|
The Bush administration has declared its intent to
launch a war against Iraq, ignoring the advice of its
allies, many members of Congress, key experts, and
millions of U.S. citizens. With unprecedented
disregard for democratic ideals and with an
astonishing lack of evidence justifying such a
pre-emptive attack, the President has all but given
the order to fire.
I ask United Methodists to oppose this reckless
measure and urge the President to immediately pursue
other means to resolve the threat posed by Iraq. The
United Methodist Church has called for "Support for
Self-Determination and Nonintervention" for all
nations (2000 Book of Resolutions #277). Our Church categorically opposes interventions by more powerful
nations against weaker ones. We recognize the first
moral duty of all nations is to resolve by peaceful
means every dispute that arises between or among
nations.
United Methodists have a particular duty to speak out
against an unprovoked attack. President Bush and
Vice-President Cheney are members of our denomination.
Our silence now could be interpreted as tacit
approval of war. Christ came to break old cycles of
revenge and violence. Too often, we have said we
worship and follow Jesus but have failed to change our
ways. Jesus proved on the cross the failure of
state-sponsored revenge. It is inconceivable that
Jesus Christ, our Lord and Savior and the Prince of
Peace, would support this proposed attack. We must
as a people and nation recast our personal and
national priorities so that God's creation and the
needs of the least, the last, and the lost are first
in our hearts. I beseech the President and
Vice-President to provide leadership into a new era of
Christian discipleship.
This matter can and should be dealt with by the United
Nations. Our Church "support(s) regional and
international negotiations arranged in cooperation
with the United Nations and held without resort to
political posturing." (2000 Book of Resolutions, p.
684) No member nation has the right to take
unilateral military action without the approval of the
UN Security Council, approval the United States has
not received. Without such approval, the United Sates
will stand in violation of international law. The
administration's proposed attack is essentially a
unilateral U.S. effort that uses as its rationale
Iraq's non-compliance with U.N. Security Council
Resolution 687 requiring full compliance with UN
weapons inspectors. Arab and European governments
strongly oppose an invasion of Iraq. Their views
cannot and should not be disregarded. The question of
weapons inspection non-compliance should be a matter
for the United Nations.
There are those who argue that some military actions
are just, however this would not be a just war. No
proof has been provided that Iraq has nuclear weapons
mounted on launchers aimed at the United States or
troops massed on its borders or has developed
deliverable weapons of mass destruction. No case can
be made that a war against Iraq is justified for the
self-defense of the United States. Further, Iraq's
neighbors are not calling for assistance from the
United States.
A pre-emptive war represents a major and dangerous
change in US foreign policy. It also sets a terrible
precedent for other nations. For example, what would
then stop India or Pakistan from carrying out such an
attack on one another on the grounds they themselves
might be attacked? Pre-emptive war cannot become a
universalized principle lest disaster and chaos
result.
There are questions yet to be asked and answered about
many matters including the potential loss of life on
all sides, the financial cost of a war and its
aftermath, and consequences for the future of Iraq.
Congress must exercise its constitutional
responsibilities and vote on the question of
undertaking an invasion of Iraq. The length of
conflict, level of long-term involvement, and final
outcome are by no means assured. Presumably, Baghdad,
a huge city filled with innocent civilians, must be a
major objective of attack. Accidentally or not, we
have seen the deaths of too many noncombatants in
Afghanistan in recent months as the result of poor
targeting and decision-making. How many more
civilians will die? What is the reasonable chance of
success in this war? How long would it take to
rebuild destroyed areas? Can the United States
effectively carry out regime change?
The regime of Saddam Hussein has carried out many
atrocities against it’s own people and has been a
highly negative influence in international and
regional affairs. We all yearn for a just and
peaceful government in Iraq. The Iraqi people have
suffered greatly for many years and our prayers are
with them. The United Nations estimates its own
sanctions, the most severe to ever be imposed on any
nation, have already resulted in the deaths of one
million people.
If we, as United Methodists, are to take seriously the
words of Jesus to become peacemakers and seek justice
and peace with one another (Matthew 5:1-12), we must
speak out now - to the president, members of congress,
and our local media - that the path upon which the
President seeks to embark is counter to the teachings
of Jesus, inconsistent with the position of the United
Methodist Church, and is one that threatens the rule
of law as a fundamental principle of democracy. That
the ends justify the means is the weakest of all
possible arguments. Our nation deserves better, and
the world expects better of us.
###
General Conference is the highest decision-making body
of the United Methodist Church. The General Board of
Church and Society is mandated by General Conference
to seek the implementation of the Social Principles
and other policy statements on Christian social
concerns through forthright witness and action. |