Teaching the ethics of war through art

1. Teaching the ethics of war through art Charts by Julie Arliss & Henry Kirk

2. WAR • Velazquez, DiegoMars c. 1639-41 • SOME QUESTIONS FOR STUDENTS: • Research stories associated with Mars, god of war. • What do you notice about the way Mars is represented in this painting? • What do you think Velazquez might be trying to say about war? • Do you think there are some things worth going to war for? If not, why not. If you think there are, what would they be? • When a decision has been made to go to war do you think there should be any rules as to what an army can do? • Do you think God has anything to do with war? • Does God ordain when a war should be fought and govern the way people behave in war?

3. God and War in Christian Thinking: JUST WAR • The origins of Just War discussion go back to Ambrose of Milan and, in particular, to St. Augustine who had to confront a new political situation. • The Roman Empire in which Christianity had grown so rapidly was pagan. • The emerging Christian religion was essentially pacifist – Jesus’ teaching seemed to have commanded his followers never to take revenge, to turn the other cheek and not to defend themselves.

4. Piero della FrancescaConstantine's Dream c. 1466 • This changed when the Emperor Constantine became Christian. • In 312 CE, on the evening of a critical battle between Constantine and Maxentius to decide who would be sole Roman emperor, Constantine in a dream saw the Christian cross and received the message, “In this sign conquer”. • He won the battle. • 313 CE he issued the Edict of Milan, which asserted the first official toleration of the Christian religion

5. When Constantine was baptised Christianity became the established religion of the Roman Empire. • The Roman Empire needed to defend itself and this meant going to war. But Christianity up until this point had been pacifist. • Constantine’s dream seemed to suggest that God affirmed him as emperor, but it also appeared to him on the eve of battle. • The end of Christian pacifism was inevitable. • Augustine’s task was to justify the role of a Christian in a situation of war. • Augustine drew on the existing Roman idea of ‘justum bellum’ but also on the Old Testament tradition where wars on behalf of Israel and Israel’s God were clearly commanded by this God.

6. St. Augustine • Augustine concluded that since the Empire was Christian, the empire was under God’s divine protection and Christians could fight in war to protect the interests of the empire

7. Two issues…. • Augustine differentiated between two issues: • 1. When it was right to engage in war (Jus ad Bellum), and • 2. How wars should be fought (Jus in Bello).

8. JUS AD BELLUM • St. Augustine considered: • 1) The war had to be authorised by a legitimate authority • 2) There has to be a just cause for going to war. Such a cause could include: • 1) The righting of wrongs; • 2) The punishment of injustice • 3) The bringing of peace. • These objectives were held to justify almost anything and Augustine even approved torture and the killing of innocents if this was necessary to bring peace. However he did maintain that warfare had to be undertaken in the right spirit and without hatred.

9. WAR: The Bringing of Peace Peter Paul RUBENS 1577-1640 ALLEGORY OF PEACE AND WAR 1629-30

10. JUS AD BELLUM • The principal modern legal source of jus ad bellum derives from the Charter of the United Nations, which declares in: • Article 2: “All members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or the use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the purposes of the United Nations”; and in • Article 51: “Nothing in the present Charter shall impair the inherent right of individual or collective self-defense if an armed attack occurs against a Member of the United Nations.”

11. WAR: The Righting of Wrongs DELACROIX 1798-1863, FRENCH LIBERTY LEADING THE PEOPLE 1830

12. WAR: The Righting of Wrongs • This picture commemorates the three-day French revolution of 1830. • It depicts the assault on Hôtel de Ville in Paris on the 28th July 1830, part of a three-day revolution against the tyrannical rule of the Bourbon King Charles X of France. • This picture seems to glorify war, which is regarded as bringing freedom to the French people. • The working class and middle class are presented as victorious and triumphant, as they overthrow the monarchy of Charles X with the help of the figure of Liberty. • So this picture leads us to ask whether war is acceptable if it involves the righting of perceived wrongs.

13. Rousseau, Henri • Liberty Inviting Artists to Take Part in the 22nd Exhibition of the Societe des Artistes Independants1905-6 • Oil on canvas175 x 118 cmThe National Museum of Modern Art,

14. Punishment of Injustice • The Second World War was fought to rectify a wrong but also to punish Germany for the injustice of invading Poland Kirchner, Ernst LudwigSelbstbildnis als Soldat(Self-portrait as soldier)1915

15. Additional Reasons for Going to War • To Preserve ‘our’ Way of Life • To defend against invasion • To protect innocent life • To Defend National Honour • To keep a government in power (provoking a war is one way in which some governments have sought to keep themselves in power) • To gain territory • To acquire additional resources (some forecasters consider that, in the 21st Century, wars may be fought to secure access to water which may become increasingly scarce). ALL THESE CAN BE MORE COMPLICATED THAN THEY APPEAR AND NOT ALL WOULD BE A ‘JUST’ CAUSE FOR WARFARE.

16. Are some ways of life more worth preserving than others? Pissarro, CamilleBoulevard Montmartre: Night

17. Is it possible to have a romantic notion of the ‘way of life one is fighting to preserve? Pissarro, CamilleLa moissonThe Harvest at Montfoucault1876

18. The Injury Suffered Must Justify War. • PROPORTIONALISM • The means used in the war must be proportionate to the danger faced. • There must be a reasonable proportion between the injury suffered and the pain and death which will result from war. • Taking proportionality seriously has the great advantage of taking recognising the effect of warfare on the other side and this is element often neglected.

19. PROPORTIONALISM • This is based on the Natural Law approach to ethics and maintains that: • 1) The evil of war must be justified. • 2) The harm suffered must justify the widespread suffering that will come. SIQUEIROS, David AlfaroEcho of a Scream1937

20. Proportionalism as part of a decision to go to war demands that the full evils of the war Are anticipated in advance. Is taking life and innocent suffering as well as the refugees who will be created justified? Kitaj, R.B.Cecil Court, London WC2 (The Refugees)1983-84

21. To Defend National Honour • Wars fought to defend ‘national honour’ should, under Just War criteria, always be viewed with suspicion. As Paskins and Docknill write: • ‘...wars fought in defence of national honour must be viewed with suspicion as if one outweighs the value of human beings against national honour, the former should always have priority. It is always important to maintain a clear view of one’s own and one’s enemies humanity.’ • This is an important insight which goes back to St. Augustine who clearly pointed out that warfare must be undertaken without hatred.

22. To defend national honour Johns, JasperThree Flags1958

23. How do you think the concept of American national honour is challenged by this piece of Art? Johns, JasperWhite Flag1955

24. There must be a reasonable chance of victory. • US Catholic Bishops said that in order for a war to be just one of the criteria is that ‘there must be a reasonable possibility of success’. • This was included to prevent countries going to war when this would be folly and destruction is certain • However this can lead to the build up of forces prior to war so that the chances of success are increased. (This happened in Germany between 1935 and 1939)

25. Do some research on ‘Victory.’ • Why might victory be pictured as ‘winged’? • Why do you think a country might go to war if they thought they would surely loose? Louvre – winged victory – Greek

26. JUS IN BELLO • This deals with how wars should be fought. It covers the ethical issues and the laws that come into effect once a war has begun. Its purpose is to regulate how wars are fought, without prejudice to the reasons of how or why they had begun. • So a party engaged in a war that could easily be defined as unjust (for example, Iraq’s aggressive invasion of Kuwait in 1990) should still have to adhere to certain rules during the prosecution of the war, as would the side committed to righting the initial injustice. • This branch of law relies on customary law, based on recognized practices of war, as well as treaty laws (such as the Hague Regulations of 1899 and 1907), which set out the rules for the conduct of hostilities.

27. Jus in Bello: Proportionalism • The way the war is fought must be proportionate to the injury suffered and which resulted in the war. • For Australia to fire bomb the capital of East Timor to increase still further its share of the oil field that lies between the two countries (presently 82/18% in Australia’s favour) would not be a proportionate way of Australia securing her objectives.

28. Polke, SigmarHannibal with his Armoured Elephants1982 • If you look very carefully you can see two elephants up side down. • Would the use of elephants in war, against a people who did not have them, be disproport-ionate means of fighting?

29. What about the use of horses against foot soldiers? LEONARDO da VinciRearing Horsec. 1483-1498

30. Could the use of nuclear war-heads against a country who does not have them ever be justified as ‘proportionate means’? • For instance if Iran was attacked by the U.S., Britain and Australia could this justify Iran using Nuclear Weapons in reply? ALTDORFER, AlbrechtT he Battle of Issus1528-29

31. Goya: Shootings on 3rd of May. • 1808-1814 The Spanish Peninsula War: Napoleon’s French army in Spain • On May 2nd 1808 French troops entered Madrid and attacked civilians with knives. • May 3rd In a savage reprisal, 400 Spaniards were executed – 45 on Principe Pio hill (shown here). • Is this justified – ‘The Righting of Wrongs’? • Was it ‘Proportionate’? • What does Goya, a Spanish artist, suggest are his answers to these questions in this painting?

32. Francisco de GOYA 1746-1828, THE THIRD OF MAY 1808

33. Jus in Bello • The four Geneva Conventions of 1949, protect war victims— • the sick and wounded; • the shipwrecked; • prisoners of war; • civilians in the hands of an adverse party (and, to a limited extent, all civilians in the territories of the countries in conflict); The Additional Protocols of 1977, which define key terms such as combatants, contain detailed provisions to protect non-combatants, medical transports, and civil defence, and prohibit practices such as indiscriminate attack.

34. Homer, WinslowPrisoners from the Front1866 • POW’s may not be made to work, must be fed, given medical care and returned to their families.

35. Remington, FredericMissing1899 • What ideas do you think lie behind the Geneva convention on treatment of POW’s? • Why do you think the Geneva convention is contravened?

36. CIVILIANS • In 1983 the Catholic Bishops said: ‘The lives of innocent civilians may never be taken directly. Regardless of the purpose alleged for doing so’. The carpet bombing by the Allies in the Second World War would almost certainly be condemned. • The key point here is the PRINCIPLE OF DOUBLE EFFECT - ‘collateral damage’ is permitted as the primary purpose of the attack was not to kill, for instance, innocents. • Even if missiles go off target and civilians are killed this is permissible provided the civilians are not targetted.

37. THE PRINCIPLE OF DOUBLE EFFECT • This raises problems. • In the Gulf War, Iraqi generals placed their command posts over schools so that the Allied forces would have to kill the children in order to destroy the Command Posts. • The question then arises whether the killing of such civilians was a direct action or not. • Collateral damage is acceptable in modern day just war thinking but it is an area that raises uncomfortable questions.

38. BOMBING INFRASTRUCTURE • Is it morally right to bomb water supplies and power stations in war when these are used by the military? It can be argued that this is permissible as innocent civilians are not being targeted directly. • This was part of the policy of the Allies in the Gulf War…. Few civilians may be killed by such attacks but a country may be bombed back fifty years by such actions. • This is what happened in the first Gulf War in Iraq where the destruction of Iraqi infrastructure and subsequent sanctions have had a devastating effect on the civilian population of Iraq. • The question thus arises whether the attacks on infrastructure can be regarded as morally acceptable.

39. MADELEINE ALBRIGHT • Madeleine Albright was the U.S. Secretary of State under President Clinton and, in 1996, she was asked whether she thought it was ‘worth it’ that 500000 young people under 15 had (according to an Oxfam report) died in Iraq as a result of Allied bombing of Infrastructure and subsequent sanctions. She said that she thought it was worth it. • This was to make a proportionate decision balancing the aims of the sanctions against the cost in terms of innocent lives.

40. MICHELANGELODying Slave1513-16 • Taking of women and slaves was normal practice in war. • Today the Geneva convention forbids this. • Rape has always been a weapon of war, used against civilian women. • This continues to be the case. • The Geneva convention does not specifically forbid this.

41. Rubens, Peter PaulThe Rape of the Daughters of Leucippusc. 1618 Why do you think Rape is a weapon of war?

42. Poussin, NicolasThe Rape of the Sabine Women

43. Lieut. Col Collins • Extract from a speech by Lieut. Col Collins, leading the British 1st Battalion, Royal Irish regiment. 20th March 2003 speaking to his troops in Kuwait immediately prior to the invasion or Iraq: • “If you are ferocious in battle, remember to be magnanimous in victory. It is a big step to take the life of another human being. It is not to be done lightly….” • “I know of men who have taken life needlessly in other conflicts; I can assure you that they live with the mark of Cain upon them. If someone surrenders to you, then remember they have the right in international law and ensure that one day they go home to their family.

44. Surrender

45. Millais, JohnThe Order of Release, 1746 ‘Ensure that one day they go home to their families’

46. The place of the soldier in war

47. Homer, WinslowHome, Sweet Home1863 • This painting raises the question of what it is do be a soldier. • They often live like animals in dirty cramped conditions. • They are expected to fight and kill dispassionately. • Then to return to society.

48. Mark Chagall - Soldiers • Chagall captures the de-humanising effect of being a soldier – the person can cease to exist and only the uniform is seen. • The individual may hide behind the uniform and the orders.

49. Fernand Leger: Soldier • The Geneva convention protects civilians and POW’s. • What about soldiers? In some wars the soldiers are conscripts. • Because they are soldiers, they can be killed.

50. Lawrence, JacobWar Series: Victory1947 • The darkness and pointlessness of war is encapsulated in this weary, black soldier, as is the exploitation of the foot soldier (many of whom in the US at that time were black). • The anonymity of all soldiers at all times, both those who have died and those who have come back psychologically-scarred, is expressed through the hidden face of the combatant. • It looks as if dying leaves are falling all around the soldier. One of the most striking features of the painting, however, is its title – ‘victory’.