MILITARY intervention against Iraq would be a crime against peace demanding vengeance before God, the head of the Vatican’s Pontifical Council for Justice and Peace has said.

"War is a crime against peace which cries for vengeance before God," said Archbishop Renato Raffaele Martino, speaking on Vatican Radio.

He stressed the deeply unjust and immoral nature of war, saying it was condemned by God because civilians were the worst sufferers.

Martino, formerly Vatican permanent representative to the United Nations, strongly denounced the determination of the United States and its allies to disarm Iraq by force.

"Do not reply with a stone to the child who asks for bread," he said. "They are preparing to reply with thousands of bombs to a people that have been asking for bread for the last 12 years."

Stressing the Roman Catholic church would continue to insist on the need and the urgency of peace, he said: "As always, it will be the Good Samaritan who will bind the wounds of a wounded and weakened people."

Pope John Paul II, one of the most prominent opponents of war on Iraq, urged UN Security Council members yesterday to continue negotiations on the disarmament of Iraq and avert a looming military conflict.

"I want to remind UN members and particularly those who make up the Security Council that the use of force is the last resort after having exhausted all peaceful solutions, as stipulated by the UN charter," the Pope told tens of thousands of worshippers gathered in St. Peter’s Square.

"I lived through World War II and I survived the Second World War. For this reason, I have the duty to say ‘Never again war’. We know that it is impossible to say peace at any price, but we all know how important our responsibility is."

(From correspondents in Vatican City)
(http://www.theaustralian.news.com)

‘Illegal, unwise, immoral’

(A statement from religious leaders in the United States and United Kingdom)
November 26, 2002

"Nation shall not lift up sword against nation, neither shall they learn war any more." (Isaiah 2:4)

As the calls for military action against Iraq continue
from our two governments, despite the new opening for UN weapons inspections, we are compelled by the prophetic vision of peace to speak a word of caution to our governments and our people. We represent a diversity of Christian communities — from the just war traditions to the pacifist tradition. As leaders of these communities in the United States and the United Kingdom, it is our considered judgement that a pre-emptive war against Iraq, particularly in the current situation would not be justified. Yet we believe Iraq must be disarmed of weapons of mass destruction; and that alternative courses to war should be diligently pursued.

Let there be no mistake: We regard Saddam Hussein and his regime in Iraq as a real threat to his own people, neighbouring countries, and to the world. His previous use and continued development of weapons of mass destruction is of great concern to us. The question is how to respond to that threat. We believe the Iraqi government has a duty to stop its internal repression, to end its threats to peace, to abandon its efforts to develop weapons of mass destruction, and to respect the legitimate role of the United Nations in ensuring that it does so.

But our nations and the international community must pursue these goals in a manner consistent with moral principles, political wisdom, and international law. As Christians, we seek to be guided by the vision of a world in which nations do not attempt to resolve international problems by making war on other nations. It is a long-held Christian principle that all governments and citizens are obliged to work for the avoidance of war.

We therefore urge our governments, especially President Bush and Prime Minister Blair, to pursue alternative means to disarm Iraq of its most destructive weapons. Diplomatic cooperation with the United Nations in renewing rigorously effective and thoroughly comprehensive weapons inspections, linked to the gradual lifting of sanctions, could achieve the disarmament of Iraq without the risks and costs of military attack.

We do not believe that pre-emptive war with Iraq is a last resort, could effectively guard against massive civilian casualties, would be waged with adequate international authority, and could predictably create a result proportionate to the cost. And it is not clear that the threat of Saddam Hussein cannot be contained in other, less costly ways. An attack on Iraq could set a precedent for pre-emptive war, further destabilise the Middle East, and fuel more terrorism. We, therefore, do not believe that war with Iraq can be justified under the principle of a "just war," but would be illegal, unwise, and immoral.

Illegal

Whether we oppose all war, or reluctantly accept it only as a last resort, in this case the U.S. government has not presented an adequate justification for war. Iraq has not attacked or directly threatened the United States, nor is it clear that its weapons of mass destruction pose an immediate and urgent threat to neighbouring countries or the world. It has not been credibly implicated in the attacks of September 11. Under international law, including the U.N. Charter, the only circumstance under which individual states may invoke the authority to go to war is in self-defence following an armed attack. In Christian just war doctrine, there are rigorous conditions even for an act of self-defence. Pre-emptive war by one state against another is not permitted by either law or doctrine. For the United States to initiate military action against Iraq without authorisation by the United Nations Security Council would set a dangerous precedent that would threaten the foundations of international security. And under our domestic governance, the US Congress and the UK Parliament must also play a key role in authorising any contemplated military action.

Unwise

The potential social and diplomatic consequences of a war against Iraq make it politically unwise. The US and the UK could be acting almost entirely alone. Many nations, including our European allies and most of the Arab world, strongly oppose such a war. To initiate a major war in an area of the world already in great turmoil could destabilise governments and increase political extremism throughout the Middle East and beyond. It would add fuel to the fires of violence that are already consuming the region. It would exacerbate anti-American hatred and produce new recruits for terror attacks against the United States and Israel.

A unilateral war would also undermine the continued political cooperation needed for the international campaign to isolate terrorist networks. The US could very well win a battle against Iraq and lose the campaign against terrorism. The potentially dangerous and highly chaotic aftermath of a war with Iraq would require years of occupation, investment, and a high level of international cooperation — which have yet to be adequately planned or even considered. And the Iraqi people themselves have an important role in creating non-violent resistance within their own country with international support.

Immoral

We are particularly concerned by the potential human costs of war. If the military strategy includes massive air attacks and urban warfare in the streets of Baghdad, tens of thousands of innocent civilians could lose their lives. This alone makes such a military attack morally unacceptable. In addition, the people of Iraq continue to suffer severely from the effects of the Gulf War, the resulting decade of sanctions, and the neglect and oppression of a brutal dictator. Rather than inflicting further suffering on them through a costly war, we should assist in rebuilding their country and alleviating their suffering. We also recognise that in any conflict, the casualties among attacking forces could be very high. This potential suffering in our own societies should also lead to prudent caution.

We reaffirm our religious hope for a world in which "nation shall not lift up sword against nation." We pray that our governments will be guided by moral principles, political wisdom, and legal standards, and will step back from their calls for war.

United States

Philip A. Amerson, president, The Claremont School of Theology.
David Beckmann, president, Bread for the World.
Peter Borgdorff, executive director of ministries, Christian Reformed Church in North America.
Ronald Brugler, president, The Swedenborgian Church.
John A. Buehrens, past president, Unitarian Universalist Association of Congregations.
Tony Campolo, professor emeritus, Eastern University.
John Bryson Chane, bishop, Episcopal Diocese of Washington.
Canice Connors, OFM.Conv., president, Conference of Major Superiors of Men .
John P. Crossley,director, School of Religion University of Southern California.
Robert Edgar, general secretary, National Council of Churches.
Joseph A. Fiorenza, bishop, Catholic Diocese of Galveston – Houston.
Jim Forest, secretary, Orthodox Peace Fellowship.
Robert Franklin, president, Interdenominational Theological Center.
Linda C. Fuller, co-founder and president, Habitat for Humanity.
Millard Fuller, founder and president, Habitat for Humanity.
Michael J. Gorman, Ph.D., Dean, The Ecumenical Institute of Theology.
St. Mary’s Seminary & University.
Wesley Granberg-Michaelson, general secretary, Reformed Church in America.
Richard L. Hamm, general minister and president, Christian Church (Disciples of Christ) in the U.S. and Canada.
Stan Hastey, executive director, The Alliance of Baptists.
Thomas L. Hoyt, Jr., bishop, Christian Methodist Episcopal Church.
President-elect, National Council of Churches.
William C. Imes, president, Bangor Theological Seminary.
Thomas H. Jeavons, general secretary, Philadelphia Yearly Meeting.
Religious Society of Friends (Quakers).
Holly H. Johnson, president, Blanton-Peale Institute of Psychology and Religion.
Norman J. Kansfield, president, New Brunswick Theological Seminary.
Michael Mata, director, Urban Leadership Institute.
Felton Edwin May, bishop, Baltimore-Washington Conference United Methodist Church.
A. Roy Medley, general secretary, American Baptist Churches USA.
John W. Oliver, coordinator, Orthodox Peace Fellowship in North America.
Glenn Palmberg, president, Evangelical Covenant Church.
Robert M. Parham, executive director, Baptist Center for Ethics.
Judy Mills Reimer, general secretary, Church of the Brethren General Board.
David Robinson, national coordinator, Pax Christi USA.
Cheryl J. Sanders, professor of Christian Ethics, Howard University School of Divinity Senior Pastor, Third Street Church of God.
William J. Shaw, president, National Baptist Convention, USA, Inc.
Carole Shinnick, SSND, executive director, Leadership Conference of Women Religious.
Ronald G. Sider, president, Evangelicals for Social Action.
Glen Stassen, Lewis B. Smedes Professor of Christian Ethics Fuller Theological Seminary.
Walter F. Sullivan, bishop-president of Pax Christi USA , bishop, Catholic Diocese of Richmond.
John H. Thomas, general minister and president, United Church of Christ.
Joe Volk, executive secretary, Friends Committee on National Legislation.
Jim Wallis, executive director/editor, Sojourners.
Barbara G. Wheeler, president, Auburn Theological Seminary.
Mary Ann Zollmann BVM, president, Leadership Conference of Women Religious.

United Kingdom
Peter Price, bishop Of Bath and Wells.
Michael Langrish, bishop of Exeter.
Stephen Venner, bishop of Dover.
Michael Dunelm, bishop of Durham.
Michael Scott-Joynt, bishop of Winchester.
Colin Bennetts, bishop of Coventry.
Keiran Conry, bishop of Arundel and Brighton (RC).
Peter Selby, Bishop of Worcester and Bishop to HM Prisons, Church of England.
Jonathan Bailey, bishop of Derby.
John Perry, bishop of Chelmsford.
John Hind, bishop of Chichester.
Tim Stevens, bishop of Leicester
Keith Sutton, bishop of Lichfield.
John Saxbee, bishop of Lincoln.
Anthony Pierce, bishop of Swansea & Brecon.
John Gladwin, bishop of Guilford.
Christopher Herbert, bishop of St. Albans.
John Stewart Davies, bishop of St Asaph.
The Rt Rev’d Dr Barry Morgan, bishop of Llandaff.
Most Rev Andrew Bruce Cameron, bishop of Aberdeen and Orkney.
Primus of the Scottish Episcopal Church.
Michael Hare Duke, retired bishop of St Andrews.
Maurice Taylor, bishop of Galloway, Scotland (RC).
Alan D McDonald, convener, Church and Nation Committee
Church of Scotland.
Dr Nigel Goring Wright, president of the Baptist Union of Great Britain.
C Rosemary H Castagner, clerk, Ireland Yearly Meeting’s Committee.
Canon Andrew White, coventry Cathedral Reconciliation Centre.
Pat Gaffney, general secretary, Pax Christi UK n

(http://www.sojo.net/action)

Archived from Communalism Combat, March 2003 Year 9  No. 85, Editorial 3

The post War crime in Iraq: Vatican appeared first on SabrangIndia.

The world needs a miracle. The Iraqi people need a miracle. There is a new plan to bring about this miracle and we need everyone’s help! We need to ask some very high profile people to go to Baghdad and stay there until the threat of war is withdrawn (meaning the troops leave the Persian Gulf).

Please e-mail, fax, or call Pope John Paul II (even if you’re not Catholic!) and ask him to go to Baghdad on behalf of the innocent Iraqi people who will suffer from a US military attack. Below is a letter from Dr. Helen Caldicott explaining this new anti-war campaign and some sample letters.

Thank you,

Sue Gray
webmaster@rfpeace.org.

An appeal from Dr. Helen Caldicott

I write this appeal for your help as a paediatri
cian, a mother and a grandmother — and I am writing about the lives of tens of thousands of children. Although the current administration has demonstrated it has no reservations about slaughtering up to 500,000 innocents in Iraq, there is one person whose life they absolutely will not risk.

That person is Pope John Paul II. While the Pope has already formally denounced the proposed war, calling it a defeat for humanity, as well as sent his top spokesperson to meet with Saddam Hussein, he now must take a historically unprecedented action of his own and travel to Baghdad.

The Pope’s physical presence in Iraq will act as the ultimate human shield, during which time leaders of the world’s nations can commit themselves to identifying and implementing a peaceful solution to this war that the world’s majority clearly does not support.

To persuade the Holy Father to take this unusual but potent action, he must hear from you and millions of others around the world who have already been inspired to stand up and speak out for peace. A mountain of e-mail, faxes and phone calls are our devices to inspire him. Please understand that your taking just a few minutes right now to communicate with him may ultimately spare the lives of thousands of innocent people who at this moment live in complete terror from the threat of an imminent U.S.-lead military strike on their homeland. So here is what you can do to be a part of this powerful final action to stop the march to war in Iraq.

At the close of the letter, type in your name, city and state—no need to include your address.

Suggested draft of letter:

Your Holiness,

It is out of a sense of great urgency that we are writing this letter. At this very moment the United States of America is on the verge of launching what may be the most cataclysmic war in history, using weapons of mass destruction upon the Iraqi people. Conservative estimates are that such a war will result in the death of 500,000 Iraqis; fifty per cent of their population are less than 15 years of age. It seems clear that, at this time, you are the only person on Earth who can stop this war.

Indeed, your physical presence in Baghdad, will prevent the impending slaughter of hundreds of thousands of human beings, and force the international community to find and implement a peaceful way to prevent this unprecedented, pre–emptive aggression.

We implore your Holiness to travel to Baghdad and to remain there until a peaceful solution to this crisis has been reached. The lives of the people of Iraq rest in your hands as does the fate of the world.

Signed.

(Email of Pope John Paul II:
accreditamenti@pressva.va)

Note: Please pass this original e-mail on to as many people you can so as to assure a critical mass is reached in this action.

Note that as you and others begin sending your letters, faxes and e-mails, there will be a simultaneous effort to alert the media of this action, so as to be sure it is publicly known throughout the world.

Thank you for participating in this formal request of the Pope. We just may stop this war in Iraq – and save these childrens’ lives.

Archived from Communalism Combat, March 2003 Year 9  No. 85, Cover Story 7

The post Plea to the Pope appeared first on SabrangIndia.

Bangaru Laxman’s statement, after he formally took over as the president of the BJP, that  “Nagpur is a place of both Ambedkar and Hegdewar” must have come as a surprise to the upper caste leaders of the RSS, particularly its chief, KS Sudharshan, who must all be Ambedkar haters. Nagpur, ironically, is the headquarters of both Ambedkar’s Buddhism and Hegdewar’s Brahminism. 

Laxman made it somewhat clear that he would like to be loyal to both Ambedkarism and Brahminism but this may prove to be an impossible task. Laxman’s colour (the Dravidian black) is itself an anathema to the Aryan racism that Hegdewar and Golwalkar stood for. Laxman’s position at the top of the party pyramid and having to live with his ‘un–Hindu’ statements are certain to be seen as the result of the unfortunate presence of Ambedkarism in the Indian politico–social space. 

The Hindu spiritual world has been hoping against hope all these years that it would not have to see a day when the Chandalas  emerge as a powerful force and undermine the divine dictum of the Adi–Brahmin-Purush, Brahma, that the Chandalas forever remain untouchables. Ambedkar has become a modern Buddha and Laxman knows that only too well. But for the Ambedkarite presence in the Indian political scene, Laxman would still be elsewhere, possibly stitching a shoe and certainly not the president of a party that was meant to be a Brahmin–Baniya saddle. 

Arun Shourie, who called Ambedkar a “False God”, must have licked his own boots as Laxman made his presidential pronouncements. Laxman’s statement proved that however weak a Dalit might otherwise be, when in a position of power he can make a difference. 

The appointment (not election) by Vajpayee of Bangaru Laxman, a Dalit leader from Hyderabad, as the president of the BJP has been done with a design to woo the votes of Dalits and appeal to South Indians as the BJP has been accused of being an enemy of both Dravidism and Dalitism. As a party that aspires to be a ruling party on its own, the BJP has to overcome both these images. 

In the sufficiently well established line of Dalit leaders like Jagjivan Ram, Damodaram Sanjeevaiah who were given similar positions  in the Congress party, some Dalit leader was badly needed to salvage the anti-Dalit image of the BJP. Laxman, given his name, colour and caste, appeared to be the most suitable person. What Laxman can do to Dalits depends on how the educated Dalits assert themselves and how an ageing Kanshi Ram builds his party. In politics, the strength of the Bahujan Samaj Party helps in the Dalit bargain with other parties. It is in this political backdrop that Laxman climbed the BJP ladder. 

The problem for the BJP would however be, that like Jagjivan Ram and Sanjeevaiah, Laxman seems to be behaving unpredictably. He has publicly stated that he got this post because of Vajpayee and like Rama Bhakta Hanuman even touched the latter’s feet of Vajpayee. In the process he has placed the self–respect of Dalits at the feet of a classical Brahmin. I do not think Jagjivan Ram and Sanjeevaiah ever did this to Nehru. But to overcome this surrender to a political ‘Swamiji’, he said his attempt would be to combine Ambedkar with Hegdewar. 

This very statement, however, creates a tension in caste ideology. Laxman has to salvage Hinduism, which does not want to give Dalits the right to priesthood, but the party that emerged to safeguard upper caste interests has to mobilise Dalit votes. Hinduism as a religion destroyed the moral foundation of Dalits and without reforming that religion a Hindu political party cannot salvage the situation. 

This is the reason why more and more Dalits are looking towards either Christianity or Buddhism. The Hindutva forces know pretty well that apart from Ambedkar and Kanshi Ram what threatens Brahminism is the “Acclesia in Asia” document that Pope John Paul II released at Delhi during his visit to India last year. 
The Pope said that the Cross was planted in Europe in the first millennium, in America and Africa in the second millennium, and that Christ will return to his birth place – Asia — with all the strength at his command in the third millennium. The Christian resolve seems to be that the last segment of  global spiritual slavery — India’s untouchables — have to be liberated by all means in this century. This resolution of global Christianity coupled with its cultural liberalism poses very serious challenges to Brahminism today. 

Whenever Hinduism found itself in deep crisis because of the Shudra-Chandala revolt, it took the help of  a Shudra or Chandala to overcome that crisis and they made these Trojan horses speak their language. Valmiki, a Dalit, was made to write the Ramayana, as they wanted it to be written; again a Krishna was made to write the Gita, as they wanted it to be written. Only Ambedkar refused to do that and that has pushed Hinduism in to a deep crisis. 

Given the threat of globalisation and Christianity in the era of Ambedkarism in India, Laxman has been chosen to overcome the present crisis of Hinduism. But Laxman is too inadequate a person to salvage the situation. Despite the promise that Krishna would incarnate, yuga after yuga, to protect Brahminism would not turn up in this yuga because of the God who originated  in Israel and has produced globally commanding capitalism and the English language. The gods who understand only Sanskrit are suffering a heavy loss of social base in their own land. The Dalits are the main social base of the expanding Christianity. The sangh parivar has to do something about it. Laxman seemed be the only alternative. 

Neither Hinduism nor the Hindutva organisations can offer spiritual and social liberation to Dalits, tribals and OBCs. The OBCs are fixed to Hinduism like nuts and bolts; hence the sangh parivar does not see any threat from OBCs in spiritual terms.  The sangh parivar does not mind marginalising any number of OBCs in the political sphere, too. Kalyan Singh and Uma Bharati are cases in point of this marginalisation. But that is not the case with SCs. But because of the overall impact of the organised church and Ambedkarite Buddhism, the SCs and STs have become a social force who can lobby for their Dalit cause in international fora. 

The OBCs could not evolve as a force to interact with the West. They could not modernise and acquire proficiency in English, which could loosen their nut and bolt location in Hinduism and allow them to look for global recognition of their position. So they are becoming a butt of ridicule in the hands of Brahminical  forces within the sangh parivar. Kanshi Ram once rightly said that the ruling classes of India are afraid of only SCs because they are a force to reckon with in the bureaucracy and in politics and section of them have got westernised. 

So Laxman becomes a useful tool to address some of the socio-spiritual and economic problems that Hinduism as a religion and Hindutva as a political force are facing today. If Laxman realises the historical context in which he has been given this position, he can work his way to South Block and become the first SC Prime Minister of India. After Vajpayee, there is no leader from the BJP top brass who is acceptable to all the NDA constituents. Advani and Murli Manohar Joshi have already burnt their fingers with their right–wing extremism. 

Laxman, who kept a low profile in the aggressive phase of the BJP, leads a non–controversial life style and has no base of his own in the party or at the mass level. These are good qualifications for a Dalit to be seen as a candidate for the Prime Minister’s post. 

Laxman has all the qualities that PV Narsimha Rao had when he emerged as a Prime Ministerial candidate in the Congress party after the death of Rajiv Gandhi. Laxman’s Dalit background is an added bonus. Judging by how Laxman has been speaking and conducting himself after being appointed the party president he is moving in the right direction. His statements on the minorities and Ambedkar seem to have been well–received in political circles. 

Laxman is right when he says that minorities are “blood of his blood and flesh of his flesh” in so far as he speaks as a Dalit. When talking of Ambedkar or of minorities, Laxman is speaking like a Dalit. Laxman is also expected to ease the BJP’s relations with Christians as the latter also feel quite comfortable negotiating with Laxman as head of the party rather than some upper caste leaders. Thus, there is good mettle in him to aspire to becoming the first Dalit to occupy the Prime Minister’s chair. 

But all this will be possible only if Laxman plays the part of Hanuman very carefully in a party of Aryan Brahminism. He must not think of crossing the laxman rekhas drawn by his Lord, Vajpayee. Of course, he can acquire his own small temples here and there. But his limited spiritual space will be safe only as long as the real Hindu heroes operating from Hindu temples feel secure with him as their watchdog. Advani, a Sindhi, a non–practising Hindu but a hard-line Hindutvavaadi, does have much support of the Hindu Brahmin priests. The NDA leaders do not trust him either. 

The Indian media, too, takes its cues from the temple of Brahminism before it projects somebody as an acceptable man or woman for the highest position. The Indian media used to hate Ambedkar. It hates Kanshi Ram. Its love–hate relationship with KR Narayanan turned into a pure hate relationship after he delivered his two historic lectures on the occasion of Republic Day this year. Laxman is still a bird in the egg so far as the media is concerned. If he chooses to play the role of Hanuman well, the future for him is very bright. 

But the Dalits as a historical community have every thing to loose. Just as the first Dalit president of the BJP, even the first Dalit Prime Minister of India would come and go without changing the socio-spiritual and economic status of Dalits even an inch. But many Kanshi Rams can be vanquished with this Dalit weapon called Bangaru (gold) Laxman. 

Archived from Communalism Combat, September 2000 Year 8  No. 62, Cover Story 4

The post If Laxman plays Hanuman… appeared first on SabrangIndia.