I'm passing this on via socrel for two reasons:
the political and moral concerns expressed which I broadly share
because I think members of the list may be interested to read a
comment from christian churches on an issue which obviously has
religious implications. My impression has been that not much
Christian comment has been made, or at least got out in this instant
video war.... or am I just missing it.?
Please feel free to use this as you will, to generate discussion, for
forwarding to friends and lists, to lobby politicians or whatever.
I think we should reserve the socrel list for comments about the
sociology of religion issues ... there are other places to debate the
politics/ ethics (or you can email me individually)
May the season be one of greater hope and peace for all
Greg
------- Forwarded Message Follows -------
Date sent: Fri, 18 Dec 1998 17:05:13 GMT
>From: Simon Barrow <[log in to unmask]>
Send reply to: [log in to unmask]
Priority: High
Dear friends and colleagues:
I'm enclosing for your perusal and use a briefing paper on the Iraq
crisis which I've prepared for the International Affairs and Middle East
committees here at CCBI. It is not an official document, but I hope it
will be of help. The issues of human rights and of alternative policy
perspectives are not, it should be noted, directly tackled in this
paper. The immediate issue of military strikes is its focus.
Should you want to correspond about this, please make sure that you *do
not* inadvertently send your note to everyone else on this list.
Finally, and in spite of the unhappy state of the world, may I take this
opportunity to wish you hope and peace this Christmastide...
Simon Barrow
Associate Secretary
Churches' Commission on Mission
Council of Churches for Britain and Ireland
------------------------------------------------------------------
A response paper, 17 December 1998
AN ECUMENICAL PERSPECTIVE ON MILITARY STRIKES
IN THE GULF
1. The latest US and British air strikes against Iraq will be a cause
for alarm and dismay among many Christians, not least for the danger
they pose to long-term prospects of peace and stability in a region of
the world which is a meeting-point of the great monotheistic faiths -
Christianity, Islam and Judaism. The purpose of this paper is to
elucidate the pattern of Christian response to the crisis so far, to
highlight critical questions which may be submerged in the immediacy of
armed conflict, and to suggest a theological and missiological priority
within the ambiguities and complexities of the strategic and political
considerations that naturally predominate at times like this.
2. We should start by noting that, quite apart from the unclarity of
specific US and British war aims,(1) it is the hostility and anger which
will result in the Arab world, the opportunity for Saddam Hussein to
solidify domestic support and to attack his opponents, and the untold
harm and death which will be inflicted upon innocent persons (2) in Iraq
which will make this action unacceptable in the eyes of most of the
international community. So far France, Russia and China have declared
their outright opposition to air strikes.
3. Though there remain some differences of opinion among the British
and Irish churches over the use of force in the Gulf region, the earlier
crises in 1998 produced a surprising degree of consensus upon the
inadvisability and unacceptability of western military intervention.
(The only notable voice in support of the British Prime Minister's
endorsement for US policy, solidified in President Clinton's declaration
on 14 November 1998, was that of the Archbishop of Canterbury.)
4. Moreover, strong ecumenical arguments against military force have
been advanced by the World Council of Churches, the Middle East Council
of Churches, the National Council of Churches of Christ in the USA, the
Canadian Council of Churches, the Conference of European Churches, NGOs
and civil society groups in the region. (3) It is sad that the USA and
Britain, almost alone within the international family of nations, appear
to ignore such long-standing, experienced voices.
5. In February 1998, a report of a World Council of Churches' (WCC)
expert delegation to Iraq (16-28 January) (4) strongly recommended that:
5.1 "Churches around the world endeavour to prevent.. military action
by making urgent representations to their respective governments that
the resolution of the crisis in Iraq cannot be achieved through the use
of force. Military action will further intensify the pain and suffering
the Iraqi people have been subjected to." (5)
6. The WCC Executive Committee statement on Iraq (6) stressed the need
for the crisis following the 1991 Gulf war to be handled by a
strengthened United Nations, re-iterating the comment of the seventh
general assembly of the WCC (February 1991) that "No one government or
group of governments should either take or be allowed to take primary
responsibility for the resolution of major conflicts beyond their own
borders." It also emphasised that the threat of military action
"undermines the authority given to the United Nations Security Council
by the [UN] Charter". The WCC Executive Committee therefore resolved to
press that no further military steps should be taken without the
concurrence of the Security Council. (7)
7. In this context it is alarming that neither the public statements of
the US President nor the British Prime Minister on their joint air
strikes against Iraq mentioned the UN Security Council at all. This
further confirms the view of the WCC that by adopting Security Council
Resolution 678, which authorised "member states... to use all necessary
means to implement previous resolutions" on Iraq, the UN "placed itself
in danger of being blamed for being unduly dependent upon a powerful
nation or group of nations and for appearing to authorise a large-scale
war which is not in the interests of an international order of peace
based on law." (8) Already, therefore, the question of the legality of
the US and British action is being raised.
8. The UNSCOM Butler report which is the occasion for these air strikes
raises continuing problems with the tracking down of weapons of mass
destruction believed to be harboured by Iraq, and details a number of
obstructions and infringements to the agreement reached with the Iraqi
government. (9) These include the refusal of inspection rights on
Friday, a holy day for Muslims. International pressure has, however, led
to changes in Iraqi actions in the past, and the current escalation into
military conflict has therefore received no endorsement so far from UN
secretary general Kofi Annan. (10)
9. It should be noted that UNSCOM has to date forced Iraq to destroy
40,000 chemical weapons, 700 tons of chemical weapons agents, 48
operational missiles, an anthrax production plant, a nuclear centrifuge
programme, and 35 CBW warheads. (11)
10. The Iraqi regime is clearly in violation of UN Security Council
resolutions at present, and must bear a share in the responsibility for
the current crisis. But it is not the only state in the region with a
capacity for military aggression, including the use of weapons of mass
destruction. How air strikes will advance implementation of the
cease-fire agreement, lead to further reductions in Iraq's military
arsenal, promote human rights or protect the Iraqi people and their
neighbours is, at best, unclear. Further bloodshed is, on the contrary,
likely to lead to further use of violence and regional destabilisation.
(12)
11. So far the British and US governments have sought to offset the
inevitable significant loss of innocent life which their action will
entail by linking it to alleged Iraqi culpability in the failure of the
1995 'Oil for Food' agreement (finally implemented in 1997) to alleviate
the plight of many of the Iraqi people. What has not been mentioned is
that this programme is a constituent part of a coercive sanctions
regime, that it does not contribute to Iraq's cash economy, that it is
totally controlled by the UN and channelled back in-kind to Iraq, and
that only half of the proceeds are for humanitarian assistance. The
balance is reserved for 1991 war reparations and the defrayment of
ongoing UN costs. (13) The WCC expert delegation in February 1998
confirmed the reports of the UN and NGOs that delivery, accountability
and co-operation between the Iraqi government and the UN over the relief
aspects of this programme has been "efficient" and "quite constructive."
(14)
12. For Christians in the 'just war' tradition [which includes the
majority of churches, apart from the 'historic peace churches' (15)]
both the form of the escalation into armed action short of a declaration
of war and the issues of exactness and proportionality will render the
current US and British action unacceptable. In addition, national self
interest appears to be dangerously overriding matters of international
justice. (16) And the consequences for local Christians (up to 5% of
the population) as well as for Muslims will be terrible. (17)
13. From an ecumenical Christian perspective there are additional
theological reasons for condemning these air strikes. These were set
out forcefully in the full statement on the Gulf war made by the seventh
general assembly of the World Council of Churches in Canberra, 1991.
(18) They read as follows:
13.1 "War promises no lasting solution for the festering wounds of the
Middle East, no just, peaceful and durable regional or world order, but
rather continued insecurity, pain and conflict...
13.2 "We confess that many of us and our churches have for too long been
confused, timid and unfaithful in the face of the daunting complexity of
the decades-long problems confronting the Middle East. We have failed to
disassociate ourselves from the institutions of militarism which view
war either as a solution to human conflicts or as a necessary evil, or
to avoid complicity with the powers who trust more in armed might than
in the rule of law or the ability of the human spirit to achieve justice
by peaceful means...
13.3 "Peace is, as the prophet Isaiah has taught us, the effect of
righteousness...
13.4 "We trust in the knowledge that the world belongs to God, not to
the powers of this world, and we take courage and hope from God's
promise of peace, righteousness and justice which was embodied in Jesus
Christ and made present among us through the work of the Holy Spirit.
With God's help, peace is possible even now." (19)
14. This statement, it should be noted, is rooted in the imperative of
the mission of the universal church to seek and proclaim first the
Kingdom of God in every human situation, no matter how apparently
intractable. Most especially in the meeting place of three of the
world's great faiths, it will be a tragedy for the Gospel if our
Christian communities and churches are not able to voice a critical,
Gospel perspective at this moment of crisis. In the midst of real
politic, real theology (as well as sound and informed human judgement)
must inform the Christian response.
Simon Barrow
Associate Secretary
Churches' Commission on Mission
Council of Churches for Britain and Ireland
Inter-Church House
35-41 Lower Marsh
London SE1 7RL, UK
Tel ++44 (0)171-620 4444
Fax ++44 (0)171-928 0010
Email: [log in to unmask]
[The views in this response paper are not necessarily those of CCOM,
CCBI or any of their member bodies]
NOTES
1. 'Unanswered questions of bid to silence Saddam', by Ian Black in
Baghdad, Guardian 17 December 1998.
2. The Pentagon has offered the prediction that in a medium-case
scenario strikes against chemical and biological warfare could kill
10,000 Iraqis, many of them civilians.
3. The relevant statements were first documented for the seventh general
assembly of the World Council of Churches meeting in Canberra,
Australia, in February 1991.
4. World Council of Churches Visit to Iraq, Delegation Reports and
Statements (Commission of the Churches on International Affairs, WCC,
February 1998).
5. Ibid., page 29.
6. Statement on the Situation in Iraq (WCC Executive Committee, 17-20
February 1998)
7. Statement, point 2.6
8. Ibid., Appendix II, pages 5 and 6.
9. Memorandum of Understanding, 23 February 1998.
10. Press statement, New York, 17 December 1998.
11. Source: UNSCOM reports, 1998.
12. Press release, 13 November 1998, Yearly Meeting of the Religious
Society of Friends, Quaker Peace and Service.
13. UN Security Council resolution s/986, September 1995.
14. Ibid., pages 25 and 26.
15. Quakers (Society of Friends), Mennonites and Church of the Brethren.
16. At the first general assembly of the World Council of Churches in
Amsterdam, 1948, Bishop George Bell emphasised: "International law
clearly requires international institutions for its effectiveness. These
institutions, if they are to command the respect and obedience of
nations, must come to grips with international problems on their own
merits and not primarily in the light of national interests [emphasis
added]."
17. See 'The Churches of Iraq' in ibid., page 10.
18. Statement on the Gulf War: The Middle East and the Threat to World
Peace (WCC, February 1991).
19. Paragraphs 3, 5, the last sentence of 9, and 10 from the Statement
on the Gulf War.
*See further:* Roger Williamson, 'Just War in the Gulf?', Occasional
Paper (Life and Peace Institute, Uppsala, 1991).
Greg Smith
CREDO
Mayflower Family Centre
Vincent Street
Canning Town London E16 1LZ
tel 0171 474 2255
check the new MEGA CREDO web site
fully updated with publications archive November 3rd 1998
http://www.newtel.org.uk/orgs/credo/credo.html
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|
