The "Just War" tradition

 

 

Discussions of the ethics of states using violence to gain their ends go back to Ancient Egypt.  There are contributions from the “Eastern” religions” but  Western  conclusions are largely based on the works of St Ambrose (339 – 397) and St Augustine of Hippo (354 – 430)  (ie not the  Archbishop of Canterbury Augustine).

 In summary, their conclusions are that for a state to go to war (and to limit the violence in conducting the war)

1.    1. The war should be undertaken by a lawful authority  . . .

2.    2. . . .in vindication of an undoubted right that has been infringed.

3.    3. Be a last resort.

4.    4. The good to be achieved should outweigh the evil the war wold involve. .

5.    5. . . . with a reasonable hope of a victory for justice.

6.    6. Be waged with a right intention (this one from Thomas Aquinas, d1274)

7.    7. . . .using methods that are legitimate (de Vitoria, 1483 – 1546)

8.    8. Retaliation should be proportionate to the offence.

In considering the present war in the Middle East there is plenty of scope for argument in several of the above.  (Are Hamas  and Hezbollah ”lawful authorities?  Is the prolongation of the war really for Netanyahu to remain in power and avoid criminal prosecution?   -  to name but some.)

The outstanding “non-compliance” with Just War theory is to me the lack of proportionality.  It is unconscionable that 42 000 people in Gaza, plus 2 000 and rising in Lebanon should be slaughtered as a response to  the killing of just over 1 000 on October 7^th last year.

Similarly, in the coverage of the anniversary in the last few days such media as have tried to be even handed (eg the BBC) have tended to give equal time to each side: two Israeli families and two Palestinian families.  To be proportionate, for every Israeli family’s tragedy we need to hear about the tragedies of 40+  Palestinian families.

 As Ian Dunt points out in his newsletter,  (Striking 13) we are told the stories of Israeli families  because we know their names, have the family photographs and videos, and can hear of their thwarted ambitions.  We don’t have the same access to Palestinian stories, not least because the Israeli government does not allow access to Gaza for reporters.  But also because there are two many of them.

 Post script.  

 Today's Guardian devotes the front- page headline and then four more complete pages to the agonies of the Israelis, and we wait until until page nine for just one to the agonies of Gaza.  No wonder we are now hearing the phrase: "Brown lives don't matter."

  

themthem: they have become just a number.

Gasping Local Government.

 

 

In the  previous post I reported my answers to “Labour List’s” question , what do think are the three  most important priorities that should be in the Budget at the end of this month.  They are:

1.    End the Two Child Benefit Cap (I’ve gathered since that the Household Benefit Cap also need lifting)

2.    Significantly increase the funding of local government.

3.    Restore the Aid Budget to at least 0.58% of GDP, and publish plans to  get back to 0.7% asap.

There are further and better particulars in today’s Guardian (03/10/24) about the strains under which local government is currently operating.  See:

https://www.theguardian.com/society/2024/oct/03/rising-cost-of-social-services-in-england-putting-arts-and-youth-services-at-risk-say-councils

 

To summarise, by law Councils must provide:

·       Educational services;

·       Children and adult social care;

·       Waste collection;

·       Public health;

·       Planning and housing services;

·       Road maintenance;

·       Libraries.

In trying to maintain these statuary duties, since 2010 Councils have been forced  to reduce or even abandon “nice to have” services such as:

·       Sure Start children’s centres;

·       Youth clubs;

·       Leisure centres;

·       Arts projects;

·       Museums;

·       Parks;

·       Libraries;

·       Theatres.

A government spokesperson has said: “Despite the inheritance left, (we’re hearing a lot about that) “we will work with local government to fix the foundations and get them back on their feet. . . ”

 I presume M/s Reeves knows.

 

What should be in the Budget?

 

This morning’s “Labour List” asked me to fill in a questionnaire on what I thought should be in the budget.  I was asked for one “most important” item and then for two further suggestions.

Off the top of my head, my responses were:

Most important.

End the Two Child Limit on Universal Credit.  It is unconscionable  that this very rich country should be punishing children via this immoral and ineffective piece of gesture politics.

Next.

Give a significant increase to the grants to local government, graded according to their needs (“levelling up,” to coin a phrase.)  Local government  is responsible for various vital services, including provision for care of the elderly and the requirements of children with special needs.  Local government needs building up, not made to further reduce  services already stretched to the limit, thus taking the blame for the incompetence of the (previous?) central government.  Such an increase would also signal further devolution – a movement away from the centralist view that “Westminster knows best.”

Thirdly

Raise the Overseas Development Assistance budget to at least 0.58% of GDP  (see previous post for the argument) and announce plans for restoring it to 0.7%.  As even David Cameron said:  “The UK will not balance its books on the backs of the poorest.”  (27^th May 2011)

There was no provision if the questionnaire for further suggestions.  The above are short term.  I’d like to see some tax(es) increased NOW to invest in  the building of a sustainable green infrastructure, and the creation of a Commission to examine the UK’s taxation structure, with a view to switching away from “goods” (such as work) to “bads” (such as pollution) as Paddy Ashdown argued years ago, and from income to wealth (see Phillip Collins’s article on “Hand-me-  down economics” in the August edition of Prospect.

ODA: a test of Labour's moral compass

Way back in the 1960s a significant part of the way we “swung” was an enthusiastic campaign for the countries in the rich “Developed World” to allocate 1% of their National Incomes  for the reduction and eventual elimination  of poverty in what we then called the “Third World.”  This succeeded to the extent that by the end of the decade, the United Nations was sufficiently convinced to pass a resolution in which the governments of the rich countries agreed to devote 0.7% of their national incomes to Overseas Development Assistance (ODA).  The other 0.3% was expected to come from the private sector and charities.

Sadly, for the rest of the century (all of thirty years) only a handful of rich countries, primarily Sweden, the Netherlands, Norway and Denmark, actually hit the 0.7%  target.  The UK, even during  the virtuous Blair-Brown years (1997 to 2010) never quite made it, (though they did set up a separate government Department for International  Development - DfID) and it was not until the much maligned Coalition, of which we Liberals were part, and on this issue probably the driving influence, that the target was achieved.

The Conservative Leader and Prime Minister, David Cameron, still in his “Hug a hoody” mode, was sympathetic, and, in spite of the strains on the public purse caused by repairing the ravages of the 2008/9 financial crisis, proclaimed:

“The UK will not balance its books on the backs of the poorest.”  (27^th may, 2011)  

A year later he resolved:

 “The argument of the heart is even when things are difficult at home we should fulfil our moral obligations to the poorest of the world. There are still more than a billion people living on a dollar a day,”

So, lo and behold, 43 years after having supported the UN Resolution, the British government actually reached the 0.7% target in 2013. 

The Coalition then cemented the  target into law in 2015.  Mr Cameron, now perhaps with a touch of the Borises, couldn’t help boasting about it and declared:

“If Britain can do it, others can.”

Sadly, his successor but one, was made of less stern stuff, and the Tory government of 2020 cut the ODA budget from 0.7% to 0.5%.

 

As a result, development projects in health, education, and infrastructure have been scaled back.

Worse was to come.

It has recently been revealed that a significant part of the  0.5% budget meant for ODA has been diverted to the Home Office  to finance accommodation for refugees and asylum seekers in this country.  The amount now spent in the poorest countries is  a mere 0.36% of GDP: only just over half the proportion Cameron boasted about.   This has led to cuts 37%  in education projects, 39% in health, 42% in humanitarian support and a massive 58% on water and sanitation.  (For the effects of this last one see posts on this blog on the 19^th November, Word Toilet Day, in the past few years) .

The above percentages are taken from an article by Larry Elliot in the Guardian, 16^th September, 2024.  https://www.theguardian.com/business/2024/sep/15/one-more-item-labour-to-do-list-repair-uk-aid-budget. The article concludes with the following suggestions for the Labour government to implement.

1.     1. At least maintain ODA at the 2003 level of 0.58% of GDP (before some of it was syphoned off to the Home Office).

2.    2. Give a more honest report on what , of the ODA budget, is actually devoted to ODA.

3.    3. Explain in detail what in fact are the  “circumstances” which will “permit” the 0.7% to be restored.

4.    4. Recreate the Department for International Development as an independent department with its own cabinet minister (the Tories merged it with the Foreign Office)

5.    5. Join an international campaign to tackle “unsustainable debt.” ( Some counties in the “Global South” are forced to spend more on debt servicing to hedge funds than they spend on education and health)

6.    6. Press the IMF to create more SDRs ( Jim Callaghan’s "paper gold”) to be shared among the poorest countries.

That’s a challenge for the Labour Government and a test of its moral compass.

 

(A heart-rending article in today's Guardian by Malawi's Minister of Health describes the crises the country is experiencing, not least outbreaks of cholera  and malaria, as a result of catastrophic flooding  and serious drought in recent years. See

 

PS ( *24th September) The Debt Justice group, of which I am a paid up supporter,  held this protest at the Labour Party conference.  I hope they were heard. 

https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/#inbox/FMfcgzQXJQKRNdwWVrHQsKBkbsTlcWxC?compose=new

 

 

 

 

 

https://www.theguardian.com/global-development/2024/sep/23/malawi-climate-crisis-paying-with-our-lives-acc )