War crimes and punishments
Sir: Reference the last sentence of your confrontation with Mr Fairlie (leader, article and footnote, 17 April), I submit that 'a great dis- service is rendered' by your attitude —not his.
There are three basic approaches to war : (I) Pacifism, which demands non-violence, regardless. Some should adopt that role to indicate how far the world has slipped, where we must get back to ultimately, and the direction for steps towards that ideal, mean- while. (2) The 'all or nothing' ap- proach, which considers war some- times inevitable, that anything then 'goes' and—as you say—'there can be no room for . . . morality.' Additionally, this approach usually claims (wrongly) to provide the best deterrent to war. (3) Between those extremes lies Mr Fairlie's approach, which also recognises the inevitability of some wars (five are being waged now), but presses for restraints on and in them, to lessen their occurrence and evils.
Some — particularly Quakers adopt a role combining 1 and 3. Whilst personal pacifists they admit governments cannot yet follow suit, and therefore also press fqr restraints on and in war. That role is valid and helpful.
But those—like you—combining 1 and 2 render that 'great disser- vice'. For they mislead some into thinking 1 is practicable now, and —by joining forces with 2—both encourage that approach and help to outvote those pursuing 3.
You apparently assume that, because restraints have .failed so often in the past, there is no future hope for them — particularly with modern weapons and conditions. But fear of nuclear war now forces restraints on many not otherwise accepting them. And the temptation to exploit the nuclear stalemate at lower conflict levels is, surely, out- weighed by the ability of modern communications increasingly to publicise threats and conduct of wars, which so become ever more open to public criticism. Ignoring
restraints thus now brings in- creased penalties in loss of national and international support and influence, as with the Calley case. Moreover, the UN is slowly be- coming more able to delay, shorten or confine conflicts, when not yet able to prevent them.
Anyway, world opinion is deter- mined to give international law and UN principles a trial. That means encouraging — not dismissing re- straints. U Thant, international jurists, Churches, the International Red Cross and private groups in many countries are now studying restraints of all kinds. As the 'Free World' country most respon- sible for initiating excesses in aims and means during World War Two, we — particularly — should help retrieve the ethical principles and rule of law which Mr Fairlie envisages.
Time is against us. Already many civil and service officers hold —apparently with you—that Chris- tianity is for their private lives only and must not affect their pro- fessional judgments. That disease is spreading to younger officers, and service chaplains are in disarray (vide Gordon Zahn's Chaplains in the RAF—Manchester University Press). This despite our repeated ratification of conventions, includ- ing commitments to instruct officers.
Urgently required is revival and revision of the just war doctrine and international law which grew out of it, on these lines :
Resort to violence only when there is: (1) A just cause—the vindication of an undoubted right. (2) A last resort — all peaceful means being exhausted. (3) Con- trol by a legal or morally respon- sible authority. (4) A reasonable hope of success and victory for justice. (5) Prospect that inevitable evils will be less than those of non- violence the principles of pro- portion.
Means used must be: (1) Pro- portionate also. (2) Discriminate, too, as between combatants and nontcombatants—those not directly participating. (3) Legal regarding both weapons and targets. (4) Only illegal for reprisals—i.e. solely to stop an adversary's illegal means.
De-escalation or cessation of vio- lence, with return to negotiations on the adversary's terms, if neces- sary, before it escalates out of pro- portion to the issue at stake for the community concerned as a whole.
In short, resort to violence, means in using it, and when to stop it should be as we would expect of the international police force which we cannot yet have, but for which examples must be set.
As for policemen, too, deterrence is justified and may sometimes in- clude bluff, i.e. threatening more than intended in the event. Like policemen one should not, however, necessarily indicate precisely how far one will go. For that might erode deterrence and encourage violence.
If debate on those vital and topical issues continues (resisting —as you say—most people's liking for them to remain 'confused'), the service rendered by your leader and footnote will have outweighed the 'disservice , . . rendered', and a much needed 'Free World' con- sensus may evolve. Thus might 'statesmen and generals'—as well as lieutenants—ultimately be 'brought to justice'. Anthony W. Buzzard Todd House, West Clandon, Surrey
Previous page
