Journal of International Social Affairs, Spring 2017

VOLUME 8 NO. 2

SPRING 2017

The Journal of International Social Affairs A Patrick Henry College Publication

Issue No. 2 CONTENTS James Waters

The Slow Slip Back : An Investigation of Russia’s

Claire Atwood

The Designer Baby : Examining Human Genetic Engineering (pg. 12)

Hannah Cudal

Justice Unserved: Taking ISIS to the International Criminal Court (pg. 29)

Giovanna Lastra

Holy War Theory in the Bible and Quran (pg. 38)

Yarovaya Laws (pg. 1)

From the Editor On behalf of the Journal of International Social Affairs, welcome to the Spring 2017 edition. We are pleased to present papers on a wide variety of topics examining issues of significance to the international community. Since its first edition, the ISA Journal has sought to showcase the most insightful and informative works by the student body of Patrick Henry College on international social and political issues, and this edition is no exception.

The quote selected for this edition of the journal by Ernest Hemingway says that “there are some things that cannot be learned quickly, and time … must be paid heavily for their acquiring.” The change and upheaval felt across the globe over the past few years attest to the truth in Hemingway’s words. The world today faces new and unique issues that will take time to understand. In this light, the papers selected for this edition of the journal examine emerging issues across the world and seek to understand their meaning and implications.

In our first paper “The Slow Slip Back,” James Waters examines Russia’s recent Yarovaya law, its potential impacts, and its consequences for religious freedom in Eastern Europe.

“Designer Babies,” written by Claire Atwood, undertakes a detailed study of the growing field of human genetic engineering. In addition to explaining how this new, potentially exciting technology works, she examines its moral, social, and international implications.

In her paper “Justice Unserved,” Hannah Cudal studies the oft-advocated idea to try the Islamic State in the International Criminal Court. She demonstrates why such a move may not be the human rights victory it appears to be.

Lastly, Giovanna Lastra looks at two ancient concepts with modern consequences in her paper “Holy War in the Bible and the Quran” as she examines Holy Wars in both the Judeo-Christian and Islamic faith traditions.

This journal would not be possible without the assistance of many. The editorial staff of David Slaughter, Claire Atwood, Christopher Baldacci, Esther Katz, and Victoria Cook has worked tirelessly over the last few months. I am pleased to announce that David Slaughter will be taking over the journal as the Editor-in-Chief for the 2017-2018 school year. He will undoubtedly continue the journal’s commitment to excellence and insightful research.

As always, I would like to thank our faculty supervisor, Dr. Stephen Baskerville for his support and guidance. We are very grateful to Dr. Frank Guliuzza and the Patrick Henry College Department of Academic Affairs for their assistance in producing the Journal, as well as the Strategic Intelligence, Journalism, and International Politics and Policy programs at PHC. As always, thank you for reading!

Sincerely, Lisa Pauline Mattackal, Editor-in-Chief

There are some things which cannot be learned quickly, and time, which is all we have, must be paid heavily for their acquiring.

Ernest Hemingway

STAFF Editor-in-Chief: Associate Editor: Research Editors: Copy Editor: Layout Editor: Faculty Supervisor:

Lisa Pauline Mattackal David Slaughter Claire Atwood Christopher Baldacci Esther Katz Victoria Cook Dr. Stephen Baskerville

PATRICK HENRY COLLEGE 10 Patrick Henry Circle Purcellville, VA 20132 www.phc.edu ISSN 2572-9586

J O U R N A L O F I N T E R N AT I O N A L S O C I A L A F FA I R S

iv Spring 2017

J O U R N A L O F I N T E R N AT I O N A L S O C I A L A F FA I R S

The Slow Slip Back: An Investigation of Russia’s Yarovaya Law

T

hroughout the course of history, various governments have used the notion of security to justify the expansion of their own powers. In the 1940s, the Nazis used national security as a defense for determining who lived and died within their borders, resulting in the Holocaust.1 In recent years, countries such as China have imposed intensive cyber security laws. Supposedly, these are designed to protect citizens from domestic radicals. In actuality, the laws considerably cut down on citizens’ individual freedoms.2 Perhaps the most frequent modern example of this conniving grasp for power through security-related rhetoric has surfaced in the fight against terrorism. Countries around the world use the threat of terrorism as an excuse to tighten security both on and within their borders. Russia has made significant strides toward national security in the name of combating terrorism with a series of amendments - the Yarovaya law - clamping down on radicalism. However, while these laws are meant ostensibly to guard against the threat of Islamic jihad, early results point to a quite different conclusion: the new Russian laws bear the signs of direct and deliberate state intrusion into the spread of religious beliefs (including Orthodox beliefs), ultimately resulting in government control over religious freedom of association for all Russians.

The Law On July 7, 2016, Russian President Vladimir Putin signed two amendments, jointly introducing alterations to twenty-one different laws in the Russian legal code. These amendments, known collectively as the Yarovaya law (after Irina Yarovaya, one of its chief proponents), were officially designed to counter terrorism, curb domestic radicalization, and ensure public safety.3 The amendments themselves can be divided into three broad categories: the expansion of criminal penalties, new requirements for communication and internet operators, and restrictions on freedom of conscience.

The first of these categories, expansion of criminal penalties in the Russian Criminal Code, represents the bulk of the Yarovaya law. Among other things, the law lowers the criminal age of liability for certain crimes from sixteen to fourteen. The rationale behind this expansion of liability was twofold. First, recruiters for terrorist organizations often work with children. Second, children at age fourteen know that what they are doing is wrong and thus should be held

Spring 2017

1

J O U R N A L O F I N T E R N AT I O N A L S O C I A L A F FA I R S

accountable for their actions.4 The problem with this expansion is that many of the crimes to which it applies are only very tangentially connected with terrorism. Under article 205.6, individuals (including children) can be tried simply for “not reporting on a crime.” According to article 212.1, children can also be tried for participating in “mass disorder,” a crime which is but vaguely defined by the law and hardly relates to terrorist activities. Coincidentally, both the concept of “not reporting on a crime” and that of “mass disorder” are entirely new to Russian law, only introduced as part of the Yarovaya law. 5 The law additionally expands the penalties for many different offenses, including the organization of a military unit (Article 208: sentence increased from eight to fifteen years to ten to twenty years) and the organization of extremist communities (Article 282.1: all penalties increased).

The second main category of the Yarovaya law, new requirements for communication and internet operators, also consists of a large number of provisions. According to the new law, communication operators (such as a phone and mobile phone service providers) are required to store information from the communication user (such as texts, images, voice mail messages, phone records, etc.) for a varied number of years. Operators of communication must store the information for three years and internet operators must store it for one year. Both must hand over such information to the government upon request, even absent a court order.6 According to Article 13.31 of the Code of Administrative Offenses, failure to comply with this new law results in fines ranging from 3,000 to 1,000,000 rubles ($50-$18,000).

The third and perhaps most important category of amendments is the one of restrictions on freedom of conscience. These amendments primarily work to define and restrict missionary activities and their members, as well as the activities of foreign religious organizations. According to Section 1, Article 24 (1) of the Law on Religious Association, missionary activity in Russia is defined as the following: Activity of a religious association aimed at disseminating information about its doctrine among persons who are not participants (members, followers) of that religious association, in order to involve these people as participants (members, followers) of that religious association, as conducted directly by the religious association or by citizens and/or legal entities it has authorized to do so publicly, with the help of the mass media and the internet information and telecommunication network, or by other lawful means.7 Among other things, the law prohibits representative officials of registered religious organizations from carrying out missionary activities in the Russian Federation.8 It also requires religious organizations to possess a civil or labor

2 Spring 2017

J O U R N A L O F I N T E R N AT I O N A L S O C I A L A F FA I R S

contract with any foreign person whom they invite into the country to perform religious activity. This includes missionary work where, previously, no such contract was mandatory.9 As per Section 3 of the now-updated Russian Housing Code, missionary activities cannot take place in public places. Additionally, without prior written permission from a private establishment, a person can only perform missionary activity in a short list of places (e.g. cemeteries or land in the possession of religious organizations).10 The law also stipulates that, while performing missionary activity, a missionary must carry a written decision.

This document, produced by a meeting of members of a religious organization, must authorize the person to conduct missionary activity. Per Sections 1-4, Article 24(2) of the Law on Religious Associations, this written decision shall contain information about the group’s registration with the government; in other words, all missionaries are now required to be part of a registered group.

This restriction, however, does not apply to the actual leaders of religious organizations; they and all actual clerics are exempt from this requirement.11 In addition to these restrictions, the Yarovaya law contains a list of purposes—all vaguely defined—for which a person cannot conduct missionary activity. For example, a missionary cannot attempt to win people to his faith if he is attempting to violate public safety and public order, carry out extremist activity, or enforce the breaking of a family.12 Other prohibited motivations include the infringement on the rights and freedoms of citizens, causing damage to the morality or health of citizens, or prompting citizens to deny implementation of obligations established under the law.13 There are several additional provisions of the Yarovaya law that cut down on missionary and religious activity. For instance, as per Section 8, Article 25(6) of the Federal Law, foreigners who plan to perform religious activity in Russia are now ineligible to receive a humanitarian visa for entry into the Russian Federation.14 Furthermore, according to a Yarovaya amendment to the Code of Administrative Offense, it is now illegal in Russia to engage in activities for a religious organization—such as media, print, or audio dissemination— without identifying the full name of the organization; the penalty for a violation is a 30,000-50,000-ruble fine and the confiscation of materials.15 Yet another amendment to the Code of Administrative Offense makes carrying out missionary activity when in violation of legal requirements relating to freedom of religion, association, and consciousness punishable by fines ranging from 5,000 to 50,000 rubles for citizens and 100,000 to 1,000,000 rubles for legal entities.16 These portions of the law within the third category were not originally part of the Yarovaya package; on the contrary, they were added in only five days before the second reading. The religious community at large, even the Duma Committee on Affairs of Public Associations and on Religious Organizations,

Spring 2017

3

J O U R N A L O F I N T E R N AT I O N A L S O C I A L A F FA I R S

was not consulted prior to its being added to the package.17 The only religious group that the Duma deputies consulted prior to the legislation’s passing was the Russian Patriarchate, or the Russian Orthodox Church.18 The reason behind the consultation with the Orthodox Church will be hereafter examined, but it is evident on the whole that this part of the law was put together hastily. It was formulated behind closed doors and without the input traditionally sought from the diverse religious communities within Russia. Naturally, this action sparked a public outcry against the government.19 Initial Reactions Following the passage and signing of the Yarovaya law, many in academic and religious circles voiced their deep dismay over the anti-missionary amendments and their potential effect on religious freedom of association in Russia. For example, the United States Commission on International Religious Freedom (USCIRF) quickly condemned the new law, declaring that “under the guise of freedom, they [the Russian government] would grant authorities sweeping powers to curtail civil liberties, including setting broad restrictions on religious practices that would make it very difficult for religious groups to operate.”20 The Chair of the USCIRF, Thomas Reese, added that the laws only bolster the government’s crackdown on religious liberty and fail to meet human rights and religious freedom standards.21 Other experts, such as religion and law expert Dr. Elizabeth Clark and religious freedom journalist Geraldine Fagan, also criticized the law for its burdensome restrictions on religious association, citing the law’s restriction of religious speech, even within the confines of the private homes.22 Another element of the law that Scholars also recognized and critiqued was its vague wording. Concepts featured in the new law, such as “violation of public safety and public order,” “damaging morals,” and “refusing to fulfill civic duties” are left entirely to the state-run courts to define. Many claimed that courts may simply apply the concepts in cases where their state power over individual freedoms would expand.23 Even though the amendments clearly violate the Constitution, many argued that they would be upheld regardless, and that it their passage would mark the beginning of the end for Russian religious freedom. Although the main tenor of the initial response to the Yarovaya law was negative, some experts quickly defended the law against its detractors. According to the defenders of the Yarovaya law, the concrete issues for which the law was implemented to solve or prevent greatly outweigh any collateral problems that may arise within Russia in the future. Alexey Komov, international foreign affairs director of the Patriarchal Commission on Family, Protection of Motherhood, and Childhood of the Russian Orthodox Church, argued that the government’s fear of terrorism was well-warranted:

4 Spring 2017

J O U R N A L O F I N T E R N AT I O N A L S O C I A L A F FA I R S

“The main and real threat is the activities of various radical Islamic missionaries who are rather active in Russia.

We have around 9% of Muslim population that have been historically peaceful, but in the recent decades is being artificially radicalized by foreign radical sects like ISIS and other wahhabi/salafi sponsored imams…Youth is particularly vulnerable and is the target. New regulation of the missionary activities is just a minor part within the set of the new amendments to various laws.”24 Indeed, Russia certainly has had its share of terrorism problems in the past.

In 1995, Chechen terrorists killed 146 people in Budennovsk; in 1999, extremists murdered 53 civilians in Vladikavkaz; in 2010, suicide bombers attacked Moscow Metro stations, killing 40 civilians; and in 2011, a suicide bomber attacked Domodedovo Airport in Moscow, causing 37 deaths and 173 injuries.25 Russia’s fears of terrorism and the spread of radical ideologies are real, many contended.

To ignore them for the sole sake of maintaining religious liberty would certainly be a questionable course of action. Ultimately, the Yarovaya law assists in achieving practical political goals and “frees the hand of the nation’s law enforcement agencies.26 These benefits, according to the law’s defenders, outweigh any freedom-related drawbacks to the legislation.

Regarding the freedom of consciousness provisions, many argued that these concerns were groundless. According to Komov, the supposedly anti-missionary law, “concerns only official representatives of a religious organization. All normal people can freely express, preach, and promote their beliefs with no limitations or regulations (which is a Constitutional right).”27 While he maintains that the law could have been written with more delicacy and tact, he ultimately defended it with a statement that religious organizations played a role in the anti-Russian coup d’état in Ukraine. Thus, all things considered, Russia’s imposition of new restrictions is warranted.28 Application of the Religious Provisions This research is intended to determine the intent of the law and its impact on future freedom in Russia; it would be fruitful to examine the way the law has been applied in the short time since its passage. If the intent of the Yarovaya law is to curb Islamic extremism, as its defenders claim, then one would expect an absence of Christian proselytizers being prosecuted under the law. If, on the other hand, the law is meant to curb religious expression and bring missionaries and their faiths under the government’s thumb, then one would expect to find early instances of religious missionaries being charged for spreading their faiths.

Even in the few months since it was passed, the Yarovaya law has indeed

Spring 2017

5

J O U R N A L O F I N T E R N AT I O N A L S O C I A L A F FA I R S

been used to target religious proselytization, particularly that of Christian minorities. The first targets of the law have been foreigners, unaffiliated with any organization, who have attempted to spread their faiths in the Motherland.29 Donald Ossewaarde was one of the very first individuals prosecuted under the law. An American Baptist, he had been living in Russia since 2005.30 Ossewaarde was tried for holding a Bible study in his own home. He claimed that he was aware of the law’s existence but believed that his being an independent minister, and therefore not a representative of any particular religious community, meant that his speech was protected under the Russian Constitution.31 He and his wife were fined 40,000 rubles for missionary activity, prompting them to leave the country. Sergei Zhuravlyov, a Ukrainian Reformed Orthodox Church representative, was arrested for public preaching in St. Petersburg.32 Ebenezer Tuah, a leader of the Ghanan Christ Embassy Church, was arrested and fined 50,000 rubles for conducting baptisms in a rented hospital pool.33 Even Baptist youth camp organizers have been tried under the new law.34 Even native Russian religious leaders have been subject to prosecution under the Yarovaya law. On July 28, a local member of the Hare Krishna movement, Vadim Sibiryev, was charged for publicly spreading his faith near the Georgian boarder in Cherkessk (though he was later acquitted).35 On August 5, the leader of the New Generation Pentecostal community in Mari Turek, Alexsandr Yakimov, was charged with “conducting missionary activity in violation of the law” when he added religious content to an address at a village festival.36 Only a few weeks later, Vladimir Knaub, a Free Seventh-Day Adventist, was charged in Biysk for violating the Yarovaya law.37 One important thread that binds these individuals together—and helps explain the law’s implementation—is their lack of official registration with the Russian government. As unaffiliated individuals, their rights to speak and proselytize were previously under the protection of the Russian Constitution.

As now seen in Russian courtrooms, however, the Yarovaya law is clearly being used to restrain people over whom the state had little control in the past. In essence, the law and the courts have granted the state more power over more people, specifically those who had not formerly needed to register or contend with the Russian government to carry out their religious work.38 The Orthodoxy Connection Surprisingly, this initial train of prosecutions largely occurred at the urging (or, at least, the consent) of the Russian Orthodox Church. Orthodoxy in Russia survived decades of religious persecution under the Soviet system. It remained intact, molding the culture and representing an enormous part of Russian society, even to the present. Protecting Russian Orthodoxy has slowly come to be perceived as aligning with national strategic interests. Perhaps this is why the Yarovaya laws do not directly apply to the Orthodox Church.39 Some in Russia

6 Spring 2017

J O U R N A L O F I N T E R N AT I O N A L S O C I A L A F FA I R S

have expressed their concern of foreign missionaries flocking to the country and expanding their own congregations and follower bases at the expense of Orthodoxy.40 This activity would undermine Russian culture at the least and replace it at the worst.

Revisiting those who have been charged under the new law, While the Yarovaya law this fear of the non-Orthodox is demonstrably a tool of the seems an evident and reasonable Russian government to target explanation for their restraint. They unaffiliated missionaries and are all individuals without Russia’s unregistered religious groups, institutional support, viewed as it is further likely that the dangerous and sectarian by the government is moving toward Orthodox Church.41 Currently, about a crackdown on the religious the same number of Orthodox groups liberty of all Russians.

(16,000) and non-Orthodox religious pg. 7 groups (15,000) exist in Russia.

Only about 5,000 of the latter are actually registered with the government.42 If the Yarovaya law’s implementation is actually meant to cut down on non-registered religious groups—a sensible conclusion when looking at the actual cases going to trial—then it will surely strengthen the position of the Orthodox Church. Ultimately, when the Russian government consulted only the Orthodox Church before implementing the religious provisions of the law—provisions that would not harm Orthodoxy but its competition—it became evident that this grasp at power was both coordinated and intentional. It was not simply the collateral damage of an anti-terrorism domestic policy. It represents the Russian government’s attempt at gaining evergreater control over those within its borders and the Orthodoxy’s attempt to eliminate its opposition and remain supreme.

A Bleak Outlook While the Yarovaya law is demonstrably a tool of the Russian government to target unaffiliated missionaries and unregistered religious groups, it is further likely that the government is moving toward a crackdown on the religious liberty of all Russians—not just on that of independent missionaries and the non-Orthodox.

According to Eurasian Religion expert Dr. Paul Goble of the Religious Freedom Institute, the next application of the Yarovaya law is most likely its use against larger, more established faiths within Russia. Religions such as Islam and Buddhism have a substantial and growing domestic presence within Russia.

Islam, for example, boasts approximately 8,000 religious groups within the country (though a majority of them are not registered with the government).43

Spring 2017

7

J O U R N A L O F I N T E R N AT I O N A L S O C I A L A F FA I R S

Cutting back on the missionary activities of these more established religions would further cement Orthodox power in Russia. The Russian government, fulfilling its stated desire to cut down on terrorism, would jump at the opportunity to use the new law against Muslims and other non-Orthodox religious adherents. This application is simply the natural result of the law’s current usage, altogether reinforcing the main theme of this research: through Yarovaya law, the Russian government is purposefully limiting religious liberty.

With the trials of unaffiliated believers to crack open the door, it is likely that the state will increasingly force it ever wider, entrenching itself in the private lives and religious expressions of its citizens.

The ripple effect of the Yarovaya law will not stop with Muslims, Buddhists, and Pagans. On the contrary, it will likely eventually be used against its most ardent religious proponents: the Orthodox Church itself. As previously visited, the third category of the Yarovaya law goes far beyond the simple registering of missionaries; it forbids missionary activity when it violates public safety or public order, or when it violates the morality and health of citizens. The vagueness with which the law was worded, meant to open up prosecution to independent religious actors, can itself be used against even the established Church in Russia.44 Even now, government officials are discussing the possibility of trying priests who vocally disagree with the Church’s hard-line stance toward radical Islam. The consideration of charges also extends to other dissidents within the Orthodox Church.

While the government did not act on these discussions, such an application is certainly not outside the bounds of the law as it is written; the interpretation can certainly be used by prosecutors when necessary.45 Once the Yarovaya law is serviceable against dissidents within the Orthodox Church, absolutely nothing prevents its application against the Patriarch and his own followers. For the Orthodox Church, then, the Yarovaya law is a dangerous power-grab which, while currently granting some reprieve from competition, may ultimately come back to bite the Church as the Russian government pursues increased authority over its people. According to Alexander Verkhovsky of the SOVA religious monitoring center, little doubt exists as to whether this is application is exactly what the government intended when passing the law.46 Conclusion In the end, it is abundantly clear that the Russian government has used the ideas of national security and anti-terrorism as a means to hold tighter reins over the actions and religious associations of those within its borders. Spurred on by an Orthodox Church anxious about its tenuous control of the hearts and minds of the Russian people, the Yarovaya laws have in only a few short months been applied against multiple foreign missionaries whose only crime was spreading

8 Spring 2017

J O U R N A L O F I N T E R N AT I O N A L S O C I A L A F FA I R S

their beliefs.

Naturally, the realities of religiously-motivated terrorism present significant issues for governments across the world.47 What is alarming about the Yarovaya laws, however, is that they open a door that had for years been jealously guarded by those who had lived through the repressive Soviet Regime. Now that unaffiliated missionaries can be charged, it is only a matter of time before their activity decreases throughout the country, followed by a crackdown on other established faiths and the official Church itself. As the government assuages its people with talk of safety, it opens them up to the oppressions of the Soviet Era where individuals could express their religious beliefs only with trepidation.49 Only time will tell whether this narrative will come to pass; the law’s defenders may indeed be correct and the law will be used primarily (even solely) to curb the threat of radical extremism and jihad. However, the more likely scenario for the future of Russia is one that, to champions of religious freedom, has a far more doleful sound.

References 1. Tom Lawson, The Church of England and the Holocaust: Christianity, Memory and Nazism (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2006), 81, accessed November 29, 2016, https://books. google.com/books?id=whXxzbzfy8QC&pg=PA81&lpg=PA81&dq=nazi+%22in+the+name+of+security%22&source=bl&ots=kPhJUW_a1I&sig=YoVD7AI5_KuQ_rfyl1g_phGiCTY&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwj00cGE0crQAhUNziYKHSW1BNgQ6AEIHTAA#v=onepage&q=na.

2.

Bethany Allen-Ebrahimian, “The ‘Chilling Effect’ of China’s New Cybersecurity Regime,” For-

eign Policy, July 10, 2015, accessed November 16, 2016, http://foreignpolicy.com/2015/07/10/china-new-cybersecurity-law-internet-security/.

3.

Paul Goble, “An All Too Typical Political Precedent in Russia: Yarovaya Laws Hit Minority

Faiths First,” Religious Freedom Institute, August 31, 2016, accessed November 16, 2016, https:// www.religiousfreedominstitute.org/cornerstone/2016/8/30/an-all-too-typical-political-precedent-inrussia-yarovaya-laws-hit-minority-faiths-first.

4.

“Overview of the Package of Changes Into a Number of Laws of the Russian Federation De-

signed to Provide for Additional Measures to Counteract Terrorism,” The International Center for Not-for-Profit Law, July 21, 2016, accessed November 16, 2016, https://gallery.mailchimp.com/3fbaf5394ea6c973add28939e/files/Overview_of_the_Yarovaya_Law_by_ICNL.pdf.

5.

Ibid.

6.

Ibid.

Spring 2017

9

J O U R N A L O F I N T E R N AT I O N A L S O C I A L A F FA I R S 7.

Victoria Arnold, “RUSSIA: Putin signs sharing beliefs, “extremism”, punishments,” Forum18,

July “Overview of the Package of Changes.”

8.

Ibid.

9.

Ibid

10. Geraldine Fagan, “New Curbs On Religious Freedom Cast Soviet Shadow Over Russia,” Religious Freedom Institute, September 1, 2016, accessed November 16, 2016, https://www.religiousfreedominstitute.org/cornerstone/2016/8/30/new-curbs-on-religious-freedom-cast-soviet-shadow-overrussia.

11. Ibid.

12. Ibid.

13. Ibid.

14. Ibid.

15. Ibid.

16. Ibid.

17. Goble.

18. Elizabeth Clark, “Russia’s New Anti-Missionary Law in Context,” Religious Freedom Institute, August 30, 2016, accessed November 16, 2016, https://www.religiousfreedominstitute.org/cornerstone/2016/8/30/russias-new-anti-missionary-law-in-context.

19. “Russia: Uscirf Condemns Enactment of Anti-Terrorism Laws,” United States Commission on International Religious Freedom, July 8, 2016, accessed November 16, 2016, http://www.uscirf.gov/ news-room/press-releases/russia-uscirf-condemns-enactment-anti-terrorism-laws 20. Ibid.

21. Fagan; Clark.

22. Clark 23. Julio Severo, “A New Russian Law Against Protestants?” Russia Insider, July 15, 2016, accessed November 16, 2016, http://russia-insider.com/en/new-russian-law-against-protestant-evangelicals/ ri15624.

24. Nun Cornelia, “The Yarovaya Anti-Terrorism Laws: Who Is Overreacting?,” pravoslavic.ru, July 20, 2016, accessed November 16, 2016, http://www.pravoslavie.ru/english/95503.htm.

25. Dmitry Polikanov, “Understanding the Real Impact of Russia’s New Anti-Extremism Law,” Russia Direct, July 13, 2016, accessed December 8, 2016, http://www.russia-direct.org/opinion/under-

10 Spring 2017

J O U R N A L O F I N T E R N AT I O N A L S O C I A L A F FA I R S standing-real-impact-russias-new-anti-extremism-law.

26. Severo.

27. Ibid.

28. Goble.

29. “Russia: Us Missionary Who Lost ‘Yarovaya’ Appeal Vows to Keep Fighting,” WorldWatch Monitor, October 5, 2016, accessed November 16, 2016, https://www.worldwatchmonitor. org/2016/10/4664093/.

30. Ibid.

31. Mark Woods, “US Missionary’s Work Ended by Russia’s Evangelism Law,” Christianity Today, September 2, 2016, accessed November 29, 2016, http://www.christiantoday.com/article/us.missionarys.work.ended.by.russias.anti.evangelism.law/94482.htm.

32. Ibid.

33. Goble.

34. WorldWatch Monitor.

35. Ibid.

36. Ibid.

37. Goble.

38. Clark.

39. Ibid.

40. Goble.

41. Ibid.

42. Ibid.

43. Ibid 44. Ibid.

45. Ibid.

46. Ibid.

47. Ibid.

48. Clark 49. Clark

Spring 2017

11

J O U R N A L O F I N T E R N AT I O N A L S O C I A L A F FA I R S

The Designer Baby: Examining Human Genetic Engineering

G

enetic enhancements represent the next step in the study of genetics.

Geneticists are rapidly making discoveries in the human genome and scientists are increasingly using genetic engineering to modify living organisms.

Already, plants and animals are being artificially modified and human embryos are the next step. Genetic enhancements will transform man’s normal functions, including his intelligence, attractiveness, and strength. It is still unclear whether this biotechnology will be utilized on the private, individual level or by the government on a national scale. As governments and individuals consider their responses to genetic enhancements, they must grapple with the moral, ethical, and security implications of the technology. This paper seeks to aid in this process. In the process of artificially changing an embryo, genetic enhancements will likely have a negative impact on the parent/child relationship and society’s treatment of the diseased and disabled.

This paper first describes the technology, including its key components and forecasts. It notes the drawbacks of the technology and where the technology has yet to progress. The paper then identifies and analyzes the moral and ethical questions raised by critics, taking the technology out of the laboratory and into the public square. Finally, it evaluates the technology based on its implications for our society’s morality and security.

Genetic Engineering Technology Deoxyribonucleic acid, the miracle molecule commonly known as DNA, represents a technological feat of magnificent design and engineering. DNA is the blueprint of all life on earth. Within its infinitesimally small and elegantly ordered design, complicated molecular machinery carries out the functions that make life on earth possible.1 The exploration and characterization of DNA dominate the field of biotechnology. The term “biocode” summarizes all of the DNA on earth.

Including all the genome sizes of organisms, the total weight of DNA yields over fifty billion tons. If a person put all of his own DNA molecules from end to end, the DNA would reach from the earth to the sun and back over 600 times.2 Currently, shockingly little is known about the entire earth’s DNA. However, geneticists are tirelessly working to discover human genetic diversity and the biodiversity of the planet. At this rate, the entire planetary ecology may one day be likened to a

12 Spring 2017

J O U R N A L O F I N T E R N AT I O N A L S O C I A L A F FA I R S

giant computer.3 Genetics is the study of genes, genetic variation, and heredity in living organisms. It is strongly linked with the study of information systems. DNA is itself an information system. Genomics is a discipline in genetics that applies recombinant DNA, DNA sequencing methods, and bioinformatics to sequence, assemble, and analyze the function and structure of genomes. A genome is an organism’s complete set of DNA, including all of its genes. Genetic engineering is the modification of an organism’s genetic composition by artificial means. Genetic engineering, also called genetic modification, is already used on plants, animals, and humans.

The genetic engineering of animals provides initial insight on the progress of genomics and its potential on living creatures. Genetically modified animals include flies, worms, and ferrets. Scientists in China have engineered beagles to be extra muscular. Scientists have engineered dairy cows so that they do not have any horns. Mosquitoes are currently being engineered so that they not only resist malaria, but that they then spread this trait to other mosquitoes.4 The marvel of genetic engineering, though, is found within humans. The technology is advancing so that it is possible to read one human genome and correct all known errors.5 Genetic engineering occurs in two ways. First, it occurs through embryo selection. Parents may choose which in vitro fertilization (IVF) zygote to implant in the mother. Second, it occurs in active genetic engineering, with the direct editing of the human genome. Genetic engineering masterfully combines the powerful technology of IVF, mastered four decades ago, and new direct editing tools.6 Genetic engineering of humans may be broken down into two categories – therapy and enhancement. Therapeutic technologies are meant to restore impaired or degraded human capacities to some more normal level. Any enhancements alter human functioning beyond the normal.7 This paper discusses enhancements.

Almost any feature of life may be ethically altered by enhancements. Several core human traits may be affected, including psychological style, personality, general intelligence and memory, sleep, normal aging, gender, and being a member of the species Homo sapiens.8 Genetic engineering on humans has not yet reached the stage of enhancement. It is currently at the therapeutic stage of correcting disease-causing genes in people before they are born. “Gene-line” editing makes changes to DNA in sperm, eggs, or embryos. It is used as a kind of search-and-replace tool in DNA. In the future, it may be used to avoid terrifying genetic conditions like Huntington’s disease or muscular dystrophy.9 In essence, genetic engineering is being used to make humans normal, not extra normal. However, experts predict that research is only a decade away from manipulating the DNA for enhancement purposes. The possibilities of genetic enhancements points to the term “designer babies” and the

Spring 2017

13

J O U R N A L O F I N T E R N AT I O N A L S O C I A L A F FA I R S

conjuring of images of “armies of blue-eyed super-intelligent babies.”10 The near possibility of designer babies causes one to consider the capabilities that future generations will possess. While super intelligence is in the distant future, understanding the genetic code will allow for cognitive ability predictions genotyping.11 Soon, geneticists will be able to identify the many thousands of genetic variants that control intelligence. Called alleles, these could be selected by the parents to customize and increase the unborn’s intelligence.12 George Church, professor of genetics at Harvard Medical School and a major proponent of genetic enhancement, forecasts augmentation as the next step for human evolution. Enhancements to one’s intelligence would occur in the form of protective genes.13 One example is the variant of the gene for the amyloid precursor protein, or APP. It was found by Icelandic researchers to protect against Alzheimer’s. People with APP never get dementia and remain mentally sharp into old age.14 Forecasts of enhanced intelligence include savant-like capabilities, in a maximal type, that might be present all at once. Such capabilities include near perfect recall of images and language, super-fast thinking and calculation, powerful geometric visualization, even in higher-dimensions, and the ability to execute multiple analyses or trains of thought in parallel at the same time.15 Even a small number of “super-enhanced” individuals could change the world through their creativity and discoveries and through innovations that everyone else would use.

They would possess augmented human problem-solving abilities that are factors in every challenge we face.16 CRISPR/Cas9 is the latest technological development that allows for active genetic editing and shows great promise. It is a protein-RNA combination that defends bacteria against marauding viruses. Properly adapted, it would allow scientists to edit strings of DNA inside living cells with astonishing precision.17 It is predicted that CRISPR will be tested on humans within two years.18 Additional companies are promoting genetic discoveries on an individualized, accessible level. 23andMe is a personal genetics company that has put together a genetic predictor tool. A mother might be able to select her preference for green eyes and a reduced risk of certain diseases by screening the sperm of potential donors for these traits. GenePeeks has developed a technology called Matchright. Matchright enables customers to screen sperm from possible donors for how the genomes of the sperm, when combined with the customer’s, might lead to possible outcomes in future children. After the design phase, the genetically modified baby would then go through a series of “production” steps.19 The ease of use and fast development of CRISPR and other assorted genomic tools are worth taking note. Regarding CRISPR, UC-Berkeley biologist Jennifer Coudna says, “any scientist with molecular biology skills and knowledge of how to work with [embryos] is going to be able to do this.”20 Genetic engineering on

14 Spring 2017

J O U R N A L O F I N T E R N AT I O N A L S O C I A L A F FA I R S

the personal level is also incredibly cheap. Developers of a do-it-yourself genetic engineering kit began offering the kit for $700. The basic ingredients of CRISPR can be bought online for $60.21 It is projected that by 2020 many hospitals will have genomic medicine departments, designing medical therapies based on personal genetic constitutions. Projections suggest that the genomes of billions of individuals will be sequenced by 2025.22 The Moral and Ethical Debate As genetic engineering rapidly moves from the research laboratory to the hospital, significant questions have been raised regarding the technology. Critics comment on the effects that genetic enhancement could have on the natural human condition, an individual’s freedom, the parent/child relationship, and the social hierarchy. Hidden in each of the objections is the question of whether genetic enhancement is in any way necessary. As the various issues are examined, one must ask why we want to rewrite everything that is alive.

Before delving into the moral and ethical questions surrounding genetic enhancement, it is necessary to first note the various dimensions of genetics. Laid out by Eric Cohen, genetics can be divided into five categories. First, genetics is a route to self-understanding. It is a way of knowing ourselves. Second, genetics is a route to new medical therapies. It is a way of curing ourselves. Third, it is a potential tool for human re-engineering, giving us a way of remaking ourselves.

Fourth, genetics is a means of knowing something about our biological destiny, about our health and sickness in the future. Fifth, it is a tool for screening the traits of the next generation. It assists in choosing some lives and rejecting others.23 This paper focuses on the third category, examining the genetic design of the unborn child.

Debates over various aspects of genetics have been raging for decades. They occurred four decades ago when IVF was mastered by Nobel Laureate Robert Edwards and Patrick Steptoe.24 They occurred in the 2000s when President Bush’s Council on Bioethics focused on the morality of stem cell research and the dangers of genetically engineered “ageless bodies.”25 Today, the debate has moved past designing babies. Scientists are already designing babies. The current debate centers on how specific those designs should be.26 Should genetic engineering be used only for therapeutic purposes? How far should genetic augmentation go?

Can parents edit their children’s intelligence, attractiveness, and strength? Should they? Should all parents have this ability or only a select few?

Public opinion is divided over the efficacy of genetic engineering. A Pew Research survey conducted in August 2014 found that 46% of adults approve of genetic modifications of babies to reduce the risk of serious diseases. However, 83% of respondents said that the genetic modification of babies to make them smarter

Spring 2017

15

J O U R N A L O F I N T E R N AT I O N A L S O C I A L A F FA I R S

would be taking medical advances too far.27 Governments have shown similar distrust and hesitancy toward the technology. A dozen countries, not including the United States, have banned germ-line engineering. The European Union’s convention on human rights and biomedicine concluded that tampering with the gene pool would be a crime against “human dignity and human rights.”28 The United States government has not yet issued an official position on the legality of human genetic engineering, although it allows for the genetic modification of plants and animals.

Despite this initial backlash to genetic modifications, proponents argue that the societal benefits will outweigh objections. Eugene Volokh predicts that the increased competitive pressures brought on by genetic engineering both on the individual and international level will swamp over moral objections to the technology.29 He proposes that everyone naturally wants a smarter child. All other factors being equal, a parent would most likely choose a child with a 130 IQ over a child with an 85 IQ. The parent would choose this for the benefit of the child. On the national level, a similar decision will be made. As Russia and China increasingly utilize genetic engineering to increase their citizen’s intelligence, countries like the United States will naturally follow on, for national success and independence.30 Moving to specific objections, an initial argument brought forth by critics is that genetic enhancements are simply medically unnecessary. There are certainly legitimate reasons why parents would want to manipulate DNA so that their children do not inherit life-threatening diseases. Every parent wants their child to live a healthy, happy life, absent of frequent hospital visits, medication, and the inability to keep up with their friends. However, there seems to be no legitimate reason why a parent would manipulate the embryo so the child would have blue eyes. Is it really necessary that the parents have a guarantee that their child will be the fastest sprinter in gym class, or that the child has an increased probability of getting into an Ivy League school? There is no medically legitimate reason as to why humans should be elevated to transhumans or why select humans need capabilities beyond the normal.

Beyond the lack of medical necessity, genetic engineering still contains many unknowns. The genome is also vastly mysterious and complex. Although such technologies as CRISPR have been successful on pigs and mosquitoes, human biology is distinctly different. It is impossible to know exactly what effect CRISPR would have on the human baby.31 Some fear that new, unexpected problems could be introduced when CRISPR meets the human genome. Critics argue that because the risks are so unknown and potentially great, it is unethical to proceed, even if only in the laboratory. This is magnified by the fact that alternatives are available to parents, such as adoption and egg donation.32 The parent’s desire for her child to possess certain traits should not trump potential harm that could be

16 Spring 2017

J O U R N A L O F I N T E R N AT I O N A L S O C I A L A F FA I R S

done to the child. Beyond the resulting baby, the modified DNA would be passed down to future generations. The child’s germ-line will be forever altered. Such germ-line alterations raise concern over the possibility of serious and debilitating health issues emerging in future generations. Ethically, while some accept genetic engineering for one individual, it is questionable to make modifications to genetic material that will be passed on for centuries. Bioethicists argue that future individuals have the right to an unmodified human genome, although such a right has not been recognized by a government or international body.

The safety of the technology on future generations rests on the first few generations that are modified. Without examining the issue of consent, which will be examined later in the paper, the new and largely untested technology would make it prudent for the modified children to participate in follow-up studies years after their conception, and potentially for the entirety of their lives. These follow-up studies would be necessary to not only monitor the individual’s health but to provide information about the techniques to ensure greater safety of users in the future. Yet, because their participation would have to be voluntary, there is no guarantee that follow-up studies would be successful. This adds to the danger of the procedure as it continues with new subjects.33 From an economic perspective, enhancement technologies are obviously expensive. An IVF procedure costs about $20,000 in the United States. When genetic testing and an egg donation or surrogate mother is added, the price goes up to $100,000.34 It is uncertain how much more genetic augmentations will cost in the future. With these numbers, though, such improvements will likely be only available initially to the richest societies and the richest people. If genetic enhancements are accepted as regular medical procedures, businesses will be incentivized to drive costs down, creating a perpetual cycle of persons seeking enhancements and companies being able to economically manipulate this demand.

Some predict that the limited availability based on cost could lead to an enhancement divide and societal conflict. When the ability to genetically enhance one’s children becomes available to the public, the privileged members of society will quickly adopt this technology. This adoption in the high-income brackets of society will divide society between the enhanced and unenhanced.35 The differences between the two groups are not limited to wealth. Rather, the differences deal with intelligence, attractiveness, strength, and success. Existing inequalities will only be exacerbated, with xenophobia, racism, and warfare being encouraged. Cutting to the very foundation of the American project, political and cultural divides will be aggravated and our idea of equality will be challenged.36 The enhanced and unenhanced will not be able to dwell together in peace, with one having to submit to the other.

Proponents of genetic enhancements imagine the future relationship between

Spring 2017

17

J O U R N A L O F I N T E R N AT I O N A L S O C I A L A F FA I R S

humans and transhumans. Ronald Bailey argues for government-enforced toleration. He cites various philosophers and founding fathers that call for democratic toleration in light of inevitable class differences due to diversity and different capabilities.37 Bailey predicts that toleration will exist between humans and transhumans, though he notes that transhumans will likely take the Nietzschean superman position.

In his book Remaking Eden, Lee Silver of Princeton University imagines what the class divide would look like. He advocates not only designer babies, but a future reality that has an upper class consisting of genetically modified people who control society and a lower class who are not. The upper class, called the “GenRich” will make up 10% of the United States population and will control all aspects of the economy, media, entertainment industry, and knowledge industry.

The lower class, called “naturals,” will work as low-paid service providers or as laborers. Eventually, the two classes will become entirely separate specie with no ability to cross-breed and no romantic interest in each other.38 Such a future conjures up the creations of past authors of futuristic dystopian novels. It is worth noting that there is a long history of fictional works exploring humans hacking into their own creation through genetics. Almost without exception, the results imagined are dystopian in nature.

Genetic enhancements would also have a negative effect on the parent/child relationship. Humans crave perfection. They want perfect hair, perfect test scores, the perfect career, and the perfect body. Obviously, humans are unable to achieve such perfection. Yet genetic engineering offers the opportunity for the parent to ensure that their child will have it all. It is a mindset of “you’re only human, but your kids could be so much more.”39 From the very beginning in the embryo, a parent can give his child the best intelligence possible. In the nature versus nurture debate, the parent will now hold conscious control of both the child’s natural environment as well as his biological makeup. One author explains a parent genetically engineering his child as an intellectual exercise. The parent is working on a model building exercise. The embryo is the project and the child will turn out to be the final product. The parent’s own cells and genetic fabric are the starting material. The only other things necessary are the money and personal input for the design of the child.40 Certainly, the parental desire to give his child the best things possible is legitimate. Every parent wants the best for his child, for the child to be healthy and happy. Yet, this desire can become a misplaced quest for perfection through procreation and child rearing. The parent may begin to treat one’s son or daughter as the means for fulfilling one’s own private hungers. The parent thinks, “I always wish that I had done better in school, so surely my child would want the same thing.” Genetic enhancement enables those personal desires. The parent will be

18 Spring 2017

J O U R N A L O F I N T E R N AT I O N A L S O C I A L A F FA I R S

able to live out his desired perfect life through his child. However, what if the child wants something else? The child’s dreams may differ entirely from his parent’s, and yet he was genetically engineered to pursue his parent’s dream for his life. Even worse, what if the child is incapable of achieving his parent’s desires?

A child may have a genetically ensured 130 IQ, but that doesn’t guarantee him doing well in school, attending the perfect college, or holding the dream job. Enhanced capabilities do not promise a fulfilled life or a happy home. In his book The Genius Factory, David Plotz documented the elevated and unfulfilled expectations of one modified family. One character conceived from “genius sperm” complained, “Mom did not mean to, but she put a burden on me by making me feel like someone special…I’m always hearing that I’m special. I don’t want to be special.”41 Genetic enhancements will set parents’ expectations for their child starting in the womb. Such expectations are not only harsh and unreasonable; they enable the parent to set standards for how much he will adore his child.

The desire to augment the embryo to create the perfect child also confuses the natural basis for how children come into the world. Genetic engineering currently requires manipulation by scientists that occurs outside the womb in the laboratory. The genetically modified baby requires more than a mom and a dad.

Indeed, “it takes a village and a lab to make GMO sapiens.”42 The technological developments that stem from the desire to have a child of “my own” confound the very nature of biological origins.43 Normal sexual procreation that has been the only option for thousands of years will become a second-rate option. Genetic engineering represents the next step in scientific procreation, following innovations like IVF. With this scientific procreation, the parent’s role is diminished and the scientist becomes an integral player in how the child will turn out. This leads some critics to argue that genetically modified children will be less loved than those produced via the “old-fashioned way.” Peter Lawler speculates, “A world in which children are manufactured and sex and procreation are totally disconnected would surely be one without much love, one where manufactured beings would have little natural or real connection to other manufactured beings.”44 Genetic engineering would confer legitimacy on the practice of modern eugenics. It is a legitimate quest to prevent a child from receiving a life-threatening genetic disease. If parents have the ability to prevent an early death for their child, they probably should prevent it. However, the moral problem arises when the prevention of disease later in life means destroying the embryo in the lab. Already, this type of “prevention” occurs with disorders like Down syndrome. Scientists can read the genomes of various embryos when deciding which one to implant in the woman. If a particular embryo has a physical or mental disorder, it will most likely not be implanted. Yet, that embryo represents life and that decision has just caused the death of a life. A world that embraces genetic engineering risks full on

Spring 2017

19

J O U R N A L O F I N T E R N AT I O N A L S O C I A L A F FA I R S

eugenics. Eugenics seeks to improve the genetic quality of the human population.

Conventional eugenics consists of intentional selective breeding for improved genetic traits.45 Human genetic engineering can be defined as modern eugenics.

“We will replace the It is the science of manipulating an inhard work of human love dividual’s genetic makeup, or genotype, for the disabled with a false with the intention of altering his or her compassion that simply weeds observable traits, or phenotype.46 In pracout the unfit. Humanity will tice, this makes the practice of producing be tempted to do miserable genetically superior human beings while things in the name of a getting rid of genetically “inferior ones” misguided mercy.” acceptable. This could lead to a form of Eric Cohen, pg. 20 social Darwinism. Artificial selection, beginning before birth, would create a stratified society in which various groups hold differing values based on their genetic makeup, which they themselves had no control over.

In a world that accepts modern eugenics, the treatment of those genetically unequal would be substantially worsened. Genetic engineering takes society past equality. Genetic enhancements do not make everyone equal; rather, they pursue inequality by making some people genetically superior in every possible way. While the upper echelons of society are increasing their test scores, the lower strata will continue to struggle with their genetic disabilities. The disabled will continue to exist among us, yet our willingness to treat them will be eroded in our pursuit of genetic equality. As Eric Cohen explains, “we will replace the hard work of human love for the disabled with a false compassion that simply weeds out the unfit.”47Although this weeding out may take place before they are even born, the deliberate selection occurs nonetheless. In seeking out an existence without misery or imperfect, Cohen argues that we may make ourselves more miserable and imperfect. “Humanity will be tempted to do miserable things in the name of a misguided mercy.”48 Genetic engineering enables this misguided mercy, fulfilling the desire for a perfect child while sympathetically defending the notion of sparing people the misery of living with a debilitating disease. Gene-editing children does not pursue a world of inclusion. Rather, it creates a harsher social climate for everyone.49 The logical extreme of genetic enhancement consists of asking oneself what the purpose of existing is when one is not perfect or even physically healthy. Proponents of genetic engineering argue that the principle of toleration will extend between those enhanced and unenhanced. However, when the unenhanced missed the opportunity to improve themselves before being born, why should their imperfect and troubled existence be tolerated or even included

20 Spring 2017

J O U R N A L O F I N T E R N AT I O N A L S O C I A L A F FA I R S

in the center of society?

In considering the effect that genetic engineering will have on how society treats genetically unequal people, the religious critic must ask how the genetically engineered person will treat his neighbor, whether enhanced or unenhanced. The Judeo-Christian worldview calls for humans to love their neighbors. This love is not qualified, nor does it rest on particular traits that the neighbor should possess before being deserving of the love. With this understanding, religious opponents of genetic engineering recognize human limitations. Because man is fallen, there will always be suffering and imperfection. While man may work to mitigate suffering and strive for perfection, man is not capable of achieving a perfect world, free from death. The religious man is content in his faith, which provides answers to the problems of human limitation, suffering, and mortality. The Judeo-Christian worldview instructs of an inherent dignity that come with creation. All human beings possess this dignity at all stages of life, simply by being one of God’s creations.

The use of genetic engineering on the unborn raises concern regarding individual freedom and consent. At least for the first few generations of genetically modified babies, the children are in essence the subjects of experiments.

Genetic engineering affects people not yet born, who have no ability to consent to the modification of their DNA.50 It undermines human freedom. Bill McKibben explains that, “The person left without any choice at all is the one you’ve engineered. You’ve decided, once and for all, certain things about him; he’ll have genes expressing proteins that send extra dopamine to alter his mood; he’ll have genes expressing proteins to boost his memory, to shape his stature.”51 Running parallel to the child’s loss of individual freedom is the parent’s new power. Genetic engineering allows the parent to step into the role of God with his own miniature creature. The parent, with the assistance of scientists, is literally designing and producing a new type of baby.52 In response, proponents of genetic engineering point out that no baby consents to being born.53 One is not able to freely choose DNA. Rather, parents provide a particular DNA set modeled after the DNA set given to them by their parents. All of this was done without consent. However, with greater genetic understanding, human freedom will be increased. Human freedom will be redefined to mean the ability to act against genetic predispositions. Critics respond by presenting an alternative definition of individual freedom based in ignorance. Human freedom rests on the ignorance of the more or less random combination of genes that one inherits. Our individual freedom exists in the gaps of our knowledge of our genetic makeup. With either of these definitions of individual freedom, it is clear that our society places enormous value on the idea of individual freedom. Therefore, proponents argue that it is difficult to find a legitimate basis for restricting

Spring 2017

21

J O U R N A L O F I N T E R N AT I O N A L S O C I A L A F FA I R S

the use of reprogenetics.54 Further, proponents seem confused that anyone would deliberately choose to turn down an offer of genetic enhancement. Philosopher John Rawls developed the idea of primary goods, things that every rational person should value, regardless of his conception of the good. These primary goods include rights, liberties, opportunities, health, intelligence, and imagination. He argues that it would be irrational to turn them down.55 Applying the idea of primary goods to genetic augmentation, it is assumed that all rational agents would consent to the augmentation of their primary goods. Individual freedom is judged to be less important than primary goods. Therefore, one human may augment the primary goods of another human without regard of individual freedom.

C. S. Lewis rejected this notion, raising concerns over one generation holding inordinate power over future generations. In The Abolition of Man, Lewis writes, “If any one age really attains, by eugenics and scientific education, the power to make its descendants what it pleases, all men who live after it are the patients of that power. They are weaker, not stronger: for though we have put wonderful machines in their hands, we have pre-ordained how they are to use them.�56 Lewis fully rejects the notion of man playing God. Man may think he is making his descendants better, but he is not in the position to do so. Man was not intended to hold such power and when he wields it, the result is weaker future generations stripped of their free will.

A final concern brought forward by critics is the effect that genetic engineering will have on the natural human condition and excellence. In our natural human condition, we live for love and excellence. In considering how genetic engineering may affect our condition, we must ask what we live for, not just what we must live with.57 The base desire to live a happy life with minimal troubles is reasonable. However, when genetic engineering promises to grant that desire, the modified human would be seeking a merely cosmetic consciousness, chemically divorced from the ups and downs of real life. Drugs that improve memory do not aid human excellence. Rather, they are corruptions of human excellence. Genetic modifications turn us into biological artifacts, as dependent for our achievements as the drug addict is for his transient pleasures. Critics argue that germ-line engineering would encourage the spread of allegedly superior traits, yet it could not deliver genuine excellence achieved in the natural human condition.58 In the attempt to augment our excellence, it separates man from who he is and can be.

Moral Evaluation There is not yet a clear framework used to evaluate the technological, moral, and ethical implications of genetic enhancement. In considering a viable framework, the natural human condition ought to be central. When an embryo is being genetically enhanced, it should be asked how the enhancement would

22 Spring 2017

J O U R N A L O F I N T E R N AT I O N A L S O C I A L A F FA I R S

affect the future child’s natural condition. Geneticists and parents ought to ask whether the enhancement will increase or decrease the future child’s virtue or if it will have any effect. The dignity of the person must also be considered. Would the genetic enhancement violate the dignity of the particular embryo or the dignity of others he will encounter in the future?

Genetic engineering does not create more excellent men. Rather, it produces biological machines. Genetic enhancements are promoted as being able to increase the excellence of a person, whether intellectually, physically, or emotionally. However, this supposed enhancement of excellence is artificial. If the designer is seeking to achieve human excellence or better-than-human excellence, the idea of excellence itself must first be examined. In this reflection on human excellence, it becomes doubtful that an artificially engineered person can improve upon the generations that have come before him. Certainly, genetically modified persons may possess higher IQs, but that does not mean they will become more enrapturing musicians or awe-inspiring artists. In seeking to maximize some human trait through manipulation, the scientists run the risk of deforming other crucial traits. Excellence is not solely measured by superior intellect. Many of the most admirable humans have not lived lives dominated by measurable achievement, but rather lives of fidelity, charity, love, and courage.59 Good genes are not enough to make good men.

Genetic enhancements will exacerbate man’s tendency towards selfishness and avarice. Genetic enhancements are inherently self-centered. Whether one is modifying himself or his child, he is basing the design on his personal desires. A person chooses to increase his intelligence or strength for his own personal benefit. Technology does not fundamentally make us good or enable us to do good. If it has any effect on our virtue, it is to make us more self-centered. Genetic engineering places the spotlight on oneself, rather than the surrounding community. Ronald Bailey proposes, “If a pill will make a person more confident and upbeat, then there is no reason for him not to use it if he so wishes.”60 This mindset is blatantly self-centered. Bailey fails to recognize that man should have other considerations besides his personal, artificial fulfillment. Happiness and confidence should be organically derived not from a pill, but from self-made excellence and relationships with other beings. The good of personhood is not a zero-sum competition.

Rather, it is gift giving and exchange. An innate part of a person’s quest to achieve personal flourishing is to advance the flourishing of the personal being of other persons. This is due to the relational nature of personhood.61 Societal participation is an essential means to and a constitutive element of thriving personhood. Yet genetic enhancements cause a person to look into the mirror rather than at the person standing next to them. Caring for the good of others is inevitably neglected in the pursuit to genetically improve oneself and one’s personal offspring.

Spring 2017

23

J O U R N A L O F I N T E R N AT I O N A L S O C I A L A F FA I R S

Genetic engineering produces an incorrect response to the dignity of persons.

Dignity belongs to the essential constitution of human personhood, including in those who are ignorant or deny its reality. Dignity is an inherent worth of immeasurable value that is naturally worthy of respect, justice, and love. It makes people innately precious and inviolable.62 Genetic enhancements imply that a person’s dignity may be artificially increased. The unintended implication of this belief is that the unenhanced person’s dignity is of lesser value and less deserving of respect.

International Security Impact Various concerns arise when considering the implications of genetic enhancements on international security. US Director of National Intelligence James Clapper noted the potential threat of gene editing. In an annual worldwide threat assessment report, he added gene editing to a list of threats posed by “weapons of mass destruction and proliferation.”63 A major concern is gene editing’s relative ease of use and low cost. In the near future, technologies like CRISPR will have broad distribution, low cost, and an accelerated pace of development. As the newest and most versatile of the gene-editing systems, the basic ingredients of CRISPR can be bought online for $60. While a hospital may not misuse genetic engineering to have drastic security consequences, CRISPR could easily make its way into the wrong hands, whether with countries or non-state actors that have minimal respect for human life.

Countries like China and Russia have begun embracing the technology, with China announcing that it is already editing human embryos.64 The United States has yet to show an active interest in pursuing genetic engineering on a national level. However, similar to fictional scenarios, it may feel the need to take measures to keep up. As major world players begin mass-producing smarter and stronger citizens, the world risks embarking on a new arms race using humans instead of nuclear weapons.

The international community must come together to discuss the implications of technologies like CRISPR. As the most fundamental institutional framework to restrain potential threats of emerging technologies, the Biological Weapons Convention (BWC) provides an opportune venue for such a discussion.65 Member countries should provide proper training and awareness of the technology’s dangers. National institutions in charge of oversight of genetic engineering need to coordinate better. Together, countries must decide whether existing regulatory frameworks are sufficient or if new frameworks need to be created.

The unknowns of genetic engineering pose a great risk to security. The genome still holds vast mysteries unknown to scientists. Because the genome is the very essence of life, a potential accident occurring with gene editing could

24 Spring 2017

J O U R N A L O F I N T E R N AT I O N A L S O C I A L A F FA I R S

be catastrophic for humanity. Governments must carefully regulate the research and development of genetic enhancement procedures for the ensured survival of mankind.

Conclusion Just like the genome itself, genetic engineering draws responses of both wonder and mystery. Scientists hold at their fingertips the ability to redesign mankind at the microscopic level. Such power carries enormous moral questions. It is this paper’s conclusion that the positive possibilities of genetic enhancements are overwhelmed by the negative effects it will likely have on the individual, the family, society, and the national system. Genetic enhancements will not make man more virtuous. Instead, they will center man even more on himself, promising excellence while only being able to deliver artificial improvements.

References 1. Wallace G. Smith, “The Miracle of DNA,” Tomorrow’s World (May-June 2013), accessed February 18, 2017. http://www.tomorrowsworld.org/magazines/2013/may-june/the-miracle-of-dna.

2. Anna Marie Helmenstine, “10 Interesting DNA Facts,” ThoughtCo, February 13, 2017, accessed February 18, 2017. http://chemistry.about.com/od/lecturenoteslab1/a/10-Interesting-Dna-Facts.htm.

3. Dawn Field, “Perfect Genetic Knowledge,” Aeon (September 11, 2015), accessed February 18, 2017, https://aeon.co/essays/what-might-we-do-with-the-genomics-of-the-entire-planet.

4. Antonio Regalado, “Everything You Need to Know About CRISPR Gene Editing’s Monster Year,” MIT Technology Review, December 1, 2015, accessed February 18, 2017, https://www.technologyreview.com/s/543941/everything-you-need-to-know-about-crispr-gene-editings-monster-year/.

5. Ibid.

6. Stephen Hsu, “Super-Intelligent Humans are Coming,” Nautilus, October 16, 2014, accessed February 18, 2017, http://nautil.us/issue/18/genius/super_intelligent-humans-are-coming.

7. Ronald Bailey, “The Case for Enhancing People,” The New Atlantis Journal of Technology and Society, no. 32(Summer 2011), accessed February 18, 2017, http://www.thenewatlantis.com/publications/the-case-for-enhancing-people.

8.

Ibid.

9. Regalado, “Everything You Need to Know About CRISPR.” 10. Ibid.

11. Hsu

Spring 2017

25

J O U R N A L O F I N T E R N AT I O N A L S O C I A L A F FA I R S 12. Orion Jones, “Genetic Engineering Will Create Super-Intelligent Humans Within a Decade,” Big Think, accessed February 18, 2017, http://bigthink.com/ideafeed/genetic-engineering-will-create-super-intelligent-humans-within-a-decade.

13. Antonio Regalado, “Engineering the Perfect Baby,” MIT Technology Review, March 5, 2015, accessed February 18, 2017, https://www.technologyreview.com/s/535661/engineering-the-perfect-baby/.

14. Ibid 15. Hsu. 16. Regalado, “Engineering the Perfect Baby.”

17. Field.

18. Regalado, “Everything You Need to Know About CRISPR.” 19. Paul Knoepfler, “You’re Only Human, But Your Kids Could Be So Much More,” Wired, December 1, 2015, accessed February 18, 2017, http://www.wired.com/2015/12/youre-only-human-butyour-kids-could-be-so-much-more/.

20. Regalado, “Engineering the Perfect Baby.”

21. Regalado, “Everything You Need to Know About CRISPR.” 22. Field.

23. Eric Cohen, In the Shadow of Progress (New York: Encounter Books, 2008), 81-82.

24. Lijing Jiang, “Robert Geoffrey Edwards and Patrick Christopher Steptoe’s Clinical Research in Human in vitro Fertilization and Embryo Transfer, 1969-1980,” The Embryo Project at Arizona State University, last modified September 25, 2013, accessed April 1, 2017, https://embryo.asu.edu/pages/ robert-geoffrey-edwards-and-patrick-christopher-steptoes-clinical-research-human-vitro.

25. Bailey.

26. Olga Khazan, “We’re Already Designing Babies,” The Atlantic, July 3, 2014, accessed February

18,

2017,

http://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2014/07/were-already-designing-ba-

bies/373896/.

27. Regaldo, “Engineering the Perfect Baby.”

28. Ibid.

29. Eugene Volokh, “If It Becomes Possible to Safely Genetically Increase Babies’ IQ, It Will Become Inevitable,” The Washington Post, July 14, 2015, accessed February 18, 2017, https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2015/07/14/if-it-becomes-possible-to-safely-genetical-

26 Spring 2017

J O U R N A L O F I N T E R N AT I O N A L S O C I A L A F FA I R S ly-increase-babies-iq-it-will-become-inevitable/.

30. Ibid.

31. Human Genetic Engineering: Current Science and Ethical Implications,” Council for Responsible Genetics, accessed February 18, 2017, http://www.councilforresponsiblegenetics.org/pageDocuments/YN3RBRQ4GO.pdf.

32. Ibid.

33. Ibid.

34. Regaldo, “Engineering the Perfect Baby.”

35. Bailey 36. Cohen, 92.

37. Bailey.

38. Lee Silver, Remaking Eden: Cloning and Beyond in a Brave New World (New York: Avon, 1997), 4-7.

39. Knoepfler.

40. Ibid.

41. David Plotz, The Genius Factory (New York: Random House Trade, 2005), 250.

42. Knoepfler.

43. Cohen, 87-88.

44. Bailey.

45. Laura Hix, “Modern Eugenics: Building a Better Person?” Helix Magazine, July 23, 2009, accessed February 18, 2017, https://helix.northwestern.edu/article/modern-eugenics-building-better-person.

46. Ibid.

47. Cohen, 93.

48. Ibid.

49. Erika Check Hayden, “Should You Edit Your Children’s Genes?” Nature International Weekly Journal of Science, February 23, 2016, accessed February 18, 2017, http://www.nature.com/news/ should-you-edit-your-children-s-genes-1.19432.

50. Regalado, “Engineering the Perfect Baby.”

Spring 2017

27

J O U R N A L O F I N T E R N AT I O N A L S O C I A L A F FA I R S 51. Bailey.

52. Knoepfler.

53. Bailey.

54. Silver, 4.

55. Bailey.

56. C.S. Lewis, The Abolition of Man, (New York: HarperCollins, 2015), 57.

57. Cohen, 83.

58. Regalado, “Engineering the Perfect Baby.”

59. Ibid., 88.

60. Bailey.

61. Christian Smith, What Is A Person? (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2010), 98-102.

62. Ibid., 3.

63. Antonio Regalado, “Top US Intelligence Official Calls Gene Editing a WMD Threat,” MIT Technology Review, February 9, 2016, accessed February 18, 2017, https://www.technologyreview. com/s/600774/top-us-intelligence-official-calls-gene-editing-a-wmd-threat/.

64. Field.

65. Paul Kumst, “CRISPR – A Rogue One?” Georgetown Security Studies Revie, November 8, 2016, acceed February 18, 2017, http://georgetownsecuritystudiesreview.org/2016/11/08/crispr-a-rogueone.

28 Spring 2017

J O U R N A L O F I N T E R N AT I O N A L S O C I A L A F FA I R S

Justice Unserved: Taking ISIS to the International Criminal Court

O

n November 30, 2016, Iraqi forces uncovered another mass grave dug by the Islamic State (ISIS) outside of Mosul. The grave is one of seventy-two discovered in the past year.1 The estimated number of dead has reached into the tens of thousands; the number of people forcibly displaced is far beyond that.2 The reality of genocide seems to be a foregone conclusion. Unmistakably, the genocide is a religiously-oriented one: Yazidis are killed for devil worshiping, Christians for blaspheming Allah, and even moderate Muslims for disagreeing with ISIS’ version of Islam.3 Two Christian organizations, the Alliance Defending Freedom (ADF) and the American Center for Law and Justice (ACLJ), have called for ISIS to be referred to the International Criminal Court (ICC). If it were found guilty of religious genocide, the argument goes, ISIS would be punished.

The conviction would put the defense of religious freedom into court precedent at the highest possible level, a victory for Christianity and religious freedom alike. A few secular voices have also repeated this idea, such as former Bush administration official John Bellinger III. In a New York Times op-ed published April 2015, Bellinger argued that an international trial would, “register international opposition to the atrocities [and] help lay the groundwork for future prosecutions.”4 The Tom Lantos Human Rights Commission added that convicting ISIS would end the impunity that terrorist groups have enjoyed so far, contribute to the de-radicalization of ISIS followers, and generate further opposition to ISIS.5 However, despite the hopes of the ADF and ACLJ, referral to the ICC may not be the best strategy for implementing justice. This is the case for several reasons.

Lack of Jurisdiction Before a trial can even be considered, the ICC must have jurisdiction over the area where the crimes are being committed, namely in Iraq and Syria. This jurisdiction is currently not established, according to a statement made by chief ICC prosecutor Fatou Bensouda in April 2015.6 For the ICC to gain jurisdiction, one of two things must happen. Iraq or Syria can join the ICC and request an investigation of alleged genocide. If they do not join, the UN Security Council can refer the situation directly to the ICC. At this point, obstacles stand in the way of both of these methods of action. First, neither Iraq nor Syria is likely to join the ICC because they would open themselves to prosecution for other crimes. In order to

Spring 2017

29

J O U R N A L O F I N T E R N AT I O N A L S O C I A L A F FA I R S

make a referral, the UN Security Council would have to go over the states’ heads; it is unwilling to do so because both states are allies in the anti-ISIS opposition.7 Iraq may possibly be more open to a trial in the future than is Syria. In May 2016, Iraq mentioned that it would welcome a, “legal mechanism for investigating and bringing to justice the criminals.” However, the state neither mentioned the ICC specifically nor indicated that it would join the ICC.8 More likely, Iraq would prefer to create a hybrid tribunal in which it would have a controlling majority influence, similar to the Extraordinary Chambers in the Courts of Cambodia (ECCC).

At any rate, the idea does not appear to be going forward. There has been almost no news since May about the creation of a “legal mechanism.”

One-Sided Justice If the ICC obtained jurisdiction and the trial proceeded, the tribunal would have to immediately deal with the problem that all political tribunals face: it would have to avoid delivering one-sided justice, favoring the accusers over the accused. Like all tribunals set up to try international political matters, the ICC is an imperfect entity. All international tribunals have intrinsic flaws which make them less-than-ideal conveyers of justice. This is partially due to the fact that they are shaped by self-interested political pressures and operate in an anarchic international arena without an overseeing authority. Indeed, international tribunals of the 20th century had poor track records of doing their jobs well. These include the Nuremberg and Tokyo tribunals, the Iraqi High Tribunal (IHT), and Cambodia’s aforementioned ECCC. While the Nuremberg trials are often lauded as an example of prosecuting an aggressive war, they were a flawed instrument. They prosecuted the losing side while giving impunity to the crimes of the winning side. The Third Reich’s officers were charged specifically with “crimes against peace” and “crimes of aggressive war,” charges that could easily have been leveled against the Allies and the USSR, but never were. The Soviets, for example, were not indicted for breaking the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact they previously had with Germany. The violation would have qualified as a crime of aggressive war. The Americans were not indicted for the Lend-Lease Initiative which allowed the United States to unlawfully supply aid to belligerent countries without first declaring war.9 Prosecutor Robert Jackson wrote a letter to President Truman on the court’s hypocrisy, claiming, “[the Allies] have done or are doing some of the very things we are prosecuting Germans for.… We are prosecuting plunder and our Allies are practicing it. We say aggressive war is a crime and one of our allies asserts sovereignty over the Baltic States based on no title except conquest.”10 The Tokyo trials, held contemporaneously with Nuremberg, evinced the same problem of asymmetrical justice. The tribunal charged four Japanese prime minis-

30 Spring 2017

J O U R N A L O F I N T E R N AT I O N A L S O C I A L A F FA I R S

ters with committing aggressive war and International tribunals crimes against humanity. The Japanese of the twentieth century have defense supplied a tu quoque argument, poor track records ... partially pointing out that the American nuclear due to the fact that they are bombing of Hiroshima was also a crime shaped by self-interested against humanity. While, of course, the political pressures and operate existence of American war crimes did in an anarchic international not diminish the reality of Japanese war arena without an overseeing crimes, the defense was not answered, authority. nor was the Hiroshima bombing afterpg. 30 ward indicted for a trial.11 These sixtyyear-old examples are relevant because their shortcomings are not mere accidents or incidental flaws; these types of problems are endemic to political tribunals. It is impossible for the winner of a war or coup to find the loser innocent in a trial for the simple reason that, if the loser were acquitted, the acquittal would invalidate the winner’s victory.12 This is an unavoidable aspect of international tribunals—the international community should carefully weigh the options when considering advocating the use of one.

For a more recent example, consider the trial of Saddam Hussein in 2005 for aggressive war against Kuwait. The United States did not also press charges against Saddam for Iran’s war with Iraq even though the Iran-Iraq War had resulted in far more casualties than did the invasion of Kuwait. The reasoning for this failure of action is rather banal: the US had supplied chemical and biological weapons to Iraq from 1983 and 1990 and did not want its egregious crimes to be prosecuted in court.13 Another recent example is the 2007 trial of Khmer Rouge leaders for committing genocide in Cambodia between 1975 and 1979. The US supported the tribunal with the strict reservation that only events after 1975 could be prosecuted. Between 1969 and 1973, the United States had conducted illegal bombing raids in neutral Cambodian territory, trying to hit bands of Vietnamese Communists traveling over the border. The raids became infamous after the publication of William Shawcross’ 1978 book Sideshow: Kissinger, Nixon, and the Destruction of Cambodia.

A crucial observation is that all of these trials failed to adhere to rigorous standard of justice because they gave impunity to past sins of US foreign policy. Perhaps a trial of ISIS would perform better since the US has little to cover up. There are, however, a few US crimes which may be dragged in for scrutiny, such as the CIA’s torture of inmates during the occupation of Afghanistan. These crimes are serious enough that the ICC has opened a preliminary investigation to determine whether or not they should be brought to trial.15 ISIS claims that

Spring 2017

31

J O U R N A L O F I N T E R N AT I O N A L S O C I A L A F FA I R S

such Western abuses are a major reason for its violence toward the West.16 These crimes, however, are not on the same scale as were the Cambodia bombings or Hiroshima. They will probably not cause the US to attempt to gain impunity by seeking limitations on the scope of an ISIS trial.

Presumption of Guilt and Impossibility of Acquittal Even if the US allows its own crimes to be brought as evidence by the defense, the trial cannot fully serve justice—it is impossible for ISIS to be acquitted.

Aquittal is impossible for two reasons: an already-present presumption of guilt and political necessity. As a de facto reality, the trial lacks a presumption of innocence. The ADF, ACLJ, and John Bellinger III have all recommended that ISIS be prosecuted for an ongoing genocide, not for a genocide they allege it is committing. The UN itself has published a report declaring that ISIS is committing genocide: “They Came to Destroy: ISIS Crimes Against the Yazidis.”17 When numerous human rights organizations and official government bodies have already documented ongoing genocide, and tens (if not hundreds) of thousands of people have died, the belief that the accused is innocent is incredulous. To believe anything more, however, is to deny the defendant a right to a fair trial. Yet this is the situation in which the ICC would find itself with ISIS. Its trial would likely arrive at the correct conclusion—a conviction of genocide—but would still be flawed.

In essence, it would be a show trial.

Even if ISIS were given a fair chance and if the judges started with a complete presumption of innocence, too many political decisions and reputations are premised on ISIS’ guilt. Finding ISIS innocent would strip moral superiority from the nations united against ISIS, not to mention invalidating US intervention in the Middle East. If the absurd happened and ISIS were acquitted and released, the US’s counterterrorism efforts would remain unchanged. The war would continue as before, except now with the awkward conundrum of fighting a group acquitted of genocide by an authoritative international court. It is therefore both politically impossible and unexpected for ISIS to be acquitted.

Loss of Moral High Ground Herein lies the real danger of taking ISIS to the ICC. A show trial will only inhibit a goal of glorifying the moral superiority of the nations allied against ISIS. ISIS and its followers will immediately understand they are being insincerely tried. This understanding will allow ISIS to reinforce and prolong its narrative of the West’s hypocrisy. As ISIS has claimed numerous times in its magazine Dabiq, it believes the West to be hypocritical, decadent, and morally corrupt.18 Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi will hold up the ICC trial as just one more proof of Western hypoc-

32 Spring 2017

J O U R N A L O F I N T E R N AT I O N A L S O C I A L A F FA I R S

risy. The Tom Lantos Commission suggested that a trial could have a de-radicalizing effect on Islamic extremism because it would “prove” the vacuity of the extremist narrative. However, it is more likely that the effect will be reversed. If the conspiracy theories believed by violent jihadists can be discredited, it will not be by Western courts using Western courtroom methods.

In addition, the courtroom would be the perfect place for al-Baghdadi to broadcast his message to the world. Giving ISIS an open space to address a highly attentive global audience would be mere foolishness. This is exactly the kind of publicity that governments have been struggling to avoid as they shut down thousands of ISIS accounts on Twitter and Facebook.19 The free world should not allow al-Baghdadi to become a romanticized victim figure for other extremists.

It should not turn him into a martyr by putting him on trial and sentencing him to life imprisonment or death.

Ineffective for Religious Freedom Regardless of the problems expressed above, the question remains of whether or not religious freedom would benefit from having Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi convicted of genocide. Since the ICC possesses no enforcement capabilities, it holds only so much power as states permit it to have. Any sentences it passes or precedents it sets are only as binding as signatory states want them to be. No guarantee exists that signatory states will implement ICC wishes. Kenya, for example, proved to be one such obstinate state. In 2009, the ICC issued an arrest warrant for Sudanese president Omar al-Bashir for charges of genocide in South Sudan.

However, when Bashir entered Kenya, an ICC signatory state, Kenya refused to arrest him because it found the action politically inexpedient.20 A related problem is that the ICC is entirely losing jurisdiction in some areas where states have withdrawn their membership. Russia withdrew from the ICC this past November over a preliminary report published by the ICC investigating the invasion of Crimea.21 Russian news outlet Pravda ran the headline, “The International Criminal Court is fit for the waste basket.” The source expressed outrage that the “reunification with the Crimea” would be labeled as an aggressive war perpetrated by Russia.22 Other countries have also withdrawn from the ICC, including South Africa, Burundi, and Gambia, ostensibly because the ICC unfairly targets African countries while ignoring the rest of the world.23 Naturally, the ICC’s decisions will have no effect in these countries.

On the other hand, signatory states that are motivated to protect religious freedom and do make an effort to enforce ICC rulings may encounter difficulty.

They may find the genocide ruling too large and cumbersome to apply effectively. At the micro level where religious freedom is most affected—in government

Spring 2017

33

J O U R N A L O F I N T E R N AT I O N A L S O C I A L A F FA I R S

regulations of church incorporation or government favoritism given to certain religions—the judgment will be irrelevant. Russia, for example, requires that all churches register, reserving the power to deny any application for any reason.24 Hungary requires that religions have a minimum number of members before gaining state recognition.25 China requires the Three-Self Patriotic Movement, the state-approved Christian church, to align with party ideology and politics.26 None of these infringements on religious freedom could be fought in court by applying rulings from a genocide trial.

If Russia had remained in the ICC, no lawyer could make a leap through logic from “Slaughtering the Yazidis for their religious beliefs is wrong” to “Restricting church freedom in Russia by requiring churches to register is also wrong.” Such a leap lacks any finesse. An ICC genocide ruling would be ineffective for adjudicating nuanced details. If, on the micro level, domestic religious freedom is going to be protected, it must be done through the domestic laws of individual countries.

On the macro level—for the prevention of genocide—the ICC’s genocide ruling would also be ineffective. The Genocide Convention of 1948 calls on signatory states to prevent and punish genocide. A tribunal may punish ISIS, but it will not do what the ADF and ACLJ hope it will do: help prevent future genocides and protect religious freedom. This is for the simple reason that any political leader or terrorist group who is willing and able to commit genocide will not be fazed by the prospect of a criminal trial. If history is any indication, the only real deterrents to those who intend to commit genocide—dictators or terrorists—have been air strikes and artillery. As a case in point, boots on the ground are currently preventing further genocide by ISIS. The joint US-Iraqi forces fighting in the streets of Mosul are the true champions of the religious freedom and safety of Yazidis and Christians. A criminal trial is a distraction from this reality. It diverts appreciation and attention away from the soldiers actually pursuing justice in the Middle East and toward the dubious notion that capture, prosecution, and conviction will be a better solution.

Conclusion If there were one benefit of taking ISIS to the ICC, it would be to prove that the free world possesses moral superiority over ISIS. However, since the free world already knows this to be the case, a successful trial would create little benefit. There is no sense in spending millions of dollars to “preach to the choir.”

If the crime of genocide is worthy of death, then it seems that the appropriate response is to continue doing what the US has already been doing: attempting to kill al-Baghdadi and the other ISIS leaders. ISIS is a legitimate enemy in a declared state of war; the armed forces are perfectly within their legal purview to do so. An international trial to punish al-Baghdadi for crimes against humanity would be an

34 Spring 2017

J O U R N A L O F I N T E R N AT I O N A L S O C I A L A F FA I R S

excessive, morally dubious, and melodramatic way to do what can just as legally and far more easily be done by a drone pilot in Maryland or by an ordinary soldier on the battlefields of Iraq.

References 1. Tim Arango, “Another Mass Grave Dug by ISIS in Iraq, and a Ghastly Ritual Renewed,” The New York Times (November 30, 2016). Accessed March 19, 2017. https://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/30/ world/middleeast/another-mass-grave-dug-by-isis-in-iraq-and-a-ghastly-ritual-renewed.html?_r=0.

2. “72 ISIS Mass Graves Containing Up to 15,000 Discovered in Iraq and Syria,” RT (August 30, 2016). Accessed March 19, 2017. https://www.rt.com/news/357680-isis-mass-graves-iraq-syria/.

3. Nina Shea, “Genocide: Falling for ISIS Propaganda about Christians,” The American Interest (July 21, 2016). Accessed March 25, 2017. http://www.the-american-interest.com/2016/07/21/falling-for-isis-propaganda-about-christians/.

4. John B. Bellinger III, “Make ISIS’ Leaders Face Justice,” The New York Times (April 2, 2015).

Accessed March 25, 2017. https://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/03/opinion/make-isis-leaders-face-justice.html?_r=0.

5. “US Congressional Briefing on ‘Justice for ISIS Atrocities? How US Policy on the International Criminal Court Can Help Promote Accountability in Iraq and Syria,” Parliamentarians for Global Action. Accessed March 25, 2017. http://www.pgaction.org/es/news/congressional-briefing-justice.html.

6. Office of the Prosecutor, “Statement of the Prosecutor of the International Criminal Court, Fatou Bensouda on the Alleged Crimes Committed by ISIS,” International Criminal Court (April 8, 2015).

Accessed March 25, 2017. https://www.icc-cpi.int/Pages/item.aspx?name=otp-stat-08-04-2015-1.

7. Aldo Zammit Borda, “Explainer: How to Prosecute Islamic State Fighters for War Crimes,” The Conversation (March 16, 2016). Accessed March 25, 2017. https://theconversation.com/explainerhow-to-prosecute-islamic-state-fighters-for-war-crimes-55738.

8. “The Situation Concerning Iraq,” UN Security Council (May 6, 2016). Accessed March 25, 2017. http://www.un.org/en/ga/search/view_doc.asp?symbol=S/PV.7689.

9. John Laughland, A History of Political Trials: From Charles I to Saddam Hussein (Oxfordshire: International Academic Publishers, 2008), 110.

10. Robert E. Conot, Justice at Nuremberg (New York: Carroll & Graf Publishers, 1983), 68.

11. Laughland, 166.

Spring 2017

35

J O U R N A L O F I N T E R N AT I O N A L S O C I A L A F FA I R S 12. Ibid., 251-257.

13. Donald W. Riegle, Jr. and Alfonse M. D’Amato, “The Riegle Report: US Chemical and Biological Warfare-Related Dual Use Exports to Iraq and their Possible Impact on the Health Consequences of the Gulf War,” Gulf War Veteran Resource Pages (May 25, 1994). Accessed March 25, 2017. http:// www.gulfweb.org/report/riegle1.html.

14. Laughland, 244.

15. Preliminary Examination: Afghanistan,” International Criminal Court. Accessed March 25, 2017. https://www.icc-cpi.int/afghanistan.

16. Islamic State, “Why We Hate You and Why We Fight You,” Dabiq (July 15, 2016). Accessed March 25, 2017. http://www.clarionproject.org/factsheets-files/islamic-state-magazine-dabiq-fifteenbreaking-the-cross.pdf.

17. “UN Human Rights Panel Concludes ISIL is Committing Genocide Against Yazidis,” UN News Centre (June 16, 2016). Accessed March 25, 2017. http://www.un.org/apps/news/story.asp?NewsID=54247#.WNbhtDKZPoA. 18. Islamic State.

19. Shane Harris and Nancy A. Youssef, “US Ratchets Up Cyber Attacks on ISIS,” The Daily Beast (April 17, 2016). Accessed March 25, 2017. http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2016/04/17/u-sratchets-up-cyber-attacks-on-isis.html.

20. AP in Nairobi, “Kenya Defends Failure to Arrest Sudan’s President Omar al-Bashir in Nairobi,” The Guardian (August 29, 2010). Accessed March 25, 2017. https://www.theguardian.com/ world/2010/aug/29/kenya-omar-al-bashir-arrest-failure.

21. Brian Murphy, “Russia Snubs International Criminal Court amid Scrutiny of Crimea Annexation,” The Washington Post (November 16, 2016). Accessed March 26, 2017. https://www.washingtonpost. com/world/russia-snubs-international-criminal-court-amid-scrutiny-of-crimea-annexation/2016/11/1 6/6186d2b0-ac05-11e6-8b45-f8e493f06fcd_story.html?utm_term=.b9a00fac7a65.

22. “The International Criminal Court is Fit for the Waste Basket,” Pravda (November 15, 2016).

Accessed March 27, 2017. http://www.pravdareport.com/russia/politics/15-11-2016/136169-icc_ crimea-0/.

23. Chloe McGrath, “Is the International Criminal Court about to Turn Irrelevant?”, Atlantic Council (October 31, 2016). Accessed March 27, 2017. http://www.atlanticcouncil.org/blogs/new-atlanticist/ is-the-international-criminal-court-about-to-turn-irrelevant.

24. Fred Lucas, “Putin Goes to War with Russia’s Free Churches,” Newsweek (July 23, 2016). Accessed March 27, 2017. http://www.newsweek.com/putin-goes-war-russia-free-churches-482730.

36 Spring 2017

J O U R N A L O F I N T E R N AT I O N A L S O C I A L A F FA I R S 25. “International Religious Freedom Report for 2013,” US Department of State Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor. Accessed March 27, 2017. https://www.state.gov/j/drl/rls/irf/2013religiousfreedom/index.htm#wrapper.

26. Sun Yi, “Why We Won’t Join the Join the Three-Self Patriotic Association,” China Aid (June 6, 2011). Accessed March 27, 2017. http://www.chinaaid.org/2011/06/why-we-wont-join-three-self-patriotic.html.

Spring 2017

37

J O U R N A L O F I N T E R N AT I O N A L S O C I A L A F FA I R S

Holy War Theory in the Bible and Quran

T

he Hebrew Bible has served as a reference point for Western politics for centuries. The relationship between Christianity and violence is a subject of great controversy. Many secular theorists point to Christian teachings of peace, love and charity as contradictory to God’s commands within the Old Testament of total destruction practiced by the Israelites. The war tradition of Ancient Israel as given in the Old Testament has significantly influenced holy war theory and its ethical guidelines. The actions of the Israelites may be considered genocidal and unethical by some interpretations. However, other scholars reveal that holy war in the Bible was used a limited number of times, at the command of God, with strict guidelines. There was a specific reason given for holy war, and the principles of holy war were not utilized every time the Israelites went to war. This is very different from the holy war theory exemplified in the Quran.

Holy war is a major element of Islam’s foundations. Jihad, often translated as holy war, is a major topic of discussion in the international community. In the Quran, all war is holy war and is used to expand and further the religion of Islam. In order to understand the theory of holy war and differences between the holy war theories in the Bible and the Quran it is essential to understand how it was laid out within the Scriptures, the key characteristics of the theory, and how it contrasts with the holy war theory given within Islam.

Holy War in the Bible As defined in Mark Amstutz’s book, International Ethics: Concepts, Theories, and Cases in Global Politics, a holy war is one waged for a religious cause.

Because its purpose is assumed to be in accord with divine will, it involves “unlimited use of force for a holy cause.”1 Prominent American political theorist, Michael Walzer explains in his book, In God’s Shadow: Politics in the Hebrew Bible, that in the Old Testament, the Israelites carried out two different forms of war. The first form was the act of holy war, also known as Herem-war. The second form was the act of limited war.2 Holy war was the specific case in which God commanded the Israelites to go to war with certain people groups.

Herem is a Hebrew word that was used in reference to holy war. In literal terms, herem means devotion to God as translated in Leviticus.3 But applied in the

38 Spring 2017

J O U R N A L O F I N T E R N AT I O N A L S O C I A L A F FA I R S

context of war, it meant the total destruction of peoples that God commanded to fight. The concept of herem is revealed in 1 Samuel 15. In 1 Samuel, Saul “totally destroyed” the Amalekites with the sword, but spared their king, Agag, and kept the best of the livestock. Saul rebukes Samuel for not following the herem laws completely and reminds him that God commanded him to “completely destroy” the Amalekites. Translated, the word means a ban on utter destruction and is used multiple times within the Old Testament. According to Old Testament scholar, J.A. Thompson, herem refers to the dedication of spoils gained from war to God. They also burnt all profane things in order to purify the land and dedicate it to God.4 Upon the Israelites entrance into the Promised Land, God commanded them to drive out and to slaughter the people who inhabited the land that belonged to them. This is described in the book of Deuteronomy : When the Lord your God brings you into the land where you are entering to possess it, and clears away many nations before you, the Hittites and the Girgashites and the Amorites and the Canaanites and the Perizzites and the Hivites and the Jebusites, seven nations greater and stronger than you, and when the Lord your God delivers them before you and you defeat them, then you shall utterly destroy them. You shall make no covenant with them and show no favor to them.5 God’s command for them to war against these people groups was a means of conquest, fought in obedience to God. However, this command came with guidelines and rules that provide readers with a picture of holy war doctrine described in Scripture.

In the holy war doctrine revealed in the Bible, the Israelites were commanded to completely destroy the people they fought at God’s command. Deuteronomy 20 provides the laws of warfare and how God’s people were to carry out His commands. In verse 16, it specifically states that, “Only in the cities of these peoples that the Lord your God is giving you as an inheritance, you shall not leave alive anything that breathes.”6 Walzer explains the reasoning behind this command had to do with the idea of preserving a holy nation.7 The aim of the complete destruction of these people groups was to prevent the corruption of the holy nation of Israel. This point is specifically exemplified by God’s command of the total destruction of the Canaanites.

Returning to chapter seven of the book of Deuteronomy, the author states clearly that the destruction of the Canaanites was necessary to prevent intermingling with the pagan people that would contaminate the Israelite people : You shall make no covenant with them and show no favor to them. Furthermore, you shall not intermarry with them; you

Spring 2017

39

J O U R N A L O F I N T E R N AT I O N A L S O C I A L A F FA I R S

shall not give your daughters to their sons, nor shall you take their daughters for your sons. For they will turn your sons away from following Me to serve other gods; then the anger of the Lord will be kindled against you and He will quickly destroy you.8 The writer reveals in this passage that the cause of Israel’s troubles is the worship of Canaanite gods: the imitation of religious practices that were abhorrent to God. Furthermore, they show that the reason for this endlessly reiterated sin within God’s people was the continued presence of Canaanites in the land and the sexual intermixing of the two peoples.9 George Carey reveals this same understanding in his article within The Evangelical Quarterly, “Destruction of entire peoples and their pagan worship was the only way to ensure the purity of Yahwistic faith and the nation’s walk with God.”10 Moreover, Walzer explains that holy war was interrelated with the idea of a holy community. He says the holy war spoken of in Deuteronomy aimed to remove or exterminate the Canaanites before they corrupted the holy nation.11 The aim was retrospective. The Israelites experienced centuries of corruption. The first was during the age of the judges who fought mostly unholy wars against Israel’s new neighbors and also married their daughters. The second was in the age of the kings who systematically copied the religious practices of the Canaanites.12 The book of Deuteronomy demonstrates that the Canaanites were a wicked people who would taint the Israelites by introducing them to their false gods. Furthermore, the total destruction is also described as a punishment for the wickedness of these people groups. The book of Deuteronomy says, “Do not say in your heart when the Lord your God has driven them out before you, Because of my righteousness the Lord has brought me in to possess this land, but it is because of the wickedness of these nations that the Lord is dispossessing them before you.”13 Within herem law, not only were entire people groups to be destroyed, all material possessions were to be given to God. This guideline is exemplified specifically in the book of Joshua during the conquest of Jericho. After the Israelites defeated Jericho, Joshua proclaims that “the city shall be under the ban.”14 This means that the city was now to be dealt with under herem law, the word ban that was used is another English translation of the Hebrew term herem. Joshua continues by saying that all the valuable goods seized in the war belonged to God, “But all the silver and gold and articles of bronze and iron are holy to the Lord; they shall go into the treasury of the Lord.”15 This guideline for holy war reveals the point that the act of war and the victory gained was to be attributed to God’s power and not man’s ability. Deuteronomy 20 explicitly shows that God is the reason for victory in the acts of holy war, “For the Lord your God is the one who goes with you, to fight for you against your enemies, to save you.”16 George Cary

40 Spring 2017

J O U R N A L O F I N T E R N AT I O N A L S O C I A L A F FA I R S

says, “The herem war or any war is viewed not as Man’s victory but as God’s. His hand gives the victory even when it seemed that the Israelites had won the battle themselves.” 17 Going back to 1 Samuel when Saul is commanded by God to destroy the Amalekites, God commands Saul to wipe out the Amalekites and all living things, “Now go and strike Amalek and utterly destroy all that he has, and do not spare him; but put to death both man and woman, child and infant, ox and sheep, camel and donkey.”18 However, when Saul and the Israelites were victorious, Saul spared Agag who was the King of the Amalekites, the best sheep, the oxen, the fatlings, the lambs, and all that was of value. The prophet Samuel rebuked Saul for this and deemed it an act against God since it was because of God that Saul fought the Amalekites and by God that they were victorious.

Samuel said, “has the Lord as much delight in burnt offerings and sacrifices as in obeying the voice of the Lord? Behold, to obey is better than sacrifice, and to heed than the fat of rams. For rebellion is as the sin of divination, and insubordination is as iniquity and idolatry. Because you have rejected the word of the Lord, He has also rejected you from being king.19 This chapter reveals that holy war was largely based upon obedience to God and giving glory to him for victory. By disregarding portions of herem law, the Israelites were acting in disobedience to God. The Bible provides other guidelines for different forms of war the Israelites encountered. Walzer describes another form of war discussed in the Bible similar to international law.20 This form of war was called limited war and was military engagement that was not commanded

by God. This sort of war was optional whereas holy was commanded.21 In many ways, limited war is similar to ideas of just war theory. This form of war is discussed in Deuteronomy 20 alongside holy war.

Beginning in verse 10, God’s people are instructed to first attempt to make peace with any city they encountered.22 This was different than holy war, in which God commanded the destruction of the people they were going to war with rather than giving them an option. If the people agreed to make peace with God’s people, then all the people in the city became slaves. “Then all the people who are found in it shall become your forced labor and shall serve you.”23 If they did not agree to make peace, they were to go to war with the city and capture them. Furthermore, the women, children, animals and all that was in the city, all its spoil, could be taken by individual soldiers.24 In addition, Walzer explains that triumphant soldiers were given two options regarding how they treated captured women - they must either marry their captives or set them free.25 This contrasts with herem law which required captive women to be killed. This doctrine of limited war is consistent with Amos’s indictments and much of the historical material in First and Second Kings.26

Spring 2017

41

J O U R N A L O F I N T E R N AT I O N A L S O C I A L A F FA I R S

Holy wars in the Bible were fought at God’s command. He determined when these wars were fought, how they were fought and what they were to do with the spoils of the war. This understanding reveals further God’s involvement in war.

Deuteronomy teaches that in the wars of Conquest, the Israelites were to fight for God and by his commands. Israel was only to fight a holy war when it was in fulfillment of God’s plan for them. There was no space for innovation or for starting wars that God had not directly commanded. The glory of the victory in the war was also to be given to God. Furthermore, holy wars were fought solely as a means of conquest to establish the Israelites in the land God had for them.

In order for the Israelites to remain holy, the people they conquered had to be completely destroyed.

Jihad in the Quran In contrast to the Bible’s holy war theory, jihad as described in the Quran is still practiced by Islamic terrorist groups. In the Quran, believers are commanded to actively fight for the cause of Allah. The term used in reference to fighting for Allah is jihad. The Arabic word jihad does not specifically mean “holy war” or “just war.” It literally means “striving.” Michael Bonner says that “when followed by the modifying phrase fi sabil Allah, ‘in the path of God,’ or when – as often – this phrase fi sabil Allah is absent but assumed to be in force, jihad has the specific sense of fighting for the sake of God.”27 The Battle of Badr mentioned in the Quranic book Al Imran, exemplified the basic idea of holy war in Islam and the Quran.28 In the Battle of Badr, Muhammad defeated the pagan monarchs of Mecca, modern-day Saudi Arabia, because they rejected Islam. This was the first greatest victory for Muhammad and the Islamic faith. It also was attributed to the divine intervention of Allah since Muhammad’s men were grossly outnumbered.

This motivation for fighting or war is related to the Biblical motivation for holy war. However, the differences between the two doctrines are numerous.

Michael Bonner points out that Muslim jurists do not make the “justice” of any instance in the discussion of jihad. They did not discuss these matters in these terms because for them any authentic instance of jihad was necessarily both holy and just.29 The Scripture on the other hand does provide justification on the reason God commands the complete destruction of various people groups. The justification is to purge the land of wickedness and keep the Israelites holy. Furthermore, the only times the law of herem was used in the Bible was in situations of conquest and the purging of wicked people groups. In other situations, laws of limited war were used and called for just treatment of the people after the war. In the Quran, all war against non-Muslims has the same purpose and rules of conduct.

The purpose of jihad in the Quran is to make the religion of Islam the supreme religion of the land. “Fight them until idolatry shall cease and God’s reli-

42 Spring 2017

J O U R N A L O F I N T E R N AT I O N A L S O C I A L A F FA I R S

gion shall reign supreme.”30 The supremacy of Islam is important to the followers of Islam and is part of the purpose of the believer’s growing in their Islamic faith.

Patrick Sookhdeo says, “Peace is seen as an interlude in the jihad process that must go on until the whole world is Dar al-Islam, under the rule of Islam.”31 As Muslims strive in their faith they are commanded to do whatever it takes to make Islam dominant in the world. This understanding and motivation is different than the purpose for holy war in the Old Testament. However, to clearly understand the distinctions between the two doctrines, we need to outline what the Quran says about jihad.

Muslims are commanded to fight and destroy those who obstruct their cause.

This is said in the Quran in the book of Muhammad: “When you meet the unbelievers strike off their heads and, when you have wreaked widespread slaughter among them, bind your captives firmly.”32 Moreover, followers of Islam are instructed to deal with those who are not Muslim or war against them in a violent manner. The Table, one of the books in the Quran, says, “The punishment of those that make war against God and his apostle and spread disorder in the land shall be to be slain or crucified or have their hands and feet cut off on alternate sides, or be banished from the land.”33 The motivation was to cast terror in the hearts of the unbelievers and make them convert. “We will cast terror into the hearts of the unbelievers, because they serve other deities besides God for whom He has revealed no sanction.”34 The followers of the Islamic faith are also charged in the Quranic Book Women to, “Seek out the enemy relentlessly. If you have suffered, they too have suffered as you have: but you at least hope to receive from God what they cannot hope for.”35 This demonstrates that part of the holy war doctrine in Islam was to seek out the enemy. In this case, the enemy was anyone who did not follow the faith. These passages differ from the Bible’s passages in several ways.

Holy War in Practice First, holy war doctrine was only directed at certain people groups in the Bible. Holy war was used to uproot people groups, wicked ones according to the scripture, from the land God was giving to the Israelites. This was a very specific usage of the act. Holy war was not a means to bring world domination, but to establish what was understood as a holy community in a specific location.

In the Quran on the other hand, all non-believers who rejected the Islamic faith are targets for destruction. All people who refuse to accept Islam are viewed as problems for the spread of the faith. For this reason, they should either be scared into submission or killed. Next, in the Scripture God calls for the destruction of people groups but never the torture of them. The Quran directs believers to strike fear in non-believers. This is used as a means to once again establish domination of the Islamic faith. Furthermore, the usage of jihad in all situations rather than

Spring 2017

43

J O U R N A L O F I N T E R N AT I O N A L S O C I A L A F FA I R S

specific instances is distinct from the Bible’s various forms of war based upon the situation.

On the other hand, American academic Jack Nelson-Pallmeyer holds that Islamic holy war theory and Bibpg. 45 lical holy war theory are not especially different. In his book, Is Religion Killing Us, Pallmeyer argues that people often focus on the violence within Islam and the Quran but fail to understand that the Bible is laced with as much violence. He says, “God’s violence is relentless throughout the Hebrew Scriptures.”36 In Pallmeyer’s assessment, the God of the Bible is a determined and powerful land thief who steals from others in order to give to the chosen people. God’s ordained land thievery is accompanied by divinely sanctioned genocide. He even goes as far as saying that the practice of holy war was a form of human sacrifice to the Hebrew God. He says that the sacred texts of the Bible and the Quran are both riddled with violence in ways that threaten the sanctity of humanity. He holds that nonviolence is powerful and necessary to the future for human beings. Pallmeyer says that the planet depends on challenging the ways in which sacred texts reinforce visions of power that are largely abusive.

Pallmeyer is a self-proclaimed pacifist. This is the reason he refuses to recognize any distinctions in purpose for the use of violence. He views all acts of war and violence as morally wrong. More could be written on the assumptions of Pallmeyer’s book, but in short the author generalizes both doctrines, failing to recognize any distinctions or break down the verses as Walzer, Carey, Bonner and Sookdheo did. While Pallmeyer’s book does not have the same depth of scholarship as the works of Walzer and Sookdheo, it seems we are not addressing the problems these theories pose for Biblical consistency and ethics in international relation. Is the traditional portrayal of God as a loving and merciful god consistent with his commands of genocide in the Old Testament? Some theologians and secular scholars argue that God’s command to utterly destroy people are inconsistent with His supposed characteristics of love, mercy and forgiveness. David Perry, the Director of Ethics Programs at the Markkula Center for Applied Ethics presented a lecture on Ethics and War in Comparative Religious Perspective.37 In the lecture, Perry says that it seems impossible to reconcile the command to love one’s enemies with killing them. Other critics such as Thomas Paine and Richard Dawkins pointed out the same inconsistency. Paine called the God of the Old Testament “the Mars of the Jews, the fighting God of Israel,” who was “boisterous, contemptible, and vulgar.”38 In understanding that much of just war theory and Western tradition was influenced by Scripture, how then do we reconcile this

How can there be diplomatic international relations in a situation where one group is calling for holy war according to their religion?

44 Spring 2017

J O U R N A L O F I N T E R N AT I O N A L S O C I A L A F FA I R S

seeming inconsistency?

Bible scholar Merrill F. Unger provides a possible answer to this question.

Unger explains that the Canaanites had detestable practices. Their cultic traditions were barbarous and thoroughly licentious, according to Unger.39 They practiced atrocities such as child sacrifice and cannibalism. While God is loving and merciful, He is also just and righteous according to the Bible. Since the Canaanites were a terrible evil people group, was it then an act of justice for God to command their destruction in order to rid the land of their atrocious practices? Is it the same as first world countries invading another country to stop injustices such as genocide?

These are questions that may be further evaluated in a separate study.

Another problem that comes into play with holy war theory is the lack of objective standards inherent in the theory and what it means for international relations. The justification for holy war theory is a religious one that is centered on a supposed command from God. In holy war theory, the cause or authority for the war transcends the rationale or logic of the human mind. This makes it virtually impossible to stop a group motivated by a religious cause without furthering the violence being brought about. This is also problematic in the case when two opposing people groups justify going to war for religious reasons and are on opposite sides. An example of this is seen in the Crusades. The Christians and the Muslims were both fighting what they believed were holy wars and with the goal being one centered around accomplishing a religious victory, it’s difficult to settle the conflict peacefully. This reality of the theory seems to pose a problem for religious plurality as well. How can there be diplomatic international relations in a situation where one group is calling for holy war according to their religion?

However, all of these are more theoretical problems that are based upon the theory of holy war. Whether they actually pose problems for international relations is the focus of another study.

The purpose and practices of holy war in the Quran are distinct from those presented in the Bible. The doctrine of holy war presented in the Bible were specific in usage and purpose. God commanded holy war in specific situations rather than in every situation. When he called for holy war it was also a wipe out of a people group on moral grounds. Furthermore, holy war does not make an appearance in the post-exile biblical texts. According to Michael Walzer, the goal of holiness was still the same post exile biblical text, the holiness of Israel; it was now to be reached, however, by separation from the surrounding nations, not by a total war against them.40 The use of intimidation was not involved because unlike jihad in the Quran, it was not used for world dominance.

The inclusion of limited war in the Bible reveals the influence of Judeo-Christian values on the West. Limited war principles given in the Scripture support the principles of Just War theory. While holy war is clearly revealed in the Bible, it

Spring 2017

45

J O U R N A L O F I N T E R N AT I O N A L S O C I A L A F FA I R S

was a specific act that had to be directed by the only authority that could command it, Yahweh. Holy war in Islam is founded in terrorism and intimidation. The purpose of holy war in the Quran is dominance and it is applied to all situations of opposition that Muslims encountered. While there was a distinct difference between the doctrines of holy war, the theory of holy war could pose problems in practice for international relations.

References 1. Mark R. Amstutz, International Ethics: Concepts, Theories, and Cases in Global Politics (Lanham, Maryland: Rowman & Littlefield, 2013), 137.

2. Michael Walzer, In God’s Shadow: Politics in the Hebrew Bible (New Haven: Yale University Press, 2012), 42.

3. Leviticus 27:28 (NASB) 4. J. A. Thompson, Deuteronomy: An Introduction and Commentary (London: InterVarsity Press, 1974).

5. Deuteronomy 7:1-2 6. Deuteronomy 20:16 7. Walzer, 47.

8. Deuteronomy 7:2-4 9. Walzer, 44.

10. George L. Carey, “Biblical-Theological Perspective on War and Peace,” The Evangelical Quarterly (April 1985), 164. Accessed March 27, 2017. https://biblicalstudies.org.uk/pdf/eq/1985-2_163.pdf.

11. Walzer, 48.

12. Ibid.

13. Deuteronomy 9:4 14. Joshua 6:17 15. Joshua 6:19 16. Deuteronomy 20:4 17. Carey, 164.

18. 1 Samuel 15:3

46 Spring 2017

J O U R N A L O F I N T E R N AT I O N A L S O C I A L A F FA I R S 19. 1 Samuel 15:22-23 20. Walzer.44 21. Ibid.

22. Deuteronomy 20:10-20 23. Deuteronomy 20:11 24. Deuteronomy 20:14 25. Walzer, 42.

26. Ibid.

27. Michael Bonner, Jihad in Islamic History: Doctrines and Practices (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2008), 2.

28. 3.123-125 (Koran, translated by N.J. Dawood) 29. Bonner, 5.

30. 8.40 31. Patrick Sookhdeo, Understanding Islamic Terrorism (Wiltshire: Isaac Publishing, 2004), 84.

32. 46.4 33. 5.34 34. 3.151 35. 4.104 36. Jack Nelson-Pallmeyer, Is Religion Killing Us?: Violence in the Bible and the Quran (New York: Continuum, 2005), 34.

37. David L. Perry, “Ethics and War in Comparative Religious Perspective” (March 25, 2003). Accessed March 27, 2017. http://home.earthlink.net/~davidlperry/relwar.htm.

38. Thomas Paine, “Essay on a Dream” (1811). Accessed March 27, 2017. http://www.sacred-texts. com/aor/paine/dream.htm.

39. Merri. Unger, Archaeology and the Old Testament (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1954), 175.

40. Walzer, 45.

Spring 2017

47