Discus4now@gmail.com
While reading through a book titled ‘’ CULTURE, VALUES AND CONFLICTS
IN WAR‘’, I came across a chapter that discusses the ‘’MORALITY OF WAR
AND JUST WAR’’ citing several references to definitions, concepts and
giving various examples to further educate the students on the
justification of war tagged ‘’just war’’ and where they were derived.
Some of the examples that caught my attention were the references made
to religious concepts both Christianity and Islam which the course
cited to be justification for war.
As much as I believe that the concept of ‘’just war’’ can be
established in some cases and verified to be truly just if it is
non-aggressive, but rather defensive to protect lives and properties,
What I find confusing was the manner in which these religious
historical references were used upside down in an attempt to force it
to justify the just war concept.
Yes, there are just wars, but how can a war be described as just?
Would we describe a war as just because the aggressors claimed it is
so or it must meet up with some certain criteria to be qualified and
regarded as such?
In my opinion, what parties in war state as their reasons for
embarking on a war doesn’t qualify the act of war to describe as just,
instead, what the third party, especially experts in the field of
peace and conflict resolution established to be truth after proper
investigation.
Although, history shows that both Islam and Christianity had fought
wars in their quest for sustainability and spread, but what led to
these wars must be clearly understood. Did these religious groups
fought 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 believe as enshrined in their holy books and
practices encourage the elimination of those they describe as infidel
or unbelievers?
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.
According to history, War become 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.
From this brief explanation, it could be deduced 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 become 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.
The Muslim tradition of just war on the other hand 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) 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.
Just war can be regarded as 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
offensive behaviour of the other party. (PCR 261).
PCR 261 explains that, there are several issues that determine the
nature of justice in war, 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).
PCR261 further explained that, Indeed, any war waged in the
preservation of the state is a just war because it is through state
that man can reach his highest good (greatest achievement in his
chosen field). What we are saying here is that it is through
collectivity that man can be best fulfilled in life. No man is an
Island, you know! If anybody wants to distort the free flow of
collectivity 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. A good example is Biafran War where the armed conflict was
first between the Northern (Hausa) and South-eastern (Igbo) regions of
Nigeria, resulting from the events that followed the 1966 military
coup, which terminated the first republic under the premiership of
Alhaji Tafawa Balewa (Hausa man) while the President was Dr Nnamdi
Azikiwe (Igbo man). The coup was led by Major Nzeogwu Kaduna, an Army
officer of Igbo origin where the Prime Minister, Tafawa Balewa, the
premier of the Northern region, Sultan Ahmaddu Bello, among other
non-Igbo political leaders were brutally murdered.
The coup failed and General Aguyi Ironsi, the most senior military
officer took advantage of the situation to become the first military
head of state in Nigeria. The Ironsi regime failed to adequately
address the ethno-religious problem in the military created by the
Nzeogwu Kaduna coup. The majority of failed coup plotters were
officers of Igbo extraction. Again, Ironsi was accused of favouring
the Igbo officers above the Yoruba and Hausa officers, which a
structural suspicion among various ethnic groups within the military
against the Igbo officers. This situation resulted in another coup
that led to the murder of Aguyi Ironsi. This time, the coup was staged
by some military officers from the North in retaliation of the 1966
killings of some of the most notable political leaders in the North.
The selective killings and some other issues that later cropped up,
led to the outbreak of Civil War in Nigeria in 1967.
The south-eastern region of the country majorly controlled by the Igbo
extractions under the leadership of Col. Odumegwu Ojukwu declared
secession. The secessionist attempt precipitated the war, which lasted
for three years.
The point we are trying to make here is that other parts of the
country joined the Nigerian troops in liquidating the secessionist
project of the Biafrans for the survival of the whole-Nigeria.
However, people who did not support the secession would likely see the
decision of the Nigerian Government to stop the breaking away of the
eastern region from the rest of the country as just war. Nevertheless,
the outcome of war often determines the justiciability in war because
it is the victor that writes the story of war not the vanquished.
(PCR261)
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 fulfill his destiny in
the collectivity. 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
religionalization of 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.
PCR 261 holds that, The Muslim tradition asserts that it is just war
for adopting violence against the “infidels”, and if one dies in the
process of waging war against the unbelievers (or even non-believers),
the person will be regarded as martyr and he will be greatly rewarded
by God with eternal paradise. The killing of a fellow Muslim is
forbidden by Muslim law except there are justifications in doing so,
but killing an “infidel” is a just cause. (PCR 261)
The above interpretation of the Islamic ideology about just war
concept is wrong, totally against the true philosophy of the early
Muslims. It is worth to note that, there is no evidence of any of such
practice during the early days of Islam, the contrary is the case.
It is true that the early Muslims fought wars against the infidels on
several occasions, but was the war 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 Queda 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 Queda 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 defence or protection of the tranquillity 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 organisations like the United Nations.
International Law however, recognises two forms of war as just, and
these include a war waged against an aggressor in the defence 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 defence pact with the US can be justifiably resisted
violently by the US.
PCR 261 CONCLUDED 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 level of justification in
some respects. 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
behaviour 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 to kill innocent people in another state just because it is
pursuing its (national) political interest or any other reason(s)?
–
REFERENCES
NOUN PCR 261 CULTURE, VALUES AND CONFLICTS IN WAR
Cassirer, Ernst (1943). “The Science of History” in Joseph Strayer (ed.)
The Interpretation of History, Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Hegel, G.W.F (1920).Philosophy of Fine Art, London: G. Bell (Vol. 4).
Hegel, G.W.F (1991). Philosophy of Right, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Kant, Immanuel (1991). “Conjectures on the Beginning of Human
History” in H. Reiss, Kant’s Political Writings, Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
Niebuhr, Reinhold (1940). Christianity and Power Politics, New York: Scribners.
Popper, Karl (1971). The Open Society and Its Enemies, Princeton, NJ:
Princeton University Press.
Weigel, George (2003). “Moral Clarity in a Time of War” First Things
139 (February).
Yoder, John Howard (2003). The Original Revolution, Herald Press.
