This article was originally published by Consortium News
Whether
Obama deserved the Nobel Peace Prize is not the point. He didn’t. The
fact is he got it, and was gifted with the chance of a lifetime to make
a classic speech on the politics of peace-making, a speech that in the
glare of Nobel could have attained instant biblical standing.
He failed miserably, producing a hodge-podge that resembled the work of a bright but undisciplined sophomore.
He hoisted his petard on the classical
“just war theory,” a theory that, properly understood, condemns his
decision to send yet more kill-power into Afghanistan.
This theory which is much misused and
little understood is designed to build a wall of assumptions against
state-sponsored violence, i.e. war. It puts the burden of proof on the
warrior where it belongs.
It gives six conditions necessary to justify a war. Fail one, and the war is immoral. The six are:
(1) A just cause.
The only just cause is defense against an attack, not a preemptive
attack on those who might someday attack us. Obama flunked this one,
saying our current military actions are “to defend ourselves and all
nations from further [i.e. future] attacks.” President Bush speaks here
through the mouth of President Obama.
(2) Declaration by competent authority:
Article one Section 8 of the Constitution which gives this power to the
Congress has not been used since 1941. Congressional resolutions
instead yield the power to the President.
Obama: “I am
responsible for the deployment of thousands of young Americans to
battle in a distant land.” Sorry. Not according to the Constitution.
On top of that we are bound by treaty to
the United Nations Charter. Article 2, Section 4 prohibits recourse to
military force except in circumstances of self-defense which was
restricted to responses to a prior “armed attack” (Article 51), and
only then until the Security Council had the chance to review the
claim.
Obama fails twice on proper declaration
of war. He violates the UN Charter by claiming the right to act
“unilaterally” and “individually.” Again, faithful echoes of President
Bush.
(3) Right intention: This means that there is reasonable surety that the war will succeed in serving justice and making a way to real peace.
Right intention is befouled by excessive
secrecy, by putting the burdens of the war on the poor or future
generations, by denying the right to conscientious object to soldiers
who happen to know most of what is going on, and by a failure to
understand the enemy’s grievances.
Obama declares gratuitously:
“Negotiations cannot convince al Qaeda’s leaders to lay down their
arms.” So all we can do is send soldiers to kill them? Really? What
negotiations have been tried to find out why they hate us and not
Sweden, or Argentina, or China?
A pause for reflection might show that
those and other countries are not bombing and killing civilians in
three Muslim countries simultaneously. That could generate a little
resentment. None of those countries not targeted by al Qaeda are
financing Israel’s illegal occupation of Palestinian lands in violation
of UN resolutions.
The processes of negotiation allow light to shine in dark corners. Realpolitik eschews the light.
(4) The principle of discrimination, or non-combatant immunity.
The science of war has made this condition so unachievable that only
the policing paradigm envisioned by the UN Charter could ever justify
state-sponsored violence.
Police operate within the constraints of
law, as a communitarian effort, with oversight and follow-up review to
prevent undue violence. Obama’s allusion to “42 other countries”
joining in our violent work in Afghanistan and Iraq mocks the true
intent of the collective action envisioned by the UN under supervision
of the Security Council.
It is a mere disguise for our vigilante adventurism.
(5) Last resort.
If state-sponsored violence is not the last resort we stand morally
with hoodlums who would solve problems by murder. Obama fails to see
that modern warfare, including counterinsurgency, is not the last or
best resort against an enemy that has four unmatchable advantages:
invisibility, versatility, patience, and the ability to find safe haven
anywhere.
The idea of a single geographic safe haven
is a myth and an anachronism reflecting the age of whole armies
mobilizing in a definable locus.
Obama’s speech showed no appreciation of
the alternative of peace-making. A Department of Peace (which would be
a better name for a revitalized and better-funded State Department)
would have as its goal to address in concert with other nations
tensions as they begin to build.
Neglected crises can explode eventually
into violence. This is used to assert the inevitability of war when it
is only an indictment of improvident statecraft.
(6) The principle of proportionality: Put
simply, the violence of war must do more good than harm. In judging war
the impact on other nations and the environment must also be assessed
in the balance sheet of good and bad results.
This is a hard test for modern warriors to
pass. Victory in war is an oxymoron. No one wins a war: one side may
lose less and may spin that as victory. Obama’s faith in the benefits
of warring in three Muslim countries is delusional.
President Obama in Oslo was more a
theologian than a statesman. He gave a condescending nod to nonviolent
power but his theology of original sin tilted him toward violence as
the surest and final arbiter for a fallen humanity.
It is “a pity beyond all telling” that the
“just war theory” he invoked condemns the warring policies he
anomalously defended as he accepted the Nobel Prize for Peace.