Living by the Sword? The Ethics of Armed Intervention
Written by: Tom Frame,
UNSW Press, Sydney, 2004,
ISBN: 9780868405193, 278pp.
Reviewed by: Christian Enemark, Strategic and Defence Studies Centre, Australian National University.
In the Garden of Gethsemane, Jesus admonished his disciple Peter: ‘All who live by the sword will die by the sword’. For centuries, theologians have debated what Jesus really meant by this statement in order to determine the moral status of those who engage in armed conflict. Tom Frame’s Living by the Sword?, written in the aftermath of the 2003 invasion of Iraq, is a timely work that rigorously surveys the theological, ethical and legal dimensions of war.
The book is primarily a reflection on the relationship between armed conflict and Christianity, although the non-Christian reader should not feel excluded. The author deliberately appeals to reason as well as faith in his discussions of war and ethics, and he acknowledges from the outset that the Church does not come to the subject with a clear conscience or with clean hands. Frame is Anglican Bishop to the Australian Defence Force, but he also writes from the perspective of a scholar and a former naval officer. He is equally at ease with philosophy, law and politics as he is with theology. His book provides a survey of religious and secular writings on war and warriors from the time of Jesus to the 20th century and the creation of modern international law.
In an introduction that is part autobiographical, Frame describes some of the lifetime experiences that have contributed to his attitude to war: from childhood memories of Vietnam War protests to his time in the Royal Australian Navy (RAN). By the time he resigned from the RAN in late 1992 to pursue ordination, he felt drawn strongly to pacifism—the view that using armed force is morally illegitimate and practically ineffective. Nonetheless, despite his pacifist convictions, Frame was soon propelled towards a belief that armed intervention is sometimes justified. The humanitarian crises in Cambodia, Rwanda and Somalia were particular factors that wrenched him away from a doctrine of strict pacifism.
Frame prefers to speak of ‘armed intervention’ rather than ‘war’, and his first point of reference is the story in the Gospels of the Good Samaritan, who was prepared to exert every effort to aid a stricken man. In an international system built on the principle of state sovereignty, however, a heavy onus of moral proof will always be on the intervening state. Only gross violations of human rights, including ‘ethnic cleansing’ and genocide, justify armed intervention. Lesser transgressions—such as military coups, election rigging and political disenfranchisement—do not justify intervention by military force.
Frame identifies three principal Christian positions taken on armed conflict and military service since the time of Jesus: pacifism, just war and militarism. He dismisses the third as ethically unviable. The militarist view is that of the strong necessarily triumphing over the weak. It finds religious embodiment in the crusade: the notion that God has given His servants the physical means to destroy His enemies. For Frame, the only two positions open to a Christian are pacifism and just war. In providing a detailed exposition of each position, he nevertheless questions whether either can be consistently applied, given the complexity of modern life.
Frame himself approaches the ethics of armed conflict from within the just-war tradition. St Augustine, a fourth-century bishop, wrote that a just war must meet certain criteria. Of these criteria, the most important are that war is a last resort; that the cause for war is just; and that the means employed in pursuit of that cause are necessary, discriminate and proportionate. Frame classifies Iraq’s invasion of Kuwait in August 1990 as unjust because it was ‘an act of unprovoked aggression committed entirely for self-serving purposes’. By contrast, Australia’s 1999 intervention in East Timor scored well against the criteria for a just war. It was a last-resort measure, deploying limited means, and intended to alleviate the suffering of the East Timorese.
Frame once supported the 2003 invasion of Iraq as a just war but he has since had second thoughts. He now argues that, without the discovery of Iraqi weapons of mass destruction or links with al-Qa’ida, the just cause for invasion has collapsed. Moreover, the war was not a last resort since there was still time for containment, sanctions and inspections, and the military means brought to bear imposed a disproportionate cost in terms of lives lost and social disorder.
Frame’s discussion of the ethics of armed intervention and military service is particularly interesting when he places it in the Australian context. He provides, for example, a detailed and fascinating analysis of the Australian experience of conscription and the related issue of conscientious objection. In discussing Australia’s experiences of war, Frame notes that Australia has a tendency to exaggerate threats to its own national security and regional stability. Such an approach has often distorted assessments of whether going to war was the right course of action. Frame concludes boldly that ‘Australia has willingly and unquestioningly participated in unjust wars’, but it would be interesting to know more about his thoughts on this point.
Indeed, the only fair criticism of Frame’s book might be that he does not pursue some important issues as far as he could. First, Frame gives nuclear war only passing consideration, on the grounds that it is less likely today than it was during the Cold War. However, in the post–Cold War world, the threat of nuclear attack is still a factor in strategic calculations, and ethical restraints are as important as ever. Second, the author discusses militarism only briefly as the unacceptable alternative to pacifism and just war. It would also be interesting to read his ethical critique of militarism today, especially against the background of accusations that America is pursuing a neo-conservative ‘crusade’ in the Middle East.
Living by the Sword? is well researched, and the author’s arguments are persuasive and well reasoned. Frame is firm in his commitment to certain ethical positions, but he conscientiously canvasses opposing points of view. His book is valuable because it compels the reader to engage with the notion of justice and how it is manifested in the crucible of war.
