|
|
 |
|
 |
 |
| VOICES OF DISSENT | |
 May 24, 1999 
|
||
|
|
From Rev. Jesse Jackson to conservative commentator Oliver North, opposition to NATO's air campaign in Yugoslavia spans the ideological spectrum. Following a report on opposition to the war, Margaret Warner and guests discuss the issue.
|
|
MARGARET WARNER: Now, to explore the ethical rights and wrongs of NATO's intervention, we turn to Bishop Thomas Gumbleton, the auxiliary bishop of the archdiocese of Detroit, and pastor of that city's St. Leo Catholic Church; Rabbi David Saperstein, head of the Religious Action Center of Reform Judaism, a Washington- based advocacy group-- he co-edited the recent book, Jewish Dimensions of Social Justice-- Tom Gerety, president of Amherst College in Massachusetts, and a professor of philosophy and of law; and Sean Murphy, a professor of international law at George Washington University Law School and author of Humanitarian Intervention: The United Nations in an Evolving World Order. Rabbi Saperstein, is this a just war, an ethical war? |
||||||||||||||||||
| A just war? | |||||||||||||||||||
|
RABBI DAVID SAPERSTEIN, Religions Action Center: MARGARET WARNER: Bishop Gumbleton, do you believe this is a just use of military force? BISHOP THOMAS GUMBLETON, Archdiocese of |
 |
||||||||||||||||||
|
First of all, there has to be a probable, reasonable expectation of success. It's very clear that we are not succeeding in what is supposedly our intent, and that is to save the Kosovar people. They are being driven out of their own area, and the acceleration of this and exaggeration of this has gone on even more since the bombing started. The bombing has not done anything to relieve the sufferings of the Kosovars. Another very important condition is that the war must discriminate between combatants and non-combatants. Now, we saw earlier on the program tonight that NATO bombing is deliberately attacking the infrastructure of this nation of Serbia. That is an attack against the civilian population. I have seen what happened in Iraq when we did the very same thing.
The people of Iraq are the ones who suffered, the civilians. And the
same thing is now happening in Serbia MARGARET WARNER: Okay. Let me get someone to respond to some of the points you raise. Sean Murphy, what about the points he just raised, that this war, one, is unjustified, and two, in its means, is certainly not a just war? |
 |
||||||||||||||||||
| The role of the U.N. | |||||||||||||||||||
|
SEAN MURPHY, George Washington University: I think While there are some elements perhaps of self-defense in this situation with regional instability from the refugee flows and some elements of Security Council oversight in declaring that this is, in fact, a grave situation, you don't really have either of those conditions in place. So you're left with this idea of a just war or, as international lawyers would call it, humanitarian intervention. That is largely a disfavored doctrine under international law. It is heavily weighted against transnational uses of force. But at the same time, we have seen since the charter was drafted a large number of human rights instruments drafted - including the genocide convention and others -- which clearly show that these human rights values are very important to the international community. And so today's question is, are we now at a point where we are willing to allow transnational uses of force without Security Council authorization to protect these types of human rights? In that situation, it raises the second issue you raised. What about collateral injuries that are caused when you do that kind of an intervention. I think I would just say that anytime you use military force, it is inevitable that there be some kind of collateral civilian casualties. MARGARET WARNER: President Gerety, where do you come down on this point, just war in either its cause or its means? |
 |
||||||||||||||||||
|
TOM GERETY, President, Amherst College: To me, this is MARGARET WARNER: Okay. Let me go back to the Bishop first. Bishop, would you agree with President Gerety that if the United States was willing to risk its own soldiers' lives, if NATO were, that that would make it a more just war because we wouldn't be essentially preserving our own soldiers' lives and putting more civilians at risk? |
 |
||||||||||||||||||
| Seeking a negotiated solution. | |||||||||||||||||||
|
BISHOP THOMAS GUMBLETON: Absolutely not. We TOM GERETY: Margaret and Bishop Gumbleton the question then is, how many Kosovars must die while you continue to negotiate -- because at present, we have emptied -- the Serbs rather, have emptied an entire province of virtually, you know, two-third of its population. Many have died already. MARGARET WARNER: Gentlemen, let me let -- Rabbi Saperstein has been trying to get in here. Go ahead -- particularly, the civilian casualty issue. RABBI DAVID SAPERSTEIN: Bishop Gumbleton is one of the moral heroes
of this generation. I would like to push him on the just cause part
of it, not the other pieces of it but I think many of us agree, but
on the just cause, is genocidal activity in the form of systematic ethnic
cleansing that has MARGARET WARNER: Professor Murphy, let me let professor in here -- do you agree that what is fundamentally immoral here or illegitimate is this question of not risking our own soldiers' life, at least not on the ground-- certainly the pilots are at risk-- and letting civilians, both Serbian and Kosovar bear the brunt? SEAN MURPHY: Well, I don't think it's so much an issue of being immoral.
It may be a tactical mistake, or it may MARGARET WARNER: Professor Gerety. Yes. |
|||||||||||||||||||
|
TOM GERETY: Sean, that's a very good point. And as I say, the U.N.--
we may want to hold out the U.N. RABBI DAVID SAPERSTEIN: -- the Holocaust -- it should be that we don't wait until the catastrophe is at its end, the time to stop genocidal activity is when it begins. I think our country did the right thing in trying to do that here. MARGARET WARNER: Gentlemen, we're out of time. We have to leave it right there. But we'll return to it. Thank you very much. |
|||||||||||||||||||
 |
        |
|
| Support the kind of journalism done by the NewsHour...Become a member of your local PBS station. | ||
| ||
| PBS Online Privacy Policy Copyright ©1996- MacNeil/Lehrer Productions. All Rights Reserved. | ||
| ||
In
making those evaluations, both Christians and Jewish just war theory
differentiate between just means that there might be major differences
on-- even many people who think there is just cause here. When you have
systematic persecution and ethnic cleansing of a group of people done
by someone like Milosevic who would show no hesitation of engaging in
genocidal activity in Bosnia, including mass massacres and the use of
rape as a tool of war, in violation of all international norms, who
had for ten years, since they took away the autonomy of the Kosovars,
been systematically oppressing them and moving in the beginning of ethnic
cleansing, that clearly fits a criteria of where there has to be a just
war, so long as there's a good faith effort at peace. And for ten years,
the western world pressured Milosevic to find a diplomatic solution
and time and again, he thwarted it and stepped up the military pressure
in Kosovo. Finally, the allies said, this is a just and moral use of
force. And there are many people who used to be antiwar activists in
other conflicts who believe that that's true in this case. 
Detroit:
Absolutely not. The Christian theology about just war which has been
part of the Christian tradition for over 1,500 years starts with the
very strong presumption that war is never permitted. It is evil. It
may not be done. Now, the tradition recognizes that perhaps there are
certain times where that presumption must be overridden. But then there
are very rigorous conditions that must be met. And those conditions,
only if they are met, will allow for the overriding of the presumption
against going to war. In this case, the war in Serbia and Kosovo is
not meeting the conditions. And I could go through the whole list of
them. But I'll only cite a couple. 
and
will continue to happen and will become exacerbated and very, very severe
suffering for the civilians. They will not only be killed directly by
the bombing, but by the destruction of their means to livelihood. Another
rigorous condition is that the war must be engaged in by a competent
authority. Here in the United States, our Constitution says the president
may only go to war if the Congress has declared war. And I find it very,
very reprehensible that our president would lead our nation into war,
wage this war in our name without ever having brought it before the
Congress.
in a situation like this, we're clearly weighing two important values.
One is when there's widespread depravations of human rights, that's
an evil. On the other hand, transnational use of force is also an evil
that can manifest itself in various ways including outright aggression.
When the U.N. Charter was drafted in 1945, it was quite clear in saying
we don't want any transnational uses of force unless a state is acting
in self-defense or when a state is acting under authorization of the
U.N. Security Council. 
clearly
a just war in its principles. We have a just cause to save the Kosovars.
They are the victims of this new form, this newly named form of an old
terror which is ethnic hatred. And I think that is clearly, clearly
a just cause, a call on all of us to do whatever we can to save lives
of fellow human beings. I do feel myself that the war at this point,
is clearly not working and thus, that the bombing is unjust; that the
harm to civilians and to innocents -- the harm to Kosovars themselves
-- shows-- and the failure of the war to do anything but accelerate
the strategies of Milosevic and the paramilitary and military forces
in Kosovo Province, shows that our means at this point, are out of proportion
and not just. But Margaret, I would say with great earnest to the Bishop
and to Professor Murphy that there is clearly a just way to wage this
war. And all it takes is more courage. We need to intervene in order
to save the Kosovars, and that can be done on the ground. I am not scared
myself. And I don't think Americans should be scared of the Serbian
army. I think they have been fighting against innocence in a very disorganized
guerrilla force. And if we are to fight just war, we have to be brave
about it. You don't kill if you're not willing to die in the cause of
justice. And at present, the flying at 15,000 feet and so on, the whole
arrangement is designed only to kill the enemy and not to expose ourselves.
And I think that violates a very fundamental moral precept of compassion,
which is that you must be brave, you must be courageous in the face
of evil. And I think so far, for all sorts of complex reasons, we are
not being brave. I'd also add, Margaret, if I could, to Professor Murphy,
that it's just practically clear, however much we believe in and yearn
for the success of the United Nations Security Council as the arbiter
of war-making or of decisions about violence in the war, that it is
absolutely practically clear that with Russia and China on the Security
Council, we will not declare an intervention of this kind to be just
or to be warranted. And so it will not happen. So anyone who preaches
that we have to have the U.N. authorize this is really preaching delay
in letting the Kosovars be driven out of Kosovo Province and be raped
and killed. And I'm against that. 
still have not met the rigorous conditions for a just war, another one
being that we must exhaust every other means first. We have not exhausted
every other means of negotiation. No one can say that the Rambouillet
Castle negotiations were real negotiations. That was an ultimatum that
no sovereign nation could have accepted. We should negotiate a solution
to this, not bring more troops in it and increase the violence.
have
less convincing persuasion to Mr. Milosevic that we keep saying we're
not going to introduce ground forces. I don't think it's an immoral
issue. I'm not an expert on morality so much. But I do think that it's
clear that if you are planning on undertaking this type of intervention,
you do need to look at the big picture, and the big picture in this
instance is that there have been massive human rights violations. If
we don't address them in some fashion, they will continue, not only
in Kosovo but in other regions of the world. My concern would be that
if you get away from an authoritative voice like the Security Council
authorizing these sorts of interventions, where then will this lead?
When Russia decides in five years to go into Ukraine to protect ethnic
Russians from ethnic violence, is that okay or not? When China decides
to go into Indonesia in ten years to protect ethnic Chinese from violence,
is that okay or not? They'll say that's what they are doing. That may
or may not be the underlying motivation. And at that point, we are not
going to be able to say to them, look, the U.N. Charter or international
law - whatever -- requires some sort of authorization from the world
community because they're going to turn around and say what about Kosovo?
wherever
we can as the mantle of lawfulness and authority to use Aquinas's notion
here. But the practicality of it is, as I say, I don't think the U.N.
is going to be capable of intervening not just here, but in Rwanda and
Burundi and in a number of other places that represent genocide. And
I think the question for international lawyers is after the Holocaust,
what is the meaning of an absolute international prohibition of international
law against these grievous, genocidal violations of human rights? And
I believe the meaning has to be-and I think this is the post-World War
II sense that we, civilians of the larger world believe that we should,
if possible, and if practicable and if proportional save lives of those
who are being killed on the basis of their base or religion. I think
that's what's going on here is so massive, so intentional, so cruel,
and so much a reminder of what we said never again to after the Second
World War, that it calls for -