Living by the Sword? The Ethics of Armed ... - Australian Army

Book ReviewTom Frame, Living by the Sword? The Ethics of ArmedIntervention, UNSW Press, Sydney, 2004, 278pp.Reviewed by Christian Enemark, Strategic and Defence Studies Centre,Australian National University.In the Garden of Gethsemane, Jesus admonished his disciple Peter: ‘All who liveby the sword will die by the sword’. For centuries, theologians have debated whatJesus really meant by this statement in order to determine the moral status ofthose who engage in armed conflict. Tom Frame’s Living by the Sword?, written inthe aftermath of the 2003 invasion of Iraq, is a timely work that rigorously surveysthe theological, ethical and legal dimensions of war.The book is primarily a reflection on the relationship between armed conflictand Christianity, although the non-Christian reader should not feel excluded. Theauthor deliberately appeals to reason as well as faith in his discussions of war andethics, and he acknowledges from the outset that the Church does not come to thesubject with a clear conscience or with clean hands. Frame is Anglican Bishop tothe Australian Defence Force, but he also writes from the perspective of a scholarand a former naval officer. He is equally at ease with philosophy, law and politicsas he is with theology. His book provides a survey of religious and secular writingson war and warriors from the time of Jesus to the 20th century and the creation ofmodern international law.In an introduction that is part autobiographical, Frame describes some of thelifetime experiences that have contributed to his attitude to war: from childhoodmemories of Vietnam War protests to his time in the Royal Australian Navy (RAN).By the time he resigned from the RAN in late 1992 to pursue ordination, he feltdrawn strongly to pacifism—the view that using armed force is morally illegitimateand practically ineffective. Nonetheless, despite his pacifist convictions, Frame wassoon propelled towards a belief that armed intervention is sometimes justified. Thehumanitarian crises in Cambodia, Rwanda and Somalia were particular factors thatwrenched him away from a doctrine of strict pacifism.Australian Army Journal Volume II, Number 1 page 279

Book Review Christian EnemarkFrame prefers to speak of ‘armed intervention’ rather than ‘war’, and his first pointof reference is the story in the Gospels of the Good Samaritan, who was preparedto exert every effort to aid a stricken man. In an international system built on theprinciple of state sovereignty, however, a heavy onus of moral proof will always beon the intervening state. Only gross violations of human rights, including ‘ethniccleansing’ and genocide, justify armed intervention. Lesser transgressions—such asmilitary coups, election rigging and political disenfranchisement—do not justifyintervention by military force.Frame identifies three principal Christian positions taken on armed conflictand military service since the time of Jesus: pacifism, just war and militarism. Hedismisses the third as ethically unviable. The militarist view is that of the strongnecessarily triumphing over the weak. It finds religious embodiment in the crusade:the notion that God has given His servants the physical means to destroy Hisenemies. For Frame, the only two positions open to a Christian are pacifism and justwar. In providing a detailed exposition of each position, he nevertheless questionswhether either can be consistently applied, given the complexity of modern life.Frame himself approaches the ethics of armed conflict from within the just-wartradition. St Augustine, a fourth-century bishop, wrote that a just war must meet certaincriteria. Of these criteria, the most important are that war is a last resort; that the causefor war is just; and that the means employed in pursuit of that cause are necessary,discriminate and proportionate. Frame classifies Iraq’s invasion of Kuwait in August1990 as unjust because it was ‘an act of unprovoked aggression committed entirely forself-serving purposes’. By contrast, Australia’s 1999 intervention in East Timor scoredwell against the criteria for a just war. It was a last-resort measure, deploying limitedmeans, and intended to alleviate the suffering of the East Timorese.Frame once supported the 2003 invasion of Iraq as a just war but he has sincehad second thoughts. He now argues that, without the discovery of Iraqi weaponsof mass destruction or links with al-Qa’ida, the just cause for invasion has collapsed.Moreover, the war was not a last resort since there was still time for containment,sanctions and inspections, and the military means brought to bear imposed adisproportionate cost in terms of lives lost and social disorder.Frame’s discussion of the ethics of armed intervention and military service isparticularly interesting when he places it in the Australian context. He provides, forexample, a detailed and fascinating analysis of the Australian experience of conscriptionand the related issue of conscientious objection. In discussing Australia’s experiencesof war, Frame notes that Australia has a tendency to exaggerate threats to itsown national security and regional stability. Such an approach has often distortedassessments of whether going to war was the right course of action. Frame concludesboldly that ‘Australia has willingly and unquestioningly participated in unjust wars’,but it would be interesting to know more about his thoughts on this point.page 280 Volume II, Number 1 Australian Army Journal

Living by the Sword? The Ethics of Armed InterventionIndeed, the only fair criticism of Frame’s book might be that he does not pursuesome important issues as far as he could. First, Frame gives nuclear war only passingconsideration, on the grounds that it is less likely today than it was during theCold War. However, in the post–Cold War world, the threat of nuclear attack isstill a factor in strategic calculations, and ethical restraints are as important as ever.Second, the author discusses militarism only briefly as the unacceptable alternativeto pacifism and just war. It would also be interesting to read his ethical critique ofmilitarism today, especially against the background of accusations that America ispursuing a neo-conservative ‘crusade’ in the Middle East.Living by the Sword? is well researched, and the author’s arguments are persuasiveand well reasoned. Frame is firm in his commitment to certain ethical positions, buthe conscientiously canvasses opposing points of view. His book is valuable becauseit compels the reader to engage with the notion of justice and how it is manifestedin the crucible of war.Australian Army Journal Volume II, Number 1 page 281