RITE AND REASON: Many Christians remain unconvinced that there is justification for war on Iraq, writes Archbishop Robin Eames
Christians find themselves divided on the issue of any conflict in Iraq. That division of opinion reflects conflicting views on the actualities of Iraq. But it also indicates again the dilemma people of faith face on the whole issue of war.
No one denies the evidence of the denial of basic human rights within that country, but justification for armed conflict searches out the conscience of those who follow the teaching of Christ in ways which raise questions of moral importance, none of which can be separated from the basic teaching of the Prince of Peace.
There are many Christians today who hold deep reservations about armed intervention in Iraq simply because they remain unconvinced that the evidence so far released means that such action is either justified or necessary.
The rapid deployment by the United States and Britain of massive numbers of troops to the Middle and Far East has produced its own sense of the inevitability of war, and in turn has produced degrees of frustration that reservations beyond the political process are being sidelined.
The current situation raises again the reality or relevance of the traditional conditions for a "just war". Those principles have been the embodiment of the Christian approach to the dilemma of any armed conflict. They speak of all efforts short of conflict to resolve injustice or international threat and emphasise the need to exhaust all such channels before justification for military action should take place.
In contemporary terms such principles would point to the support of the United Nations for any such action. A prerequisite for even that scenario must surely be the publication of clear evidence that the situation in Iraq constitutes a genuine threat to the peace of the world. At present we still await such evidence.
NO one can estimate the cost in lives and suffering to innocent people of any theatre of war in the modern era. No political reassurance on the sophistication of modern methods of military action safeguarding what Scripture terms "the poor" of this world can be accepted in the light of experience.
None of us doubts that in any armed conflict there will be massive suffering. If armed conflict in any sphere is necessary and justified then we have to accept that cost. On a recent visit to the Far East many church and community leaders left me in no doubt as to their genuine fears on such consequences of a war in Iraq.
For these reasons it must surely be asked if the time is appropriate for a re-examination of the accepted principles of a "just war".
Quite apart from individual views on the rights and wrongs of conflict in Iraq one should ask if there is now a need for an additional requirement to take account of the humanitarian considerations which will inevitably arise. Such an addition should embrace a stated willingness and definite intention to match military action with humanitarian relief.
In other words, the "just war" should embody a proportionate expenditure on humanitarian relief by the governments concerned, and such effort should not be left to voluntary organisations alone in the aftermath of conflict.
Only then would the traditional principles stand genuine scrutiny. Nor is it a case that if nations express such a willingness armed action is justified on such a basis alone. Far from it. War remains the ultimate failure. The basis of the traditional justification for the just war must remain that all possible means of removing injustice or threat have been tried and have failed. To date there are many Christians who remain unconvinced.
The Most Rev Robin Eames is Church of Ireland Archbishop of Armagh and Primate of All-Ireland