|
Tuesday, June 27, 2006
Aguilar: Just war?
By George Aguilar
Rational animal
SOME people maintain that the Just War theory of St. Agustin, St. Thomas, and Francisco Suarez no longer apply in this post modern world. This idea came about shortly after the government of the United States of America tried to use the same to justify their invasion of Afghanistan, in order to find Osama Bin Laden, and Iraq, to find weapons of mass destruction.
Most of these people are against all kinds of war in the first place. While I never did intellectually and morally support the invasion of the two aforementioned nations by the US and their "Coalition of the Willing" I disagree with the notion that the Just War theory is already obsolete. Most wars are evil but some wars are necessary evils and this especially applies to defensive wars.
Also, the Just War theory provides valuable guidelines on whether war should be waged and how. Leaders of societies and nations could do well to review the advises of St. Agustin, St. Thomas, and Francisco Suarez regarding the conduct of war. The theory may be summarized as follows; Wars may be justified according to St. Agustin, St. Thomas, etc, if four or more conditions are strictly met. First of all there must be a just cause for going to war. For
St. Agustin, for example, in the case of a defensive war not only is going to war (to fight for one's state and people) justifiable it is a moral obligation to do so. Secondly, that war must be declared by the duly authorized head of state, the king or queen in the case of a monarchy, and the people themselves through their representatives, in the case of a constitutional democracy. Third, the conduct of war must be honorable. In this modern age honorable wars are conducted within the parameters set by the Geneva, Hague, and other conventions.
Lastly, all other peaceful alternatives must have been exhausted prior to the declaration of war. There are more provisions for the just war theory but these are minor.
Is the government's all out war against the CPP-NPA just? Let's examine and see if each of the four major conditions for a just war apply. Is there a just cause for going into total war? Perhaps, the NPA has armed combatants that are revolutionary and the state has the right to protect itself. However, the need for an all out offensive against the CPP-NPA right now remains to be questionable. The NPA, according to AFP reports, are not a real threat to the state for the moment and the motive for going into an all out war right now has been questioned by not only a few scholarly observers. Some people have asked, for example, if the government is going into an all out war merely to gain popular support for an incredibly unpopular president. Did the duly authorized head of state declare this war?
The answer is unfortunately yes but only if one believes that the president is legitimate. I myself have some reservations to that respect. Is the conduct of war honorable? Already more than 600 progressive leaders and journalists who are unarmed have been assassinated with impunity by motorcycle- riding. If these political killings are part of the total war by the government against the left then it is anything but honorable. Finally, were all peaceful options exhausted? The answer is no.
Peace negotiations could have been revived between the CPP/NPA/NDF panel and the GRP. Even if one or two of the parties are unwilling to settle disputes backdoor
negotiations could have been pursued. The government claims that it was the CPP that walked away from the peace talks. The NPA, on the other hand, said they could not agree to the terms of the government because it entailed surrendering their arms and cause. Still people are hopeful that a compromise can be reached.
Given the above, one can hardly say that the government drive against the CPP-NPA is just. The motive is sketchy, the same can be true of the conduct.
Moreover, the peaceful alternatives have not been exhausted. This makes the total war against the NPA unjust. Most offensive and pre-emptive wars are
unjust in the same manner. Better than a war that, according to veteran journalists like Amando Doronilla, will claim more civilians than combatants
would be the immediate resumption of peace talks. Can winning a war justify the loss of even just one collateral damage? What is the price of a human life?
The answer is that a life, no matter from which side, is priceless. As priceless as a smile from a child kept safe from war.
(June 27, 2006 issue)
Write letter to the editor. Click here.
Join the Sun.Star message board. Click here. |
|
[return to top]
[home]
[network page]
|
LOCAL NEWS
BUSINESS
OPINION
SPORTS
LIFESTYLE
FEATURE
|
