Church condemns moves towards ‘immoral’ attack on
Iraq (13/09/02)
An attack on Iraq would be ‘ill-advised,
unjustified and immoral’, according to a letter sent today (September
13th) to Prime Minister Tony Blair, signed by the Moderator and
General Secretary of the United Reformed Church.
The letter points out that the United Nations charter does not permit
armed action against a nation which has not itself already launched an
attack. It calls for at least as much energy to be invested in
diplomatic solutions as is currently being put into the discussion of
military options. The church leaders go on to deplore the potential
loss of life a conflict would inevitably entail, together with the
consequent destabilisation of the Middle East and the rest of the
world. Lasting peace, concludes the letter, is more likely to result
from dismantling the structures which perpetuate injustice and
division than from violence and aggression.
The full text of the statement on which the
letter is based follows:
Statement on Iraq issued by the United Reformed
Church
1. We share the view expressed by many
governments, churches and agencies that a military attack on Iraq at
this time would be ill-advised, unjustified and immoral.
2. Insufficient evidence has so far been produced to prove that Iraq
poses such a threat to regional or world security as to justify
military action against it. Nor has it been demonstrated why a policy
of containment and deterrence, such as that used in the Cold War,
would be ineffective against Iraq. In any case, no matter how much
potential a sovereign state may have – or be perceived to have – to
act aggressively, the United Nations Charter does not permit other
sovereign states to act militarily towards it unless it itself first
launches an armed attack. We therefore urge the British Government not
to lend support to any attack against Iraq that has not been
sanctioned by the United Nations nor received the express support of a
majority of members of the House of Commons.
3. For Iraq to undergo a regime change may be in the interests of the
Iraqi people and the peace and security of the Middle East and the
rest of the world; it is, however, a matter for the Iraqi people to
decide for themselves. There would be real danger for the world in a
situation in which any other government were allowed to take upon
itself the unilateral right to impose regime change.
4. Weakening the general threat which Iraq is perceived to pose must
be attempted other than by military means. Even if they appear to
promise little in terms of outcome, negotiation and dialogue must be
resumed. In particular, the Iraqi offer to talk further about the
possibility of weapons inspectors being readmitted to the country must
be pursued. We note that, according to the criteria for a ‘just war’,
war should be considered only as a ‘last resort’, and urge that at
least as much effort be expended by our Government on seeking
diplomatic solutions as on discussing military ones.
5. We fear that the consequences of armed aggression against Iraq have
not been fully considered. We deplore the fact that such aggression
will result in the death of many people. We are concerned that other
states in the Middle East will enter the conflict on the side of Iraq,
adversely affecting the relationship between the United States and the
Arab world. We fear the economic consequences of aggression against
Iraq, both in the Middle East and beyond. We urge leaders planning
action against Iraq to weigh very carefully all possible consequences
and outcomes. There is no guarantee that a regime change in Iraq, even
if secured, would leave the Middle East or the rest of the world more
stable or peaceful.
6. Finally, we urge our leaders to reflect upon the root causes of the
situation in Iraq and seek to address these. We believe that, where
conflict and tension abound, lasting peace and stability are more
likely to emanate from a dismantling of structures which perpetrate
injustice or division than from violence and aggression. On these
grounds we endorse the call made by British church leaders in 2001 for
the policy of sanctions against the Iraqi people to be reconsidered.
We find the use of the term ‘axis of evil’ unhelpful, and would
endorse the view of leading United States churchman William Sloane
Coffin that the true ‘axis of evil’ in our day is ‘environmental
degradation, pandemic poverty and a world awash with weapons’. We want
to see our government pursuing policies geared to improving the
welfare of the Iraqi people and, ultimately, the assimilation of their
country into the international community.
The Revd John Waller
Moderator of General Assembly
The Revd Dr David Cornick
General Secretary
10 September 2002
