KING CHARLES VISITS KENYA

King Charles III and Queen Camilla are right now undertaking a State Visit to Kenya, from Tuesday 31st October to Friday 3rd November 2023.

His Majesty’s first visit to a Commonwealth nation as King is therefore to the country in which Queen Elizabeth II’s reign began, having acceded to the throne in Kenya in February 1952.

The King and Queen will visit Nairobi City County, Mombasa County and surrounding areas. Their Majesties’ programme will reflect the ways in which Kenya and the United Kingdom are working together, notably to boost mutual prosperity, tackle climate change, promote youth opportunity and employment, advance sustainable development and create a more stable and secure region.

During the visit, Their Majesties will meet President Ruto and the First Lady as well as and other members of the Kenyan Government, UN staff, CEOs, faith leaders, young people, future leaders and Kenyan Marines training with UK Royal Marines. The King will also attend an event to celebrate the life and work of the Nobel Laureate the late Professor Wangari Maathai, together with Wangari’s daughter, Wanjira Mathai. The King and Queen’s programme will celebrate the close links between the British and Kenyan people in areas such as the creative arts, technology, enterprise, education and innovation. The visit will also acknowledge the more painful aspects of the UK and Kenya’s shared history, including the Emergency (1952-1960). His Majesty will take time during the visit to deepen his understanding of the wrongs suffered in this period by the people of Kenya. Together, Their Majesties will tour a new museum dedicated to Kenya’s history and will lay a wreath at the Tomb of the Unknown Warrior at Uhuru Gardens, as well as visiting the site of the declaration of Kenya’s independence in 1963.

The King and Queen’s programme also will include:

• Their Majesties will be greeted in Nairobi with a ceremonial welcome at State House and will each attend bilateral meetings – The King with The President and The Queen with the First Lady, before The President hosts a State Banquet at State House.
• His Majesty will visit the United Nations Office at Nairobi, to learn more about the work of UN Habitat and the UN Environment Programme. UNON is the only UN Headquarters in the Commonwealth.
• His Majesty will attend a technology showcase, meeting Kenyan entrepreneurs who are driving forward innovation in the country’s tech sector. Kenya has the third largest start up eco-system in Africa.
• His Majesty will host a reception focussed on Kenya’s young people and future leaders across development, trade, media, the creative arts and environmental conservation.
• Their Majesties will visit a Commonwealth War Graves Commission cemetery, joining British and Kenyan military personnel in an act of Remembrance, before hearing about the Commission’s recent work to ensure all those who supported Britain’s efforts in both World Wars are commemorated.
• The King and Queen will visit Nairobi National Park to witness the vital conservation work being undertaken by the Kenya Wildlife Service, which is integral to Kenya’s thriving tourism industry.
• Her Majesty, Patron of the equine welfare charity Brooke, will hear how the charity is working with the Kenya Society for the Protection and Care of Animals to rescue donkeys at risk and promote their welfare.
• The King, as Captain General of the Royal Marines, and The Queen, will visit Mtongwe Naval Base in Mombasa. There, Their Majesties will witness Kenyan Marines, trained by the Royal Marines, demonstrating a covert beach landing, showing defence collaboration in action.
• The Queen will meet survivors of sexual and gender-based violence, learning how they are supported and sharing her own insights from working in this area.
• The King will meet faith leaders from Mombasa’s diverse community, hearing how they are working together to promote harmony amongst the city’s population.

God save the King/Queen is the National Anthem of the United Kingdom and the Royal Anthem of Commonwealth Realms. The tune and words date back to the seventeenth century and the song was first publicly performed in London in 1745. It bacame the National Anthem at the beginning of the nineteenth century. This was the anthem of the British Crown Colony of Kenya (1920-1963)

The British first arrived in Kenya in 1895, 10 years after the Berlin Conference where East Africa was first divided into territories of influence by the European powers. The British Empire established the East Africa Protectorate in 1895 and from 1920 we became the KENYA Colony. 43 years later in December 1963, Kenya gained independence and became a Constitutional Monarchy, with Queen Elizabeth II as the Head of State and Kenyatta the Prime Minister and Head of Government. In December 1964 Kenya became a Republic and Kenyatta became the Head of State and Government.

So, how did Kenya get its name?

You do know that the first missionary to arrive here was Ludwig Krapf, a German from the Anglican Church Missionary Society (CMS). Krapt set a missionary station in Rabai where he was later joined by Johannes Rebmann. In Rabai they established a church and a school and After several years, Rebmann moved to evangelize to the Taitas while Krapt proceeded to Ukambani. In Ukambani there was a prominent Chief known as Kivoi wa Mwendwa. Krapt befriended Kivoi and on December 3, 1849, the Chief took Krapf to behold the Mountain of Mystery. When asked the name of the mountain, Chief Kivoi told Krapt that the Mountain was known as Kiinya. This is how our country got its name. Had Krapt been told Kirinyaga, ladies and gentlemen that would have been our country’s name. Krapt continued with his missionary work and with the help of the Kamba people, he translated the New Testament into the Kamba language. Other linguistic works are also attributed to him, including the first Swahili dictionary as well as translation of the Bible into other East African languages. Johann Ludwig Krapf therefore the founding father of the Anglican Church of Kenya, and the man who officially gave Kenya its name inspired by the Mountain of Mystery where our forefathers had worshipped for Centuries. Missionary work continued at the Coast and in mainland Kenya, led by different missionary groups. Beyond the churches, the missionaries also established schools and hospitals that have had significant impact on Kenyans over the years. Of course the Anglican Church takes the crown for leading the path and introducing Christianity to Kenya. Ladies and Gentlemen, in an almost related matter, the Anglican Church was established by King Henry VIII after he broke away from Papacy in Rome in 1534. 489 years later, British Monarch remains Supreme Governor of the Church, and he is known as the Defender of the Faith. Tomorrow we will welcome him to Kenya, a land where his ancestors governed as a colony for a few decades; a country where his mother reigned as Queen from 12 December 1963 to 12 December 1964.

Today’s Word – I Peter 1:13

Peter, also known as Petero, poured his heart and soul into composing the First Peter during his advanced age. His purpose was clear: to provide solace and guidance to Christians who faced unimaginable persecution in their time. This extraordinary letter echoes with a powerful message that still resonates today.

In the midst of all the turmoil, Peter urges believers to fix their gaze on the anticipated grace that will accompany the glorious second coming of Jesus. Rather than getting caught up in the specifics of worldly events or the potential end of the world, Peter implores us to center our hearts and minds on the profound hope and immeasurable love that Jesus brings. This perspective is often referred to as the “conservative view” when it comes to the unfolding of eschatological events.

Interestingly, the majority of Israeli and American government policies tend to lean towards a more liberal standpoint in interpreting these events, basing their views on tradition rather than a strict adherence to Scripture. They believe that the peace in the Middle East will ultimately come through the fiery storm of Armageddon. But for those who prioritize the teachings of Jesus, a different vision emerges.

For followers of Christ, the establishment of peace in the region of Palestine lies not in the horrors of war, but in the transformative power of the Gospel. It transcends cultural boundaries, reaching out to Jews, Palestinians, Egyptians, Russians, Africans, Americans, and people from all walks of life. If we listen to Jesus, we might hear him say, if we want peace in Gaza strip then let us share the Gospel, which is a message of peace and love that has the power to transform the world.

Peter in his letter wants the Church to boldly carry the torch of the Gospel to every corner of the earth. It is through this actions rather than the action of WAR that believers can truly make a difference, bringing light to a dark world and spreading the message of peace and love that has the power to change lives.

Foreign Policy Analysis in light of Israeli War

On October 7, 2023, the Palestinian Sunni Islamist group Hamas (a U.S.-designated
foreign terrorist organization, or FTO) led surprise attacks against Israel by land, sea,
and air. The assault came on a Jewish holiday, 50 years after the Egypt-Syria surprise
attack that sparked the 1973 Yom Kippur War. The attacks’ scope and lethality against
Israel have no precedent in the 16 years Hamas has controlled Gaza, and the nature of
the violence stunned Israelis. The apparent intelligence and operational failures in
preventing the assault will be a subject of analysis for Israeli and U.S. officials.

In response to the attacks, Israel’s cabinet formally declared war on Hamas. Israel has
initiated efforts to recover hostages, begun an aerial bombardment campaign against
militants in Gaza, mobilized hundreds of thousands of reserve troops, and repositioned
ground forces close to Gaza.

Israel’s government almost completely halted the supply of electricity, food, water, and fuel to Gaza, which before the conflict had already faced crisis-level economic and humanitarian conditions. Israeli officials have said that they aim to change the status quo in Gaza, and are contemplating a major ground invasion that may seek to end Hamas’s rule there. The Israel Defense Forces has said it “calls for” all civilians residing in northern Gaza to evacuate southward. Hamas called on people to remain in place. United Nations Secretary-General António Guterres has expressed concern for the effects Israeli actions regarding Gaza may have on civilian well-being. An estimated 1 million Gazans (nearly half the territory’s population) have been displaced from their homes.

On October 16, Secretary of State Antony Blinken announced that the United States and Israel have agreed to
develop a plan that will enable international humanitarian aid to reach civilians in Gaza. On October 18 during a visit to Israel, President Biden confirmed this plan and announced $100 million in U.S. humanitarian assistance for Palestinians in Gaza and the West Bank.

Reportedly, more than 1,400 Israelis (and at least 32 American civilians) and about 3,785 Palestinians in Gaza
have been killed as of October 19. Additionally, Israel has reported that the bodies of around 1,500 dead attackers have been found in southern Israeli areas recaptured by its military. Militants are also reportedly holding some 200-250 persons hostage in Gaza (including some Americans). Hundreds of American citizens are estimated to be in Gaza, and the U.S. government is discussing safe passage for them with Egypt and Israel. Hamas’s attack preparations may have extended over several years. Possible motivating factors for the attacks’ timing include the potential to disrupt Arab-Israeli normalization efforts, bolster Hamas’s domestic and regional position, capitalize on Israeli political turmoil, and use hostages as leverage for prisoner releases or other concessions from Israel. The West Bank-based Palestinian Authority appears to be in a difficult position: unwilling to embrace Hamas and its attack on Israel, but unable to denounce them for fear of alienating West Bank Palestinians.

Israel’s Prime Minister, Benjamin Netanyahu has been backed up here very clearly by European leaders and most importantly by the President of the United States in making clear that Hamas has to be destroyed. That is a military action.

The New York Times front page early this month included the headline, “Hamas Attack Exploited Secrets of Israel’s military” subhead “In Complex Operation Gunmen had maps and an awareness of weak points”. New York Times further commented that, “with meticulous planning and extraordinary awareness of Israel’s secrets and weaknesses, Hamas and its allies overwhelm the length of Israel’s front with Gaza shortly after dawn. Shocking a nation that has long taken the superiority of its military as an article of faith.”

Nicholas Kristof a very influential columnist with the New York Times simply asked the question, “What does destroying Gaza solve?”

From what we see, the leaders are saying, First Israel must destroy Hamas, the terrorist organization, because it is built on destroying Israel.

Shifting Israeli/ Jewish WorldView?

The shift of Jewish culture towards a more progressive or left-leaning worldview in the United States can be understood through the lens of changing interpretations and emphasis on tradition. While certain Jewish groups have placed more emphasis on scripture, particularly in Orthodox Judaism, leading to a more conservative culture, the majority of liberal Jewish groups have embraced a broader interpretation of tradition.

It is important to note that conservative Jewish culture, which remains rooted in biblical tradition, often exhibits a higher birth rate. This has contributed to the growth of conservative and orthodox forms of Judaism, not only in the United States but also in Israel and elsewhere.

When theological authority shifts away from scripture alone and towards evolving tradition, it is natural for tradition to begin exerting a greater influence. However, it is important to acknowledge that this can lead to interpretations and practices that may deviate from the strictly biblical teachings.

By valuing an evolving tradition over strict biblical authority, there is an inherent recognition that tradition will naturally evolve over time. It is important to be mindful of the pace at which this evolution occurs, as it may differ from individual expectations. Nonetheless, the process of evolving tradition is inevitable once a departure from rigid biblical authority takes place.

In summary, the shift towards a more progressive or left-leaning worldview within Jewish culture in the United States is a result of the changing emphasis on tradition and evolving interpretations of scripture. It is a natural progression that reflects the dynamic nature of human thought and the adaptation of religious beliefs to contemporary contexts.

The Four Questions of Strategic Doing

Strategy is really centered around resolving two fundamental inquiries:

1. “Where are we going?” and
2. “How will we reach our destination?”

It is not uncommon for strategic plans to overlook one or both of these questions. Sometimes, there is a lack of clarity regarding the organization’s intended direction, while in other instances, there is an abundance of vague language without any concrete implementation strategies to realize the envisioned future.

While these two questions may appear straightforward, we have come to realize that they do not provide the comprehensive guidance that organizations require to enact meaningful change. To address this need, we propose breaking down each question into two halves, thereby forming a framework of four questions:

1. What opportunities lay before us? Based on our existing resources, what are all the potential avenues to propel us towards the future we aspire to witness?
2. Which opportunities should we prioritize? Given the multitude of possibilities, we must discern which ones are most worth pursuing at this moment.
3. What commitments must we make? Having identified the most promising opportunity, what agreements should we establish amongst ourselves to initiate its pursuit?
4. When will we reconvene? In order to reflect upon our progress, incorporate valuable lessons, and chart our course for the upcoming 30 days, it is imperative that we schedule a follow-up meeting (typically around 30 days from now).

By adhering to this structured approach, organizations can unlock greater clarity, direction, and progress in their strategic endeavors.

Policy- Decision

If you find yourself in a local church where most of the members are policymakers and military personnel, you can expect the pastor to give some interesting sermons from the Book of Ezekiel like this one. The preaching out of Ezekiel will be about policy response! Yep, you heard it right.

Now, if by any chance, the majority of the congregation is of Palestinian origin, well, buckle up! The same preacher will steer the attention of the church towards the challenges of being a Christian in a world where evil forces are at play. Preaching does depend on the context, for God has chosen to speak to his people in their respective context.

So in this video, it’s highly likely that many listeners belong to the United States policy-making class. If you were the preacher here, you would have about three options for lifting a message out of the book of Ezekiel.

Option number one: advocating for a policy of accommodation. Basically, suggesting that the deities of Hamas are stronger than the God of Israel, so Israel should just sit back and do nothing. Talk about a passive response, right?

Option number two involves encouraging the leaders to embrace a policy of blind fanatical nationalism. Who needs self-defense, right? The idea is to turn the other cheek and trust completely in God to take down Hamas. Sounds interesting, doesn’t it?

Option number three, is embracing a policy of fatalism. Asking your leaders to accept the inevitability of national and spiritual amalgamation. It’s all about inviting Palestinians to take over the government of Israel. How many here would root for that?

Now you’ve read the book of Ezekiel carefully, you’ll know that there’s another fourth option: a spiritual policy of repentance and covenant renewal. The whole message of the book of Ezekiel tells everyone, whether they’re Hamas, Israeli, Russian, or American, to chill and make things right with God. It’s all about doing some soul-searching, both individually and as a group.

With hearts full of repentance and a reconnection to God, leaders should be able to sit together and be like bros, finding a decent piece of land to relocate the most vulnerable group. When leaders have genuinely repented, they’ll be able to stand up against evil without resorting to violence. They’ll even be able to win over their opponents by being cool and understanding, without making them feel small. And most importantly, they’ll see evil for what it is, independent from the people committing those evil acts.

Prophet Ezekiel taught that God’s sovereignty extends to all nations. His presence isn’t limited to Israel alone. He’s there in Gaza too. Geography has no effect on God. What we all need is a new heart that worships God in truth and in Spirit. A new heart is run from a new government in a new temple that is not build in earthly Jerusalem!

Ezekiel wasn’t just an average preacher. He didn’t shy away from calling out the unfaithful pastors and leaders who were leading people astray with their pleasant sermons. Ezekiel 34 is a whole chapter of indictment against the wicked shepherds: “Woe to the shepherds of Israel who feed themselves! Should not the shepherds feed the flocks?” (Ezek. 34:2).

Ezekiel wanted the people of his day to know that God is like a caring shepherd and a watchman who ain’t happy with their sinful ways. He had a tough journey too. Captured and marched off into captivity, he started his life as a priest, only to be uprooted and sent to Babylon at the ripe age of 25. Talk about a career change! At the age of 30, he had this mind-blowing vision of Yahweh’s glory right there in Babylon! That totally changed his outlook. He realized that God ain’t confined to earthly Jerusalem. Oh no, He’s a universal God who’s in charge of individuals and nations.

Book Of Ezekiel

If the majority of members in the local church comprise policymakers and military personnel, it is likely that the pastor will focus on delivering sermons from the Book of Ezekiel, with an emphasis on policy response. Conversely, if most of the members are of Palestinian origin, this same preacher would likely direct the congregation’s attention towards navigating the challenges of being a Christian in a world where evil forces exert influence. Preaching and the way God has chosen to speak to his people is contextual. The spiritually mature see and understand that.

That said, it is evident that this pastor’s message is influenced by the composition of the congregation. Although not all members are necessarily of Jewish heritage, it is probable that many listeners to this message belong to the United Stated policy-making class. In such a context, the pastor has several options to encourage policy leaders in responding to the Middle East situation.

The first option is to advocate for a policy of accommodation, suggesting that the deities of Hamas are stronger than the God of Israel. Consequently, it promotes a passive response, suggesting that Israel should not take any action.

The second option involves encouraging leaders to respond with a policy of blind fanatical nationalism. This approach advises against taking up arms for self-defense, instead promoting the concept of turning the other cheek and placing complete trust in God to overthrow Hamas.

The third option proposes accepting the inevitability of national and spiritual amalgamation. This stance would advocate for inviting Palestinians to assume control over the government of Israel, embracing a policy of fatalism.

Anyone who has read the book of Ezekiel carefully knows that he always encouraged leaders to consider a fourth option, which is a spiritual policy of repentance and covenant renewal, both on a personal and collective level. By promoting repentance and covenant renewal, Ezekiel urges everyone, Hamas and Israeli, Russian or American, to seek reconciliation with God and to reform their ways. This fourth policy encompasses both individual introspection and collective commitment to covenant obligations for God is morally and spiritually superior to Hamas, America’s or Israel’s corrupt and compromising society.

Prophet Ezekiel taught that God’s sovereignty is universal. His presence is not limited to Israel. God is present in Gaza as well. Geography has no bearing on God and all nations in the world are responsible for their sins, and each individual is also accountable to God. Ezekiel said to his people, if God is truly our king and shepherd, we all need a new heart to worship Him and ask Him to establish a new government in a new temple. Today that Spiritual Government is the Church and the builder and architect of Kaniset ne Tilil, ne bo emotinwek Tugul, as we say in Mwaet ab Kayonik is Jesus Kristo, weritab Jehovah, ne kigimanach en tamirmiryet ne tilil ak kisich Berkeiyat Maria; kiginyalil en bounatetab Pontio Pilato; kigigartat, kime ak kigitub, kiwa oldap che kigobek; king’eet en betutab somok komong eng’ che kibek; kiwa barak Kipsengwet, ak kotebe eautab tai nebo Jehova kwanda, Kamuktaindet; tun nyonei kogeny koruokyi che soptos anc che kigobek.

The book of Ezekiel condemns pastors and shepherds who are unfaithful priests and leaders, leading people astray in their pleasant sermons. Ezekiel, more than anything, wanted the people of his day to know that God is a caring shepherd and a watchman who is displeased with people’s sinful ways. Prophet Ezekiel and his wife were among the 10,000 captives marched off into captivity. Destined to begin his life as a priest in 830 BC, Ezekiel was uprooted from his homeland and marched off to Babylon at the age of 25. For five years, he languished in despair. At the age of 30, a majestic vision of Yahweh’s glory captivated Ezekiel’s being in Babylon. The priest-prophet discovered that God was not confined to the structures of Ezekiel’s native land, but instead, He is a universal God who commands and controls individuals and nations. In Babylon, God imparted His word to Ezekiel for the people. This call experience transformed Ezekiel, as he became wholly devoted to God’s word. He realized that he had nothing personally to offer the captives, but he was convinced that God’s word spoke to their condition and could bring them victory even in death.

Halloween and Secularization

While All Hallows’ Eve/All Saints Day is Christian (with possible roots in Celtic harvest festivals), it’s become a secular holiday. Is that good, bad, neutral?

Empricism vs. Rationalism

Rationalism and empiricism are both viewpoints in epistemology. Epistemology is a philosophical field that focuses on knowledge and can be understood in terms of three central issues. The first is defining knowledge, trying to understand what exactly knowledge is. The second is questioning where knowledge comes from, how it is that a person knows some proposition or statement to be true or false. The third is examining how much people can ever really know, and whether there are certain topics about which knowledge is impossible.

The issue that generally separates rationalism and empiricism is the second of the three: From where do people get knowledge? Rationalism is the view that a lot of meaningful and important knowledge about the world comes purely from the mind itself, from people’s ability to use reason. Empiricism is the view that people’s experiences are the only source of knowledge, and that thinking alone does not provide meaningful knowledge about the world. This lesson examines these two views and their disagreements.

Rationalism

Rationalism can be understood in terms of three key ideas: deduction, innate ideas, and reason.

• Deduction is a reasoning process that uses logic and is structured such that if each step is correct, then the final conclusion of the argument has to be true. This can be contrasted with induction; the conclusion of an inductive argument has good evidence for it but is not certain. Rationalists often use deductive arguments, beginning from intuitive principles and deducing claims about how the world must be.
• Innate ideas are ideas that people can understand and think about without ever having to learn them from the external world. These ideas are simply part of the human mind. Innate ideas are often the starting point of deductive arguments. For instance, a rationalist might begin with the ideas of mind and body, which they might say are innate, and then deduce a claim about whether the mind and body are separate substances.
• Reason is central to rationalism, as it is what allows people to gain important knowledge without experience. Rationalists often focus on intuition, which is people’s ability to know certain propositions to be true just based on a feeling or sense. For example, the claim ”Five equals five” seems obviously true and does not require empirical proof. In the view of many rationalists, reason and intuition give people important knowledge that they couldn’t learn any other way.

Empiricism

Three key ideas within empiricism are sense experience, the tabula rasa, and induction.

• Sense experience is information about the external world that people get from their senses, such as sight, hearing, and touch. Empiricists view sense experience as the only path to knowledge, claiming that people gain knowledge based on the evidence of their senses, rather than from reason by itself. A person’s experiences of their own mind and body are also sources of knowledge under the empiricist view. Importantly, anything learned through experience is not innate, so empiricists disagree with the idea of innate concepts.
• The tabula rasa, or blank slate, represents the empiricist claim that people are born without any innate concepts or knowledge. People start out as a blank slate and only gain ideas and knowledge over the course of their lives. The tabula rasa, often associated with the philosopher John Locke, is important to empiricism because it challenges the rationalist claim that innate ideas or knowledge exist.
• Induction is a form of reasoning that produces conclusions backed by evidence, though not by certainty, unlike deduction. Since empiricists consider experience to be the only source of knowledge, they claim that this knowledge comes from induction, based on the evidence that people have seen so far but not absolutely certain in the way that an argument based on just reason would be.

Examples of Rationalism vs. Empiricism

There are many philosophical debates throughout history that have been viewed as disagreements between the rationalist and empiricist positions. This classification is somewhat flawed because it can oversimplify philosophers and their positions; many philosophers who are frequently viewed as falling under one label or the other actually mix elements of both rationalism and empiricism in their work. However, those classified as rationalist philosophers generally include Plato, Aristotle, Rene Descartes, and Baruch Spinoza. Those classified as empiricist philosophers generally include John Locke, David Hume, George Berkeley, and John Stuart Mill.

In early modern Europe, many debates between rationalism and empiricism focused on metaphysics, the field of philosophy that considers fundamental questions such as what it means to exist or how the mind is related to the body. An example of such a debate would be the issue of causality. Spinoza operated from an intuitive understanding of the concept of causality and used this idea of cause to infer all sorts of claims about the universe. This is a rationalist view because it uses reason to move from purportedly innate ideas to meaningful claims about external reality. On the other hand, Hume argued that the idea of cause is based on experience, and therefore suspect. Since people infer causal links based on their observations, it is not immediately clear whether causes actually exist or whether people just assume they do. This is an empiricist view because it credits experience and induction as the origin of people’s concepts.

Another example has to do with the idea of substance, which refers to the material existence of objects in the external world. Descartes treats substance as an innate idea and claims that we intuitively understand mind and body as two separate types of substances. Spinoza similarly views substance as an innate idea but thinks that the idea of substance leads to the claim that there is only one substance in the universe, so the body and mind are not separate. These are both rationalist positions because they use innate ideas and reason to make conclusions about the world. On the other hand, Berkeley claims that substance is an idea that people develop to try to explain the world they observe; in fact, Berkeley argues that there is not really evidence that material objects exist. This is an empiricist view because it views observation as the source of knowledge.

Principles of the Just War

      

1.    A just war can only be waged as a last resort. All non-violent options must be exhausted before the use of force can be justified.

2.            A war is just only if it is waged by a legitimate authority. Even just causes cannot be served by actions taken by individuals or groups who do not constitute an authority sanctioned by whatever the society and outsiders to the society deem legitimate.

3.            A just war can only be fought to redress a wrong suffered. For example, self-defense against an armed attack is always considered to be a just cause (although the justice of the cause is not sufficient–see the next point). Further, a just war can only be fought with “right” intentions: the only permissible objective of a just war is to redress the injury.

4.            A war can only be just if it is fought with a reasonable chance of success. Deaths and injury incurred in a hopeless cause are not morally justifiable.

5.            The ultimate goal of a just war is to re-establish peace. More specifically, the peace established after the war must be preferable to the peace that would have prevailed if the war had not been fought.

6.            The violence used in the war must be proportional to the injury suffered. States are prohibited from using force not necessary to attain the limited objective of addressing the injury suffered.

7.            The weapons used in war must discriminate between combatants and non-combatants. Civilians are never permissible targets of war, and every effort must be taken to avoid killing civilians. The deaths of civilians are justified only if they are unavoidable victims of a deliberate attack on a military target.

Just war is warfare that is justified by a moral or legal tradition. Just war theory presumes that there are legitimate uses of war but also sets moral boundaries on the waging of war. It deals with two fundamental questions concerning the ethics of war and peace:

1. When is it morally and legally justified to go to war?
2. What moral principles should we follow during war?

Jus ad bellum (moral justifications for going to war) requires that the cause for war is just; the right authority makes the decision; the decision is made with the right intention of bringing about peace; the war is a last resort; the overall evil of the war does not outweigh the good. Jus in bello (moral principles to follow during war) governs the treatment of prisoners; requires the protection of civilians, and prohibits the disproportionate use of force. A third part of just war theory is jus post bellum, denoting justice after war.

The historical aspect of just war, also referred to as the just war tradition, represents the historical rules, such as the Geneva Convention, that have been applied to wars. Ethical theorists of international relations must consider the philosophical coherence of international agreements and reflect upon the circumstances that legitimize the waging of war.

Saint Augustine was the first clear advocate of just-war theory.

Today, just war theory is divided into three categories, each with its own set of ethical principles. The categories are jus ad bellum, jus in bello, and jus post bellum. These Latin terms translate roughly as ‘justice towards war’, ‘justice in war’, and ‘justice after war’.

1. Jus ad bellum

When political leaders are trying to decide whether to go to war or not, just war theory requires them to test their decision by applying several principles:

• Is it for a just cause?

This requires war only be used in response to serious wrongs. The most common example of just cause is self-defence, though coming to the defence of another innocent nation is also seen as a just cause by many (and perhaps the highest cause).

• Is it with the right intention?

This requires that war-time political leaders be solely motivated, at a personal level, by reasons that make a war just. For example, even if war is waged in defence of another innocent country, leaders cannot resort to war because it will assist their re-election campaign.

• Is it from a legitimate authority?

This demands war only be declared by leaders of a recognised political community and with the political requirements of that community.

• Does it have due proportionality?

This requires us to imagine what the world would look like if we either did or didn’t go to war. For a war to be ‘just’ the quality of the peace resulting from war needs to superior to what would have happened if no war had been fought. This also requires we have some probability of success in going to war – otherwise people will suffer and die needlessly.

• Is it the last resort?

This says we should explore all other reasonable options before going to war – negotiation, diplomacy, economic sanctions and so on.

Even if the principles of jus ad bellum are met, there are still ways a war can be unjust.

2. Jus in bello

These are the ethical principles that govern the way combatants conduct themselves in the ‘theatre of war’.

• Discrimination requires combatants only to attack legitimate targets. Civilians, medics and aid workers, for example, cannot be the deliberate targets of military attack. However, according the principle of double-effect, military attacks that kill some civilians as a side-effect may be permissible if they are both necessary and proportionate.
• Proportionality applies to both jus ad bellum and jus in bello. Jus in bello requires that in a particular operation, combatants do not use force or cause harm that exceeds strategic or ethical benefits. The general idea is that you should use the minimum amount of force necessary to achieve legitimate military aims and objectives.
• No intrinsically unethical means is a debated principle in just war theory. Some theorists believe there are actions which are always unjustified, whether or not they are used against enemy combatants or are proportionate to our goals. Torture, shooting to maim and biological weapons are commonly-used examples.
• ‘Following orders’ is not a defence as the war crime tribunals after the Second World War clearly established. Military personnel may not be legally or ethically excused for following illegal or unethical orders. Every person bearing arms is responsible for their conduct – not just their commanders.

3. Jus post bello

Once a war is completed, steps are necessary to transition from a state of war to a state of peace. Jus post bello is a new area of just war theory aimed at identifying principles for this period. Some of the principles that have been suggested (though there isn’t much consensus yet) are:

• Status quo ante bellum, a Latin term meaning ‘the way things were before war’ – basically rights, property and borders should be restored to how they were before war broke out. Some suggest this is a problem because those can be the exact conditions which led to war in the first place.
• Punishment for war crimes is a crucial step to re-installing a just system of governance. From political leaders down to combatants, any serious offences on either side of the conflict need to be brought to justice.
• Compensation of victims suggests that, as much as possible, the innocent victims of conflict be compensated for their losses (though some of the harms of war will be almost impossible to adequately compensate, such as the loss of family members).
• Peace treaties need to be fair and just to all parties, including those who are guilty for the war occurring.

Just war theory provides the basis for exercising ‘ethical restraint’ in war. Without restraint, philosopher Michael Ignatieff, argues there is no way to tell the difference between a ‘warrior’ and a ‘barbarian’.