I appreciate the many of you who have offered to buy me coffee to get my views on the Iraq situation. Since my middle aged bladder can only take so much caffeine at any one time, by the time I get to go to Starbucks with you, the war will probably be over. Therefore I am sending you the text of a document that was handed over to British Prime Minister Tony Blair by a U.S religious delegation on February 18th. It captures many of
my own convictions. My own comments follow the document.
==================================================
An Alternative to War for Defeating Saddam Hussein
*A Religious Initiative*
It is the eleventh hour, and the world is poised on the edge of war. Church leaders have consistently warned of the unpredictable and potentially disastrous consequences of war: massive civilian casualties,a precedent for preemptive war, further destabilization of the MiddleEast, and the fueling of more terrorism.
Yet the failure to effectively disarm Saddam Hussein and his brutal regime could also have potentially catastrophic consequences. The potential nexus between weapons of mass destruction and terrorism is the leading security issue in the world today. This is the moral dilemma: a decision between the terrible nature of that threat and the terrible nature of war as a solution.
The world is desperate for a “third way” between war and ineffectual responses – an alternative to war as the way to defeat Saddam Hussein. If we are to find an effective response to Saddam instead of a full-scale military assault against Iraq, that “instead” must be strong enough to be a serious alternative to war.
In November 2002, the U.N. Security Council decided that Iraq was in “material breach” of previous resolutions but gave Iraq “a final chance to comply with its disarmament obligations.” Since then, the threat of military force has been decisive in getting inspectors back into Iraq, putting pressure on Saddam finally to comply, and in building an international consensus for the disarmament of Iraq. The Security Council also “warned Iraq that it will face serious consequences as a result of its continued violations of its obligations” if it did not comply.
Yet those “serious consequences” need not be war against the people of Iraq. The consequences should mean further and more serious actions against Saddam Hussein and his regime, rather than a devastating attack on the people of Iraq.
On February 18, 2003, a delegation of U.S. church leaders, accompanied by colleagues from the United Kingdom and the worldwide Anglican Communion, met with Prime Minister Tony Blair and his Secretary of State for International Development, Clare Short, to discuss alternatives to war. The following elements of a “third way” – an alternative to war – were developed from those discussions and subsequent conversations among the U.S. delegation.
*1. Remove Saddam Hussein and the Baath Party from power.*
The Bush administration and the antiwar movement are agreed on one thing – Saddam Hussein is a brutal and dangerous dictator. Virtually nobody has sympathy for him, either in the West or in the Arab world, but everyone has great sympathy for the Iraqi people who have already suffered greatly from war, a decade of sanctions, and the corrupt and violent regime of Saddam Hussein. So let’s separate Saddam from the Iraqi people. Target him, but protect them.
As urged by Human Rights Watch and others, the U.N. Security Council should establish an international tribunal to indict Saddam and his top officials for war crimes and crimes against humanity. Indicting Saddam would send a clear signal to the world that he has no future. It would set into motion both internal and external forces that might remove him from power. It would make it clear that no solution to this conflict will include Saddam or his supporters staying in power. Morton Halperin pointed out, “As we have seen in Yugoslavia and Rwanda, such tribunals can discredit and even destroy criminal regimes.” Focusing on Saddam and not the Iraqi people would clearly demonstrate that the United States’ sole interest is in changing his regime and disarming his weapons rather than in harming the Iraqi people. It would cause world opinion to coalesce against Saddam’s regime rather than against a U.S.-led war, as is now happening.
*2. Enforce coercive disarmament. *
a. Military enforcement. Removing Saddam must be coupled with greatly intensified inspections to fully enforce all U.N. Security Council resolutions that relate to Iraq since the 1991 Gulf war. Inspections have shown progress – the agreement by Iraq to destroy its Al Samoud-2 missiles is significant. But rather than simply increasing the number of inspectors, inspections must be conducted more aggressively and on a much broader scale. The existing U.S. military deployment should be restructured as a multinational force with a U.N. mandate to support and enforce inspections. The force would accompany inspectors to conduct extremely intrusive inspections, be authorized to enter any site, retaliate against any interference, and destroy any weapons of mass destruction that it found. A more coercive inspections regimen should also include the unrestricted use of spy planes and expanded no-fly and no-drive zones.
b. Strengthen the arms embargo. The current system for preventing Iraq from acquiring prohibited weapons must be strengthened by a more effective monitoring system and the installation of advanced detection technology on Iraq”s borders. At present there is no international monitoring of commercial crossings into Iraq from Jordan, Syria, Turkey, and other neighboring states. The use of advanced monitoring and scanning technology along with sanctions assistance missions on the borders would significantly improve the capability to monitor borders and prevent illegal arms shipments.
*3. Foster a democratic Iraq.*
The United Nations should begin immediately to plan for a post-Saddam Iraq, administered temporarily by the U.N. and backed by an international armed force, rather than a U.S. military occupation. An American viceroy in an occupied Iraq is the wrong solution. A true democratic opposition must be identified and developed, rather than simply identifying forces who would contribute to a U.S. invasion. An internationally directed post-Saddam administration could assist Iraqis in initiating a constitutional process leading to democratic elections.
*4. Organize a massive humanitarian effort now for the people of Iraq. *
The 1991 Gulf war, the following decade of sanctions, and the corrupt regime of Saddam Hussein have caused immense suffering for the people of Iraq. In recent days, U.N. humanitarian agencies have begun evacuating personnel in light of an impending war. Rather than waiting until after a war, U.N. and nongovernmental relief agencies should significantly expand efforts now to provide food, medical supplies, and other humanitarian assistance to the people of Iraq. Focusing on the suffering of the Iraqi people, and immediately trying to relieve it, will further help to protect them from being the unintended targets of war. It also helps to further isolate Saddam Hussein from the Iraqi people by contrasting the world’s humanitarian concern with Saddam’s indifference toward his own people. Humanitarian aid deliveries must be protected, if necessary, by a U.N. force under Security Council mandate.
*5. Recommit to a “Roadmap to Peace” in the Middle East.*
The road to peace in the Middle East leads not through Baghdad, but through Jerusalem. The United States, United Kingdom, and other European Union nations must address a root cause of Middle East conflict by committing to a peace plan resulting in a two-state solution to the conflict between Israel and Palestine. It should guarantee a Palestinian state by 2005 while guaranteeing the safety and security of Israel. This would show the clear political and moral link between the deeply rooted and unresolved Middle East crisis and the larger war on terrorism,including the Iraq issue.
*6. Reinvigorate and sustain the “war against terrorism.”*
The international campaign against terrorism has succeeded in identifying and apprehending suspects, freezing financial assets, and isolating terror networks – most recently with the arrest of Khalid Sheikh Mohammed. But it is in danger of being disrupted, both by acrimony and by lack of attention, as the world focuses on the impending conflict with Iraq. Most significant, a war against Iraq will fuel anti-American animosity in the Arab world, where cooperation in the war on terror is most needed.
It is five minutes before midnight, as Martin Luther King Jr. might have put it. Unless an alternative to war is found, a military conflagration soon will be unleashed. A morally rooted and pragmatically minded initiative, broadly supported by people of faith and people of good will, might help to achieve a historic breakthrough and set a precedent for decisive and effective international action in the many crises we face in the post-September 11 world.
This plan is supported by the members of the U.S. religious delegation that met with Prime Minister Blair on February 18, 2003: Jim Wallis, Executive Director and Editor-in-Chief of Sojourners; John Bryson Chane, Episcopal Bishop of Washington, D.C.; Clifton Kirkpatrick, Stated Clerk of the Presbyterian Church USA; Melvin Talbert, Ecumenical Officer of the United Methodist Council of Bishops; and Dan Weiss, Immediate Past General Secretary of the American Baptist Churches in the USA.
=====================================================
I think the above “religious Initiative” is a well thought out document. I am surprised it has not received more attention in the secular press. I believe proponents of this position had to pay big sums of money to take out ads in British newspapers to publicize the proposal. Perhaps this is part of a general perception that religious initiatives are usually lacking in hard thinking. This may generally be true. But this is hardly the case with the above document. I think it is a very well thought out document with realistic proposals for removing evil and minimizing suffering for the innocent.
I am sure that various readers of this e-newsletter will disagree with different details in the document. It touches on a wide range of issues which Christians themselves are not in agreement, like the Palestinian problem. However, the proposal does a number of good things:
1. It identifies what is the real issue, the danger of Saddam Hussein, a man who, among other things, has invaded Kuwait and Iran and gassed to death thousands of his own people.
2. The proposal makes clear that we are against evil, and that means Saddam Hussein, and not against the people in Iraq who have suffered too much already.
3. It is a mutinational approach that keeps the United Nations at the forefront of the action. It is hard to take the U.S. seriously when she couches her actions in moralistic language. We need to remind the U.S. that not too long ago, she saw Iran as the bad guy and was actively supporting Iraq and Saddam Hussein.
4. The initiative also recognizes that the world must be consistent in its desire to ”do the right thing”. The Palestinian problem, complex as it is, will not go away and needs to be addressed in any attempt to show that the U.S. and her allies are not anti-Muslim.
Admittedly those of us who live outside the U.S. may not recognize how much September 11th has altered the American psyche. The document recognizes the legitimacy of the war against terrorism but defines more clearly the moral and political contours of the Iraq situation.
5. I think that Saddam would not respond to the proposed initiative and we would probably end up with a war in Iraq sooner or later. But it would then be a war sanctioned by the United Nations and less likely to be interpreted as a U.S.-Western attack against Islam for their own purposes. It also holds all countries involved to a higher level of moral accountability.
What are some things Christians can do now?
1.Pray
Pray for peace. Pray that the above document will receive much more attention then it has. Pray that the bombs will not fall. Pray until the first bombs fall. Pray after that. Pray for the Lord to bind the ”principalities and powers” and believe me, they are active in Washington as well as in Baghdad.
2. Dialogue
Dialogue with folks from all sides of the debate. Do not demonise those that do not agree with you. Help people to understand where you are coming from even if they do not agree with you.
3. Share.
Share the gospel. Let’s get real here. There will not be any lasting peace until Christ returns. There will not be any lasting peace until the issue of sin is dealt with. And therefore the ultimate solution to humankind”s problem will not come from technology or politics. It can only come from the gospel of Jesus Christ.
4. Help.
If the war comes many will suffer. Christians should be at the forefront at helping to provide humanitarian aid to all who suffer.
Brothers and sisters, these are dark and difficult times. But light shines brightest in the darkness. And the darkness has not overcome it.
Your brother, SooInn