| Subject: Re: On International Law... |
Author:
Mike Redmond
|
[
Next Thread |
Previous Thread |
Next Message |
Previous Message
]
Date Posted: 20:17:08 03/19/03 Wed
Author Host/IP: NoHost/209.17.158.14
In reply to:
JC
's message, "Re: On International Law..." on 13:45:40 03/19/03 Wed
The situation of whether war with Iraq is good policy or not is rather more complicated than either Dennis or JC suggest it is.
One's view of this depends largely, of course, on what facts one chooses to believe, and apply to the relevant principles. Clearly Dennis accepts that Saddam constitutes a real threat to the safety of our allies, and by extension ourselves. JC apparently does not.
But it is wrong, I suggest to simply state that one is either for Saddam or against him, for our allies or against them, or, for that matter, for peace or against it.
Resorting to war as an instrument of government policy has always been an option for Canadian governments, and we have resorted to it justly, and morally, in the past. While I can appreciate and respect those who are true pacifists on moral grounds, few would doubt the moral correctness of our participation in World War II. I would also accept that our more recent wars and war-like activity in places like Korea, the Gulf in 1991, Kosovo and Afhghanistan have been justifiable on moral and ethical grounds, and that our country was correct, on those occasions, to take up arms.
These decisions, of course, have to be taken withing a moral context. St. Augustine and St. Thomas developed the principles of the "just war" and those precepts should be at the forefront of our thought when our government decides on military action. To simplify them, the cause of war must be just, the actions taken must be proportionate to the harm that will inevitably result from war, and war must be the last resort.
Our actions in places like Kosovo and Afghanistan met the tests of the "just war". War was the last resort in those failed states, it was, in Afghanistan, a legitimate exercise of self-defence, and the damage done was proportionate to the risks averted by the action.
The issue in Iraq is not whether Saddam poses a risk, clearly he does. Or whether he is an evil man, clearly he is. But is war in this case the last resort? Were there no other ways to contain him? And is the damage this war will do, and the destabilization of the middle east that it threatens, proportionate to the actual threat Saddam posed?
Many of us who do question the wisdom of this war do so on the grounds that while Saddam is a danger, he is no more so than he was five years ago, and is not likely to be any greater danger five years from now. He appeared to be containable without war, and the death, destruction and instability the war will cause appear to be out of proportion to the risk being averted. That is why this war is questionable at best.
I understand some argue that, notwithstandind our belief that the war itself may not be justified, we should stand with our allies and participate to show them support, and keep them from thinking badly of us when it comes time to deal in trade-related issues. Those arguments can seem compelling. But we must always remember that to go to war is to ask our young men and women to kill other young men and women and risk being killed themselves, all in our interest. If this war is not supportable on moral grounds on its own terms, then surely it is not supportable in order to simply maintain our balance of payments surplus.
As I said in opening, one's view of this largely depends on what one thinks the facts of the situation are. But on the facts as I, and I suspect the majority of Canadians have seen them, a case for war has not yet been made out.
[
Next Thread |
Previous Thread |
Next Message |
Previous Message
]
| |
Feedback: 