Aquinas and the Cuban Revolution: Examining the Adequacy of Just-War Theory

• In Event: Research in Five (Undergraduate Students)

Abstract

Writing in the 13th Century, Thomas Aquinas sought to bridge Aristotelean thought with the Christian tradition that had preceded him. Primarily, Aquinas aimed to resolve moral and theological questions that had long been disputed in medieval Europe. Among these questions, Aquinas addressed the issue of warfare and how warfare ought to be conducted. Here, Aquinas drew upon a rich tradition—which included Paul the Apostle, Aristotle, and Augustine of Hippo—and established certain principles guiding when war could be justified and justly be conducted.

These principles, comprising Thomistic just-war theory, can be divided into three categories. First, Aquinas laid out restrictions on when war ought to be waged (ius ad bellum), specifying the need for a just cause (culpa) and a legitimate authority. Second, Aquinas set forth how war ought to be conducted (ius in bello), noting that one must be virtuous and preserve rightful intentions. Third, implicitly stated in his work, Aquinas discussed how peace ought to be established following war (ius post bellum). To Aquinas, this peace after a war was most clearly captured by the presence of love (caritas), not simply by the absence of violence.

However, while Aquinas’ writing on war and peace remains a canonical text, it remains questionable whether his theory is adequate to address the complexities of modern warfare. Namely, since warfare has changed since the 13th Century, how should Thomistic just-war theory be considered today? For example, Aquinas imagined direct warfare among official entities. Nevertheless, conflicts of the 20th Century have challenged the notion that warfare solely occurs as a direct conflict among officially recognized entities.

To resolve this question, it is useful to put Aquinas’ just-war theory in dialogue with a modern conflict. By applying Aquinas’ just-war theory, its adequacy to the modern world can be ascertained. Furthermore, by analyzing Thomistic just-war theory, principles can be deduced, which may help resolve any inadequacies.

Here, it is useful to place Thomistic just-war theory in dialogue with the Cuban Revolution. Such an analysis will unveil the adequacy and principles of Thomistic thought. The Cuban Revolution, which occurred in 1959, saw Fidel Castro and a group of revolutionaries overthrow Fulgencio Batista’s regime. Batista’s overthrow was marked by certain distinct circumstances. On one hand, the Cuban Revolution was a guerrilla conflict that began in the countryside of Cuba. Surprisingly, the small band of guerrilla fighters overthrew the American-backed Batista regime. On the other hand, the Cuban Revolution occurred in a majority-Catholic state. Since the era of Spanish colonialism, Catholicism was one of the most prevalent religions in Cuba and was looked upon as the island’s guiding ethical framework. Even Fidel Castro received a Jesuit education. As such, the rules of warfare laid out by Aquinas were pertinent, if only tacitly, to the Cuban populace.

With these two circumstances in mind, the adequacy of Aquinas’ just-war theory can be deduced. To understand the theory’s adequacy, I plan to use the Cuban Revolution as a historical case study. Namely, from the Cuban Revolution, I plan to use three events to better understand Thomistic just-war theory. Of these three events, one will come from each division of just-war theory, to provide a more holistic view of Aquinas’ thought.

Here, it is useful to state which examples will be used to examine the adequacy of Thomistic just-war theory. Regarding ius ad bellum restrictions on warfare, I plan to examine how Fidel Castro fits into Aquinas’ notion of a “legitimate authority.” By doing so, one will understand the moral standing of revolutions and revolutionary leaders in the modern international system. Here, Aquinas provides four different possibilities for how to consider Castro: a seditious leader, a defender of the common good, a tyrant-deposer, and an offensive general. However, it is unclear which interpretation most adequately fits the intricacies of the Cuban Revolution, both politically and theologically. As for ius in bello restrictions on warfare, I plan to examine how Aquinas’ principles apply to guerrilla struggles. In this case, the choice to use Cuba as a historical illustration is not arbitrary, as I plan to examine how modern notions of proportionality and discrimination apply to guerrilla struggles. Here, Aquinas’ notion of “right intention,” caritas, and virtue will help formulate these restrictions. Lastly, regarding ius post bellum restrictions, I will examine the post-revolutionary peace—or lack thereof—that developed. With this final case, I hope to clearly articulate the nature of Thomistic peace, upon which little is written, and how this Thomistic peace applies in the modern state system. Included here, I would like to state what governmental and penal systems are supported by Thomistic philosophy.

Author

• Ezekiel Vergara, Yale University