Stephen Platten: Balancing the Just War theory with cuts in defence spending

EARLIER in the summer, the precinct around Wakefield Cathedral was cordoned off twice in two weeks. It was not a series of terrorist scares but funerals for young soldiers killed in the conflict in Afghanistan.

Sadly, it was not unique to Wakefield but reflected similar scenes notably in other Yorkshire cities, in East Anglia and in other parts of England. Indeed, the unfolding tragic scenario in Afghanistan has given birth to the embryonic charity Help for Heroes.

Losses in the conflict now exceed those lost in the Falklands conflict almost 30 years ago. It has touched the heart of the nation largely because of the uncertainty of the outcome of the war and the continuing haemorrhaging of young lives, especially in Helmand Province.

Hide Ad
Hide Ad

Ironically in the face of this, in the dying embers of the previous government, there emerged a Strategic Defence Review which the new government is committed to completing. The review was prompted by criticisms of under-resourcing of our forces in Afghanistan combined with the pressure placed upon the Ministry of Defence by the economic situation.

What can we afford in terms of defence? Should the two projected

aircraft carriers be built? Can we allow the Royal Air Force to contract any further with fewer aeroplanes year on year? Can we allow these cuts to undermine further the resources available to ground troops working in impossible climatic conditions and difficult terrain in the mountains and deserts of Afghanistan?

As if these questions were not testing enough, there is a deeper and more troubling question still.

Hide Ad
Hide Ad

It focuses upon both our responsibilities and our capabilities in maintaining international security.

Earlier this year, when I was in the Caucasus, I met with Giga Bokeria, the Deputy Foreign Minister in Georgia, and one of President Mikheil Saakashvilli's closest confidants and colleagues.

Bokeria was in no doubt about the dangers to international security latent in the instabilities in that part of the world and fuelled by Russian intelligence and military threat.

He was outspoken in his criticism of the USA and the European Union in what he saw as their vacillation in response to the Russian-Georgian conflict of 2008. In retrospect, he was realistic about the likelihood of direct western military intervention.

Hide Ad
Hide Ad

Nevertheless, he was clear that diplomatic pressure had been too little, too late and that western forces are thin on the ground in the theatre of international instability.

This single incident is indicative of a wider dilemma. There is a widespread flaunting of human rights in a number of places. Recent events in Gaza are another indicator as are the various scenarios in Zimbabwe, the Congo, the Sudan and in Myanmar.

Furthermore, through the endorsement of its Responsibility to Protect (the so-called R2P), the United Nations has committed itself to intervening, where necessary, to protect the citizens of nations where human rights are flagrantly ignored. Indeed, it was this subject to which I spoke in my maiden speech in the House of Lords. It is a fraught issue bringing together the often colliding principles of Just War and human rights.

It does, however, have direct implications as we look forward to the impending Strategic Defence Review. What principles might the Government and those undertaking the review invoke? What are the key issues in making decisions?

Hide Ad
Hide Ad

Economics is the starting point. Do we simply begin with cutting the cake and telling out military that this is all the money available or do we begin looking first at the needs of our Armed Forces? There is a serious debate here as there is with health education, social services and much else.

Associated with this is a still higher order question: What is our responsibility in the international arena? How do we decide how and where our limited resources are to be deployed and how do we work effectively with others in achieving a proper balance in achieving international security?

This is an issue not only about human rights universally, but also of national enlightened self-interest. That was the motive for our embodiment in the Afghan conflict originally.

It may seem odd that a Christian leader is raising these questions. Ought not Christian commentators to be committed to pacifism or non-intervention tout court?

Hide Ad
Hide Ad

The truth is more complex. It has been Christian theologians and moralists who have contributed the main principles of Just War theory as indeed has been the case with human rights. It is a careful assessment of these in the light of abuses and aggression that helps decide on intervention. But who should intervene? How much of our gross national product should go towards defence and security? Who should decide how the international community provides such security?

These are just some of those difficult questions standing behind the Strategic Defence Review. It is our security and our defence that is at stake, alongside that of the wider world. What should be our answers?

After all, these are not just questions for governments but touch upon the responsibilities of each one of us.

The Right Reverend Stephen Platten is the Bishop of Wakefield.