From: Elizaphanian (elizaphanian@tiscali.co.uk)
Date: Mon Feb 10 2003 - 11:00:10 GMT
Hi Wim,
Thanks for a substantial response. I'm not surprised that your views are
'largely in line' with the Quakers - that much I had gleaned already! My own
views are not simple, and were moving back and forth from one side to
another for quite a while before reaching their now fairly settled state -
which means that I am not without sympathy for what you say. Yet I still
think that aggression against the Hussein regime is justifiable. Now to
explain why, and precisely what I mean by 'justifiable'.
I don't think I can explain my position properly without giving a little
background in Christian theology, specifically what is meant by 'the Fall',
for this is the background against which I am assessing this situation.
(Atheist readers should look away now; there will be free use of traditional
Christian language). The Fall, as I'm sure you're aware, is the expulsion
from Eden as the result of biting the apple. In other words, we're not in
paradise and we're sinners. This is pretty axiomatic for Christians (if
there is no Fall, there is no Sin; no Sin, no need for a Saviour; no
Saviour, no Messiah, no Christ, no Christianity). What this means in
practice is that we live in an environment which is structured sinfully - we
are embedded in practices which cause us to sin and there is no way for us
to avoid sinning. More than this, we need to recognise this sinfulness as
the first stage in moving away from the situation; put differently, it is
recognising the light in Christ that allows us to see the darkness for what
it is.
Now, in a situation like the one we have at present with regard to Iraq, it
is quite clear what the past patterns of sin are which have caused us to be
'mired in sin'. Hussein established himself as a despot on the back of US,
specifically CIA, support. Indeed, Rumsfield himself went to Iraq in the
eighties as Reagan's special envoy, to provide - well, we don't know for
sure, but chances are it wasn't agricultural support. Going further back,
the UK is wholly complicit in the creation of Iraq as an artificial state. I
think I am right in saying that the UK were the first nation to gas the
Kurds (not Churchill's finest hour - I think it was the early twenties).
More recently, the follow-through to the 1991 war was ill-thought and driven
by narrow and unenlightened agendas. The West did not want to prolong the
war and risk further casualties. Consequently we have the sanctions and
inspection process which a) has not inhibited the Hussein regime, b) causes
great suffering to the people of Iraq and c) broke down at the end of the
90's.
So we are now in a situation where the Hussein regime has been able to
develop WMD in the face of repeated UN resolutions etc etc. The fundamental
question is: do we do anything about this?
It seems to me that the principled pacifist position is coherent. This says
that the use of force is never justified; that there are various creative
and non-violent ways to change the behaviour of those with whom we disagree;
and that (as I feel this can only be responsibly held from a religious
perspective) we must trust in God for the ultimate outcomes. Crucially, this
perspective rules out *all* uses of force, ie all forms of coercion, and
therefore - especially in the light of the last decade's experience - the
whole sanctions regime needs to be discarded. Thinking imaginatively this
discarding of sanctions would be accompanied by a huge multinational
investment in Iraq, to rapidly advance the quality of life of the Iraqi
people, to ensure that there was a change of heart on the part of the
Hussein regime, so that they saw that it was in their best interests to
maintain stability etc etc.
As I say, I think this is coherent and also - to a religious person - quite
a strong argument. Thing is, I can't bring myself to accept it. That might
be due to a lack of faith on my part. I am fond of Cromwell's dictum: "Trust
in God... and keep your gunpowder dry." In other words we must trust in
God - but that does not excuse a lack of prudence on our part, for God also
works through us, when we let him.
If we follow the logic of the Gandhian position through, then there is no
point at which we respond to force with force. This would allow all sorts of
monstrosities to take place if the opposing forces were sufficiently
motivated. Gandhi said (I paraphrase from memory) that 'it is a matter of
faith for a satyagrahi that there is no one who is beyond the reach of love'
(satyagrahi = seeker after truth). I think I do believe that, but I don't
draw from that the conclusion that the use of force against such a person
is always wrong (is always a lack of faith). Consider a hypothetical
example: you are a police officer in the US. There has been a terrorist
threat received against a children's hospital; you are on guard in a
particular ward. Two men enter, both with guns. One moves towards you, the
other starts shooting children. (Obviously I'm delibarately polarising this
presentation to bring out the underlying issue).
It seems to me that a Gandhian perspective would seek to put your own body
between that of the person shooting and the children - to try and provoke an
awareness of love and the right in that person. Yet the second man prevents
you from doing this. So the shooting goes on. At what point does it become
right to use force - to draw your own gun and shoot the person killing the
children?
You might say that this is too hypothetical and unrealistic, so let us
change to a very real situation: was Todd Beamer right to lead a revolt of
the hijacked passengers against the terrorists who had siezed control of the
Philadelphia flight on September 11? I think that he was - indeed I find his
story to be tremendously moving, and one that reveals a difference between
the social quality of the typical US citizen and the typical UK or European
citizen which is shaming to the latter. But that may be an ignorant comment.
To my mind there is a fundamental contradiction between this Gandhian
position and a traditional Christian one, and the difference lies in the way
in which the traditional Christian view accepts the inevitability of
personal sin - indeed, it makes it central and says that it is a dangerous
illusion to think that you can be free of it.
In the hospital example, to my mind, a Christian policeman would be
perfectly justifiied in shooting the intruders as soon as there was an
apparent threat to the children in his care, but - and this is where the
distinctiveness of the Christian viewpoint becomes apparent -
_it_is_still_a_sin_to_shoot_the_intruder_. The Christian viewpoint does not
say that the use of force is righteous - it says that it is a failure, a
failure provoked by all the previous sins in which all the participants and
the wider society share. It therefore prevents an ideology being built up
around the 'rightness' of that individual decision - for such an ideology
would deny that there was any sin involved. Such ideologies are triumphant
in the use of violence and ultimately fascist. The use of violence is always
a failure and a cause for repentance. So there is a difference between
something being 'justified' and something being inherently good or
'righteous'.
So - that's some background thinking. How do I apply this to the present
context? Well, as I said, I don't think our present framework (sanctions and
inspections) can continue. The sanctions a) hurt the people of Iraq and b)
broke down due to their long-drawn out nature, the impact of a) on public
consciousness, and have not prevented the regime from pursuing WMD. The
inspections can only work if there is co-operation from the regime. I agree
with Powell completely on this - you can treble the number of inspectors,
put in troops, do whatever, but unless there is a commitment from the regime
to 'come clean' then they will not be able to succeed in their task.
It is still possible to argue, of course, that this process would be better
than the alternative of going to war. That the risks and suffering attendant
upon going to war outweigh the risks and suffering attendant upon not going
to war. To my mind the key question is what would happen *after* the war. If
the US/UK treat it in the same way as they have Afghanistan - ie don't get
involved in 'nation building' then I think that the war cannot be justified,
for there would not be a significant benefit to the people of Iraq, there
would not be anything to justify the suffering consequent to war. Yet I have
some room for hope when considering Blair especially, and remembering things
that he has said in the past (especially his party conference speech in
October 2001).
Now, there is almost nothing that you and I can do to affect the eventual
outcome of this situation - we can comment on it, give our views and the
reasons for our opinions, but largely I think our opinions are just that.
Moreover, those who are presently entrusted with making the decisions have
far higher quality information available to them on which to base those
decisions comapred to us. At this point it becomes a matter of judgement
and, I would say, of character. The people who are making the decisions are
(mainly) the leaders of the Western countries - Bush and Blair on the one
side, Chirac and Schroeder on the other. (Leaving aside the point that
Hussein could prevent war in an instant, if he backed down and owned up to
his WMD stocks).
My judgement is that Blair in particular is taking a principled stand, one
not governed by short-term political calculations but one governed by his
perception of what is right. I'm hopeful that Bush has a similar
perspective. Certainly I see those two as having, how shall I put it, a
certain amount of moral fibre in their characters. Blair is, I think,
risking everything on this issue - there is a not insignificant chance that
he will no longer be Prime Minister in six months time, as a direct result
of the stance he is taking. On the other side I see Chirac and Schroeder
who - how shall I put this - have not displayed much in the way of moral
fibre. (I happen to think that their actions of the last few days have made
war much more likely - they have given Hussein a great boost and
strengthened his hope and belief in western divisions. I think perhaps in my
first post there was an element of anger at such politicians for this very
reason. Contempt is an unChristian emotion, and I'm trying very hard not to
feel it towards them.)
I don't know how to phrase all this in MoQ terms, beyond what I put in my
original post. (If we are going to have some form of international order, ie
a move towards the social, away from the biological, at the international
level, then we can't allow rogue states to develop WMD, and the authority of
the UN needs to be enforced.) But that, to my mind, shows how much richer
the Christian language is, as a guide to clear thinking, and as an aid to
practical and righteous living.
Sam
"Grace. It's the name for a girl. It's also a thought that changed the
world." (U2)
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archive - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
MD Queries - horse@darkstar.uk.net
To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Mon Feb 10 2003 - 10:59:03 GMT