placeholder image

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.