If there is to be war it must be a just war

The scale of the coordinated terrorist attacks in Paris last weekend has generated a level of shock, grief and anger around the world that has not been seen since the destruction of the twin towers in New York. There is something uniquely horrifying and frightening about the deliberate and carefully planned infliction of suffering, terror and death on innocent people going about their daily lives.

There is an important parallel. After 9/11, politicians felt growing public pressure for some decisive action against the perpetrators and their accomplices. This led to ill-conceived military intervention by the United States and the United Kingdom, first against the Taliban in Afghanistan and then against Saddam Hussein’s Iraq, though in the latter case the link with al-Qaeda terrorism was more imagined – or fabricated – than real. Neither operation went well after initial battlefield success, and both those ventures still cast a shadow over political leaders considering an armed response to events in Paris. There is a widespread public aversion to full-blooded military action, “boots on the ground”, against the territorial base of Islamic State (IS) in Syria and Iraq. After Afghanistan, Iraq and perhaps Libya, there is a visceral distrust of any Western politician who proposes military remedies, though public opinion may be moving to the conclusion in this case that there may be no alternative.

Russia, America, France, several Middle Eastern states and even Australia are already participating in air strikes against IS ground forces in Syria and Iraq, while Britain has limited its engagement to the latter. A headline political issue in Britain is whether to extend RAF air strikes into Syria. Characteristically for one of the world’s most law-abiding nations, Britain has legal and political scruples that do not worry the other countries involved to the same extent. But there is symbolic value in Britain’s legal reticence. One cannot defeat anarchy by becoming anarchic oneself. The principle of “just war” theory, that says war should only be waged by lawful authority, is worth holding on to, and lawful authority, in the modern age, means the Charter of the United Nations.

Britain would like a Security Council resolution before taking part in any military operation in Syria. And the chances of such a resolution have greatly increased, by world reaction to the terrorist outrages in Paris, and by the Russian Government’s acceptance that the downing in Sinai of a civilian airliner full of Russian tourists was caused by an IS terrorist bomb on board. President Vladimir Putin is now talking openly about making alliances with Western powers.

Other just war principles are relevant: that military force should be the option of last resort; and that expected benefits of such action must be proportionate to the means. The first of these requires renewed diplomatic action to construct a lawful Syrian government that can represent all elements of Syria’s diverse ethnic population, instead of one waging brutal war on the non-Shia sections of it, as happens now. That new government could then legitimately call for international help to defeat its enemies, notably IS. Britain should be ready to respond to such an appeal. The proportionality principle rules out any military intervention that renders a country lawless – a “failed state” – because then the last condition is worse than the first. That is one of the lessons of Iraq and Libya, and to a degree, Afghanistan. From the point of view of ordinary people and their families, even a bad government – even one headed by Syrian President Bashar al-Assad – is better than no government.

Together, these principles should provide a framework for an acceptable international strategy to deal with IS in Syria and Iraq, a strategy whose absence has been the fundamental flaw in Western thinking so far. But this leaves out the other dimension of the Paris attacks, one which did not apply to 9/11. Though based in Syria and Iraq, IS has a fifth column in Europe. It consists of enemies of Western society who are embedded in that society, who were usually born and raised as Muslims and in accordance with Western values. Preachers and ideologues of a fundamentalist version of Islam, sometimes directly sponsored and funded by states like Saudi Arabia, have exploited the contrast between an “ideal” society as derived from a literal and fundamentalist reading of the Qu’ran, and the sort of secular democratic and liberal society that has become the European and American norm. This particularly affects the treatment of women and of religious minorities. Saudi Arabia has a lot to answer for: Britain among others should be asking the questions.

Radicalisation at its most extreme produces terrorists willing to die for the cause, as most recently seen in Paris. Western states have developed surveillance techniques, including the close monitoring of internet traffic, to watch for any evidence of radicalisation and particularly of radicalised Muslims conspiring together. It seems likely that the police in France’s neighbour, Belgium, fell short on this occasion, for the alleged perpetrators of the Paris attacks had connections with Brussels and some were already identified as potentially dangerous. It is clear that security has to be tightened right across Europe; freedom of movement may have to be curtailed.

Electronic surveillance necessarily means some surrender of privacy by every member of society – a price worth paying provided fair and reasonable guidelines are followed. An unfortunate consequence may be the development of a paranoid attitude towards all Muslims, the non-radical vast majority as well as the few radicals. Islamophobia is already growing, and any Muslim who takes the teachings of his religion seriously is likely to be suspect. That worrying tendency is best dealt with by making more widely known the pacific, civilising and law-abiding elements of Islamic teaching, and by promoting religious freedom as a fundamental right. Leaders of other faiths have an important role to play in this, and it was encouraging to see them doing so in Paris.

Prejudice is also likely to affect refugees who have flocked to Europe to escape civil war in Syria and Iraq or are fleeing IS. Not all of them are Muslim. Regardless, the duty to offer sanctuary to genuine refugees – after screening to ensure they are what they say they are – is paramount. Nothing would please the leaders of IS more than to see Western civilised standards corrode under their malign pressure. That is a victory every individual citizen can deny them.