kriz@skat.usc.edu (Dennis Kriz) (12/12/90)
A Message of the National Council of the Churches of Christ in the U.S.A. on the Gulf and Middle East Crisis Final Text, issued Nov 16, 1990 Theological and Moral Imperative -------------------------------- I, therefore, the prisoner in the Lord, beg you to lead a life worthy of the calling to which you have been called with all humility and gentleness, with patience, bearing with one another in love, making every effort to maintain the unity of the Spirit in the bonds of peace. [Eph 4:1-3] Thoughout the history of the church, the question of the admissibility of war as a means of resolving disputes has been a source of differences, and at times division, in the body of Christ. Among our own communions, there is a wide diversity of approaches to this question. For all Christians, however, war is a sign of the sinful human condition, of human alienation from God, of alienation between human beings who are all children of God. We stand at a unique moment in human history, when all around us seemingly impregnable walls are being broken down and deep historical emnities are being healed. And yet, ironically, at such a moment, our own nation seems to be poised at the brink of war in the Middle East. "What then are we to way about these things?" [Romans 8:31]. The quest for peace and the quest for Christian unity, which is the very reason for our existance as a Council, are intimately related. As churches seeking to recover our unity, we are called to be the salt and leaven of our societies. Together with other faith communities, we are called to address moral and spiritual dimensions in the debate on a national policy that seems to be careening towrad war. Believing that Christ is our peace, we cannot do other than to strive to be the incarnation of creation's cry of peace. Unanswered Questions -------------------- Two months ago, on September 14, 1990, the Executive Coordinating Committee of the National Council of Churches of Christ in the USA addressed a message to its member communions on the Gulf crisis. That message condemned Iraq's invasion and occupation of Kuwait, raised serious questions about the decision of the U.S. government to send troops to the Gulf region and about the growing magnitude of U.S. presence, noting that the extent of the commitment of U.S. forces and weaponry was the largest since the Vietnam War. Since then, the U.S. has more than doubled the number of troops sent to the region to a number approaching a half a million persons. The message also questioned the apparent open-ended nature of U.S. military involvement in the Middle East and the failure on the part of the administration clearly to state its goals. President Bush and administration officials have done little to clarify either of these points. Indeed, the rationales offered for the steady expansion of U.S. presence have often been misleading and sometimes contradictory. Early statments that U.S. forces had been deployed for the defense of Saudi Arabia or the enforcement of U.N. sanctions have been supplanted by suggestions of broader goals, including expulsion of Iraqi forces from Kuwait by military means, or even offensive action against Iraq itself. The antion still has not been told in clear and certain terms what would be required for the withdrawl of U.S. troops. The Prospect of War ------------------- The initial response of the NCCC/USA was carefully measured, recognizing the magnitude of the injustice inflicted by Iraq against Kuwait, and the unprecedented reliance by the U.S. on the mechanisms of the U.N. In contrast, the U.S. administration increasingly prepares for war, a war that could lead to a loss of tens of thousands of lives and the devastation of the region. Such talk has given rise to widespread speculation in our country, in the Middle East and elsewhere that the United States will initiate war. In the face of such reckless rhetoric and imprudent behavvior, as representatives of churches in the United States we feel that we have a moral responsibility publicly and unequivocally to oppose actions that could have such dire consequences. The Wider Implications ---------------------- Our earliermessage also pointed out that the active U.S. effort to implement United Nations Security Council resolutions relating to the occupation of Kuwait by Iraq stand in marked contrast to U.S. negligence regarding the implementation of Security Council resolutions 242 and 338. These call for the withdrawl of Israeli troops from the territories occupied in the 1967 War and the convening of an international conference to resolve the Israeli-Palestinian issue. There has also been negligence regarding the implementation of Security Council resolutions 353, 360 and 361 which call for the withdrawl "without delay" of Turkish troops from Cyprus and solving the problems of the island through negotiations. During the intervening weeks the situation in the Israeli-Occupied Territories has, in fact, worsened. The U.S. government's condemnation of the massacre on the Haram al Sharif/Temple Mount and its endorsement of a U.N. mission to the Occupied Territories was a welcome departure from past policies. The failure of the U.S. government to take any substantive measures to oppose the Israeli occupation, however, weakens the effect of its appropriate outrage over Iraqi aggression aginst Kuwait. The region cries out for a U.S. policy that seeks to redress all cases of injustice, including those of Israel and Palestine, Lebanon and Cyprus. Dangers of Militarization ------------------------- The presence of U.S. troops in the Middle East has led to an expansion of the military capacity of an already grossly overmilitarized region. The proposed billions of dollars of arms sales to Saudi Arabia, the forgiveness of military debts to Egypt and Israel and the supplying of both with new and more sophisticated waponry, combined with a seeming lack of initiative to resolve the region's unsettle disputes, can only be seen as morally irresponsible. The Price of War ---------------- The price of war and the preparation for further conflict is already being paid in human terms. Hundreds of thousands of foreign workers and their families have been compelled to leave Kuwait and Iraq, creating enormous strains on the Kingdom of Jordan and the Republic of Egypt and, ultimately on the societes to which they are returning. The cost of the U.S. military presence in the Gulf is estimated at $1 billion per month. This "extra-budgetary expenditure" is once again likely to reduce further the nation's capacity to address human needs in oursociety. Thus, among the early victims of this tragic engagement will certainly be the growing number of the poor, homeless, sick and elderly. The corrosive effects on our own nation will be felt especially by racial/ethnic communities who make up a disproportionate number both of the poor and those who are on the front lines of military confrontation. We are appalled by the past and present behavior of the regime in Iraq, one which has previously enjoyed U.S. support. But the demonization of the Iraqi people and their leader has led to an increased incidence of defamation of and discrimination against persons of Arab descent or appearance. A New World Order ----------------- We stand on the threshhold of a "new world order." Indeed, the near unanimous condemnation by the nations of the world of Iraq's illegal occupation of its neighbor, Kuwait, shows the promise of a new approach to the vocation of peacemaking for which the United Nations was created 45 years ago. There are present in this moment seeds either of a new era of international cooperation under the rule of international law or of rule based upon superior power, which holds the prospect of continuing dehumanizing chaos. Our churches have long sought to nurture and bring to fruition the seeds of hope. The power we would invoke is not the power of the gun, nor is it the power of wealth and affluence; we would invoke the power of the cross and the resurrection, symbols for us of love and hope. As Christians in the U.S. we must witness against weak resignation to the illogical pursuit of militarism and war. We must witness to our belief in the capacityof human beings and human societies to seek and achieve reconciliation. The General Board of the NCCC/USA commends this message to the churches, all Christians, and persons of other faiths, inviting them to join with us in continuing prayer and urgent action to avert war in the Persian/Arabian Gulf region, and to join in the quest for a just and durable peace in the Middle East. Resolution on the Gulf and Middle East Crisis --------------------------------------------- The General Board of the National Council of Churches, meeting in Portland, Oregon, November 14-16, 1990, recognizing its solidarity with the Christians of the Middle East and with the Middle East Council of Churches, URGES the government of Iraq to release immediately all those citizens of other nations being held against their will in Kuwait or Iraq and to withdraw immediately its troops and occupation forces from Kuwait. CALLS FOR the continued rigorous application of the sanctions against Iraq authorized by the United Nations Security COuncil until such time as it withdraws its forces from Kuwait. REITERATES ITS OPPOSITION to the withholding of food and medicine as a weapon against civilian populations. ENCOURAGES the Secretary-General of the United Nations to exercise fully his own good offices in pursuit of a rapid negotiated resolution of the present conflict in the Gulf. CALLS UPON the President and the U.S. Congress to pursue every means for a negotiated political solution to the crisi in the Gulf, including direct negotiations with Iraq. REITERATES SUPPORT FOR the convening under U.N. auspices of an international conference for a comprehensive peace in the Middle East, as a means of implementing United Nations Security Council resolutions on Israel and Palestine, Lebanon and Cyprus, recognizing that the present crisis cannot be isolated from the unresolved issues of the region as a whole. CALLS FOR an immediate halt to the buildup and the withdrawl of U.S. troops from the Gulf region except those which might be required and explicitely recommended by the Security Council of the United Nations in accordance with the relevant provisions of the United Nations Charter. CALLS UPON the U.S. government to give leadership to the institution of an immediate and complete embargo under U.N. auspices on arms transfers to the Middle East. CALLS UPON member communions, congregations, local and regional ecumenical agencies and individuals to make peace in the Middles East a paramount and urgent priority for prayer, study and action. EXPRESSES its profound gratitude for the witness of the Middle East Council of Churches and commits itself to the continued partnership with the MECC in its efforts for peace, justice and development. REQUESTS the President and the General Secretary (of the NCCC/USA) to engaes in dialogue and to coordinate where possible and appropriate with the National Conference of Catholic Bishops and Evangelical Organizations with regard to the development of statements or actions in an effort to provide a common Christian witness. REQUESTS the President and General Secretary (of the NCCC/USA) to communicate this resolution to the President and Secretary of State (of the United States), to the members of the U.S. Congress, to the President of Iraq, to the Secretary General of the United Nations, the World Council of Churches, and to the Middle East Council of Churches. ------------------------------------------------------------ [As many of you know, I am not interested in discussing the merits of U.S. actions in the Persian Gulf area in this newsgroup. However I am going to allow postings like this, because I think it's worth having this group look at the Christian response to problems of this sort. Both denominations and interdenominational groups have an interesting problem in deciding when it is appropriate to speak out on public issues. Should they do so only when they represent a concensus of their membership, or do they have an obligation to be "prophetic" voices, responding directly to God? My feeling is that most members and the public expect them to be representative, but that most leaders feel they have an obligation to be prophetic. By confusing these two, there is danger that groups may appear to be claiming a representative status that they do not actually have. This is an easy way for a group to lose its legitimacy, both in the eyes of its own members and the rest of the world -- something which has always been a serious problem for the National and World councils. --clh]