CHURCHES SAYS NO TO WAR IN IRAQ! WILL THE UNITED STATES LISTEN?

16 March 2003 

”War is not always inevitable.  It is always a defeat for humanity.”

Amidst all the military and political movements building up toward a tragic war in Iraq, one voice has remained consistently loud, clear and courageous.  This is the voice of religious leaders around the world, and in particular, the Catholic Church lead by Pope John Paul II.  The religious leaders are saying very sharply NO to the legitimacy of war.

Because a war in Iraq will mean great problems also for Zambia, we should be paying very close attention to the events unfolding these days in the United Nations, in Washington DC, London and Baghdad.  How would Zambia be affected by the breakout of war?  First, the price of oil would go up sharply.  Then we would experience a decline in foreign aid, trade and investment.  Hopes for debt cancellation would be postponed.  And possible terrorist activities might occur within our boundaries.

The Zambian government, along with the governments of other African states, has rejected war against Iraq as a way of settling the disputes with Saddam Hussein.  Outstanding senior states leaders like Kenneth Kaunda and Nelson Mandela have spoken out against the war.

But President George Bush of the United States of America, joined by the British Prime Minister, Tony Blair, have been attempting to justify military action of massive proportion to overthrow Saddam Hussein and disarm Iraq of “weapons of mass destruction.”  While debates go on in the United Nations and political pressures are mounted around the world to gain allies for war, the United States and Britain have been daily assembling hundreds of thousands of soldiers, massive stockpiles of destructive weapons, and immense numbers of ships and planes to mount an all-out attack on Iraq.

It is particularly frightening that while various resolutions are put forth and debated in the United Nations Security Council, the United States government argues that it can plan to move forward on its own to disarm Saddam Hussein and displace his leadership with a USA- installed regime.  “Reconstruction” of a defeated Iraq would be according to USA plans, with particular attention to the future of the oil economy. 

Is this war inevitable?  Is it justifiable?  Will it bring peace to the world?  In the past several months, the Pope has been resolutely addressing these questions.  Because the Pope answers each one with a resounding NO, he has called on people of good will around the world to press for a peaceful solution to the crisis.  ”War is not always inevitable,” he said in early January, “It is always a defeat for humanity.”

In an effort to find ways to avert impending war, the Pope has in the past few weeks sent personal envoys to both Saddam Hussein and George Bush.  He has called upon Christians and other believers to pray and to fast to beg God’s help in converting the hearts of key decision-makers and to inspire them to find peaceful means to meet the crisis.  Moreover he has encouraged key Vatican officials to publicly argue the moral case against the war.

Catholic bishops in the United States of America, United Kingdom, Germany, France, South Africa, Nigeria, Indonesia and the Philippines have come out strongly against the war.  Church theologians have presented the biblical and ethical arguments against the war, relying on the traditional moral teachings about a “just war.”  And members of Christian churches have joined the millions around the world who have in recent months taken to the streets to demonstrate against the war.

What are the moral arguments against the war?  According to tradition, there are at least five conditions that must be met before any war could be called “just.”  Let’s look at each and see if the current push for war in Iraq meets those conditions and can be justified:

1.       just cause.  This has primarily been interpreted as a defense against an aggressor – e.g., one nation invading another, a tyrannical regime oppressing the majority of people in a country.  George Bush’s argument for a “preventive war” – a strike against Iraq because it allegedly holds  “weapons of mass destruction” – is unprecedented and finds no justification.  Nor does his argument for a “regime change” – it simply is not the right of one country to take that action in another country.

2.       Last option.  War might only be taken up after every other reasonable attempt to resolve a crisis has been exhausted.  But as France and Germany have persuasively argued, the task of the weapons’ inspectors has been progressively succeeding.  The chief UN Inspector Hans Blix has acknowledged difficulties but also successes and has pushed for more time.  Other diplomatic means can still be pursued before the tragedy of war is unleashed.

3.       Legitimate authority.  No war can be declared except by competent authority.  The United States is a signatory to the United Nations Charter and therefore is bound by that Charter’s rule and decisions of the Security Council.  For US President Bush to say he will “go it alone” if necessary is not only to permanently damage the United Nations values and structures that his predecessors helped put in place but is to become an outlaw actor on the world scene.

4.       Respect of non-combatants.  War cannot be waged against civilian populations, i.e., innocent people not engaged in warfare themselves.  But it is clear that the massive bombings and military invasion planned by the United States and Britain would cause hundreds of thousands of deaths of innocent Iraq citizens.  Nothing can justify that!

5.       Probable peaceful outcome.  Going to war must have some assurance that the outcome will put the world in a better situation.  Here the obvious consequences of US-British war against Iraq – consequences, for example, such as alienation of the Muslim world, permanent environmental damage, promotion of terrorist retaliation around the world – make for a strong case against a possible peaceful outcome.

Even a quick study of these conditions reveals why the Pope and other religious leaders reject war as a solution to the current crisis in Iraq.  Their position is in no way a defence of Saddam Hussein, support for his weapons’ programmes, ignoring of his violation of the frights of his people, or acceptance of his previous invasion in 1991 in Kuwait.  It is simply saying that the massive military action planned by George Bush and Tony Blair lacks justification and will plunge Iraq, the Middle East, and indeed the entire world into a situation of catastrophic proportions.

Christians and other people of good will around the world are praying for peace, demonstrating for peaceful policies, and petitioning their governments to take a firm stance for peace.  The words of Pope John Paul II are a prophetic challenge that we in Zambia also should shout out to the United States of America and its very few allies at this tragic moment:  ”War is not always inevitable.  It is always a defeat for humanity.”

Peter Henriot, S.J.,
JCTR 

[published in THE SUNDAY TIMES OF ZAMBIA, 16 March 2003]