wfn.org | Violence Cannot Create Peace, Only Lead to More Violence

["Frank Imhoff" <FRANKI@elca.org>]

LWF General Secretary Noko Urges Dialogue for Mutual Understanding
and Relationships

GENEVA, 7 March 2003 (LWI) - General Secretary of the Lutheran
World Federation, Rev. Dr Ishmael Noko, has spoken out clearly
against a military response to the Iraq situation. In an interview
with Lutheran World Information (LWI) he said many Lutheran
churches throughout the world share in the opinion that war and
violence as a political tool or as an instrument of justice are to
be rejected.  This common ground is evident not only in the
statements and positions of the Lutheran churches, he said, but
also across the whole ecumenical spectrum.

The humanitarian consequences of war, like the killing and maiming
of innocents as well as the starvation and disease that will take
many more lives, stand in direct contradiction of genuine
recognition of the image of God in all people. Military action in
Iraq will almost certainly caste a dark shadow over relations
between Christianity and Islam, not only in the Middle East but in
all other regions as well.

In his view, the proposed US-led war against Iraq will not
contribute to improved international peace and security, but to
the opposite, Noko said, "not only polarizing the Western and
Islamic worlds but also fracturing relationships between the USA
and many of its historic friends and allies."

Even an overwhelming military victory by the USA and its allies on
the battlefields of Iraq is likely only to inspire a new
generation of enraged and radicalized militants, Noko said.

The LWF has held the position for a long time "that violence
cannot create peace, but can only lead to more violence. We have
articulated this position especially in the context of the
Israeli-Palestinian conflict, but it is of general application."
Human security is created by mutual understanding and
relationships based on justice and equity, Noko stressed.

The chief instrument for promoting such understanding and
relationships-and hence for defeating extremism and terrorism-is
dialogue, the general secretary explained. "Through dialogue, we
can recognize each other's common humanity and remove the enemy
images that the extremists and terrorists seek to promote. And
through dialogue we can better understand and address the
injustices and inequities that breed the resentment and rage on
which extremism thrives."

The full text of Dr Noko's interview with Lutheran World
Information follows:

Interview with Rev. Dr Ishmael Noko, LWF General Secretary, on the
Current International Crisis Concerning Iraq
7 March 2003

Lutheran World Information (LWI): Rallies against a war in Iraq
took place all over the world during the past weeks. Among those
who protested in the streets were many Christians. What role can
churches and Christians play in the debate?

Noko: Churches and Christians have an essential role to play in
the current international debate - as prophets of peace. This role
is in no way peripheral to the Church's mission, but is at its
very heart. The Christians who are taking part in the worldwide
resistance against war are responding to this prophetic calling.

The humanitarian consequences of war - a polite euphemism for the
killing and maiming of innocents and the starvation and disease
which will take the lives of many more - stand in direct
contradiction of a genuine recognition of the image of God in all
people. If the realities of human suffering which military action
would entail are not clearly and specifically taken into account,
war becomes 'a dangerous metaphor, a fatal abstraction.'

In Iraq, after a decade of sanctions, infrastructure for essential
services such as safe water supply, electricity supply and health
services is known to have been seriously degraded. The horrifying
statistics of infant mortality, mostly due to polluted water and
malnutrition, have been widely reported. Out of a total population
of 22-24 million, 15 million Iraqis are thought to be completely
dependent on deliveries of food aid. However 'precise' the planned
military action may be, it is easy to foresee the humanitarian
disaster that will result from the further disruption of Iraq's
weakened infrastructure in any military attack.

Discipleship under the cross involves facing and naming the
suffering, in the short as well as long-term, rather than allowing
war to take place under the cover of abstractions. Such truth
telling and unmasking of suffering must be factored into the
ethical decision making necessary before, during and after any
conflict.

LWI: Many Lutheran churches throughout the world have issued
statements on the Iraq crisis during the past months and weeks. Do
you see a common ground?

Noko: The common ground is clear: the rejection of war and
violence as a political tool, or as an instrument of justice. This
common ground is not only evident in the statements and positions
of Lutheran churches, but also across the whole ecumenical
spectrum. I have never seen, since the days of the struggle
against apartheid in South Africa, such a magnus consensus among
the churches on a specific issue.

LWI: A statement of the 2002 LWF Council, at a commemoration of
the first anniversary of the September 11 terrorist attacks on the
USA, emphasized the LWF's conviction that "military means will not
provide the security that we [the world] seek." Will the US-led
war on Iraq contribute to increased world security?

Noko: The threat of international terrorism is a new and powerful
challenge to global security, and it requires a response. But a
response which is primarily military and which lends itself to
being characterized as a purely 'Western' or 'Christian' campaign
against a Muslim nation risks promoting the 'clash of
civilizations' - the very objective of the terrorists - rather
than the restoration of international security. The proposed
military action in Iraq, especially with the current likely
configuration of actors, is almost certain to cast a dark shadow
over relations between Christianity and Islam not only in the
Middle East but in all other regions as well.

An exclusively military response is totally inappropriate to
countering a threat which is not a traditional military threat,
but which draws its power from the sense of persecution and attack
by the dominant military, political, economic and cultural powers
which some individuals and communities - rightly or wrongly -
feel. Even an overwhelming military victory by the USA and its
allies on the battlefields of Iraq is likely only to inspire a new
generation of enraged and radicalized militants.

The alleged links between the Iraqi regime and terrorist entities,
and Iraq's alleged possession of and capacity to deliver weapons
of mass destruction, have not been satisfactorily proven - neither
to the general public nor, obviously, to many of the political
leaders who participate in the international debate at the highest
level. Rumors and fear are a deeply insufficient basis for
unleashing the dogs of war and for inviting the human suffering
which war will inevitably leave in its wake.

In my view, the proposed US-led war in Iraq will not contribute to
improved international peace and security. I believe it will do
the opposite, not only polarizing the Western and Islamic worlds
but also fracturing relationships between the USA and many of its
historic friends and allies.

LWI: What about the role of the United Nations, and the
possibility of an attack without UN backing?

Noko:  The consensus among the churches to which I referred before
also extends to an affirmation of the essential role of the United
Nations in this process, and a rejection of unilateralism and of
the idea of 'pre-emptive war' or of a 'coalition of the willing'
outside of the UN framework. Any military action which might take
place outside the established framework under the UN Charter will
only serve to further weaken the collective security arrangements
created in the aftermath of World War II when the horrors of war
were fresh in the minds of all members of the international
community. Undermining the Charter would, in effect, replace the
rule of law with the 'law of the jungle.' The best hope for
international peace and security is the preparedness of the
powerful to subject their power to the rule of law - and the UN
security framework is the expression of this hope.

LWI: And what about the concept of a just war?

Noko: The 'just war' criteria were established as a framework for
thinking through the problems of international relations, given
the reality of sin and the perennial conflicts that plague the
human community.

According to just-war theory, a decision to use violent force
should be based on, among others, the principles of 'just cause,'
'right intention,' 'legitimate authority,' 'last resort' and
'proportionality.' According to Luther, only the defense of one's
own country could constitute 'just cause' for warfare, and wars of
aggression or prevention were clearly excluded. According to the
principle of 'right intention,' only the intention of restoring
the peace and the prior order could justify a war. The goal of
completely destroying an enemy, or a religious basis for war,
would not constitute 'right intention.' 'Legitimate authority'
requires the decision to apply military means to be taken by a
duly constituted governmental authority (generally interpreted as
including the United Nations in the modern international setting).
War must be the 'last resort,' and can only be contemplated once
all peaceful means of dealing with the conflict and for
re-establishing the earlier conditions have been exhausted. And
the military means and methods used, and the resulting human
suffering and cost, must be 'proportional' to the objective.

These criteria seem especially relevant in adjudicating the
ethical appropriateness of a pre-emptive war against Iraq - an
offensive (rather than defensive) military action, which would be
devastating to those directly affected, and likely to lead to
further political instability in the region if not the world as a
whole. Significantly, these criteria require those contemplating
war to scrutinize carefully their own motives, and to be
forthcoming about their own interests, rather than focusing
primarily on the suspected motives of others.

It should also be emphasized in the current context that these
criteria were designed to constrain the resort to war, rather than
to provide a framework for the ethical justification of military
actions.

In any event, it must be said that the just-war tradition has been
increasingly questioned by advocates of peace. The continuing
appropriateness and relevance of just-war theory in the age of
weapons of mass destruction and of international terrorism is open
to question. This issue should be reflected on by the churches,
especially those such as the Lutheran churches that have
integrated just-war theory into their theology.

The question that confronts us today is whether war, in and of
itself, can ever be just or serve the interests of justice or
God's design. I confess that personally I do not believe so.

Even in the Old Testament, where many stories seem to describe
situations in which military solutions have been imposed in the
pursuit of God's design, a closer examination shows that military
action never provided a permanent solution. Behind these biblical
stories is the message that military and political power, and the
solutions they achieve, are not lasting; what is permanent is
justice, love and reconciliation.

LWI: So what is the alternative in the current situation? By what
means can the threat of international terrorism be addressed in an
effective way?

Noko: The LWF has long held the position that violence cannot
create peace, but can only lead to more violence. We have
articulated this position especially in the context of the
Israeli-Palestinian conflict, but it is of general application.
Whilst necessary for the legitimate purposes of defense from
attack, guns and weapons of war cannot build human security; that
is not their nature or design. Human security is created by mutual
understanding and relationships based on justice and equity, and
the chief instrument for promoting such understanding and
relationships - and hence for defeating extremism and terrorism -
is dialogue. Through dialogue, we can recognize each other's
common humanity and remove the enemy images that the extremists
and terrorists seek to promote. And through dialogue we can better
understand and address the injustices and inequities that breed
the resentment and rage on which extremism thrives.

In the aftermath of the terrorist attacks of 11 September 2001,
the vast majority of Muslim religious and political leaders around
the world expressed their rejection of such acts in the name of
Islam. It was a moment in which, through dialogue, strong
alliances could have been made, across political and religious
divisions, against the extremists who sought to provoke a 'clash
of civilizations.' Dialogue, not war, should have been the first
and principal strategy pursued in the struggle against terrorism
and extremism.

An example of this approach was the Inter-Faith Peace Summit in
Africa, which the LWF facilitated in Johannesburg in October 2002.
This event brought together over 100 religious leaders --
Christian, Muslim, African traditional religions, Jewish, Buddhist
and Hindu -- from across the African continent to discuss
practical action in the area of inter-faith dialogue and
cooperation for peace in Africa. In this process, the importance
of personal encounter and dialogue, and the sharing of
experiences, was clearly demonstrated. The emphasis was on action
against a common challenge -- conflict in Africa -- rather than on
rhetorical statements or academic study.

Both with regard to the immediate crisis regarding Iraq and the
wider context of increasing tensions between Christianity and
Islam which has been exacerbated by this crisis, inter-religious
dialogue and cooperation will be central to avoiding future
conflict. The likelihood of violence is very much greater when the
communities live in isolation from each other, allowing enemy
images to be much more easily inculcated. Conversely, the
prospects of the 'clash of civilizations' becoming a
self-fulfilling prophecy are proportionately reduced with each
personal encounter between a Christian and Muslim in which each
can recognize the other as a human being, with similar hopes for
his or her children and similar fears for the future.

Many people are genuinely fearful of the threat that international
terrorism represents. It would be wrong to suggest, after the
events of 11 September 2001 and the Bali bombings, that this fear
is without basis. But as Christians we must strongly resist
fear-based appeals and actions, out of our conviction that no
matter how fearful the world, our hope and security are grounded
in a God of peace and reconciliation, revealed through the cross.
We live by the grace of God, not by our works. Thus we are freed
from the fear that our security must finally be based on political
or military might. We are liberated from every form of political
messianism which identifies the kingdom of God with particular
political programs and which demonizes our enemies.

LWI: In the rhetoric of those who promote a war against Iraq the
concept of evil and Saddam Hussein as the expression of evil play
a significant role and almost have a religious undertone. Is this
a biblically appropriate way of using the term "evil"?

Noko: Saddam Hussein and his regime have inflicted great suffering
upon the people of Iraq, as well as on the people of Iran and
Kuwait. His record demonstrates no acceptance of the most basic
principles of human rights, justice and ethical governance.

But to apply the term 'evil' in this context is an attempt to
externalize the sin that is present in all human relationships and
dealings, and to ascribe that sin to a political and military
enemy. This is a strategy that has been used all too commonly in
the past to promote political and military goals.

Evil is real, and those who carry out evil acts or policies give
expression to the presence of evil in our world. But to assume
self-righteously that we can defeat the forces of sin and evil in
the world is a pretension contrary to basic Pauline and Lutheran
premises about the human condition.

Human interests and actions are never pure; deception is rampant.
This is illustrated by the fact that some of the same governments
that are now calling for military action against Iraq to disarm
Saddam Hussein's regime are the original suppliers of many of his
weapons.

Good and evil are complexly interwoven in all our dealings. This
necessitates humility in personal as well as political affairs. We
are complicit in the world's failings, injustice and violence and
cannot presume to stand outside this dilemma. Those who strike out
against their enemies often become like their enemies. Revenge and
violence begets more revenge and violence. These cycles are part
of our human bondage, ultimately redeemable by God rather than
through human efforts.

This theological anthropology can lead to a dismal fatalism
regarding possibilities for human decisions and actions to make a
difference. But it also can lead toward more realistic assessments
and responses that are not naive either about the human propensity
for evil or about the human propensity for good. It casts serious
doubt over the wisdom of military attacks that inevitably result
in innocent human suffering, that are likely to play into the
hands of those described as 'evil,' and that may lead to even
worse cyclical violence. Jesus reverses this whole logic with his
words, "love your enemies," provoking the search for alternative
responses to evil. Realism regarding the human condition
necessitates fuller deliberation from different perspectives
within the whole human community, rather than a one-sided
imposition of a 'righteous' solution.

The President of the United States of America repeatedly sets up a
framework in which the rest of the world is either 'for or against
him,' thereby appropriating for himself and distorting the words
spoken by Jesus ("Whoever is not with me is against me," Mt
12:30). The dichotomy between the forces of good and the forces of
evil is set up in such a Manichean manner that no further ethical
thinking is required. A dogmatic literalism or fundamentalism
takes over, and can readily become a license for totalitarianism.
In the context of this dualism, dissent is censored or labeled as
unpatriotic. It can lead toward an increasing fanaticism on either
side: on the one side, viewing Saddam Hussein as the source of
evil, and on the other side, the United States as the source of
evil. In calling an individual or a nation 'evil,' the speaker
arrogates to him- or herself the good -- the side of God -- and
thus sets up his or her own position as beyond critique.

LWI: What is your view of the growing anti-Americanism in Europe
and other parts of the world, in the context of the current
developments?

Noko: The growing anti-Americanism evident around the world is
itself a serious challenge to our understanding of communion. A
clear distinction must be made between the American people, and
the American government - and also between individual political
leaders as human beings and the policies that they seek to pursue.

In this regard, I would like to pay special tribute to Bishop Mark
Hanson and the leadership of the Evangelical Lutheran Church in
America, who have again and again represented the wider LWF
communion in their own context and to their political leaders in a
truly prophetic way. Therefore, I ask all LWF member churches to
support the leaders and members of their sister churches in the
USA with prayer and accompaniment, as they seek to fulfil their
prophetic calling.

(The LWF is a global communion of Christian churches in the
Lutheran tradition. Founded in 1947 in Lund (Sweden), the LWF now
has 136 member churches in 76 countries representing over 61.7
million of the 65.4 million Lutherans worldwide. The LWF acts on
behalf of its member churches in areas of common interest such as
ecumenical relations, theology, humanitarian assistance, human
rights, communication, and the various aspects of mission and
development work. Its secretariat is located in Geneva,
Switzerland.)

[Lutheran World Information (LWI) is the LWF's information
service. Unless specifically noted, material presented does not
represent positions or opinions of the LWF or of its various
units. Where the dateline of an article contains the notation
(LWI), the material may be freely reproduced with acknowledgment.]

*	*	*
LUTHERAN WORLD INFORMATION
PO Box 2100, CH-1211 Geneva 2, Switzerland
English Editor: Pauline Mumia
E-mail: pmu@lutheranworld.org
Tel: (41.22) 791.63.54
Fax: (41.22) 791.66.30
http://www.lutheranworld.org/