Confronting Boko Haram in light of Catholic Church teaching

OPINION: Just war and armed conflicts in Catholic teachings,

By Rev. Fr. Pascal Alban Noudjom Tchana, scj

 

The unfortunate climate of fear and violence in Northern Cameroon, in Kolofata and Hile- Halifa, to be more precise, is affecting us all. It is just as if Cameroon is saying farewell to her longstanding culture of peace.  Nothing really prevents us from thinking that what is happening in the North now may not happen elsewhere in the country tomorrow.

Once a land of peace, a threshold of tranquillity and a doorsill of serenity and harmony, Cameroon may slowly be getting contaminated by the spirit of war and gunshots so familiar to some of our neighbouring countries.  Our enemy is the Boko Haram. Boko Haram means western education is sinful, but it can be anything and anybody from the state enemy, enemy of peace or just an enemy of our common interest. It can be the expression of the thirst of power-minded and egoistic lobbies. This is why we all ought to be very vigilant, careful and alert.

Vigilance means that we must avoid being the gadget of power-seeking peoples or institutions with a vocation to jeopardize our God-given peace and ready to compromise people’s legitimate aspiration to happiness, freedom, integral and human development to serve their selfish and narrow interests.

During the Elysée Summit on May 17, for the first time President Paul Biya officially declared war against Boko Haram. On his way to Washington for the USA/ Africa Summit he said: “Remember that a few weeks back, our forces lost important points to the Boko Haram. But it is a long fight, we are up against a perverse enemy, faithless and ruthless, people who attack at night and slit throats, who have evidently committed atrocities in Kolofata and Hile- Halifa (…)   Boko Haram cannot overcome Cameroon. We shall continue the fight and we shall defeat them.”

In the midst of all these threats to peace and openings to war, what has the Church to say on violence and war? According to the Church teachings, can it be legitimate for a state to wage a war? If yes, on what grounds?

It is the Church’s mission to offer right and comforting words to sustain hope, faith and love to Cameroonians, show justice and righteousness and keep people alert and awake, aware of the situation and to get them ready to give the right opinion in direct link with virtue and truth.

The notion of a just war is not particular to the Catholic Church. The Indian epic Mahabharata is one of the first written texts on the issue. Five ruling brothers ponder upon the reality of violence as they ask themselves whether one can justify sufferings caused by wars.   Their reflections lead them to establish principles like proportionality, just cause, just means and fair treatment of prisoners and victims of war. 

Marcus Tullius Cicero (106-43 BCE), the great Latin orator, is one of the first western and non Christian authors to tackle the issue.  In the De Officiis (moral Duties), Book 1, sections 1.11.33–1.13.41, he discusses the issue of just war. For him even to those who have wronged us, we owe certain duties. We must always strive for peace, but states have a right to wage war that must be strictly respected since there are two ways of settling a dispute: by discussion (for man) and by physical force (for brutes). Physical force must only be used as the last resort. There is a need to consider and protect those who we have been conquered. In short, for Cicero, there are certain moral duties connected with war.

St. Augustine of Hippo is the first Christian theologian who laid down a clear theory of the just war. Based on Rom 13: 4, St. Augustine argues, that for good reasons, the government has the duty to protect its citizens even if it needs to be through violence. For him, two things justify the right to go to war -Jus ad bellum which is the right to go to war. For Augustine, before one goes to war, at least five conditions should be fulfilled.

 

The Catechism of the Catholic Church  no. 2309 describes the determining conditions which are:

-The just authority: the decision to go to war should be authorised by a legitimate authority. 

-The just cause: the damage inflicted by the aggressor on the nation or community of nations must be lasting, grave, and certain.

-The right intention:  the use of arms must not produce evils and disorders graver than the evil to be eliminated.

-The last resort: all other means of putting an end to it must have been shown to be impractical or ineffective; Jus in bello which is the kind of behaviour we adopt as we fight a war. He sees three characteristics:

-Proportionality: there must be a due proportion between the force that is used and the evil we wish to banish.

-Discrimination: a clear distinction must be made between fighters and non fighters, civilians, innocent and military.

-Responsibility: it is in regard to the side effects of the attack.

Today further reflection on the theory of just war has led to some development mainly “Jus post bellum” defended by authors like Gary Bass, Louis Iasiello and Brian Orend. It concerns justice after the war. For example, Wikipedia Encyclopedia presents Brian Orend’s theory on Jus post bellum:

Just cause for termination: A state may terminate a war if there has been a reasonable vindication of the rights that were violated in the first place, and if the aggressor is willing to negotiate the terms of surrender. These terms of surrender include a formal apology, compensations, war crimes trials and perhaps rehabilitation. Alternatively, a state may end a war if it becomes clear that any just goals of the war cannot be reached at all or cannot be reached without using excessive force.

Right intention: A state must only terminate a war under the conditions agreed upon in the above criteria. Revenge is not permitted. The victor state must also be willing to apply the same level of objectivity and investigation into any war crimes its armed forces may have committed.

Public declaration and authority: The terms of peace must be made by a legitimate authority, and the terms must be accepted by a legitimate authority.

Discrimination: The victor state is to differentiate between political and military leaders, and combatants and civilians. Punitive measures are to be limited to those directly responsible for the conflict. Truth and reconciliation may sometimes be more important than punishing war crimes.

Proportionality: Any terms of surrender must be proportional to the rights that were initially violated. Draconian measures, absolutionist crusades and any attempt at denying the surrendered country the right to participate in the world community are not permitted.

In the middle age, St. Thomas Aquinas used the authority of St. Augustine to establish his own personal reflection on the matter. In the Summa Theologiae [II-II, Q. 40, Art. 1], he uses the same arguments as his mentor.  For war to be just, St. Thomas thinks three things are necessary: - the sovereign’s authority by whose command the war is to be waged. - the just cause on account of some fault should be established. - the war is waged with the right intention to advance the good and avoid evil.

The School of Salamanca further developed St. Thomas Aquinas’ thinking. Here a diplomatic agreement is paramount even for the stronger party before the war is launched. As the free Encyclopedia Wikipedia puts it, three reasons can justify war according to this school of thought: - self-defence, as long as there is a reasonable possibility of success - Preventive war against a tyrant who is about to attack – to punish a guilty enemy.

In the Compendium of the Social Doctrine of the Church, the reflection on just war appears in the context of a reflection on peace (CSDC § 488- 496). War is seen as a failure to fulfil that mission of peace (CSDC § 497 - 515).  The document teaches that peace is the fruit of love; it is a value and a universal duty; it is built day after day in the pursuit of an order willed by God (CSDC § 495). Violence is never a proper response because it destroys what it pretends to defend: life, human dignity and freedom. That is why our contemporary world needs the witness of unarmed prophets (CSDC § 496). The Church condemns “the savagery of war” that cannot be used as an instrument of justice. War is “the failure of all true humanism, it is always a defeat for humanity” (CSDC § 497).

In paragraph 500 and 501, the Church recognises a nation’s right to legitimate defence when attacked. This right must respect “the traditional limits of necessity and proportionality”. In paragraph 502- 503, the Church recognises the state’s duty to defend peace through armed forces. In paragraph 504-505, the Church associates the right to use force for purposes of legitimate defence with the duty to protect and help innocent victims who are not able to defend themselves from acts of aggression.

In paragraph 507, the Church provides under the form of sanctions (economic) some measures against those who threaten peace. From Paragraph 508 – 517, the Church proposes the goal of “general, balanced and controlled disarmament” and totally rejects terrorism as a legitimate way to express one frustration: “Terrorism is one of the most brutal forms of violence traumatising the international community today ; it sows hatred, death, and an urge for revenge and reprisal.” (§ 513) “Terrorism is to be condemned in the most absolute terms. It shows complete contempt for human life and can never be justified, since the human person is always an end and never a means.”  That is why the Church teaches in the last resort that “there exists, therefore, a right to defend oneself from terrorism”. (§ 514).

After all, the Church’s lasting contribution to the promotion of peace is made real through a culture of reconciliation and forgiveness rendered possible through and with prayer. Today the situation in Syria, Iraq and Libya show the limits and the weaknesses of some of today’s global politics. One thing is sure- It is no longer possible to advocate a safer and prosperous environment of freedom and human development on the one hand and on the other hand, give guns and military equipment to people whose brains are buried in ideological fundamentalism.

For sure, the world, our world would be a safer place, if the demons of our egoistic pursuit of selfish-interests give way to mutual cooperation and equal trade and exchange between nations. Let the Church be faithful to her everlasting duty of enlightenment of consciences; hence giving to nations and people the audacity to hope with certainty and carry out their own mission in the great history book.

This article first appeared in "L'Effort Camerounais"