 |
  |
|
The Honorable George W. Bush
Dear Mr. President:
At its meeting last week, the 60-member Administrative
Committee the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops asked me
to write you about the situation in Iraq. We welcome your efforts to
focus the world's attention on the need to address Iraq's repression
and pursuit of weapons of mass destruction in defiance of the United
Nations. The Committee met before your speech at the United Nations,
but I thought it was important that I express our serious questions
about the moral legitimacy of any preemptive, unilateral use of
military force to overthrow the government of Iraq.
A year ago, my predecessor Bishop Joseph Fiorenza wrote you
about the U.S. response to the horrific attacks we commemorated last
week. He told you then that, in our judgment, the use of force
against Afghanistan could be justified, if it were carried out in
accord with just war norms and as one part of a much broader, mostly
non-military effort to deal with terrorism. We believe Iraq is a
different case. Given the precedents and risks involved, we find it
difficult to justify extending the war on terrorism to Iraq, absent
clear and adequate evidence of Iraqi involvement in the attacks of
September 11th or of an imminent attack of a grave nature.
The United States and the international community have two
grave moral obligations: to protect the common good against any Iraqi
threats to peace and to do so in a way that conforms with fundamental
moral norms. We have no illusions about the behavior or intentions of
the Iraqi government. The Iraqi leadership must cease its internal
repression, end its threats to its neighbors, stop any support for
terrorism, abandon its efforts to develop weapons of mass
destruction, and comply with UN resolutions. Mobilizing the nations
of the world to recognize and address Iraq's threat to peace and
stability through new UN action and common commitment to ensure that
Iraq abides by its commitments is a legitimate and necessary
alternative to the unilateral use of military force. Your decision to
seek UN action is welcome, but other questions of ends and means must
also be answered.
There are no easy answers. People of good will may apply ethical
principles and come to different prudential judgments, depending upon
their assessment of the facts at hand and other issues. We conclude,
based on the facts that are known to us, that a preemptive,
unilateral use of force is difficult to justify at this time. We fear
that resort to force, under these circumstances, would not meet the
strict conditions in Catholic teaching for overriding the strong
presumption against the use of military force. Of particular concern
are the traditional just war criteria of just cause, right authority,
probability of success, proportionality and noncombatant immunity.
Just cause. What is the casus belli for a military
attack on Iraq? The Catechism of the Catholic Church,
reflecting widely accepted moral and legal limits on why military
force may be used, limits just cause to cases in which "the damage
inflicted by the aggressor on the nation or community of nations [is]
lasting, grave and certain." (#2309) Is there clear and adequate
evidence of a direct connection between Iraq and the attacks of
September 11th or clear and adequate evidence of an imminent attack
of a grave nature? Is it wise to dramatically expand traditional
moral and legal limits on just cause to include preventive or
preemptive uses of military force to overthrow threatening regimes or
to deal with the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction? Should
not a distinction be made between efforts to change unacceptable
behavior of a government and efforts to end that government's
existence?
Legitimate authority. The moral credibility of the use of
military force also depends heavily on whether there is legitimate
authority for using force to topple the Iraqi government. In our
judgment, decisions of such gravity require compliance with U.S.
constitutional imperatives, broad consensus within our nation, and
some form of international sanction, preferably by the UN Security
Council. That is why your decision to seek congressional and United
Nations approval is so important. With the Holy See, we would be
deeply skeptical about unilateral uses of military force,
particularly given the troubling precedents involved.
Probability of success and proportionality. The use of
force must have "serious prospects for success" and "must not produce
evils and disorders graver than the evil to be eliminated"
(Catechism, #2309). War against Iraq could have unpredictable
consequences not only for Iraq but for peace and stability elsewhere
in the Middle East. Would preventive or preemptive force succeed in
thwarting serious threats or, instead, provoke the very kind of
attacks that it is intended to prevent? How would another war in Iraq
impact the civilian population, in the short- and long-term? How many
more innocent people would suffer and die, or be left without homes,
without basic necessities, without work? Would the United States and
the international community commit to the arduous, long-term task of
ensuring a just peace or would a post-Saddam Iraq continue to be
plagued by civil conflict and repression, and continue to serve as a
destabilizing force in the region? Would the use of military force
lead to wider conflict and instability? Would war against Iraq
detract from our responsibility to help build a just and stable order
in Afghanistan and undermine the broader coalition against
terrorism?
Norms governing the conduct of war. While we recognize
improved capability and serious efforts to avoid directly targeting
civilians in war, the use of massive military force to remove the
current government of Iraq could have incalculable consequences for a
civilian population that has suffered so much from war, repression,
and a debilitating embargo.
We raise these troubling questions to contribute to the vital
national debate about ends and means, risks and choices reflecting
our responsibilities as pastors and teachers. Our assessment of these
questions leads us to urge you to pursue actively alternatives to
war. We hope you will persist in the very frustrating and difficult
challenges of building broad international support for a new, more
constructive and effective approach to press the Iraqi government to
live up to its international obligations. This approach could include
continued diplomatic efforts aimed, in part, at resuming rigorous,
meaningful inspections; effective enforcement of the military
embargo; maintenance of political sanctions and much more
carefully-focused economic sanctions which do not threaten the lives
of innocent Iraqi civilians; non-military support for those in Iraq
who offer genuine democratic alternatives; and other legitimate ways
to contain and deter aggressive Iraqi actions.
We respectfully urge you to step back from the brink of war and
help lead the world to act together to fashion an effective global
response to Iraq's threats that conforms with traditional moral
limits on the use of military force.
Sincerely yours,
 Web Weaver: VoyageurWeb |