wfn.org | Religious Leaders Respond to Crisis with Iraq

[PCUSA NEWS <pcusa.news@ecunet.org>]

Reply-To: wfn-news list <wfn-news@wfn.org>
18-December-1998 
98439 
 
    Religious Leaders Respond to Crisis with Iraq 
 
    by Alexa Smith 
 
LOUISVILLE, Ky. - Though the language of some is more cautious than others, 
U.S. and international religious leaders are almost unilaterally condemning 
this week's air strikes against Iraq by the United States and the United 
Kingdom. 
 
    While the World Council of Churches (WCC) uses fairly strident language 
to condemn the attacks in what it calls "the strongest possible terms," 
religious organizations are uniformly raising what could be described as a 
lament for the suffering of innocent Iraqis who have no control over their 
government's failure to respect the United Nations' (UN) role in ensuring 
that Iraq abandons its efforts to develop chemical weapons. 
 
    Religious leaders are also questioning whether a military campaign will 
bring about Iraqi compliance with weapons inspectors or further peace and 
stability in a complex Middle Eastern political climate. 
 
     Summed up, the argument against the use of military force was, 
perhaps, put most succinctly by the Most Rev. Thomas E. McCarrick, 
archbishop of Newark and chairman of the International Policy Committee of 
the U.S. Catholic Conference, who told reporters: "It is regrettable that 
the international community has not succeeded in enforcing by peaceful 
means the cease-fire resolutions that ended the Gulf War, but war is not 
the answer. 
 
    "It is time for new thinking and new approaches.  There are no quick or 
easy answers to the complex problems in Iraq and throughout the region, but 
one must be wary of relying on military solutions." 
 
    That statement came just after Pope John Paul II issued a plea from 
Rome that the international community "promote solutions that lead to 
harmony and renewal in social life, and to take responsibility for avoiding 
deviations that could turn populations into innocent victims." 
 
    In a more strongly worded statement, Clement John, the WCC's executive 
secretary for human rights in Geneva, appealed for "the immediate cessation 
of these attacks" and offered reassurance to the people of Iraq of 
"constant prayers for their safety and well-being."  John told reporters 
that while the political leaders in the U.S. and in Britain insist there is 
"no realistic alternative" to military force, the Eighth Assembly of the 
WCC, which just concluded in Harare, Zimbabwe,  rejected such reasoning. 
 
    "[It] reaffirmed the council's appeal that churches and nations give up 
the spirit, logic and practice of war as a solution to world problems. 
This Assembly," he said in a prepared text, "has again decried the 
application of double standards by the nations, by which such attacks as 
these, which ignore the will of the civilian population of Iraq, are 
allowed, while the appeals of peoples such as those in Central Africa and 
Sudan for strong international intervention for peace fall on deaf ears." 
 
    Even more firmly, the Middle East Council of Churches (MECC) in 
Limassol, Cyprus, called Operation Desert Fox a "clear example of an 
impatient, and unclear, policy, without making any effort to engage in 
bilateral or multilateral direct diplomacy with the Iraqi government," and 
goes on to condemn the use of military power when it is "still possible" to 
achieve a peaceful resolution to a conflict in which Iraq wants 
international economic sanctions lifted and the U.S. government wants Iraqi 
compliance with UN weapons inspections.  It pushes, as well, for an end to 
Iraqi obstinacy in refusing the UN inspectors investigative access as they 
attempt to fulfill their mandate. 
 
    An agency that has provided humanitarian assistance within Iraq during 
the past eight years of  economic isolation, the MECC is in the process of 
shipping tuberculosis medicines there to treat a curable illness that, it 
says, is now endemic in Iraq.  "Now, with the sanctions still in place, a 
more swift death and destruction of lives and property is sure through 
military strikes.  The unfortunate victims, will be civilians, especially 
women, children and the elderly.  Men will be summoned to military service, 
and their dependents will be left to fend for themselves," said the Dec. 17 
statement issued by MECC General Secretary Riad Jarjour.  "We are more 
acutely aware of their rights as the world celebrates the 50th anniversary 
of the United Nations Universal Declaration on Human Rights." 
 
    That, too, was the stance adopted by the Council of American-Islamic 
Relations, a Washington-based Islamic advocacy group.  Its Dec. 17 
statement expressed condemnation of the current bombing campaign against 
Iraq.  "We say this," it read, "not because we support Saddam Hussein or 
his policies, but because it is innocent civilians [who] will suffer.  Even 
the ongoing sanctions against Iraq have resulted in a humanitarian disaster 
that includes vastly increased rates of malnutrition, disease and infant 
death. 
 
    "Both the sanctions and the bombing will have little impact on Saddam 
Hussein." 
 
    How best to impact the Hussein government is precisely the question 
that the Rev. Clifton Kirkpatrick, stated clerk of the Presbyterian Church 
(U.S.A.), raises with President Bill Clinton in a letter dated Dec. 18, in 
which he cites appeals from Catholic and Orthodox bishops in Iraq to lift 
economic sanctions now imposed upon the nation.  "Mr. President, when the 
present bombing of Iraq ends, it is possible that all of the problems will 
remain.  The use of military force to punish the Saddam Hussein regime has 
not weakened either his determination or his hold on power.  Before 
pressures build for yet another attack, I urge that our government embark 
upon a different path that may better lead us to peace," said Kirkpatrick 
in a letter that deals less directly with the bombing than with Iraq's 
humanitarian problems. "Let us not continue merely grudgingly allowing 
insufficient humanitarian goods to enter the country.  Instead, let us make 
clear our willingness to see and to assist a full restoration of the Iraqi 
economy for the benefit of the Iraqi people. 
 
    "Such a declaration backed by supportive policies may create for Saddam 
Hussein more pressure from his own people for cooperation and change," he 
said, noting that the denomination adopted a policy advocating for an end 
to economic sanctions against Iraq and for the removal of all weapons of 
mass destruction from that region and worldwide. 
 
    "These are difficult days, Mr. President, for you, for the Republic and 
for the Iraqi people.  Let me assure you that all are daily remembered in 
the prayers of our people and our churches," Kirkpatrick wrote.  "I am 
grateful for your patient exertions on behalf of peace in the Middle East, 
including the courageous decision to go to Gaza.  As your attention has 
once again returned to the situation in Iraq, I encourage you to exhibit 
the same kind of patience, courage and farsightedness." 
 
    Liturgical resources for responding to the crisis in Iraq were posted 
on the PC(USA) web page Dec. 17, including prayers of intercession and an 
outline for a prayer vigil.  The site is: http://www.pcusa.org. 
 
    In the midst of last month's threats of bombing, Bishop Anthony Pilla, 
then president of the bishops' conference, raised questions about what 
constitutes a "just war" - using the criteria of non-combatant immunity, 
proportionality and probability of success.  He questioned: how can the 
international community respond effectively and indiscriminately, so that 
the Iraqi people do not bear the brunt of the suffering?  Can the sustained 
use of military force meet the test of proportionality in enforcing the 
cease-fire resolutions?  Would military action be likely to reduce 
significantly Iraq's stockpiles of weapons of mass destruction and its 
capacity to produce them?  Would military strikes lead to renewed Iraqi 
compliance with the cease-fire resolutions or, instead, have the unintended 
effect of strengthening the regime's power and increasing its 
intransigence?  How would military force and the embargo effect the 
ultimate goal of reintegrating Iraq into the international community?  What 
are the implications for peace in this region, respect for international 
norms and the credibility of the UN if effective, peaceful ways are not 
found to respond to Iraq's failure to comply with the cease-fire 
resolutions? 
 
    In his most recent statement, McCarrick said that the answers to the 
questions are "not easy" and that "people of good will" may reach different 
conclusions.  "But, in my view," he said, "it would seem that these 
military strikes unduly risk violating just war criteria. 
 
    "We fear that this latest escalation will not succeed in bringing about 
Iraqi compliance with its obligations and will not strengthen peace and 
security in the region, yet it will effectively punish the Iraqi people for 
the actions of an authoritarian regime over which they have no control." 

 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
  This note sent by PCUSA NEWS
  to the wfn-news list <wfn-news@wfn.org>.
  Send unsubscribe requests to wfn-news-request@wfn.org