needed to prevent total war, or carelessness in action — the kind which we see going on with civilians being hurt by our own fire. And, I think the Iraq situation shows what happens when you go in thinking violence is the solution…
1) The damage inflicted by the aggressor on the nation or community of nations must be lasting, grave, and certain
- I think we can take it that G. means what he says he means when he says that he will have no mercy on those who rose up
2) All other means of putting an end to it must have been shown to be impractical or ineffective
- After tens of years the Libyans have risen up presumably because they feel that this way is the only way left open to them. The notion of “all other means” should be qualified to be understood as “all other means within a time that is ticking away”
3) There must be serious prospects of success
- Who doubts such prospects?
4) The use of arms must not produce evils and disorders graver than the evil to be eliminated. The power of modem means of destruction weighs very heavily in evaluating this condition.
- Only time will tell and there is no reason why time should not tell that greater order will arise in future because of the use of force now.
Caroline
1) Just means there might be a just cause, but does not mean our actions are just. Moreover, what is the actual objective? Without a real, solid objective we can use as to say “this is how we know it is over” the action itself will not be just.
2) All other means have not been followed. Indeed, the speed of the action, the haste without consultation, which has led to all kinds of questions as to what the objective is — indicates 2 is not met. If it was so long and all, the objectives would easily have been solidified. They have not.
3) There is doubt when we don’t know what the objectives are!
4) There appears to be collateral damage, which indicates this has not been met. http://www.dailymotion.com/video/xht9s2_rt-reports-on-casualties-and-collateral-damage-in-libya_news
etc…
1) The objective is clear, kill Gadaffi and destroy the apparatus of his regime, because only then can one be in a position to institute a just political arrangement. To ask what constitutes, or how to institute, a just political arrangement after removing Gadaffi is irrelevant to meeting this objective and should be so. Attaining any objective will always raise the question of what comes next. And one can never know the answers to such a series of questions. Your requirement, while seeming to be reasonable becomes unreasonable because it first asks for what can never be given.
2) You say that in fact all other means have not been followed. Yet you also say that there is no objective, so what you say about all other means not being followed cannot be true in your eyes. Revisit 1 and then return to 2.
3) Then revisit 3
4) The fact that there is collateral damage does not mean that this damage will be a greater evil than the evil being eliminated.
Here’s the question concerning just action and just means that you must attend to: If not now and by force, then when and by what other means? And note that you must answer this question before Gaddafi slaughters all those he wants to slaughter.
Caroline
1) Killing him is not a just objective. Moreover, this is not the stated objective.
2) Since there is no clear objective, it is clear, what can be done has not been done — including making a specific case…
Oh but killing him IS a just objective. And moreover I am stating it. And as to making a case please see above. If killing Gaddafi is the first step in stopping him slaughtering his fellow countrymen and you and others like you refuse to offer alternatives for how else to stop him before he completes this task, then I do not know what other sort of clear case you want.
Caroline
No, killing him is not a just objective. As Christians, we know the Lord seeks the death of no one, and we must follow the Lord. We must live as actors for life. Seeking death for revenge is not a just objective; seeking an end to death and destruction would be a just objective. And even if it were a just objective (it isn’t and goes against all forms of just war theory), it is not the objective being declared in this mission. In other words, you can’t use objectives you would like them to have to justify what is being done — that is not how just war policies work.
Moreover, what is the actual objective?
The objective is to stop G.’s immanent slaughter of his own civilian people.
All other means have not been followed. Indeed, the speed of the action, the haste without consultation, which has led to all kinds of questions as to what the objective is — indicates 2 is not met.
Maybe a long consultation would show there are other means left untried. Maybe not. But the lack of a long consultant does not prove there are untried means.
There is doubt
Some individuals have doubts, others (like me) don’t. I am firmly convinced that the action has denied G. the opportunity he was about to undertake to slaughter the people of eastern Libya. Lacking his military advantage, the superior popular support of the forces of Liberation, I believe, will possibly end the G. regime or at least achieve a de facto partition with the liberation of Cyrenaica and eastern Libya.
Kurt
The objective is not consistently stated: sometimes it is a no-fly zone, sometimes it is to stop the slaughter of civilians, sometimes it is regime change! Even if it is ” to stop the immanent slaughter of his own civilian people” that is not clear enough — what is “immanent”, and, if that time has come and gone, is everything done and we now need to make new objectives since that time has come and gone — etc. It’s not clear.
The lack of consultation and examination does show it is not the last resort. Indeed, there is something quite preemptive about this, once again.
Desiring one side or another to succeed does not, however, give way to involvement without a more accurate picture, and an indication of objectives are made which we know the matter is over, and won, and accomplished through moral means. I do not see it here. Like Iraq, I see a vague “he’s a bad man” justification — but that alone doesn’t justify military action — even if it justifies wanting him no longer being an authority.
-Even if it is ” to stop the immanent slaughter of his own civilian people” that is not clear enough — what is “immanent”
Immanent means that Gaddafi will slaughter them before people like you can come up with any other means of stopping him. How do we know that people like you will not be able to come up with any other means of stopping him before he slaughters his own people? Well, that is for you to answer, so please make an attempt. How do you suggest? After all, you have had tens of years of Gaddafi’s regime to think through not unlikely “what if” scenarios, so you should be in a position to offer this to the world as soon as possible when this scenario does arise and so save otherwise slaughtered lives. So? If not now and by force, how and by what?
That is not what immanent means; you can’t just go making things up just to have what sounds like good objectives (and constantly change them). If there is an immanent danger, you must show where it is, and everything; just just some vague threat which one will never know has been thwarted. And there are many ways of stopping him outside of trying to kill him…
Henry,
I think the objective has been consistently stated. It is to establish a no-fly zone for the purpose of stopping the slaughter of civilians. The allied nations have not said the purpose is regime change.
what is “immanent”, As soon has G. and his henchmen can get to Benghazi, which, had ntohign been done, would have been yesterday.
The lack of consultation and examination does show it is not the last resort. Indeed, there is something quite preemptive about this, once again.
I think there is some obligation to cite some ballpark alternatives rather than just say if we had more time for consultation and examination, someone might come up with one.
I do not see it here.
I understand that, and I respect it. I do see it. We are each making a judgment on a serious matter and neither of us is infallible.
“Pope Benedict is now speaking out on the Libyan situation and calling for an end to the use of arms over Libya.”
The Pope did not actually call for an immediate suspension of the use of arms. He called for an immediate DIALOG which would lead to the suspension of the use of arms. There is a difference. By calling for a dialog, he is not unilaterally, officially declaring the use of arms unjust. Yes, he hopes that dialog will result in the suspension of the use of arms, but the tone here is not of condemnation, but peacemaking.
“I launch a heartfelt appeal to international organizations and those with political and military responsibilities to immediately launch a dialogue that will suspend the use of arms,” he told pilgrims in the Vatican.
Calling for dialogue over the situation is because he is seeking an end for the use of arms. It’s how he believes it will be done.
I am astounded by the sophistry and pedantry. The immediate objective of the action is to kill Gaddafi and destroy his regime so that those who were politically repressed for decades and who rose up against him will not be slaughtered by him. Failure to so act will almost certainly result in this slaughter. What about this do you not understand?
Whether there are strategic reasons for not so stating the objective officially, or whether the reason had more to do with the difficulty of encapsulating a line of reasoning in a set of terse statements is irrelevant to the actual justification for the action employed.
You say that God seeks the death of no one, yet you seem quite prepared to sit back and allow this man to murder thousands rather than act to stop it.
You also say, in response to my comment, that “seeking death for revenge is not a just objective.” I do not seek his death for revenge, nor did I say anything like this, and it is intellectually sly and slanderous of you to even suggest it. I seek his death so that he may no longer act cruelly and kill others.
I have asked you questions above which you have chosen not to answer. I’ll ask them again in the hope that you will answer them directly, or that you will say directly that you refuse to answer them.
Have you, and those who think like you, not had tens of years of Gaddafi’s regime in which to work out justified responses to likely what-if scenarios such as what should the West do if Gaddafi violently repressed a popular uprising? And should you not now be in a position to suggest adequate non-violent responses, if there are any? I mean, there is a sense of urgency about the need to respond appropriately. Are you, and those who think like you, prepared to meet this moral urgency and set forth the appropriate responses? And if not, why not? In other words, please answer the question: if not now and by force, then when and by what means?
How is following the objective standard necessary for a war to be just, sophistry? It sounds more like you are the sophist, arguing, as many do, through the “means justify the ends.” There are many ways to stop someone other than killing them — your argument, however, is the kind of argument he uses to kill. Interesting, isn’t it?
Seeking the death of no one does not mean accepting the evil people do, but seeking to find an end to the evil through just means. You can’t go through using the same means as you claim is evil. God seeks us to convert sinners, and Christian history has been proof that such conversion is possible. Christians are not to follow the way of the devil. Period.
“Seeking the death of no one does not mean accepting the evil people do, but seeking to find an end to the evil through just means.”
I do not accept the evil that people do, nor do I seek their death. What I do is to seek justice and the prevention of injustice. If this means killing those who are perpetrating the injustice because that is the only means available to stop them, then this is indeed stopping evil through just means.
“You can’t go through using the same means as you claim is evil.”
Oh, but yes you can. Men stopped the Nazis by killing them. Was that evil?
“God seeks us to convert sinners, and Christian history has been proof that such conversion is possible. Christians are not to follow the way of the devil. Period.”
So stop following the way of the devil, period, and help save your fellow man from being slaughtered by one who is evil.
And then you can answer the questions addressed to you in my last set of comments.
Caroline
There is a difference between having the death of someone as an objective, and trying to stop them. The second, though it might lead to their death, does not have the same intention. We are to look for the least means of violence possible, not to excuse slaughter. You continue to show no understanding of morality, and you keep flipping around your argument, demonstrating the sophistry behind your position. And no, the ends do not justify the means. The path of the zealot was rejected by Christ — he showed us the path of love, not violence.
There are ways to protect beyond immoral objectives.
Henry,
Do the Libyan people have a right to rise up against Quadaffi as an unjust ruler?
The pope’s comments, at least as I saw them reported, were somewhat vague and could be interpreted as a call for the UN, NATO, etc. to stop military intervention, or as a call for all parties, including Quadaffi, to engage in dialogue rather than use military force. I certainly hope the pope is not calling for an end to intervention to uphold the right of Quadaffi to do as he pleases.
Was the American Revolution a “just war”? I would say almost certainly not. I don’t know if there is an official position of the Catholic Church regarding tyranny, but I do remember reading Aquinas on the topic, and he pretty much ruled out rising up agains tyrants.
David,
Of course the hope would be that everyone would cease hostilities. History has often shown even tyrants can change their ways, and this is always something we Christians should seek. St Vladimir is a prime example of the kind of change possible. Even if, however, Quadaffi will not change, there are many ways to try to stop him outside of unjust means. That is the point. What was wrong with the Iraq war is what is wrong here…
Henry,
But apparently you want others to stop hostilities even if Quadaffi doesn’t, or am I mistaken?
Do the Libyan people have a right to rise up against Quadaffi? Do people have the right to overthrow an unjust government by violence, if there is no other way?
Juan Cole talks sense about Libya, but I fear the doctrinaire pacifists here will have none of what he says:
http://www.juancole.com/2011/03/an-open-letter-to-the-left-on-libya.html#comments
Iraq: oil -> war.
Rwanda: no oil -> no war.
Libya: oil -> war.
Darfur: no oil -> no war.
Is the policy about saving civilian lives or is it about oil? I’m sure there are other examples and other reasons, and correlation doesn’t prove causation, but it ought to make us think.
Cui bono? In other words, I think Frank M.’s formalization of what determines whether the U.S. decides to intervene in foreign disputes on “humanitarian” grounds is spot on. You don’t see us making the case for a “just” intervention in those countries, similarly suffering under dictatorships, who happen to be our allies, do you? But if the argument *for* intervention in Libya is to be taken seriously, it would seem to demand our action in at least four other countries.
Countries are not people; they don’t have friends and enemies, they have interests. Leaders are people; they do have friends and enemies.
National leaders craft policies, make decisions and take actions based on furthering national interests; but they are also people, trying to keep camaign promises, get re-elected, and making friends or enemies of other leaders. So there is a mixture of the personal interests and national interests going on. Same as with Bush, Clinton, etc.
I think it’s a mistakce to see things as either purely rational dispassionate national policy calculations or as irrational passionate personal emotional ones. It’s a bit of both.
When it comes to waging war or not. Moral US national leaders must do this within the framework of social justice, the standards of just war, and the Constitution.
Preventing a humanitarian disaster is in the national interest of the US, but so is the uninterrupted flow of oil into Europe (where nearly all Libya’s oil goes). Keeping a campaign promise to talk to any leader, not matter how unsavory, before going to war is in the President’s interest, but so is acting before the unjust aggressor slaughters the innocent.
It seems to me the pope sees a way out of this.
That the Pope desires an end to the use of arms is almost a truism. Of course he does. Of course any of us does. But desiring that arms not be used, is not saying that they should not or must not be used.
By the way, what exactly does “salvation by violence” refer to?
Salvation by violence is the idea that some sort of better world can be had through the act of violence. That violence is a means of perfection. Some liberation theologians have been criticized for supporting such a view — while I don’t know if they did or not (I expect some did), I know many who do propose such a view, such as H.G. Wells.
This view is common on the revolutionary left: for example, in the song Solidarity Forever the final verse says “we can bring to birth a new world from the ashes of the old.” You can read this as a bit of hyperbole, but many anarchists thought that progressive change would only come from violent revolution. I believe the idea shows up in some rightist thought, here couched in terms of purifying the nation/the people/the blood through violence. I cannot come up with an example off the top of my head, however.
David
I think we can easily find examples through fascist sources…
“Salvation by violence is the idea that some sort of better world can be had through the act of violence.”
Like, for example, a crucifixion?
Bruce
The death on the cross is the exact opposite of salvation by violence…
It is very easy for the pope to call for dialogue instead of military action, because he will not be blamed if there is no military intervention and thousands get slaughtered. Here is what Hillary Clinton said on This Week yesterday:
David
Of course, isn’t this the kind of response we hears about Iraq? Saddam was killing so many of his own, it is easy for us to hear “liberals” (and the Pope) to speak out against the Iraq War, but Saddam is so evil it must be done?
Just war always requires more than a just cause. As history shows, without understanding this, just causes often lead to greater evils…
Henry,
No, I think what we heard about Saddam and Iraq was quite different. He had killed many of his own people, but that was well before we invaded (when he was our friend. The argument regarding Iraq was that Saddam had weapons of mass destruction, and our attack was justified as a preemptive war, not an urgent intervention to save lives (as it was in Libya). The first Gulf War was different from the war on Afghanistan, which was different from the invasion of Iraq, which was different from intervention in Libya. It’s not possible to lump them all together.
I am not sure there has ever been a just war, or at least a just war that was fought justly. I think the criteria are unrealistic.
I remember hearing how he, and his regime, were having people killed as well.
Is this to say that we have no intermediate recourse between not doing anything and full-blown air strikes? We’ve spent about a billion dollars to take out Libya’s air defenses, rain destruction from the sky upon the Libyan army, and this is the gentlest and kindest, most proportionate possible response to avert a humanitarian disaster among less than 7 million people?
The possession of a machine that, at the word of the POTUS, can kill people and break things — on any scale imaginable, anywhere on the globe, at any time — has dulled our collective imagination!
Agreed, Frank. The old saw, “If all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail” is as true as ever.