Ahead of Saturday's 60th anniversary of the atomic bombing of Hiroshime, the US Conference of Catholic Bishops has released a letter, sent by Bishop William S. Skylstad of Spokane, to the the president of the Catholic Bishops' Conference of Japan. The letter reads:
No matter how noble the ends of a war may be, they cannot justify employing means or weapons that fail to discriminate between noncombatants and combatants. As the Second Vatican Council declared, “Every act of war directed to the indiscriminate destruction of whole cities or vast areas with their inhabitants is a crime against God and man, which merits firm and unequivocal condemnation.” (Gaudium et Spes, no. 80)
In our day, the threat of global nuclear war may have receded, only to be replaced by the prospect of nuclear terrorism. Terrorist attacks on innocent civilians are a crime against God and humanity and merit the same unequivocal condemnation of all acts that fail to discriminate between combatants and noncombatants.
Two points stand out here: contemporary terrorism is "a crime against God and man" because it fails to protect innocents; but the US bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki are in the same condemnable category as terrorism.
This makes me think of the pacifist aspect of Confucian thinking. And, although I believe Confucians would agree that the atomic bombings were indiscriminate and disproportionate and, therefore, unjustified, they are not so pacifist as to reject the war against Japan. There are just causes in war but, just like the Catholic bishops, Confucians would try to pursue the most humane means to a just end.
Two passages from Mencius: the first suggests just causes; and the second demands humane means.
Its clear...that Confucius deplored anyone enriching a ruler who didn't practice Humane government. And he deplored even more those who waged war for such a ruler. In wars for land, the dead crowd the countryside. In wars for cities, the dead fill the streets. This is called helping the land feed on human flesh. Death is not punishment enough for such acts (132).
A "war for land" and a "war for cities" is a fair description of Japanese imperialism in the 1930's and 1940's. It was all about maximizing the power of the imperial center and, as its symbol, the Emperor. The Emperor thus assumed the responsibility for all of the horrendous acts carried out in his name. Killing him would thus be justified for Mencius. And killing those who directly carried out his orders - his government and army - would also be justified.
But killing tens of thousands of people who were not directly responsible for imperialist policies? Mencius suggests that, once the leaders have been killed,the common people should be treated more gently. In discussing how the founder of the Shang dynasty dealt with the people he conquered, Mencius notes:
When he came [the people] went to the market unhindered again and tended their fields without interference. He punished the rulers and comforted the people, like rain falling in its season...(35)
Mencius then goes to to apply this historical lesson to a country in his own time that has invaded another:
The people thought they were being rescued from fire and flood, so they welcomed you with baskets of food and jars of wine. How can you justify killing elders and taking young people captive, tearing down temples and stealing sacred vessels? (35-36).
The analogy here is not perfect: the bombing of Hiroshima is justified as the best way - least costly in terms of human life - to end the war with Japan's unconditional surrender. Mencius is talking about how to deal with people after the fighting has stopped and occupation has begun (so his words may be more applicable to the failed US occupation of Iraq!). But the main theme of treating people humanely, not killing or abusing innocents, is clearly expressed here, and this should carry over to actual war fighting as well.
Interestingly, Mencius also talks about the justice of a "single act of wrath" (25), which seems to imply a swift, large-scale attack to depose an inhumane ruler. But, even here the assumption is most likely that the fighting will be oriented toward combatants and innocents will be protected.
So, all in all, Mencius, and Confucius, would likely have joined with the Catholic Bishops in condemning the atomic bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. They would probably have counseled ending the war short of unconditional surrender instead of killing so many innocent people.
Interestingly enough, Hirohito was specifically ruled off-limits as a target by the Allies starting with the Doolittle raid and continuing to the decision on the A-bomb. The reasoning here was that a legitimate authority was required for surrender negotiations in order to turn the enemy war machine " off ".
Likewise, the Allies did not want to encourage German factions to overthrow Hitler, fearing that his death would dilute political support in allied countries for forcing Germany's unconditional surrender.
This remained more or less U.S. military policy until the 1980's when the increasing illegitimacy of hostile regimes that ruled only by force made
" decapitation" an attractive strategic option.
Posted by: mark safranski | August 05, 2005 at 02:44 PM