The Argentine takeover of the Malvinas (the Falkland Islands), April 2,1982, will go down in history as an event of unsuspected importance for world politics in this last quarter of the 20th century. The presence of Argentine Foreign Minister Nicanor Costa Mendez at the meeting of the Movement of Non-aligned Countries held in Havana, Cuba, in June is in harmony with a whole series of changes that the unexpected war between Argentina and Great Britain produced in the field of international relations.
Who could have imagined on April 2 that a government regarded as Reagan's ideal ally in his fight against subversion in Central America would soon be supported by Cuban communists and Nicaraguan Sandinistas? Who could have thought that the Inter-American Treaty of Reciprocal Help--an instrument created by the United States to repel any Soviet intervention in Latin America--would be invoked by most Latin American countries against Washington's alignment with Great Britain? Who would have believed that the Exocet, a very modern weapon made in Europe, would be tried for the first time in a war between "free world" countries, and that the European Economic Community would punish one of its closest ideological allies, forcing it to strengthen its ties with the Soviet Union?
Quite clearly, with this recent conflict, War (with a capital W) has disembarked on our coast and destroyed the dream of Latin America as "denuclearized territory." When the Treaty of Tlatelolco (which forbids testing, using, producing, and buying nuclear armament) was signed, it was never thought that an extra-continental power which had signed the treaty, Great Britain, would in fact transport nuclear armament in aggression against another (provisional) signatory, Argentina. Now that the treaty has been violated, with consent on the part of the United States, who can stop countries such as Brazil and Argentina in their effort to produce the atomic bomb?
The senseless armament race can only be a matter of deep concern to those of us who confess Jesus Christ as our Lord. The modernization of the armed forces has undoubtedly been one of the main factors involved in the worsening of the economic situation of Latin America in these last two decades. It is difficult to imagine the social cost that these countries would have to pay in order to enter the atomic club. And who can foresee the consequences that entrance into that club would have with regard to the question of peace within Latin America?
If there is anything this war has shown Christians in Latin America, it is how ill-prepared we are to judge the problem of war from a Christian perspective.
Hardly anyone, even in Argentina, would have agreed with the Argentine pilot who, in an interview during the days of the war, stated: "Beyond all doubt, God is on our side. We are fighting for a good cause, and this is a conviction that the British must not have...their war is not by God's command." Such a statement shows that even today there are those who believe in the possibility of a holy war, the view that motivated the Crusades in the Middle Ages. That is not a position with many uses today, however.
In all probability, the great majority of Christians, either in Argentina or in Britain, who supported their government's position and action with regard to the recent war did so on the basis of the just war theory. According to this theory, since there are occasions when war is an unavoidable evil, there is the need of practical measures to control war and to keep it within the limits of justice. Rules or criteria are suggested in order to enable people to discriminate whether a war is just or not.
Accordingly, a war is just when it fulfills the following rules:
1) it is only defensive;
2) its intention is just; it seeks to ensure peace for all rather than economic gain, territorial conquest, or ideological supremacy;
3) it is the last resort; it is entered upon when all other means have been tried and found failing;
4) it requires a formal declaration by the highest authorities;
5) it is declared by a legitimate government;
6) it has limited objectives; it does not seek an unconditional surrender or the destruction of the economic and political institutions of the enemy;
7) it uses proportionate means; it is not a total, unlimited war;
8) it guarantees the immunity of non-combatants.
This is not the place to analyze whether these criteria favor either Argentina or Britain in their claims that its war for the Malvinas was just. The important thing here is to point out that in both countries many Christians sided with their respective government, claiming that their war was just.
Once again it became evident that the main use of the just war theory is to justify war and make it morally acceptable to Christian conscience. It is not a coincidence that the cultural context where the just war theory was developed and sanctioned by theology was that of the West, whose record of colonial aggression and wars is a shameful and eloquent denial of the rationality of humankind.
The least that must be said with regard to the just war theory is that time after time it has been used to rationalize war. I know of no case in history when a nation has abstained from war because its authorities have considered that in the light of the just war norms their war would not be just. The problem is not in the norms themselves, but in human nature. This is the fundamental error of the just war theory: it assumes that human beings, who are supposed to be rational, know what is just and, willing to do what is good, act according to justice. Such a rationalistic optimism is blind to the dominion of passion over reason and will.
The recent war between Argentina and Britain has shown some of us the relevance of Christ's life example and teaching regarding love for one's neighbor, including one's enemy. It is true that Christian love cannot be institutionalized, while the just war theory, by contrast, has provided the laws concerning war included in the Geneva Convention and other international treaties.
We cannot expect that those who do not believe in Jesus Christ as their Lord would accept an ethic rooted in his person and work, his passion and teaching. Yet, the norms of the just war theory are the very minimum ethical standards to be expected of any state involved in war. The fact remains, however, that there is no just war. The prophetic diagnosis of Israel's sin is applicable to the modern nations, including Argentina and Britain:
Your hands are stained with blood, your fingers with guilt. Your lips have spoken lies, and your tongues mutter wicked things. No one calls for justice, no one pleads his case with integrity. They rely on empty arguments and speak lies; they conceive trouble and give birth to evil.... Acts of violence are in their hands....They are swift to shed innocent blood....The way of peace they do not know; there is no justice in their paths. They have turned them into crooked roads; no one who walks in them will know peace.
(Isaiah 59:3-8)
That being the case, the task that those of us who confess Jesus Christ as our Lord have before us is to denounce the crime of war and to announce the gospel of peace. As followers of the Suffering Servant, we are called to proclaim and to live out, both on a personal and a community level, God's love, which was supremely expressed on the cross. What is the historical meaning of our faith if in the midst of a world marked by violence we are not willing to serve God by seeking peace in faithfulness to Jesus Christ?
Rene Padilla was a contributing editor for Sojourners and associate editor of Editorial Caribe in Buenos Aires, Argentina when this article appeared.
Got something to say about what you're reading? We value your feedback!