Our Position on War

Our Position on War

Supporters of the Peace Pledge Union make an undertaking saying that:

"I renounce war, and am therefore determined not to support any kind of war. I am also determined to work for the removal of all causes of war."

This provides us with a discussion point for our beliefs and action.

In the strictly legal, rather than the moral, sense, it can be argued that a war can be “just”. However, such a war has to tick several boxes. The cause must be just and the response proportionate. It must be fought in a lawful manner, and should result in more good than harm.

When we look at actual wars, they nearly always fail these stringent tests. They usually go wrong, do not achieve their stated aims, and result in far more civilian than military deaths. Afghanistan falls short on at least some counts and Iraq on all of them. It was unlawful from the start; it was an invasion justified by lies; the declared motives were specious and there have been many breaches of humanitarian and human rights law in its conduct.

Furthermore, we cannot reasonably predict in advance what the outcome of a particular war may be. Who would have thought that we would have still been struggling in Afghanistan after seven years? Even if war may, in theory, be legally just, the chances of this, in practice, are so unpredictable that we must reject it as an instrument of state policy. Bearing in mind the lethality of modern armaments, and the continuing factor of nuclear weapons, the resort to war always carries a distinct threat to the future of humanity itself.

If not war, then what? What are the nonviolent alternatives to war?

We should devote our energies to removing the causes of war - the self-interest of state elites, marginalisation of whole categories of people and, in the future, competition for oil, water, living space, rather than preparing for yet more wars. The world currently spends over one trillion dollars each year on military might.

In contrast, non-violent alternatives to war are still in their infancy.

Expenditures on non-violent alternatives to war are only a few million dollars per year. Even so, much has been accomplished. There are now a number of groups developing the theory and practice of non- violent action and several others that now nonviolently intervene in world conflicts. If these groups had resources comparable to those provided to the world’s militaries, they would undoubtedly have a tremendous impact on the world.

Non-violent alternatives to war are based on three understandings:
People find it difficult to kill or hurt other people, especially if they have a personal connection and understand their opponents’ perspectives.
People are especially unlikely to engage in unsavoury behaviour if they are watched by someone who challenges that behaviour.

Leaders rely on the consent, support, and effort of others to actually carry out their orders.

We recognise that we live in a world with many pockets of darkness. However, in our country wrongdoers are seen as criminals to be dealt with by law rather than enemies we go to war with. The police can use force, occasionally lethal force, under strictly controlled conditions. They are certainly not allowed to shoot up the entire neighbourhood to get their man. When all else fails our response must be international law enforcement under strict and disinterested rules, not war.