wfn.org | WCC: Konrad Raiser interview

["WCC Media" <Media@wcc-coe.org>]

World Council of Churches
For Immediate Use Feat-03-07
4 June 2003

"The position of the churches against war has increased their moral standing
in society"

When the military actions in Iraq were over, those who had opposed the
military invasion had to face the assessment - conveyed by the media and the
military victors - that it had been "successful". The World Council of
Churches (WCC) general secretary Rev. Dr Konrad Raiser responds in this
interview to the "critical questions" posed to organizations like the
Council, which had a high profile in the pro-peace movement. He also mentions
the announced "road map" to a permanent two-state solution to the
Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

Question: As WCC general secretary, you previously called the war "immoral,
illegal and ill-advised". Yet the war was swift and presented as
"successful", with minimal casualties. The Iraqi people seem to rejoice in
the liberation from a brutal dictator. Now, many people are asking if the WCC
is going to admit that its assessment was wrong. 

Answer: Today, there is little reason to believe that the Iraqi people
rejoice about the way they have been "liberated". That the war was swift and
"successful" - at least in terms of ending the regime of Saddam Hussein - is
a matter of fact. Nevertheless, I would maintain the previous critical
assessment. Military success does not establish moral legitimacy. 

By the criteria of the classical ethic of war and peace, this war would have
to be characterized as immoral. It was a pre-emptive strike, and by no means
the "last resort". Nobody, not even the United States administration, denies
that the war violated the existing norms of international law, beginning with
the Charter of the United Nations and including the Geneva Conventions, and
therefore has to be characterised as "illegal". 

This leaves the question of the political appropriateness of using military
force against Iraq. The main reason given was the allegation that Iraq
possessed weapons of mass destruction and was prepared to use them, thus
creating an imminent threat to world peace and to the security of the United
States. So far, no such weapons have been found, and even if they exist, they
were not used. Therefore, the alleged threat to the security of American
citizens did not exist. So, the major "success" of this war was to invalidate
its official and alleged justification. 

In the long run, I remain convinced that it will become clear that the war
has not solved any of the political problems that were cited as objectives,
and has created a chaotic situation for which no solution is in sight. 

Q: Although there were, of course, civilian victims, it seems that the rate
was much lower than expected, and the "humanitarian catastrophe" that the WCC
and others predicted did not happen. And surely, there was no "large-scale
displacement of people" like the one you yourself warned about in a
statement. Were organizations like the WCC exaggerating in their warnings
regarding the consequences of the war?

A: Of course we are glad that, going by the evidence available to date, the
destruction caused by the war was more limited than expected. But we are also
aware that the coalition forces and the media managed to project the image of
a "sanitized" war, in which the civilian victims were almost invisible. In
any case, given the absolute value of every human life in the eyes of God, we
believe that any war is a human tragedy which cannot be subjected to
quantitative measurement. 

In addition, it is one of the implications of "high tech" wars that the
destructive effects and the casualties, both among civilians and military
personnel, will become apparent only over time. 
How many innocent civilians are still going to perish because of unexploded
cluster bombs and landmines lying in wait, or the effects of
uranium-reinforced ammunition The uncounted thousands of small arms dispersed
among the population during the war will continue their deadly work. How many
children will die because of the destruction of the water systems? While the
physical rebuilding will soon begin, the psychological and social recovery
will take longer - let alone the loss of Iraq's extraordinary heritage. 

It has become apparent and acknowledged - as shown by recent changes in the
United States leadership structure - that the military administration has
been unable and was unprepared to deal with the humanitarian issues arising
from the war. The deliberate exclusion so far of professional humanitarian
organizations, including the International Committee of the Red Cross,
from responding to the chaotic humanitarian situation on the ground is
unacceptable by any standards, and even more so if the claim that this war
was fought to "liberate the Iraqi people" is maintained.

Q: The WCC has protested against the actions of the United States and its
allies, but many people wonder, with the United Nations being so ineffective,
what real alternatives there are to deal with dictators and serious human
rights violations such as those perpetrated in Iraq for decades.

A: None of the recent military interventions against dictatorial regimes and
in situations of massive human rights violations have brought about effective
solutions. There is a semblance of efficiency at first sight, but military
intervention never gets at the root causes and leaves the majority of
problems unresolved. The war on Iraq did not produce regime change, but a
regime demolition without a constructive and sustainable change. The United
Nations could be much more effective, if governments like that of the United
States would allow and strengthen it to use the available political
instruments. 

In addition, the United States' claim of defence of human rights is
invalidated by the selectivity of its intervention. In the past, the United
States government has, for example, supported and strengthened Osama Bin
Laden, and the dictatorial regime of Saddam Hussein. 
									     
		 
Q: You have criticized the government of the United States before and even
during this conversation. Does the WCC have an anti-American stance, as some
people think?

A: The WCC is neither pro nor anti any government. The Council has always
been consistent in advocating for justice, the respect of human rights, the
rule of law and peaceful responses to conflicts. Churches have a moral
responsibility and should be able to speak out against what we think is
contrary to the teachings of Christ.  

In any case, the WCC's	positions have been with our member churches in the
USA, who have been consistently critical of their government's position
regarding Iraq, as were the churches in Great Britain. The WCC's Executive
Committee praised the courageous stance of both groups of churches. They have
faced - as did we - the sort of criticism that a prophetic stand in the face
of the powerful usually gets.

Q: Immediately after the end of the war, a person wrote to us asking if you
personally would be courageous enough to go to Baghdad and to explain WCC's
position to the people who were suffering under Hussein's grip before the
war. Would you?

A: If there was an invitation from the Christian churches - or even the
Muslim community - in Iraq to come and explain the position taken by the WCC,
I would be prepared to go. The positions of the WCC were communicated to the
churches in the Middle East as well as the churches in Iraq throughout the
crisis, in English and Arabic. They were not developed in isolation from
these churches; on the contrary, they were formulated in cooperation and
consultation with the Middle East Council of Churches. So far, all the
comments received from Iraq and the wider region have indicated that the WCC
position was well understood and appreciated. 

Q: Regarding the relationship between the Christian West and the Muslim East,
the WCC's previous statements warned that the war would lead to further
destabilisation of the Middle East region. But now there is a "road map" to
peace between Israelis and Palestinians, and many people think that the
strong action in Iraq can serve as a deterrent to dictators and terrorists.
What is your opinion?

A: The "road map" is seriously lacking in detail and is far from being ideal.
There are many vague and disturbing elements in it.  However, it provides a
new - albeit very small - window of opportunity for a two-state solution.
Most importantly it makes it clear that the resolution of the conflict would
be based on UN resolutions 242 and 338. The implementation of these
resolutions would mean an end of "the occupation that began in 1967" and lead
to the emergence of an "independent, democratic and viable Palestinian state
living side by side in peace and security with Israel and its other
neighbours..." In addition, the "road map" mentions the Saudi Arabian
initiative endorsed by the Beirut Arab League Summit which has called for
"the ... acceptance of Israel as a neighbour by the Arab states".	     
							     .

Like the "Oslo peace process", it mentions that the Palestinians and Israelis
will have to negotiate the permanent status issues such as borders,
Jerusalem, settlements, refugees, etc., but the "road map" makes almost no
mention of these issues throughout the process.

Whether it will lead the two sides to move from mutual destruction to a path
of mutual benefit remains to be seen. So far, the war on Iraq certainly has
not made the region more stable, but has introduced new factors of
uncertainty. 
						 
There is a perception among many in the Muslim populations that the war was
part of a long-term strategy to reshape the Middle East according to Western
interests.  While the Christian churches' position throughout the war could
have limited that perception to a certain extent, it still remains; they see
the "clash of civilizations" as the ideological seed-bed of the war. If this
attitude persists, then more is at stake than the stability of the region. 

Q: The huge anti-war movement could not prevent war, and the churches were a
major part of that movement. Some people see this as an indication that the
institutional churches are ineffectual and irrelevant in society today. What
is your assessment?

A: If the churches in their participation in the anti-war movement had
accepted the same criteria of judgement as the governments, their
intervention would have to be considered ineffectual, because it could not
change the determination of the United States government to go to war.
However, the protest and resistance of the churches did not focus on the
short-term objective of preventing this particular war, but on questioning
the acceptance of war as a normal instrument of power politics. 

The churches were not - and are not - in the first place concerned about
pragmatic effectiveness, but were moved by motives of faith and witness to
fundamental ethical convictions, even though their struggle at first glance
could seem to have been lost. The unanimity of the protest of the churches
has, however, strengthened their voice and increased their moral standing in
society. This is more important than their institutional power. 

Q: The WCC, together with churches worldwide, was involved in prayers for
peace. It seems that those prayers were not answered. What do you believe is
the power of prayer?

A: Prayer is in the first instance the act of turning to God and allowing God
to take hold of our hearts and minds. We know that God's thoughts are not
necessarily like ours and that God may answer our prayers in unexpected ways.

One very important dimension of prayer is intercession, remembering each
other before God and thus strengthening the spiritual fellowship, especially
with those who are the targets and victims of war and violence. The
ecumenical movement is full of testimonies of the power of mutual
intercession. 

For further information, please contact the Media Relations Office, 
tel: +41 (0)22 791 64 21 / 61 53

**********
The World Council of Churches (WCC) is a fellowship of churches, now 342, in
more than 100 countries in all continents from virtually all Christian
traditions. The Roman Catholic Church is not a member church but works
cooperatively with the WCC. The highest governing body is the assembly, which
meets approximately every seven years. The WCC was formally inaugurated in
1948 in Amsterdam, The Netherlands. Its staff is headed by general secretary
Konrad Raiser from the Evangelical Church in Germany.

World Council of Churches
Media Relations Office
Tel: (41 22) 791 6153 / 791 6421
Fax: (41 22) 798 1346
E-mail: media@wcc-coe.org 
Web: www.wcc-coe.org 

PO Box 2100
1211 Geneva 2, Switzerland