Price of Inaction:� Turning the other cheek in the face of logic

By Greg McCulley

Drafted 14 May 1998

����������� Saint Augustine of Hippo (AD 354-430) once said that since ?man is fallen, war is inevitable.?� If he is wrong in that statement, mankind has done little to prove his error. Augustine was a founding father of the Just War Tradition.� He, along with others, laid the foundation for a system of thinking that, if objectively applied, might guide man through the moral labyrinth of one of his most terrible inevitabilities: war.� This essay seeks to discuss one of Augustine?s teachings that references a fundamental concept about conflict.� In doing so, a modern comparison will be drawn with the situation in the former Yugoslavia.�

Jus ad bellum is a term used to describe the justification of a nation to make war with another nation or nations.�� It deals with whether a nation has the right to resort to force.� Several conditions describe the extent to which a nation satisfies the concept of jus ad bellum. In his teachings, St. Augustine advocated some of them in particular.� In one story, Augustine tells of a man on the street being robbed by a bandit.� If you, as a passer-by, see this attack, you have an obligation to intervene on behalf of the besieged person.� Further, in doing so, you must seek to use the minimum amount of force require to thwart the attacker and protect the victim (and yourself).� In other words, the attacker sets the level of violence.� This proportionality of violence is particularly important to our later discussion of Yugoslavia.� One final point Augustine made in this illustration was that when one does all these things, one does them with love for both the attacked and the attacker.

����������� With this concept in mind, let's look at the conflict that is going on in the former Yugoslavia.� This part of the world has been plagued with violence, stemming from religious and political differences of ethnic groups in that area.� The United Nations has a peacekeeping force in place to promote public safety and facilitate peace negotiations.� The United States has a large contingent in the area as well.� There has been political fallout in the United States for our commitment to the region, and many have expressed that we should not be there this far beyond a point at which earlier we stated we would be withdrawn.� The obvious sticking point to withdrawal is what happens to the ones left behind in the war?� If it was important enough for us to go in the first place, why is it now suddenly unimportant?�� Augustine would argue that we have an obligation to remain and do what we can to help.

Among the items of support he might use would be whether the factions involved enjoyed "just cause".� Does the side we support engage in the conflict for just reasons?� Just reasons could include situations of self-defense, imminent danger, threat to sovereignty, or threat to political or individual freedom.� If the oppressed side has the right to resort to armed conflict, rather than being a hostile invader out for immoral ends, then that side is involved in a just cause.� This does not address what activities are permissible, we are only talking about jus ad bellum here.� As long as the friendly side (or sides, for that matter) are within the bounds just cause, it is just that we support them in their cause if they request it.� Incidentally, this essay does not address the legality of any pre-existing treaties that might exist, I am looking at the situation from a strictly academic standpoint.�

Another element that must be met by the aggressors is right authority.� Are we dealing with terrorist groups here, or legitimate governments?� Or, has the governmental system broken down (as in the former Yugoslavia) and how do we recognize the remnants?� If we recognize new, independent states that have declared war (which certain factions would love), then right authority would exist.� If not, if we recognize merely a state of civil war, then we must be careful in taking sides.� This was a part of the dilemma that occupied minds during the Vietnam War.�� Would we have the right to intervene in such a situation?� Ethically speaking, that is the question of this essay, and I say the answer is yes.� I agree with Augustine in that we have an obligation to establish peace.

Also, the side we ally ourselves with must possess right intent.� The intentions of the nation (or faction) that we assist must be good; it must be in a just cause and seeking an end of peace.� If a score being settled is the true aim, and what really exists is an old feud, then we have no business getting involved.� Picking sides like that could be immoral and politically dangerous.

Proportionality must be considered in making the decision to support the effort as well.� This proportionality is in terms of the total good and/or evil anticipated.� If it is irrelevant who is the victor in the conflict, why fight it?� Even more, if it is a minor violation the factions are in conflict over, the level of force used must be proportional to the violation.� It would not be morally justifiable to intercede in the former Yugoslavia with devastating strategic bombing if the conflict was over a small strip of border shared.� Even a threat to free elections should not be decided by mass destruction.� What is the point of peace negotiations if the argument is going to be settled by eliminating the opposition?� That would be immoral, to kill all those who oppose the side you have chosen.� There are lesser levels of pressure available, such as diplomatic protest or economic sanctions, to name just a couple.� I believe that is why NATO has been cautious to implement the air strikes that are being discussed currently in Bosnia.� When we have used air strikes, they have been limited to police actions to remove artillery or troop placements where they threaten the peace.� The concept of proportionality holds true for retaliation as well. When attacked, one must use a proportional level of force to counterattack.� This goes back to Augustine?s notion of letting the attacker set the level of violence.

One last element that must be satisfied is whether the action is taken as a last resort.� This condition is, like the rest, quite open to individual interpretation.� After all, is there ever really a last resort?� There is almost always one last plea for peace, one last trip Richard Holbrooke could take, or one last invitation to Dayton for renewed peace accords.� But in the end, there really is a last practical resort.� If we have done all that we can do to promote peace, then it becomes obvious that we are justified in interceding with force.� In fact, if all the above conditions are met, we are obliged to intercede.

In the former Yugoslavia, hundreds of thousands of innocent lives are being caught up in the crossfire of a region that has long been plagued with conclift.� UN inspectors and US troops have found mass graves that opposition leaders have filled with the bodies of these innocents.� All the conditions for intercession have been met.� Augustine wrote that we have the obligation to our fellow man to intervene on the oppressed?s behalf.� He also said we should do so with love.� While love might be a little hard to realize in the situation, I do believe we are taking part in the situation with good intentions for both sides: to see peace settle in the area and, ergo lives saved.� It is not a tasteful operation, but if we turn the other cheek, and it results in the death of innocent lives and prolonging of war, we are doing an injustice to a just cause.� It is a matter if respecting the human rights of an embattled people.�