In recent news, Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau has raised concerns about the use of cluster munitions in Ukraine. At a NATO conference, Trudeau criticized his allies for providing Ukraine with cluster munitions, stating that it was the wrong kind of assistance. While some may be inclined to dismiss Trudeau’s remarks due to his empty pockets at the conference, it is worth considering his message, even if we may not agree with the messenger.
The issue of just war has long been a topic of debate. In Latin, it was divided into two principles: “ius ad bellum” and “ius in bello”. The former refers to the justice in going to war, while the latter focuses on the justice in conducting the war. Some argue that it was not just for the West to assist Ukraine when it was attacked by Russia. However, even in unjust wars, the massacre of civilians is seen as compounding the evil. It is important to examine whether the use of cluster munitions aligns with the principles of “ius in bello”.
There are those who believe that war is never justified, while others, including Christians, adhere to a pacifist stance. However, the injunction to render unto Caesar often overrides the pacifist belief when it comes to matters of war. G.K. Chesterton and Hillaire Belloc, Christian apologists and friends, argued against pacifism, highlighting the dangers of not resisting evil. While their views may be contested, it is crucial to consider the potential dangers faced by civilians in conflict zones.
Cluster munitions have drawn particular scrutiny due to their significant failure rate and the long-lasting danger they pose to civilians. However, it is worth noting that single-blast shells used in World War I also had a high failure rate and remain a threat today. The risks to civilians should be weighed against the risks posed by malevolent foes. When considering the use of cluster munitions in Ukraine, it is important to analyze whether the overall civilian risk is greater with or without their use.
The issue of cluster munitions becomes more complex when examining Ukraine’s limited choices in terms of defense options. Many nations, including the United States, have realized the need for an adequate supply of shells in modern mass conflicts. However, no Western nation, including Canada, has sufficient stocks to assist Ukraine or other potential battlefronts. This lack of resources places heavy responsibility on allies who are not able to provide the necessary support.
While Trudeau’s stance on war may influence his critique of cluster munitions, the focus should remain on the issue itself. If cluster munitions are the only option available to Ukraine to avoid surrender or defeat, their use becomes a morally challenging decision. It is the failure of nations to supply Ukraine with alternative solutions that ultimately contributes to the dilemma. This highlights the importance of critically evaluating when and how to engage in conflict.
In conclusion, despite reservations about the messenger, it is crucial to consider the concerns raised by Trudeau regarding the use of cluster munitions in Ukraine. The principles of “ius in bello” and the potential risks to civilians must be carefully assessed. Additionally, the lack of support from allies in providing alternatives further complicates the situation. It is crucial for nations to reflect on their approach to warfare and ensure that they are equipped to make ethical decisions when it comes to supporting their allies.
Source link
