Six months ago, I probably would have described myself as a pacifist. Living in and loving a Catholic Worker House will do that to a person. But in my class peace studies (my new minor), I’ve been pushed to critically question and refine my personal position on violence. It’s not complete. Or definitive. Or solid. Like much else, violence raises complex moral questions, so we should allow for our beliefs to change with time. But at 20-years-old, here is where I am now:
For me personally, I will not initiate direct acts of physical, structural, or environmental violence against other human beings or their property. I say “initiate” because I don’t know how I would respond to an attack—my guess is that I’d for the most part defend myself. I use the word “direct” because while I cannot imagine myself willfully bringing physical or structural violence against another person, I have to be honest about my status. I am a middle-class American. Ipso facto then, I do indirectly perpetuate violence. See “U.S. foreign policy” for detail here. I cannot talk about structural inequality and violence without recognizing my role in the system. In response to this role, it is my duty to work for an alternative—in a peacebuilding endeavor, of which being a physician is one of MANY. As a global citizen, to minimize violence, I must follow Jim Wallis’s charge and try to “answer the questions violence purports to answer, but in a better way.”
I do believe Pope Paul VI’s statement: “If you want peace, work for justice.”
But how to deal with the real problem of evil? This is where contemporary Just War Theory comes into my position. My apologies to anyone unfamiliar with JWT—read a book on it, fascinating history and application. Anyway, first, a presumption against the use of force is indeed essential and must be taken seriously. Second, in the cases of real evil and assault on the innocent for which I believe a military intervention is required, the only legitimate authority to make the decision is the United Nations. It is the fault of stronger countries that the UN currently lacks full capacity to exercise this role. That problem must be addressed. Last resort—which does not allow for preemption—and right intention must be followed strictly as spelled out in JWT. Finally, in the case of a military intervention such as one that must happen in Darfur, force must only be exercised as a political necessity to bring about a diplomatic solution. Force must be absolutely as limited as possible. The human and infrastructure security of noncombatants absolutely must not be damaged.
Two disclaimers, other than that this position is subject to refinement. One, I have not had to put these principles into practice for the protection of others. But if necessary, I hope my actions would follow my ideals. Two, I understand the huge challenge of actualizing my position.
That's our charge.
Ok, Brennan, since I'm procrastinating I've decided to play devil's advocate to your idea/position on violence. I am not saying that I think what you have said is wrong, I just think it is fun at times to have a debate on issues.
ReplyDeleteFirst I will address your conception of just war theory. Now, you have stated that the only legitimate authority to make a decision to use military intervention in a conflict is the United Nations. Now this may be my oversimplification of your view, but it appears this would preclude a nation from responding to an armed threat or use of violence against its citizens. It seems that in any case of an attack against a nation, that nation is a legitimate authority to undertake military intervention, or to request another nation to undertake military intervention on its behalf. Your view seems to prevent this from happening, leaving that country to rely on the United Nations to respond. This seems to be above and beyond the purpose of the United Nations charter; the United Nations was never designed to be a supergovernment, it was designed to be an assembly of independent states that could act individually or collectively. You seem to be relying too much on an intergovernmental organization to respond to violence instead of the basic concept of the nation-state, especially when the UN, unlike other bodies such as the EU, does not have directly elected officials, and only indirectly represents the people of the world.
Let me say that this is a perfectly acceptable rationale, if one thinks that the nation-state is outdated, but I am not yet ready to give up on the concept of the nation. I realize that today's wars are not the wars among nations of the 19th and 20th centuries, and there are many non-state actors that bring up serious questions about who may respond to them. That being said, it seems to me that the UN would need a massive restructuring and a system of direct representation before I would feel comfortable allowing it be the only legitimate authority on issues of military intervention. I do not know if I think that the UN should even attempt that role. I know that unilateral action does not sit well in my mind when a state has not been attacked, but unilateral action is most definitely acceptable to me if a nation has been attacked.
Again, playing devil's advocate and not necessarily disagreeing with you, I need to ask if you would be in favor of taking direct military action in Darfur to end the violence and then undertake diplomacy to fix the structural causes of the situation. We know from past situations and genocides that while diplomacy is going on, the genocide still takes place, and may even pick up speed in an attempt to "finish the job" before diplomacy succeeds. Waiting to bring in the military does not seem to be a viable option in these cases.
On that rather long note, I would just like to say that you inspire me by having the initiative to face these challenging questions on your own, and even posting your views online so that devil's advocate procrastinators(like myself) can look at it and attempt to pick it apart and not actually state our true views on the situation(truth be told I am not as ambitious as you and have not sat down to think out my position on violence). I commend you on a well written view, and for being well read enough to face these issues head-on. Please don't take my comment as an assault on your views, because debating and picking apart an argument is simply how my perverted mind likes to have fun while procrastinating. You really don't need to worry about even responding to these questions since I realize exactly how busy you are. Overall, wonderful job, and I only hope one day I will be able to formulate my own beliefs as articulately as you have.
-Joe