In anticipation of the 2024 Munich Security Conference (MSC), over forty prominent theologians, philosophers, historians, sociologists, lawyers, and diplomats have gathered in Munich on February 12-13, 2024, to discuss various facets of the complex topic of “Challenges of Russia’s War against Ukraine and the Ethical Principles of Sustainable Peace in Europe”. This symposium became possible thanks to the cooperation between the Ludwig Maximilian University (LMU), the Ukrainian Catholic University (UCU), and the University of Notre Dame – some of the leading academic institutions from Germany, Ukraine and the US – and the support from the Catholic Church through the charitable organisation Renovabis, Archdiocese of Munich and Freising as well as the Ukrainian Greek Catholic Apostolic Exarchate in Germany and Scandinavia. This intellectual event resulted in producing a Statement to the Munich Security Conference, calling it to consider a set of issues necessary for advancing the ethical dimension of European security in close connection to the Russian war against Ukraine.
Before delving into discussions covering wide range of topics from clash of civilisations, the trauma of communism, the Christian paradigm of just and sustainable peace to the struggle between peace and justice, the participants attended the prayer for peace, led by Bishop Bohdan Dzyurakh – Apostolic Exarch for Ukrainians of the Byzantine Rite in Germany and Scandinavia, with Cardinal Reinhard Marx – Archbishop of Munich and Freising.
The series of introductory greetings followed. Christof Breitsameter, LMU, noted the need to further develop the theory of just war and adjust it to the contemporary normative patterns. Cardinal Reinhard Marx underscored the context of the MSC, the world’s largest meeting on security and defence policy, held annually since 1963, and greeted the innovative nature of this symposium informed by Christian social ethics, organised on the eve of the MSC. Cardinal noted the importance of voice of the Christian faith in the present times of the almost hopeless spiral of increasing escalation. He presented some guidelines on the peace ethics in the Catholic social teaching, that resonated with the subsequent discussions. Cardinal noted, that even if peace cannot be achieved, the task remains to constantly strive for it, seek peace and pursue it. He drew attention to the title of the 1920 encyclical of Pope Benedict XV – the first encyclical of the Catholic Church on peace – Pacem, Dei Munus Pulcherrimum – Peace, the Most Beautiful Gift of God, framing peace as a gift and a goal of Christian ethics. He admitted the increasing relevance of the most recent encyclical on peace – Fratelli Tutti, where the Pope Fransis speaks of third world war in stages, in light of the numerous conflicts, mutually reinforcing each other. The countering of these developments requires “the right mix of determination and prudence” – to effectively defend the values of human dignity and to stand together in solidarity in order to avoid collective hostility and escalation. The Catholic approach does not mean the ethic of unconditional non-violence, suggesting instead the ethics of overcoming violence through law and dialogue, as stated in the Fratelli Tutti. Cardinal Marx reminded of the 1963 Pacem in Terris encyclical by Pope John XXIII, urging to transfer the state’s monopoly on the use of force established at national level to international level – exercised under the leadership of the United Nations. He noted the unfortunate developments of the United Nations Security Council’s functioning, that almost lost its credibility due to the abuse of the veto power. According to Pope Fransis, the end of the cold war period was also not used efficiently to advance the architecture of the new world order, including through the UN reforms. The guiding principle for the Pope Fransis (as it was for the Pope John Paul II) is the “human family”, which commits to the cross-border fraternity. The Fratelli Tutti has a groundbreaking message of the question of peacekeeping as a central ethical challenge of the present epoch. For the long time, the heading of “just war” was prevailing in the discussions on peace ethics, recently the term “just peace” has established itself. This is not a simply a pacifists countermodel, but rather a broadening of horizon on the complex prerequisites for peace. Just peace focuses on diversity and interconnectedness of military, diplomatic and civil society aspects in the struggle for peace, freedom, and security. Cardinal noted that weapons alone can, perhaps, win a war, but can never achieve the lasting and sustainable peace. This also applies to the context of Russian war against Ukraine: international solidarity, the active participation of civil society, opinion forming in the digital media, and the cultural struggle for national and religious identity are the indispensable dimensions. One of the key challenges for Germany in this regard is the manipulation of public opinion in the digital media, supported by Russia. Just peace can also be called sustainable peace. Among other things, it implies education for resistance against ideologies and repressive forms of politics of exclusion. Cardinal noted that peace is not defined as an absence of violence but is understood as a spiritual power working towards the humanization of conditions, expressing a wish for this symposium to leave traces of peace.
Thomas Schwartz, the CEO of Renovabis, characterised this symposium as the expression of the Renovabis’s mission of promoting dialogue. He commended the cooperation among the universities organising this symposium and assured of the support of the UCU as a beacon of educating young people in the territory of the former Soviet Union. Noting the crucial role of wish for peace for this year’s work of Renovabis, he expressed the belief that everyone can make the world a better and more peaceful place with their own efforts. Even in times when it seems hopeless, the seeds of peace can be sown. He also expressed hope that the planned memorandum will be met with interest and widely received in the politics and society.
Clemens Sedmak from the University of Notre Dame underscored the role of personal encounter and cooperation within the Catholic universities partnership in understanding the situation in Ukraine. The academic exchanges and visits by the faculty members leading to joint research projects, conferences, other research activities in the University of Notre Dame and UCU, brought the fruits of friendship, deep care, and mutual learning. The UCU faculty members visiting Notre Dame act as true witnesses to the truth and faith in unspeakably adverse conditions. One of the reasons of this joint symposium is the commitment of the participating universities to truth and moral clarity. The very location of this event reminds of Hans and Sophie Scholl, who knew the power of truth. Another reason is hope and role of universities in stretching imagination to seek alternatives and possibilities to the status quo in pursuing just peace.
Taras Dobko, rector of the UCU, expressed gratitude to the partners and supporters of this conference and noted the importance of this inter-university cooperation. He noted the present characterisation of Ukraine as “country of volunteers” for the crucial role of civil society in withstanding aggression, and posed an open question as to future characteristics of Ukraine as a “country of homecoming” for Ukrainian refugees, a “country of healed wounds”, including psychological help, a “country of youth”. It will become a “country of veterans”, but will it become a “country of decent life” for veterans and their families? There will be challenges in all areas of life. Integration of people from liberated territories. Demographic catastrophe and loss of human capital – influencing implementation of the post-war recovery plans. Possible tension between those actively engaged in the war, such as veterans and volunteers, those who went abroad, and those who remained in the occupied territories. We will need a thoughtful dialogue between these groups. How to present unity in the Ukrainian society after the war? Would It be possible to fight resentment, the desire to find a scapegoat? We would not know the answer to these questions until the Putin’s Russia is stopped. The future of Ukraine and all democracies in Europe will depend on the establishment of sustainable peace in the region, and there is no chance for lasting peace without free Ukraine. We also know that sustainable peace will not be possible without commitment to ethical principles and some investment into ethical infrastructure of a social life in Europe. It’s a tough time for universities in Ukraine, 27 members of our community have already sacrificed their life for our freedom and dignity. I hope that our conference will contribute to imagining more hopeful future for Ukraine and Europe, it will contribute to shared understanding of the ways of building sustainable peace in our region. I also hope that it will enrich our understanding and offer know-how in security infrastructure which is mindful of ethical considerations and faithful to the truth about Ukraine, Russia, and Europe.
The first keynote speaker, historian Martin Schulze Wessel, LMU, presented a speech on the topic “The Curse of the Empire: Ukraine, Poland and the Fallacy in Russian History”. This speech was dedicated to the challenges of war, and the ethical principles that post-war order must respect. He started by unmasking the misuse of history and fallacy of the Putin’s logic of distinction to ‘natural’ and ‘artificial’ nations and denial of right of existence of the latter. He shared his explanation of the deep historical roots of this war, namely, imperial Russian politics and culture, pointing out that this war clearly cannot be called just ‘Putin’s war’, but should be called ‘Russia’s war’ as it would not have been possible without resources and imperial traditions of this country. He accentuated that the post-war order must provide internationally guaranteed security for all Russia’s neighbours, especially Ukraine, against imperial revisionism. In his view, lasting peace would only be possible if Russia overcomes its imperial legacy – “the curse of the empire”. Understanding this legacy is crucial to dealing with it. In view of Prof. Schulze Wessel, the strong continuity of Russia’s imperial policy could be traced to the beginning of 18th century and rule of Peter I. It could be well exemplified by exploring the ‘Polish’ and ‘Ukrainian question’ in the Russia’s power policies of domination in the Eastern Europe. Moreover, the “Nord Stream” is a project in line with the policies of export of raw materials through the Baltic in the 18th century. The speeches of Putin are full of allusions to the imperial splendour of the Tsarist empire, and Lavrov’s citing of the Pushkin’s pro-imperialistic poems are examples of continuity and similarity of the historical and present Russian-Polish and Russian-Ukrainian relations. The Soviet time Holodomor and the current fight against Ukraine’s independent existence are the examples of the continuity in Russian tradition of imperial policy. Unlike Germany, for which the phenomenon of the ‘curse of the empire’ was also familiar up to 1945, it has not been overcome in Russia until now.
He observed the frequent use of the term “Zeitenwende” – or turning point in history – in German political discourse since February 2022, asserting the beginning of the new epoch. In his opinion, however, this term does not really fit the description of the Russia’s actions towards Ukraine, as these rather constitute the continuation and radicalisation of imperial policy. “The sharp caesura” in his view exists only in the Western and especially German perception of Russia – meaning the “farewell to certain German illusions”. The real meaning of Zeitenwende is that Germany has to overcome its ambivalence in its relations with Russia and the West. He concluded that to achieve lasting peace, the West must provide Ukraine with every possible support.
The second keynote speaker, Myroslav Marynovych, UCU, also used the notion “Zeitenwende” in his speech, though in a different context – talking of the changing times for Christian ecumene, signifying the need to jointly sound an alarm as to the current model of Russian orthodoxy amounting to a criminal ideology. Even though condemning an ideology is in general not an easy task in the world filled with moral relativism, and this step might additionally be seen as not politically correct one – allegedly interfering with matters of orthodox faith – it would be essential for fighting propaganda and defending the truth. He mentioned a positive example of the statement of the Evangelical Church of Germany (successor of the German Evangelical Church), condemning its complicity in crimes of the Nazi regime. It is crucial to condemn in the similar manner the ideologies behind the ongoing Russian war against Ukraine, as unpunished evil returns, as Myroslav Marynovych metaphorically put it – “unpunished and unredeemed crimes of communism, like seeds of injustice, abandoned in the ground, had to bring forth new and terrifying fruit”. Therefore, it is vital not to seek dialogue with Russia at any cost, up to disregarding the war crimes and genocide in Ukraine, as such actions would sow the seeds of a new conflict. It is vital to clearly call good and evil by their names. Otherwise, Patriarch Kirill and President Putin would continue to be confident in their victory, and Russia would further engage in manipulative use of the ‘Western vocabulary’ to justify its actions. The level of threat to the Christian world coming from the current Russian doctrines, filled with substitutions of concepts or ‘werewolf words’, calls for a need of a joint reaction from the Christian ecumene. Mr. Marynoych also underscored the fact that peace and justice are interrelated, exemplifying it on numerous quotations ranging from the book of Prophet Isaiah to the statements by Roberta Metsola, president of the European Parliament – “there is no peace without freedom and justice”. In the closing remarks, he commented on the “just war” and “just peace” concepts and expressed the hope for God’s protection against illusionary peace capable of conceiving a new evil.
The first plenary session, titled “Never again” or “Clash of Civilizations”? was dedicated to discussing these concepts in light of the Russian war against Ukraine. Volodymyr Turchynovsky, acting as a moderator, outlined the importance of tracing moral and ethical genealogy of this war and the need to develop moral vision for the future. He invited each of the panellists to present their view on the topic to be followed by the discussion and eventually by questions and comments from the audience. The first presenter, Ingeborg Gabriel from the University of Vienna, highlighted that the concept of “never again”, and international organisations created after the Second World War to achieve this purpose, served relatively well for some time. The fragility of this concept became, however, evident with the developments in former Yugoslavia. The 2022 Russian full-scale invasion in Ukraine was a sign of the ugliest form of the religiously underpinned aggressive Russian nationalism. She explained the two narratives that crystallised after 1989: the liberal narrative (associated with the Fukuyama’s “end of history”) and that of the clash of civilisations (turning lately into the neo-colonial paradigm). She noted that the three dimensions of liberalism: political (including human rights, rule of law and democracy), economic and social one may also have some tensions between them. In her view, however, the Christian social ethics goes hand in hand with liberalism in ascertaining the equality of all human beings against the domination of fragmenting nationalism as well as cultural and religious differences. She mentioned examples of fallacies of the neo-colonial paradigm shifting the blame for the Russian war against Ukraine from Russia to the West. In her view, the just war is based on 3 principles: the right authority, the just cause and the right intentions – thinking already in times of war on how to construct peace. She noted the relevance of the 1991 John Paul II’s encyclical Centesimus Annus, to understanding the present developments: “Many individual, social, regional and national injustices were committed during and prior to the years in which Communism dominated; much hatred and ill-will have accumulated. There is a real danger that these will re-explode after the collapse of dictatorship, provoking serious conflicts…” (para. 27). Some of the recipes for dealing with the situation based on this encyclical include the continuation of “moral commitment and conscious striving” so that “hatred and violence will not triumph in people’s hearts, especially among those who are struggling for justice, and that all people will grow in the spirit of peace and forgiveness” (para. 27). Furthermore, “What is needed are concrete steps to create or consolidate international structures” (para. 28). In this regard, she suggested a practical step of discussing and reinventing such structures, including the UN, EU or OSCE, currently perceived with resignation, noting potential roles of the Catholic Church and other Churches in this process. In this regard, she also quoted the opening sentence of the 1950 Schuman declaration: “World peace cannot be safeguarded without the making of creative efforts proportionate to the dangers which threaten it.” She admitted, however, that institutions would not be sufficient without the “inner determination of peace”, calling everyone to “keep empathy in our hearts”. The current war in Europe demands in her view the “mobilisation of all political and spiritual energies to win the battle not only militarily, but also morally”. Valeria Korablyova from Charles University in Prague posed a question of the existence of the moral consensus or the remaining redlines in the present world. She noted the varied reactions to the Russian war against Ukraine, coming from different corners of the world, where some are voice concerns as to certain hypocrisy in invocation of the ‘never again’ concept only with regards to war in the European continent. She observed that the current situation calls for abandoning old concepts and thinking of the creation of a new global order. She drew a distinction between three possible options for such an order: the rule-based, interest-based and values-based order, concluding that only the latter would be just and beneficial for everyone. Greg Lewicki from the International Society for the Comparative Study of Civilizations spoke of the notion of ‘civilisational security’ and the fact that despite the flawed nature of some of the civilisation theories, they still influence global leaders. With this in mind, he expressed the need for Ukraine to be treated as an inherent part of the West. The presentation of Oksana Mikheieva, representing UCU and Centre for East European and international Studies, focused on the following four questions: what Europe knows about Ukraine, what we (Ukrainians) know about ourselves, how good we know our aggressor and why Russia’s actions threaten the future of democracy. Answering these questions, Prof. Mikheieva pointed out to the need of the Western scholars to study Ukraine directly, by accessing sources in Ukrainian language, removing the glasses of Moscow-centred perspective within the regional studies, so as not to deprive Ukraine of its subjectivity. She pointed out that unlike the knowledge of Ukrainians about themselves, that have been actively accumulated during the last 30 years, the knowledge of Ukrainians about Russia has been in decline, accompanied by condemnation of the endeavour to study Russia in recent years, yet it is crucial to understand ‘our aggressor’. Lastly, she highlighted the challenge of manipulated democracy without real participation of people, present in the aggressor state, leading to the substitution of the concepts and the blurring of the boundaries of the perception. Clemens Sedmak observed a striking ‘shocked but not surprised’ reaction to Russia’s aggression against Ukraine, given the continuity of patterns of Russian aggression in the recent history. In his presentation, Prof. Sedmak shared ‘four paradoxical challenges’ of the current war and post-war time: simultaneous need for global ethics, to which nationalism contradicts, but also the importance of some degree of nationalism in Ukraine to withstand aggression right now (named in the ensuing discussions ‘a healthy nationalism’); the Ukraine’s fight for democracy, that is being exercised under the martial law conditions; the general importance of religion in the reconciliation and peace building that is combined in this war with the role of religion in putting fuel to the war; and the forth challenge – the one of peace between neighbours – the combination of the current spirit of resistance towards Russia with the need of future neighbourly co-existence. He also made a point of juxtaposing the to IHDs the ‘integral human destruction’ and the ‘integral human development’. The latter should be a response to the former as the new moral infrastructure, based on the pillars of common good, human dignity, a special attention to the most disadvantaged and integral ecology.
The vivid discussions among the panellists followed, developing the already mentioned concepts and raising new points related to the broad topic of the plenary session. Thus, the conceptual nuances of the “civilisation” notion and various connotations of “nationalism” were discussed along with the issue of memories, where Oksana Mikheieva noted the ethical challenge of collecting the information about atrocities of this war at the delicate timing when the uncomfortable memories of traumatic experience are still fresh. During the discussion, Prof. Sedmak also mentioned the dignity needs, relying on the 1943 text by Simone Weil on the needs of the soul, describing her point as follows “if you want to have something that is sustainable and conducive to human well-being, it has to satisfy the needs of the soul”. The questions from the audience included the concern as to the place of international law in the desired new global order options mentioned by Prof. Korablyova in light of the concern of the Global South as to the disruption of international law, including by the US. The author of this question, Mary Ellen O’Connel speculated whether the suggested value-based order would mean upholding the existing international law in contrast with the rule-based international order that means something different. Prof. Korablyova replied that the value-based order is not about dealing with particular institutions and norms but is rather primarily concerned with getting away from hypocrisy in their application, perceived by the Global South. In the closing remarks on this panel, it was noted that numerous ethical challenges remain, as well as the need to think about reestablishing the global order, whereby the Churches may play an important role.
The second panel of symposium, moderated by Oleh Turiy, dealt with the topic of “Trauma of communism and new faces of totalitarianism”. Kartin Boeckh from Leibniz Institute of East and Southeast European Studies and LMU was talking of the differences in socio-political situation in Ukraine and Russia. She began by paying attention to the trauma of communism or rather series of traumas and human loss, such as famine of 1921-22, Holodomor of 1932-33, collectivisation, the Stalinist repressions against priests and insurgents, internment to Gulag and deportations to Siberia. She characterised the period of cold war as the time of real war against Ukrainians dissenting with the regime, noting that the persecution was particularly targeting people who that could have brought progress to society. Prof. Boeckh also noted the social stress, accompanying life in the 1990s in the fragmented societies – the heritage of the Soviet rule – and highlighted the stark distinctions of the trends in Russian and Ukrainian societies since that time. While Russia became more totalitarian, Ukraine has been moving towards democratisation. Even though the challenge of corruption remains present in Ukraine, according to Transparency International’s corruption perception index, Ukraine along with Estonia are among the winners of corruption reduction over the past 11 years. The corruption trend in Russia is the opposite. Moreover, Ukraine’s civil society has been active in ensuring legitimate and democratic elections, and seven people acted as presidents since 1990s. In contrast, Russia has seen only three different presidential faces, and the speaker wittingly observed that there is almost no chance of losing a job as a president in that state. In addition, Ukraine has been cherishing religious, linguistic and cultural pluralities, whereas in Russia these have been seen as a political threat. Prof. Boeckh concluded with expressing hope for the future of Ukraine based on its past experience of surviving numerous traumas. Andriy Mykhaleyko began his speech by underscoring the need to consider the topics of Churches and totalitarianism in the 20th century, as that totalitarian legacy did not disappear with the collapse of the Soviet Union. He noted that both the Soviet Union and Nazi Germany were striving to create ‘political religions’ entailing the promise of salvation and certain rituals, such as gatherings on the squares. Whereas during Soviet times it was attempted to substitute Christianity with communism, modern Russia made from its former ideological enemy an ally by instrumentalising the religion. For instance, it successfully uses the religious concepts for propaganda purposes, such as to construct ‘Orthodox civilisational space’ and legitimise the acts of violence. The speaker mentioned the call of Pope Fransis to stop instrumentalising religions and voiced the need for constant critical self-reflection of the Churches as a means of preventing possible manipulative appropriation of them for political purposes. The central point of the speech by Gelinada Grinchenko from Karazin National University (Kharkiv) and University of Wuppertal was the dehumanisation of Ukrainians by Russian propaganda. She covered the tree aspects of this topic: original development, contemporary rhetoric, and consequences. Prof. Grinchenko highlighted a clear link between dehumanisation and legitimisation of killings. In her view, the Russian dehumanisation of Ukrainians has several centuries-long roots and includes instances of treating Ukrainians as ‘provincials’ or ‘younger siblings’. She observes that presently this arrogant treatment has transformed into incitement to kill Ukrainians, voiced by Russian authorities and media, and widely accepted by the population. Dehumanisation is utilised by Russians to justifies the crimes already committed and future crimes. Another aspect of the dehumanisation’s danger lies in blocking forgiveness. At the end of her presentation, Prof. Grinchenko posed an open question: “What could we do to remain humanistic?” During the Q&A session, Prof. Grinchenko recalled the incident involving the Russian tourist and the shark, and the ensuing discussions on social media, where some Ukrainians sensitised others to the challenge of dehumanisation and warned against falling into the trap of dehumanising our enemy. In the further discussions, the potentially exaggerated scale of corruption perception in Ukraine was also mentioned and the explanation behind corruption in Ukraine was tied to the traces of the culture of survival in a totalitarian society. The question on the possibility for Russia to overcome totalitarianism was also raised. In the answers the importance of education, gradual change of institutions and critical reflections on the past were mentioned.
The participants of the third panel shared their reflections on the topic of “Fight for freedom, the wholeness of Europe, and democracy worldwide” under moderation of Iryna Fenno from UCU and LMU. Aloys Buch from Supra-diocesan Seminary Lantershofen, drew the audience’s attention to the existential importance of Ukraine’s fight, where true humanity is at stake. In his view, Ukraine is clearly defending the values, lying at the core of the European Union. Freedom in its numerous facets, including political participation and open media, for which Ukraine has been fighting already in its ‘peaceful revolutions’, is a central element of a dignified life that is contrary to any dictatorial system. He believes the Ukraine’s fight for freedom to be deeply integrated into the worldwide struggle between an open democratic social order and authoritarian order. Accordingly, he highlighted the need for all supporters of democracy to fight for a world worth living, together with Ukraine, and to prepare for a future in accordance with the just peace theory. He also noted a special responsibility of the Churches in this process, grounded in their social thought. He concluded with an urge to reliably stand with Ukraine in a spirit of true and tangible solidarity, providing all means that efficiently support Ukraine’s fight. Taras Dobko, rector of the UCU, started by suggesting a thought experiment, inviting to think of the question “What if Ukraine loses?” and its implications for the freedom, security, and sustainable peace. He elaborated on the tree potential consequences: Europe’s risk of losing its geopolitical appeal, the weakening of the democracy’s moral appeal, and proliferation of cynicism as a master rule of foreign policy. Touching upon the question on why Putin dared the full-scale invasion, Prof. Dobko mentioned Putin’s conviction of the weakness of the democratic West among the reasons. He cited Oleksandra Matviychuk to illustrate the potential dangers of taking rights and freedoms in mature democracies for granted, as if turning into consumers of values, being ready to exchange these for economic benefits or promises of security and not wishing to fight for them. He underscored the significance of values and principles as a source of strength in the trying times. Answering another tricky question on “whose war it is”, Prof. Dobko pointed to the need for Europeans not to fall in the trap of Russian propaganda that invites to perceive this war as a purely ‘Slavic affair’. Instead, he emphasised the need of sustaining the interest of the European citizens in this war and their practical commitment to victory of Ukraine (especially now that the initial emotional reaction is fading away), by realising that this war constitutes an existential threat facing Europe as a whole. Fr. Željko Tanjić, rector of the Catholic University of Croatia, invited the audience to draw some parallels between Ukraine’s fight for freedom and war in the former Yugoslavia, including in Croatia, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Serbia and Kosovo. One of the lessons learned from that experience in view of Fr. Tanjić, involves the importance of acknowledgement of guilt for the post-war reconciliation (which was in his view lacking in the mentioned countries). He also sensitised the audience to the awareness of historical and cultural differences between different countries in Europe, requiring in the first place the need to listen to each other and take each other’s stories seriously. With this in mind, he spoke of the gradual process of transformations in the post-communist states, including Ukraine, and unacceptability of external imposition of requirements on rapid reforms. Antoine Arjakovsky from Collège des Bernardins in Paris began by mentioning the 2023 book “Pour sortir de la guerre” – on getting out of the war – his fourth book on the theme of Russia’s war against Ukraine since 2014. The escape from the crisis involving the illnesses of the soul, which affect the post-soviet and post-modern civilisation, is possible in his view by metaphysical and spiritual refoundation of our relationship to the world. “Today, it is a matter of rediscovering the real power of truth, as a pass to the deepest reality, the superiority of law linked to justice, and the effectiveness of virtues, exercised tirelessly” – noted the speaker. In this symposium, he focused on only one concrete proposals (out of twenty described in that book), that is the need for Ukraine to join NATO in 2024. To justify this suggestion, Prof. Arjakovsky provided five ‘classic’ and five ‘new’ arguments. Importantly, this move will clearly demonstrate the determination of the free world to win the war. Markus Patenge from German Commission for Justice and Peace noted that world is on the edge of the new order, the need of which is manifesting itself in the series of crises in various parts of the globe. In his view, despite these developments, the peace ethics remain valid, and should be utilised. It is important to undertake structural measures on peacebuilding. Nevertheless, such measures related to ‘external peace’ would not be sufficient without entering human hearts. In the same vein, he explained that freedom requires people with free hearts.
In the discussions, a challenging question on the place of peace in the hierarchy of goods or values emerged. Answering this question, Taras Dobko noted the close connections between peace, solidarity, and common good, reminding also that peace is a fruit of the Holy Spirit. Aloys Buch, based on his experience on working on hierarchy on values, suggested that historical timing and cultural heritage influence the hierarchy of values and that probably it is better to talk of the values that are “the most important right now”. In his view, peace may be also treated as a framework for all the other things. Markus Patenge admitted that hierarchy is always difficult, and peace could be seen as a fundamental basis of well-being of the humans. For Antoine Arjakovsky, the central element of this hierarchy is truth.
The fourth panel explored the topic “Between naïve pacifism and nuclear apocalypse: in search for ‘Just peace’”. It’s first presenter Mariana Bujeryn, from Harvard Kennedy School’s Belfer Center spoke of the nuclear disarmament of Ukraine and the general developments in nuclear deterrence. She outlined the reasons behind Ukraine’s decision to give up nuclear weapons, mentioning Ukraine’s wish to join international community on good terms. She also recalled the security assurances promised to Ukraine in exchange of its disarmament, and their brutal abuse by Russia, exacerbated by its use of nuclear rhetoric to scare Ukraine’s partners away. She noted the general problem of the uneven conditions of the 1968 Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of nuclear weapons for different states, and inability to achieve significant progress on accomplishing its purposes, as well as development of nuclear weapons outside this treaty. She regretfully admitted that nuclear deterrence still works, and as Ukraine’s example shows, non-proliferation could backfire in an egregious and unacceptable way. Accordingly, she highlighted a need to devalue the currency of nuclear weapons. Markus Vogt, LMU, touched upon the four following points: ethical consequences of being a Christian, responsibility to protect, the peace ethics of Pope Fransis, and the paradigm of ‘just peace’. He noted that the Christian perspective requires standing in solidarity with those who are weaker. In his view, arms supply to Ukraine is ethically necessary in light of the right to effective self-defence. This is also justified by the ‘non-indifference’ principle, important in the Fratelli Tutti, the third peace encyclical in the history of Catholic Church. Prof. Vogt described the ‘just peace’ as a guiding principle that established itself roughly twenty years ago instead of the ‘just war’, adding that: “This is not simply a pacifist countermodel, but rather the broadening of horizons with regard to the complex prerequisites for peace and the need to strive for it on all levels”. He also shared an observation as to the lack of systematic integration and reflection of peace in the Christian social teaching. He further noted that just and sustainable peace is closely related to a broad range of issues, such as energy supply, climate change, resilience and stability of civil society or critique of the disinformation in the digital media, and that it needs a dialogue on a new level of quality. Fr. Yuriy Shchurko, UCU, warned of the trap of naïve pacifism, that could be described as an escape from real life or a desire to hide from life’s tough questions, pointing out that is has no basis in the New Testament. He also articulated the challenge of postmodernity (or rather post-postmodernity) – “if no one is guilty of anything, moral dignity and responsibility disappear”. The experience of life amidst the brutal Russian aggression demonstrates, in view of Fr. Shchurko how difficult it may be to implement the just peace-making theory in practice. He emphasised that the answers this aggression should include punishment for the atrocities. This war in his view is also about values, without which ‘the law of jungle or force’ will prevail, as if rolling humanity back to the times preceding the Commandments on Sinai. Fr. Shchurko further reproached the ‘diplomatic silence’ of the Christian ecumene on Russian war of aggression in Ukraine, the failure to clearly acknowledge that “Romantic Russia and its great culture no longer exist. That society lives by the desire to eliminate Ukrainians”. He underscored, how important it is not simply to declare values, but to be ‘people of values’. Johannes Frühbauer from Munich’s Katholische Stiftungshochschule, presented seven theses under the title “The promise of justice”. He began by paying attention to the notion of ‘justice’ inherently embedded within the ‘just peace’ concept. He suggested that ‘justice’ should be treated as an inevitable precondition for enduring and sustainable peace, that is peace in its positive understanding and not reduced to the mere absence of violence. Elaborating further on ‘justice’ he pointed out to the need to decide what ‘justice’ or ‘justices’ are meant here – the possible options include procedural, substantive, restorative, distributive and transitional justice (the latter being directly related to the aftermath of the atrocities and post-war reconciliation). The interrelations between justice and peace might be framed in a variety of ways. For instance, justice could be seen as a precondition of peace or as an instrument for reaching it. Justice may also be awarded a priority with regard to peace. In addition, both justice and peace are the elements of a normative order. If peace is understood as a dynamic process, so should be seen justice, observed Prof. Frühbauer. Moreover, both peace and justice could be seen as contextually dependent, informed by history, culture and particular experiences. In his final remarks, Prof. Frühbauer underscored the need for continuous thinking with a view to further develop the ‘just peace’ paradigm. The Q&A session was largely focused on the circumstances surrounding Ukraine’s decision to give up its nuclear weapons and its implications.
The fifth panel of symposium was tasked with discussing a provocative question “Security versus justice?” and moderated by Svitlana Khyliuk, Director of the UCU’s Law School. Jan Tombinski, EU Ambassador to Ukraine (2012–2016), reiterated, that justice is a prerequisite to ensure security among and within states. “We are suffering the consequences of not recognising the impact of this first episode of aggression” – stated ambassador Tombinsky, referring to the occupation of Crimea and beginning of hostilities in the East of Ukraine. In his view, in 2014 the states missed a chance “to sanction Russia adequately and to rethink the security consequences for the world order”. In the present context of a full-scale war of aggression it is essential not only to provide support to Ukraine, but also to realise the global impact of this war, which undermines the basic rules of international order and security, and to act accordingly. He explained, that ‘just peace’ comprises three basic components: recognition, renouncement, and rule. The recognition implies the sovereign equality and subjectivity of states, renouncement entails resignation from the use of force, and is strongly linked to justice and reconciliation, and the rule refers to international law. Robert Brinkley, British Ambassador to Ukraine (2002-2006), noted the importance of both security and justice and shared the Britain’s perspective on Russia’s war against Ukraine. He explained the power of collective memories, triggered in Britain by the full-scale invasion in Ukraine, leading to compassion and generosity. He presented an overview of the dynamics of Britain’s awareness about Ukraine and Russia during the last 20-30 years, sharing an observation that the attention to Ukraine on a ‘British mental map’ has been rising since the 2004 Orange revolution and soared around the time of 2014 Revolution of dignity. However, back then the tolerance of Russian propaganda in media was high: “For too long, many people in the international media tired to take a ‘balanced’ view – as if it is possible to be balanced between truth and lies”, noted Ambassador Brinkley. He regretted a weak reaction to the annexation of Crimea, and the fact that overall, the West “did not wake up to the reality of Russian revanchism” until February 2022. The full realization that the threat of war is real, accompanied by appropriate actions is still needed in his opinion. Lastly, he noted a very broad political and public consensus regarding the support of Ukraine in Britain, that shall remain also after the coming general election. Marek Misak from COMECE explained the nature of the COMECE’s activities, anchored in Article 17 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union. His speech was dedicated to explaining how justice and security could be articulated on the European level. He highlighted the fact that the EU bishops have been clearly distinguishing between aggressor and a victim of Russian war against Ukraine and calling aggressor by name. He further noted bishops’ call for solidarity and military support of Ukraine on behalf of the EU and for finding sustainable resolution of this war in line with the principles of sovereignty, territorial integrity and accountability to achieve lasting peace, entailing the life in dignity, security and freedom. He recalled the Pope Fransis’s address to COMECE, mentioning the need of both artisans and architects for building sustainable peace. The global peace architecture in view the speaker requires some renovation. For the EU, renewed commitment to peace would entail learning from the past mistakes of conflict prevention, striving for greater unity and working on a new strategy for stability, justice and peace for the European continent. Mary Ellen O’Connell, Professor of law at the University of Notre Dame, delivered a speech how contemporary security theory conflicts with the contemporary international law – the source of global understanding of what justice is. Prof. O’Connell pointed out to an ideology of realism as a major source of our current insecurity and the belief of countries like Russia that they can use military force with impunity. She explained that this ideology promotes the belief that the weapons and war are more important than peace built upon legal and moral principles. She highlighted that unlike international law, the realism is a relatively ‘new invention’, associated with E. H. Carr, who argued for reliance on physical force as a centre for international security, in line with Thomas Hobbes’s ideas, such as that of human’s inability to act in the interests of others, and was developed by Hans Morgenthau. She suggested instead that the law works not because of coercion, but rather because we believe in it, because of the “sense that we could live in social harmony with one another, not in constant physical force and competition”. She recalled the selfless and courageous commitments undertaken by states after the Second World War, guided by international law, human rights and saving succeeding generations from the scourge of war. She recalled the efforts of the international lawyers, such as Hersch Lauterpacht, to oppose the trend of realism, and instead building upon the ideas of Hugo Grotius on seeing people as social, others-oriented, and willing to leave in peace to oppose the trend of realism. She also mentioned Luis Sohn’s work on ensuring the comprehensive prohibition of the use of force in the UN Charter with the narrow exception of self-defence. Despite the efforts of these prominent lawyers, she regretfully noted the rise of the ideology of realism, resulting in a fact that by the end of the cold war, international law was shaped to be amenable to national realist policy. Pope John XXIII, witnessing these developments, counters in Pacem in Terris realist’s belief in weapons and war. Despite the ‘low point’ of law, it endures and is always available. In view of Prof. O’Connell, development of philosophical theories about law linked to humanity’s desire for social peace, concordant with Cicero, St. Thomas Aquinas or Hugo Grotius and in stark contrast with Thomas Hobbes is required. Renaissance of law could be an adequate response to militant realism. “We need to regain our faith in law and in the moral principles that underpin it” – concluded Prof. O’Connell.
Christian Walter, LMU, shared his reflections on the interaction between security and justice, mentioning various approaches to these notions. For instance, security in a narrow sense equates with the absence of threats, and more broadly it could be understood as a reliable and stable infrastructure. The notion of justice could similarly relate to a broader idea or more narrow connotations. The tension between ‘security’ and ‘justice’ is more likely to be found when taking them in the narrow sense, such as when the need of a speedy decision-making on weapons supply meets the lengthy legal procedures. International law could be seen as a factor contributing to security at the pre-war period and enabling justice at the post-war period. Therefore, its better enforcement is important for both security and justice. Andriy Kostiuk, UCU, explained how giving up the struggle for justice to get security may result in ‘slavery’ or silencing of the conscience. Fighting for justice is essential in his view even if there is risk, as it ultimately approves of the chance to exist and develop. Therefore, striving for justice requires continuous efforts.
Overall, this symposium appears to have been a powerful intellectual event, drawing attention to the need for joint action at various levels to support Ukraine with a view to achieving a just and sustainable peace. The proposals set out in the Statement to the Munich Security Conference, which was produced as a result of this symposium, could certainly serve as a guidance for further counteraction to Russia’s war against Ukraine, going well beyond the MSC itself and serving to advance the ethical dimension of European security.
Ця публікація також доступна українською мовою.
