Background image

terug

Terrorist actions

Cardinal Basil Hume, Archbishop of Westminster, meditates on the moral questions posed by the crisis caused by the US air raid on Libya (April 1986) in answer to terrorist actions.

11     The US raid on Libya, and even more its support by the British Government, has
2 provoked a ferment of criticism, questioning and anxiety in the whole nation. If the
3 Church is to speak about the threat of Sunday trading, should it not have something to
4 say about the more tangible and immediate threat to peace, international security, the
5 quality of life nationally and internationally?
26     Nobody doubts that we are faced with a phenomenon of a kind and on a scale
7 previously unknown. State-organized terrorism has become a new weapon in the hands
8 of regimes like Libya which recognize no morality in international relations beyond the
9 obligations of their particular ideologies. International law is proving incapable of
10 providing lawful procedures for dealing with this new form of aggression, unless its
11 actual provisions are stretched beyond the bounds of credibility. In any case, the
12 provisions of international law cannot be enforced.
313     Spontaneous revulsion from the crimes which state terrorism carries out with
14 apparent impunity raises one temptation. Fear of international tension, of terrorist
15 retaliation and loss of national advantage, creates another.
416     The more obvious temptation is to seek immediate deterrence through the use of
17 military force. Even though this may be more than crude retaliation and a desire for
18 revenge, the use of military force can be too costly in terms of loss of life inflicted,
19 escalation of violence, failure to achieve the aim desired, the frustration of future
20 opportunities for negotiation.
521     The traditional moral judgment about a 'just war' depended upon such
22 calculations. So must decisions about the morality of supporting or participating in those
23 actions of allies which rely on military force.
624     Those who support and carry out such actions may seek, and have sought,
25 justification by applying the terms and concepts of international law to a situation which
26 was not foreseen when that law was made. Nevertheless, such a reaction to terrorism
27 seems to me to be more like stepping outside the community of those who do accept the
28 rule of law. 1 fear that we may be entering a jungle of repeated violence and use of force.
29 And Britain is walking with an uneasy conscience in American footsteps.
730     The second temptation is virtually to accept the problem as intractable, and to feel
31 that it is safer to do nothing or as little as possible, that there are no risks worth taking.
32 This seems to have been the position of the countries of Europe as a whole. This failure to
33 act in concert effectively explains, even if it does not justify, what the US Government has
34 felt impelled to do.
835     Inactivity in the face of terrorism also merits severe condemnation. There is an
36 appeasement by collective inactivity which can be as culpable as an individual act of
37 calculated and limited military force. Those of us who recall pre-war appeasement or the
38 indifference which allowed millions of Jews to be killed, or the cruel subjugation of
39 Eastern Europe, need no reminding that evil thrives when people look the other way.
940     We need to have the firm conviction that it is perfectly proper and necessary to
41 advocate the application of every conceivable pressure short of deliberate, non-defensive
42 taking of life. States ought to be prepared to act together decisively and firmly without
43 prior regard for their own national advantage.
 
     The Observer, April 20, 1986