- The Church of England is on a collision course with the
Government over Iraq by producing a report for bishops which argues that
an attack on Saddam Hussein would be immoral and seen as the "cruel
thirst for vengeance".
-
- The report, by the Church's Board for Social
Responsibility,
says that it would be difficult to see how Western military action in Iraq
could meet the criteria of being a just war.
-
- Instead, in an implicit criticism of the hardening stance
being taken by Tony Blair, the briefing paper says that calls for such
action merely "reflect the priorities of American foreign
policy".
-
- It adds that the Church would also have "grave
concerns"
about inter-faith relations in Britain in the wake of an attack on another
Muslim country such as Iraq.
-
- The paper follows Wednesday's warning by Geoff Hoon,
the Defence Secretary, that Britain would be ready to launch a nuclear
strike against states such as Iraq if they used weapons of mass destruction
against British forces.
-
- His words came as officials in Washington and London
privately predicted that military action to topple Saddam was likely at
the end of the year.
-
- Although Mr Hoon denied that a decision had been taken
on such action, his comments about nuclear arms fuelled beliefs that
preparations
were being considered.
-
- The private paper by the Church's board, chaired by the
Bishop of Southwark, the Rt Rev Tom Butler, is not policy but a strong
indication of Church thinking. It says that, for a war to be just, it has
to have "proper authority and right intent".
-
- It continues: "It is difficult to see how either
of these have been met in the case of Iraq." No explicit UN resolution
existed that would legitimise military action, and it was hard to see,
given the lack of international consensus, how this could be
achieved.
-
- Although Mr Blair originally played down talk of action
against Iraq because Saddam was not linked to the September 11 attacks,
ministers have since said that such an operation would be justified because
Iraq is in breach of UN resolutions and Gulf war ceasefire
agreements.
-
- The paper says: "Although it is important not to
understate the potential threat posed by Iraq, no convincing evidence has
been presented to support the argument that Iraq is rebuilding its WMD
[weapons of mass destruction] programme or that Iraq poses an immediate
threat to regional and international security.
-
- "Instead, the arguments put forward in favour of
action reflect the priorities of American foreign policy. This would be
difficult to square with the Government's interpretation of the legal
position.
Any such attack could be perceived as the `cruel thirst for
vengeance'.
-
- "An attack on another Muslim country - particularly
one with no proven link to the September 11 atrocities - would be taken
by many as evidence of an in-built hostility to the Islamic world. . .
The consequence for inter-faith relations of an attack on Iraq must
therefore
be of grave concern."
-
- The paper was dismissed by Ann Widdecombe, the former
Tory minister. "If Saddam is stockpiling weapons of mass destruction,
it is not vengeance but self-defence to stop him," she said.
-
- "I don't know where the Church gets its information
that he isn't stockpiling such weapons. Perhaps they get secret
intelligence
reports every day?"
-
- http://news.telegraph.co.uk
|
