kriz@skat.usc.edu (Dennis Kriz) (12/04/90)
In recent weeks, both the Catholic bishops and the National Council of Churches have gone out and publicly called for US restraint in the Persian Gulf. This is a copy of Los Angeles Archbishop Roger Mahony's letter to Secretary of State Baker which speaks on behalf of the bishops... It is taken from LA's archdiocesan paper, "the Tidings" [Nov 17, 1990]. Archbishop Mahony's Letter to Secretary of State Baker ------------------------------------------------------ Washington (CNS) -- Here is the text of the Nov 7 letter on the application of ethical principles to the Iraq crisis, written to Secretary of State James A. Baker III by Archbishop Roger Mahoney of Los Angeles, chairman of the U.S. bishops' International Policy Committee. The letter was endorsed by the National Conference of Catholic Bishops (NCCB) at their annual meeting in Washington D.C. on Nov 12, by a vote of 249:15. Dear Mr Secretary: I write as chairman of the International Policy Committee of the U.S. Catholic Conference to share several concerns and criteria regarding possibly use of U.S. military force in the Persian Gulf. As Catholic bishops we are deeply concerned about the human consequences of the crisis -- the lives already lost or those that could be lost in a war, the freedom denied to hostages, the victims of agression and the many families divided by the demands of military service. As religious leaders, we are concerned about the moral dimensions of the crisis -- the need to resist brutal aggression, to protect the innocent, to pursue both justice and peace, as well as the ethical criteria for the use of force. As U.S. citizens, we are concerned about how our nation can best protect human life and human rights and secure a peaceful and just resolution to the crisis. Our conference has thus far emphasized five basic issues in addressing the crisis: 1) The clear need to resist aggression. We cannot permit nations to simply overwhelm others by brutal use of force. 2) The need for broad-based, international solidarity which seeks effective and peaceful means to halt and reverse aggression. We strongly support the United Nations actions and the international pressure which has effectively halted Iraqi aggression and offers hope for the peaceful liberation of Kuwait. 3) The need to condemn the taking of hostages and the mistreatment and killing of civilians. We deplore the cynical and intolerable actions of the Iraqi government in taking innocent civilians against their will and using them for protection or propaganda, as well as the brutal treatment of civilians in Kuwait. 4) The essential need to distinguish between the leaders of Iraq and the civilians of Iraq and Kuwait. In the carrying out of the embargo and other actions we need to take care so tha t innocent civilians are not deprived of those essentials for the maintenance of life, i.e., food and medicines. 5) The imperative to seek a peaceful resolution of the crisis and pursue legitimate objectives by nonviolent diplomatic means. We continue to call for effective solidarity, perseverance and patience in the search for a peaceful and just outcome to the crisis. It is on this last point, the persistent pursuit of a peaceful solution, that I write to you now. As the administration assesses the military and geopolitical implications of initiating combat, we also ask you to carefully assess the moral consequences of resort to war. Our country needs an informed and sustantive discussion on the human and ethical dimensions of the policy choices under consideration. In the Catholic community, there is a long history of ethical reflection on these issues and diverse points of view. As chairman of this committee, I share these reflections with you, not to offer a difinitive judgement but to suggest some essential values and raise some key questions which must be considered as the U.S. Explores its options. We hope they will contribute to the necessary and growing public debate about whether the use of military force could be morally justified and under what, if any, conditions. We specifically seek to draw attention to the ethical dimensions of these choices, so that they are not ignored or neglected in a focus on simply military and geopolitical considerations. In our tradition, while the use of force is not ruled out absolutely, thre is a clear presumption against war. The right to self-defense or to repel aggression is restricted and governed by a series of moral principles, often called the "just war" theory. These criteria spell out the conditions which have to be met for war to be morally permissible. Aomng the major criteria are: (a) Just cause: Is there "a real and certain danger" which can only be confronted by war? Several objectives have been put forth for U.S. policy: to deter and repel aggression, to safeguard human rights, to assure adequate and affordable energy supplies, to advance a new international order, to overthrow a hostile dictator. In order to meet the just cause criteria U.S. policy would have to clarify its precise objectives, measure them by ethical values and demonstrate that they can only be achieved through the use of force. (b) Competent authority: This principle asks who in this case is the competent authority to authorize the use of force. The president acting alone, the president and Congress, the U.N., which has played an indispensible role in securing international condemnation of Iraq? This principle is curcial given the past conflicts in our own country about who has such powers. (c) Right intention: Are the reasons set forth as a just cause for war the actual objectives of military action? (d) last resort: Have all peaceful alternatives been fully pursued before war is undertaken? Can the international economic and political pressure on Iraq bring about a just solution over time without resort to violence? (e) Probability of success: Is the prospect of success sufficiently clear to justify the human and other costs of military action? (f) Proportionality: Is the damage to be inflicted and the costs incurred by war proportionate to the objectives to be achieved by taking up arms? In this case are the expressed values at stake so important, i.e., the survival of Kuwiat, repelling aggression, etc., that they justify the use of force? Will war with Iraq leave the people of Kuwait, the Middle East and the world better or worse off? In addition to these criteria, there are others which govern the conduct of war. These principles include proportionality and discrimination, i.e., the military means used must commensurate with the evil to be overcome and must be directed at the aggressors, not innocent people. For example, the Second Vatican Council declared, "Any act of war aimed indiscriminately at the destruction of entire cities or of extensive areas along with their population is a crime against God and man himself. It merits unequivocal and unhesitating condemnation." Military action against Iraq would have to be restrained by these two principles, necessarily ruling out tactics and strategies which could clearly target civilian lives. This means this war would have to be a limited war, raising again the criteria of the probability of success and the price to be paid given the hostile physical environment, the fragility of the anti-Iraq alliance and the volatility of regional and domestic political support. These considerations lead me to strongly urge that the U.S., in continued cooperation with the United Nations, the Soviet Union, Arab states and other nations, stay the course of persistent, peaceful and determined pressure against Iraq. A resort to war in violation of these criteria would jeopardize many lives, raise serious moal questions and undermine the international solidarity against Iraq. We underrstand that a strong military presence can give credibility to a vigorous pursuit of non-violent solutions to the crisis. They may also open the door for a new, broader and more imaginative dialogue concerning the deep-seated and long-standing problems which have contributed to the current situation. We pray for the safety and welfare of the peoples of that troubled region. We pray for the liberation of the hostages and the people of Kuwait. We pray that the American men and women deployed in the Gulf may by their presence support a peaceful resolution of the crisis and return safely and soon. And finally, we pray that our leaders and all other parties concerned will have the persistence, wisdom and skill to resolve the current crisis in peace and with justice. ---------------------------------------------------- [I have mixed feelings about posting this. I'm not interested into turning into talk.politics.mideast. However if people have specifically Christian perspectives on the issues, this is the right place to talk about them. --clh]