Canada Has a History of Acting in a Just Way

Social Studies - March 17, 2008

Barack Obama might just end the war in Iraq. I would argue that this is about the only thing the United States could do now to actually make the world a safer place.

"The War on Terror" is a strange beast. It has been a thorn in the side of not only the government to the South of us, but also every western democracy who has been asked to participate.

A very real question to ask is whether or not it is in fact a war.

War is defined as actual, intentional and widespread armed conflict between political communities. Thus, fisticuffs between individual persons do not count as a war, nor does a gang fight, nor does a feud on the order of the Hatfield's versus the McCoy's.

War is a phenomenon which occurs only between political communities, defined as those entities which are valid political governments.

Now, "terror" means a state of profound fear; and "terrorism" simply means the symptomatic use of terror to get your own way.

Neither one of these definitions would lead, even remotely, to an actual definition of a valid political community, let alone to an organization like al Qaeda whose main objective, ironically, is to end foreign influence in Muslim countries.

There is a course offered at the University of Michigan on the "War on Terrorism" which explores the traditions and rationale behind the actions now governing this conflict.

That course suggests that the actual goal of the so called war is "regime change in Iraq."

Which changes the entire way we think about this -- it is not a war to fight terrorism, which would in fact be impossible; it is an invasion of another country for the purpose of economics. Wars are, after all, always fought with someone you intend to trade with after the war is over; otherwise there is no reason for the war. Almost every conflict has been fought to ensure the economic prosperity of the countries involved. That is why the Union States fought the Confederates; Germany invaded Poland; China invaded Taiwan; North Korea invaded the South; and the United States invaded Iraq.

But what about our troops in Afghanistan? I think we could validly argue that we are not in this for any sort of cash grab? Our troops have been in Afghanistan, on and off, since 1988 as part of the United Nations Peacekeeping force (UNGOMAP) charged with changing over the government from Soviet to local control.

When the United Nations sends peacekeeping troops it is doing so with a policy of non-interference; that is to say, the local government makes the decisions, and the foreign military advisors, and troops, try to ensure a safe and where possible, peaceful process.

There is supposed to be nothing to gain and everything to lose; and the reason for our being there is quite clear -- we want the best possible outcome for the people of Afghanistan.

Afghanistan is in the midst of a historic transition. Its progress to date has been guided by a 2001 treaty, the Bonn Agreement on Provisional Arrangements in Afghanistan, which transferred power to the Afghan Interim Authority chaired by Hamid Karzai, defined the implementation role of the United Nations and set out a roadmap towards a permanent government.

Now, when all of this September 11 fall-out began, Afghanistan was already the largest recipient of Canadian military and economic aid.

This has always been carried out under the "3D" umbrella; a catchall phrase which includes Defence, Development and Diplomacy.

Many experts, from our own General Hillier, to Professor William Maley of Australian National University, have pointed out that self-government has not existed in Afghanistan since the Soviet invasion of 1979; and so despite the work done by the United Nations and the current international Provincial Reconstruction Teams, there is a long way to go.

I mention all of this as preamble to my actual point: I do not believe the battle with terrorism is just, or winnable, or for that matter, an actual war.

I do, however, believe the work in Afghanistan to be just, achievable, and valid.

Back in the 1200s there was a religious scholar named Thomas Aquinas. Remember, in those days, the church was the state, and so the only politicians were also priests.

He developed the Just War Theory that is still in use to this day.

It states that for a war to be just it must meet a simple set of criteria: Just cause, proper authority, right intention, probability of success and proportionality.

Just on the last point alone consider this: the Wall Street Journal published an estimate this time last year that a minimum of 30,000 and a possibility of 600,000 civilians have been killed as a direct result of American action following the deaths of some 3,000 people in the World Trade Towers.

That is far from a proportional response.

I have always blamed the current administration in the United States for the out of whack response to one terrorist act; and am so disappointed that Senator McCain, and Hillary Clinton, might actually continue the conflict if they win.

On the other hand, I do feel that developed nations have a responsibility to the world; given that our great wealth has come largely from a system which keeps others under-developed for our own gain.

I come to this realization from the point of view of simple ethics: that when one sees another person getting hurt, they have a responsibility to intervene; that when you can make a difference you should; and that everyone, everywhere, should have equality of opportunity and circumstance.

Sometimes I fear we mistake helping people be more like us for doing the right thing.

At other times we simply put ourselves first and try to make other people subservient to our desires.

Canada has a history of doing the right thing; let's hope we continue to live in a just way as we deal with the world.