No subject

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/2724019.stm

Could this be a 'just' war?

 
Can war with Iraq be justified? The historic "just war" theory states that 
war is never good but it can be a lesser evil to doing nothing. So, how does 
it apply to the current crisis? 
Originally devised by Greek and Roman philosophers, the "just war theory" was 
developed by Christian theologians. With some variations, it is widely cited 
and applied by various religions today. 

Here we outline the six steps to a just war and square them with the issues 
at stake. 

1. The war must be for a just cause 


eg. A pre-emptive strike - attacking an enemy to prevent an anticipated 
attack. 
George Bush has consistently portrayed Saddam Hussein as a threat to the 
West. "The danger is already significant, and it only grows worse with time. 
If we know Saddam Hussein has dangerous weapons today - and we do - does it 
make any sense for the world to wait to confront him as he grows even 
stronger?" 
But the UN charter appears to side against pre-emptive strikes, stating "all 
Members shall settle their international disputes by peaceful means". 
 
2. The war must be declared by a lawful authority 

As an elected democracy, the US government is a lawful authority. JUST WAR 
THEORY 
Force can be used as a last resort

Defines conditions for declaring war & limits to conduct in war

Some Muslims claim it's similar to 'jihad' - spiritual warfare
 
 
Click to find out more on 'just war'
 
But some believe that today the UN, as the highest world authority, is the 
only "lawful authority" with the right to sanction war. And, through its 
charter, it requires all members to refrain from use of force. But in 
practice the right to wage war remains with individual states. 
It could also be argued that if public support is against a war, as seems to 
be the case in Britain, a government lacks the lawful authority to go to war. 

 
3. The intention behind the war must be good 

Washington and London claim war would be waged for the right motives, finally 
putting right the UN resolution to strip Iraq of weapons of mass destruction. 
They have also cited Iraq's poor reputation on human rights - something they 
would hope to improve on by getting rid of Saddam. 
Critics claim these are side shows to the real issue - oil. Iraq has massive 
reserves of oil and, mindful that not all is well in Saudi Arabia, the 
world's largest oil producing country, the US wants a more secure supply in 
the Middle East. 
 
4. All other ways of resolving the problem should have been tried 

It's 12 year since the UN demanded Iraq scrap its weapons of mass 
destruction; time enough, says Tony Blair, for Saddam to have complied. 
The UN has passed numerous resolutions against Iraq, but Britain and the US 
claim it has consistently snubbed them. 
France has been leading calls for more diplomacy. It has always opposed a 
draft UN resolution threatening the use of force against Iraq. It wants to 
see more time for the weapons inspections and French President Jacques has 
asserted a diplomatic solution is still possible. 
 
5. There must be a reasonable chance of success 

This comes from the idea that war is a great evil, and that it is wrong to 
cause suffering, pain, and death with no chance of success. 
There seems little doubt in the West that the US alone can win the war. As 
the world's only superpower, its military might dwarves that of Iraq. 
There are doubts over the loyalty Saddam Hussein can expect from his army, if 
their backs are against the wall. 
But some experts caution it will not be a "walk over" for the US. General 
Norman Schwarzkopf, who commanded the US military in the first Gulf War, has 
said it's "not going to be an easy battle". 

 
6. The means used must be in proportion to the end that the war seeks to 
achieve 

In other words, it would be wrong to use a sledgehammer to crack a nut. 
We don't yet know the military strategies of both sides, but there are fears 
war with Iraq could turn nuclear, and so cost many thousands of lives. In 
1991, the US warned Saddam they would respond with nuclear force if he used 
chemical weapons. 
Even with conventional weapons, critics warn that hundreds of Iraqi civilians 
could be killed in bombing raids.