International opinions remain mixed about whether military action is appropriate to counter Saddam Hussein’s buildup of weapons of mass destruction. Increasingly, countries must make clear that their motives and strategies for conflict are morally justified.
As this article went to press, the permanent members of the U.N. Security Council were hammering out the text of a resolution on Iraq that would be acceptable to all its members. Early in the process, a number of Americans supported President George W. Bush in his call for some form of unilateral action. The objective of this action was a "regime change" in Iraq. Supporting the President's call were hawks such as Vice President Dick Cheney, Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, and former U.N. ambassador Kenneth Adelman. Less hawkish figures reminded the United States of the importance of occupying what former Secretary of State James Baker called "the moral high ground." Baker advocated that the United States should not go it alone, but rather should act through the United Nations. Former Supreme Allied Commander Europe General Wesley Clark argued similarly for the forging of international consensus and for U.N. authorization for any attack. This represented a demand for high moral standards in international affairs.
In Europe and elsewhere there was virtually no support for action not authorized by the United Nations. The Arab point of view was voiced by Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak: "If you strike Iraq, and kill the people of Iraq while Palestinians are being killed by Israel ... not one Arab leader will be able to control the angry outburst of the masses." U.K. Prime Minister Tony Blair, traditionally a supporter of the United States, was warned by the British attorney general that any military action against Iraq to enforce a regime change would be a breach of international law. In a poll, only 34% of Britons said Britain should contribute troops if the United States were to go it alone against Iraq; were there to be U.N. authorization, however, that figure rose to 80%.
Despite early differences of opinion, the United States and the world community through the United Nations have moved gradually toward consensus. President Bush knows he has to do everything possible to stay on the moral high ground—that is a requirement of war in the new millennium. At the time of this writing, the U.S. administration was doing everything in its power to take a tough line on Iraq, but also was doing everything possible to work toward international consensus. As part of that endeavor, President Bush appeared to acknowledge international concern by putting forward a revised version of what might constitute a regime change: he suggested that if Saddam Hussein complied with every U.N. mandate, that in itself would "signal the regime has changed." The development of a consensus over Iraq demonstrates that the advent of modern communications will lead to a demand for a greater moral probity and integrity in waging and fighting war as we begin the new millennium.
Conflicts in the New Millennium
Poverty and population increases in Third World countries create a lethal mixture of a young population, hunger, a lack of education, and little in the way of future prospects. When the spark of religious fundamentalism or political dreaming is added, violence and revolution are not far away. Whereas middle- and high-income countries have reduced their arms spending over the past ten years, the poorest countries of the world have spent more. Nuclear tests undertaken by India and Pakistan illustrate that some countries are intent on developing weapons of mass destruction. It is likely that Iraq is still endeavoring to acquire such weapons, and its neighbor, Iran, may be close to having a nuclear capability.
Events in the Balkans demonstrate how ethnic or religious divisions can be a cause of armed struggle, as does the conflict between Muslims and Christians in Indonesia. And though the conflict with Osama bin Laden is not, as President Bush and Prime Minister Blair have pointed out, religious, bin Laden and many Muslims see it as such. Internal political developments within countries also can lead to conflict; as the world becomes a global villa; there will be a call for moves toward greater human right and democracy. The seeds of conflict in this respect exist in some areas of the Middle East, where Jordan, Bahrain, and Oman, for example, have made positive moves tows greater democracy. Other countries, however, continue with absolute monarchies, dictatorships, or other nondemocratic forms of government.
The Cold War is long gone. We have seen over the past few years how regional conflicts and conflicts spring from acts of terrorism now represent the major threat to a peaceful world. Some of these conflicts could become much wider, drawing in countries and peoples in the way those in the Balkans and Afghanistan have done.
Morality and the Causes of Conflict
Some conflicts and wars are morally simple. When the Argentinean Army invaded the Falkland Islands and British forces retook them, it was clear that the Argentineans had taken by force islands that did not belong to them, and that under the concept of prescription the British government had the right to reestablish British sovereignty by force.
The conflict that led to the retaking of the Falkland Islands is a classic example of a just war. A just war fulfills these criteria:
- The war must be declared by a supreme authority (in the case of the Falklands, the British government).
- There must be a just cause.
- The war must be undertaken as a last resort.
- The expected war must not inflict more harm than otherwise would have been suffered.
- There must be a reasonable chance of success.
- The war must be fought with the right intention (e.g., to establish a just peace).
- Noncombatants must not be the direct and intentional object of attack.
- Any attack must be proportionate in its means. (To have used a nuclear bomb to solve the Falkland crisis, for example, would have been out of proportion.)
Many conflicts are not so simple, such as the conflict over Palestine. There has been right and wrong on both sides, and the only solution possible is one of compromise. Although the Oslo Agreement never has been implemented, something like its provisions will have to be enacted if future conflict is to be avoided. The conflict with al Qaeda and with the Taliban in Afghanistan is both simple and complex. It is simple insofar as its cause was the terrorist attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon. It is complex in that the Taliban itself was not directly responsible for the act of terrorism, in that bin Laden's motivation was based on resentment of U.S. and allied troops being stationed in Saudi Arabia during the Gulf War and what he sees as U.S. support for the state of Israel, and in that many Muslims see it as a religious conflict undertaken against Muslims.
Political complexities mean that many members of the public may never fully comprehend a conflict at all. They may simplify what they see on television and read in the newspapers and may not be able to make good moral judgments, criticizing their own government even when it is acting in a moral fashion. Education and explanation are necessary to help people understand what their country is doing.
Morality and Conflict Strategy
Developments in weapon technology together with the media's portrayal of modern conflicts will lead to a demand for a clear moral stance in modem warfare. This is the era of view-as-you-fight. The televising of cruise missiles going over reporters' heads in the Gulf War and laser-guided bombs hitting their targets marked a turning point. Because the world could see precisely what was happening in each attack on the enemy, there is a presumption all future attacks will be clinical, and there will be few human casualties. Unfortunately, real war never will be clinical in the way that the capabilities of modern technological weapons might lead us to believe. Where a bomb goes astray, where there is faulty intelligence, where there is some form of human error, criticism follows. Once we commit ourselves to war we must be prepared to wage that war effectively. The media and the public may pressure governments to fight half a war or to fight in a half-hearted manner. Although the allies drove Iraq out of Kuwait, they apparently did not stop Saddam Hussein from building weapons of mass destruction.
Modern warfare technology and media reports of wars and conflicts not only will lead to a demand for a clear moral stance in modern conflicts and war, but also will result in a demand for greater moral integrity. People may not be able to understand the complex nature of every modern conflict, but they will be able to grasp that the modern world is one where nations do not always live up to their own standards. Why is it, for example, that the United States and its allies have been eager to implement U.N. resolutions concerning Iraq but have been lax concerning its resolutions in the Middle East? Why is it that human rights are demanded from some countries but not from others? What many Islamic countries of the Middle East see as the West's double standards will be criticized increasingly by those in the West itself.
The demand for moral integrity and transparency will force countries to adopt more publicly acceptable criteria for getting involved in conflicts and wars. The issue of valid criteria for action against Iraq is causing international debate. Many Western nations were or are involved in a number of operations in the Balkans and in Afghanistan, many more nations took part in Desert Storm against Iraq, but little has been done by the West with regard to the civil war in Liberia and the ethnic conflict in Rwanda. Granted, the nations of the West cannot afford to involve themselves in every conflict in the world, but they must argue logically and morally why they agree to help in one conflict but not in another.
We must ensure moral probity and integrity in future conflicts. There can be no room for acting on one U.N. resolution and turning a blind eye to another. We will need to ensure that conflicts are not begun before countries have tried to resolve matters through the United Nations. Knowing the power of modern weaponry and the pressure that the media will put on a country, we must ensure that we exhaust all diplomatic channels before engaging in conflict. Countries must ensure their motives are made clear. It is no good pretending we are aiming to defeat a rogue dictator when we know all we can do is to contain him. We must be like doves when it comes to believing in conflict resolution, but when war does become necessary we must be like hawks and ensure that military action is suitably robust. If we go in half-heartedly we will be sending signals that will cost lives.
Commander Kibble is a deputy headteacher at Huntington School in York, who has written extensively in books and journals on theological, political, educational, and management issues. A former commanding officer of HMS Ceres, he has written on both sides of the Atlantic on defense issues, particularly on the Islamic background to problems in the Middle East and on the ethics of nuclear deterrence.