War,
Peace, and International Social Issues
by Dr. Paul Marston
I came by choice into a commitment to a Wesleyan-Arminian holiness
movement which had no strong tradition in Britain, and was delighted
to be able to join the fairly recently formed UK Free Methodist
church as a Lay Minister over two decades ago. We are closely connected
with America, and I was privileged to come to the USA as a delegate
to the 1989 General conference and again to lecture in SPU summer
school. I thank God for the many godly Americans I have met, for
the Spirit-filled bishops, and for the love, commitment, and work
which American Christians of all denominations have given to the
world, and for which Christians around the world should always be
grateful.
Jeremiah, however, in speaking out against a war which most of
his compatriots saw as justified and inevitable, was neither being
unpatriotic nor denying the constitutional authority of his monarch.
As a committed Free Methodist, I am delighted that our (1999) Discipline
- which generally reflects a biblical perspective - explicitly contains
the following passage:
Issues of War and Peace
A/332. 1. We recognize the sovereign authority of government and
the duty of all Christians to reverence the power, to obey the law,
and to participate righteously in the administration of lawful order
in the nation under whose protection they reside (Matthew 22:21;
Romans 13:1-7). Members of our church should bear the responsibilities
of good citizenship, and they have the right to act in the enforcement
of law and the defense of the peace in accord with the conscience
of each person.
2. We believe, however, that military aggression is indefensible
as an instrument of national policy and strategy (Isaiah 2:3-4).
The destruction of life and property, and the deceit and violence
necessary to warfare are contrary to the spirit and mind of Jesus
Christ (Isaiah 9:6-7; Matthew 5:44-45). It is, therefore, the duty
of all Christians to promote peace and goodwill, to foster the spirit
of understanding and mutual trust among all people, and to work
with patience for the renunciation of war as a means to the settlement
of international disputes (Romans 12:18; 14:19).
3. It is our firm conviction that none of our people should be required
to enter military training or to bear arms and that the consciences
of our individual members should be respected (Acts 4:19-20; 5:29).
Therefore, we claim exemption from all military service for those
who register officially with the church as conscientious objectors
to war.
This is clear. We support the right of pacifists to be conscientious
objectors, and my denomination calls upon me, as a Free Methodist
and as current Secretary for the UK Free Methodist Conference for
social and moral issues, to "renunciate war as a means to the
settlement of international disputes" and proclaim that "military
aggression is indefensible as an instrument of national policy and
strategy." This, however, remains meaningless unless we are
prepared to apply it in particular. If it is not relevant in the
present situation then it is difficult to see any situation in which
it would be relevant.
America is now the only and overwhelmingly powerful super-power,
with Tony Blair's Britain as its closest ally. I am not personally
a pacifist, and can conceive situations in which the use of military
power can be justified. In the current situation, however, there
is no way to see what is happening otherwise than as the use of
military aggression as an instrument of national policy (which my
denomination tells me is indefensible), and the potential use of
war as a means to settle an international dispute. I am calling
on all fellow Free Methodists in my general conference - in Britain
and America - to actively lobby against this.
As it happens, I have looked very closely at the "evidence"
produced by Colin Powell (and the Britain "intelligence"
document which turned out to have been cobbled together from the
internet). It consists of vague photographs, information from dissidents
with every reason to want the odious and evil Saddam regime to be
overthrown, and a lack of evidence as to destruction of weapons
that Iraq may possibly have had. It falls a long way short of any
demonstration that Iraq actually has large numbers of devastating
weapons. There is no indication that a weakened Saddam is a threat
to any of his neighbours, or that such weapons (if he has them)
will be used against Britain or the USA. The suggestion that Saddam's
secular, Shia-repressing, fascist regime would make common cause
with the fanatical Muslims of al Qa'ida seems extremely unlikely,
as they would be as likely to use weapons against Saddam as against
us. Iraq has clearly been slow and reluctant to cooperate with Resolution
1441, and the threat of the international community to use force
in a world-policing type context may well be justified. However
that international community is currently recognised as represented
through the United Nations, and the constituted authority on such
issues is the Security Council. If we advocate the rule of international
Law then we cannot simply ignore it on occasions it does not do
what we would like. It currently looks highly unlikely that Bush
and Blair will obtain a majority of votes on the Security Council
to sanction immediate war (or war next week) - in spite of the economic
threats and bullying of the small nations - and there is absolutely
no doubt that under existing constitution France and Russia have
the right to veto. Tony Blair cannot simply write this off as "unreasonable"
if he is serious about international law - and it currently seems
that the British Parliament and people are saying this loudly to
him. Currently 76% in the UK (and actually a slim majority in the
USA) are against a war without further international sanction and
in the UK a million people recently held the largest peaceful demonstration
in memory to express this.
Actually, it is not really the point whether Iraq invasion will
lead (as many believe) to many deaths, a longish period of American
colonial rule and oil exploitation, and the probable eventual fragmentation
of self determining Iraq into three sections - one of which may
be more sympathetic to al Qa'ida than the present regime. The current
Iraq has not attacked Britain or America, is no real threat to its
neighbours, and cannot bomb its own northern and southern minorities
because of the no-fly zones. Declaration 1441 does not sanction
war, and would have been unlikely to have been passed at all (let
alone unanimously) had it done so. The international community,
a majority in Europe, and all the Arab nations believe that an immediate
(or next week) war is unjustifiable. A declaration of a war in such
circumstances would be most certainly an "indefensible use
of military aggression is as an instrument of national policy and
strategy (Isaiah 2:3-4)" and the use of "war as a means
to the settlement of international disputes (Romans 12:18; 14:19)"
for which Free Methodists are pledged to work for the renunciation.
Let us do so by lobbying our respective governments by all means
possible. In the UK we can write to our MPs, to Tony Blair, to Jack
Straw, and to Ian Duncan Smith. In America citizens can join former
president Jimmy Carter and others who are lobbying within their
own society. The former president's carefully worded opposition
appears on http://www.mggpillai.com/sections.php3?op=viewarticle&artid=2054.
Finally on war issues, I wonder how many Americans realise that
in 1997 America declared possession of 15,637 tonnes of mustard
gas, 7464 tonnes of sarin nerve gas, 4032 tonnes of VX nerve gas,
and 1698 tabun nerve gas. The destruction schedule of these, required
under international law, is reputedly behind schedule. Donald Rumsfeld
last month referred to the 1997 "Chemical Weapons Convention"
(signed after some 30 years negotiations) as a "straitjacket"
limiting US war options. Secretary Rumsfeld may well press for supposedly
"non-lethal" chemical weapons to be used in any Iraqi
combat - although this would be illegal under international law
and their use would entitle Iraq (as co-signatory with America of
the 1925 Geneva protocol) to retaliate in kind.
As a loyal Free Methodist, I agree with the clear implication of
A/323 that a war in the present circumstances and lacking international
sanction, would be military aggression as an instrument of national
policy and the use of war as a means to the settlement of international
disputes, and that it could have negative consequences. Naturally,
if the USA with or without Britain, does launch an attack next week,
I will be praying that there will be as little loss of life as possible
(British, American and Iraqi) and that peace and justice will eventually
come to the region.
There are, however, currently some other serious international
issues of social concern. Who Americans elect as their President,
and whether or not the system should require an actual majority
of votes, is a matter for them. What is of more general concern
is that, in spite of its Christian credentials, the Bush administration
seems often not to be (in the words of Gladstone) "on the side
of the angels", and his explanations have sometimes left a
suspicion that there is too much commitment to mammon rather than
to God. These are not domestic issues (in which a UK citizen has
no particular business or concern) but issues that seriously affect
the world community
First, As Christians we are responsible as stewards in God's world.
In March 2001, after reneging on a campaign pledge to regulate carbon
dioxide emissions from power plants, President George W. Bush announced
his administration's opposition to the Kyoto Protocol which is a
framework laid down by 38 developed countries to prevent global
warming by reducing gas emission. His administration produced a
number of flawed arguments [see http://www.nrdc.org/globalWarming/akyotoqa.asp]
. By 6 February 2003, 84 Parties have signed and 105 Parties have
ratified or acceded to the protocol. President Bush still rejects
it on the grounds that it would be harmful to the U.S. economy -
and many observers link this to his oil connections. A meeting of
scientists recently rejected Bush's claim that more study was needed
- we need action not study.
Secondly, unlike its Western allies, the United States has refused
to sign the Land Mine Convention, which restricts mine manufacture.
It maintains that the focus of international efforts should be on
ways to control mines specifically meant to maim and kill civilians
and that battle field mines (such as those it has deployed on the
Korean peninsula) are legitimate because they are meant instead
to deter military aggression. Mines do not know whether they are
supposed to be "battle mines" or "civilian mines"
and, because the manufacture of land mines continues, thousands
of civilians including many children are maimed every year. Some
repressive regimes even deliberately use human minesweepers to clear
"military mines".
Thirdly, in 2001 the WTO issued the "Doha Declaration"
confirming governments' right to override drug patents and authorise
the manufacture of cheap generic versions for poorer countries.
In the months since November 2001 the Bush administration, influenced
by its pharmaceutical lobby, has consistently blocked agreement
on any detailed application of this. The pharmaceutical lobby provided
nearly $60m to Republicans in recent mid-term elections, helping
them win key seats in their bid to retake the Senate.
Finally, the International Criminal Court is empowered to hear
cases concerning war crimes and crimes against humanity including
bombing of civilians and use of systematic rape and torture. To-date
89 countries have ratified the statute (including the UK) and another
50 signed but not yet ratified it. The USA not only refused to ratify
it, but in June 2002 the Bush administration threatened to veto
all UN peacekeeping operations unless the Security Council adopted
a resolution 1422 to override the court's jurisdiction and provide
immunity to citizens of non-ratifying countries (ie the USA) engaged
in UN authorised operations. British diplomats shared the views
of Canada and France that this was unnecessary, but were instructed
to support America. The resolution was passed, though limited to
one year after which time the American regime is expected to cajole
and bully members of the Security Council into extending it another
year, and so on. The USA (eventually again supported by the UK which
undermined EU opposition) then made bilateral arrangements with
as many countries as possible that US soldiers/civilians would never
be surrendered to this court. In view of the way Resolution 1441
speaks of Iraq, it is generally expected that USA personnel will
be immune from any prosecution for war crimes (should there be any)
committed in Iraq in any war, even though it will probably not even
be a UN sanctioned operation.
American prophets within Free Methodism, like in particular Howard
Snyder (eg in A Kingdom Manifesto (1985)) have made calls for Christians
to be more involved in social and political issues. Concern for
the welfare of the poor are not peripheral to the "real gospel"
but are an inherent part of the "good news to the poor"
- and Free Methodism has reaffirmed this commitment. We should all,
of course, pray for peace and for justice - crying out to the Lord
of all the earth as did the prophets and psalmists. But another
aspect of this commitment may be for us all to continue to lobby
our own governments to take the right actions on international social
issues that affect the poor - like those listed above.
Dr. Paul
Marston is a British university lecturer, Free Methodist Lay Minister,
and Secretary for Social and Moral issues for the UK (GB) Conference.
His joint books, Reason, Science and Faith, and God's Strategy in
Human History are published in the USA by Wipf and Stock. |
