Another President's View
(ex)President Jimmy Carter wrote a piece about what constitutes a just war in the New York Times a few days ago:
http://www.nytimes.com/2003/03/09/opinion/09CART.html
He offers the following criteria for a war to be "just" (and in the article comments on each point with respect to President Bush's approach):
- The war can be waged only as a last resort, with all nonviolent options exhausted.
- The war's weapons must discriminate between combatants and noncombatants.
- Its violence must be proportional to the injury we have suffered.
- The attackers must have legitimate authority sanctioned by the society they profess to represent.
- The peace it establishes must be a clear improvement over what exists.
Jimmy Carter argues that the present threat of war meets none of the above criteria, and therefore describes it a "just a war" instead of a "just war".
He concludes with:
"What about America's world standing if we don't go to war after such a great deployment of military forces in the region? The heartfelt sympathy and friendship offered to America after the 9/11 attacks, even from formerly antagonistic regimes, has been largely dissipated; increasingly unilateral and domineering policies have brought international trust in our country to its lowest level in memory. American stature will surely decline further if we launch a war in clear defiance of the United Nations. But to use the presence and threat of our military power to force Iraq's compliance with all United Nations resolutions � with war as a final option � will enhance our status as a champion of peace and justice".
These strike me as rational and practical principles all nations should adopt.
Does "Just" mean simply properly "justified"?
Do we need other criteria?
I'm thinking about the differences in point of view. Views are held sincerely and I want to think about what might lie at the heart of the differences. I need to think about this a bit more before I write more.
Then I'll rid the world of all known diseases and eliminate poverty.
(ex)President Jimmy Carter wrote a piece about what constitutes a just war in the New York Times a few days ago:
http://www.nytimes.com/2003/03/09/opinion/09CART.html
He offers the following criteria for a war to be "just" (and in the article comments on each point with respect to President Bush's approach):
- The war can be waged only as a last resort, with all nonviolent options exhausted.
- The war's weapons must discriminate between combatants and noncombatants.
- Its violence must be proportional to the injury we have suffered.
- The attackers must have legitimate authority sanctioned by the society they profess to represent.
- The peace it establishes must be a clear improvement over what exists.
Jimmy Carter argues that the present threat of war meets none of the above criteria, and therefore describes it a "just a war" instead of a "just war".
He concludes with:
"What about America's world standing if we don't go to war after such a great deployment of military forces in the region? The heartfelt sympathy and friendship offered to America after the 9/11 attacks, even from formerly antagonistic regimes, has been largely dissipated; increasingly unilateral and domineering policies have brought international trust in our country to its lowest level in memory. American stature will surely decline further if we launch a war in clear defiance of the United Nations. But to use the presence and threat of our military power to force Iraq's compliance with all United Nations resolutions � with war as a final option � will enhance our status as a champion of peace and justice".
These strike me as rational and practical principles all nations should adopt.
Does "Just" mean simply properly "justified"?
Do we need other criteria?
I'm thinking about the differences in point of view. Views are held sincerely and I want to think about what might lie at the heart of the differences. I need to think about this a bit more before I write more.
Then I'll rid the world of all known diseases and eliminate poverty.
posted by Vergil | 9:43 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home