As the only Anglican bishop to have publicly endorsed the Australian
Government's case for war, I now concede that Iraq did not possess weapons
of mass destruction. It did not pose a threat to either its nearer
neighbours or the United States and its allies. It did not host or give
material support to al-Qaeda or other terrorist groups.
But did the Australian Government and the Australian Defence Force
really believe that Iraq possessed WMD and would employ them in support of
its national interests? Definitely. Were intelligence assessments of
Iraq's WMD arsenal and its ability to mount military operations
exaggerated and inaccurate? Certainly. But in the absence of any clear
mitigation, there is no alternative to concluding that the March 2003
invasion was neither just nor necessary.
Let me be clear on two points: I am not saying the war failed to
produce any positive outcomes - happily, the Baathist regime of Saddam
Hussein has gone - nor that it cannot be explained in constructive
political terms - the shift to democracy in Baghdad is most welcome. My
judgement is simply that the war cannot be reconciled with just war
principles.
Is this of concern? Yes. The relationship of trust that needs to exist
between the Government and the people for a healthy democracy to exist may
have been damaged by what must be regarded as an unnecessary pre-emptive
military strike.
As we ponder the invasion and occupation of Iraq, three important
observations can be made.
First, there is a continuing need of better systems for arbitrating
international disputes. When the "coalition of the willing" invaded Iraq,
UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan asked: "If we are going to make preventive
action, or war, part of our response to these new threats, what are the
rules? Who decides? Under what circumstances? Did what happened in Iraq
constitute an exception? A precedent others can exploit? What are the
rules?" These are good questions that cannot go unanswered.
I continue to seek God's forgiveness for my complicity in creating a
world in which this sort of action was ever considered to be necessary.In
my view, Archbishop of Canterbury Rowan Williams was right to propose "a
standing commission on security within the UN structures, incorporating
legal and other professionals, capable of taking expert evidence, which
could advise on these questions and recommend UN intervention when
necessary - instead of complete reliance on the present Security Council
framework". Reform of the UN must continue.
Second, there must be sombre recognition of the complexities associated
with armed intervention. While the overthrow of a despotic regime might be
quickly achieved, rebuilding countries with a poisoned political culture
takes considerably longer.
The use of military force is very much subordinate to a larger
political solution in places such as Iraq. This is because the root causes
of disorder and violence are varied and profound. They include the
availability of guns and drugs, and the prevalence of racism and sexism
together with the dissipation of the family. These are factors that
diminish respect for human life.
If there is a pervasive cause, it would appear to be poverty. The UN
has rightly engaged in a "war on poverty" where the protagonists are the
poor who attempt to steal from the poorer.
The weapons of war are not bullets and bombs but humanitarian aid, and
direct economic relief and assistance. Armed intervention is
time-consuming and expensive if genuine political and economic progress is
to be made. This must not be forgotten.
Third, attempts to rebuild civil society are certainly impeded if the
invading army or the occupying force fails to uphold certain standards of
behaviour. Although soldiers are not routinely trained to be prison
warders or civil police, they know what constitutes acceptable conduct in
an operational zone.
The calculated humiliation of Iraqi inmates at Abu Ghraib prison in
Baghdad over the past six months has damaged the Bush Administration's
attempts to portray the US Army as a liberating force. What is worse, men
and women from a nation claiming to be civilised have shown they are just
as capable of the barbarism that characterised Saddam's Baathist regime.
These acts retard political and social progress and perpetuate the cycles
of recrimination and violence that interventions are intended to break.
Occupying forces must do better.
On March 18 last year - two days before the war began - I addressed
students in the united faculty of theology at Melbourne University. In
reply to the question: "Is the proposed war against Iraq just, or just
another war?" I said: "We are, as yet, unable to say with complete
confidence. The final determination cannot be made until we are acquainted
with the information now known by the Government, when we have seen the
extent of the WMD that the 'coalition of the willing' alleges Iraq
maintains, and when the full human cost of war has been calculated." I am
now able to answer that question: it was just another war.
Looking back on the events of the past 18 months I continue to seek
God's forgiveness for my complicity in creating a world in which this sort
of action was ever considered by anyone to be necessary. Even so, come
Lord Jesus.
Dr Tom Frame is the Anglican Bishop to the Australian Defence Force
and the author of Living by the Sword? The Ethics of Armed Intervention
(UNSW Press, 2004).
Copyright � 2004. The Age Company Ltd.
