I also would add, Baxxter, that NATO acted under the ‘Responsibility to Protect’ (R2P) principle when intervening in Libya (as referred to in the UN Security Council Resolutions related to the conflict). The principle is, technically, the latest evolution of the principles of Aquinas’s Just War and humanitarian intervention.

The intervention itself was a last resort after any and all diplomatic options were explored and exhausted.

The R2P was embraced by the World Council of Churches in 2003: http://www.oikoumene.org/en/resources/documents/central-committee/2003/the-responsibility-to-protect-ethical-and-theological-reflections

The Catholic Church, the teachings of which Montebello should ascribe to by virtue of his habit, also seems to view the R2P positively. The last pope referred to it in an address to the UN General Assembly (2008), and quoted this address and the reference in an encyclical in 2009:
http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/benedict_xvi/encyclicals/documents/hf_ben-xvi_enc_20090629_caritas-in-veritate_en.html#_edn146

In my opinion, Montebello thus has no excuses as a priest to begin with, let alone the very sloppy logic applied to the rest of his argument/s.

I am not impressed by the fact that Mark Montebello is a priest, or that it is THE Mark Montebello that’s doing the commentary. Perhaps I’ve seen one too many stupid arguments in my guilty, wandering life.

I deconstructed Montebello’s argument and found nothing but sloppy vocabulary, non-sequiturs and just a touch of madness.

The fact remains that Mark Montebello is a priest. When he speaks, he does so with the authority conferred to him by his habit. It is fine for a priest to call for peace and all that, but not to use sloppy logic.

What Montebello is saying here is this: “All ships flying the flags of Nato countries should be banned from entering Maltese waters, because I declare that Nato is a murderous organisation and its member states are all murderous, and the crews of those ships are all murderers.”

Spelled out that way, it reveals all its stupidity.

Then there’s the emotion. “Enraged”? At what? isn’t there enough injustice elsewhere that this priest should be enraged at Nato vessels? He could start by being enraged that his country is cutting secret deals with a murderous dictatorship (NOW we can use the word) like China.

Aquinas wrote about the circumstances in which war is justified. War, taken to the extreme, means killing – taking the life of human beings. According to Christian doctrine, it is a sin. But Aquinas recognised that we live in the real world, and sometimes, killing is the lesser evil.

Daphne mentioned pogroms and Kristallnacht in a previous post. I put it to Mark Montebello that the Second World War, and all the taking of human life, was justified on the grounds of re-establishing the right to freedom of the occupied nations, the right to life of a long list of peoples and individuals, the right to free expression, and the right to democracy and the rule of law.

Aquinas would agree.

Mark Montebello doesn’t.

It is all to easy to use words like “Nato”, “murderous”, and “last decade”, or to declare that Nato did not abide by the principle of just war in the decade from 2004 to 2014.

Here is a list of operations undertaken by from 2004 to 2014:

2001-present: ISAF in Afghanistan
2005-2006: Pakistan earthquake relief
2009-present: Anti-piracy patrols off East Africa
2011: No-fly zone and air campaign over Libya
2012-present: Air defence for Turkey on the Syrian border

How many of these operation involved the taking of human life?

I count Afghanistan and Libya. How many were justified? I say both.

In which cases did Nato not respect the principle of just war? I say none.

Perhaps you are thinking of the war in Iraq, led by the US. Nato members did take part in that war, but at no point was it a Nato operation, nor was it mandated by the Nato Council.

Beware sloppy vocabulary. A state may be a Nato member, but it can very well undertake military operations unilaterally.

France did so in Mali. And that was justified.

Mark Montebello may wish to reformulate his rage. He may also wish to include murderous forces outside Nato. Such as Mintoff’s ally Libya, whose vessels made Malta their second home. Or Joseph Muscat’s ally China, whose forces have a long history of invading neighbours and murdering the citizens of occupied countries and their own citizens too.

But then his words would lose some of their oomph, wouldn’t they? And he wouldn’t be able to insert the hagiographic reference to his hero Mintoff.

I declare war on Mark Montebello’s mind. It is confused and needs liberating.

Actually, their track record in recent years hasn’t been that bad. And if you want to keep up to date, no one refers to the ‘Just War’ principle in international relations any more; it’s the ‘Responsibility to Protect’ which is the reference point for any international intervention in conflict .

I respect that.

What were you inferring when you commented ‘he should read Aquinas about just war’?

I’ll give you time to read your question again and make any changes. The last decade is 2004-2014, and Nato is an international organisation. Think again about that and then decide whether you want me to go ahead and answer you.

I’ve about had enough of sloppy vocabulary. This is where the change starts.

Meanwhile Venezuela, North Korea, Azerbaijan and China are taking us towards the ultimate utopia: a peaceful, prosperous and equitable society. Now yell ‘freedom’ like William Wallace in Braveheart.

I fail to see your reference to Aquinas. Are you saying Nato abides by the Just war Principle? As anyone living the last decade can attest to the fact that they do not.