Religion and Public Life

Tom Butler's Thoughts For The Day

Tom Butler

• Publisher: Continuum
• Year: 2011
• Print ISBN: 9781441101778
• eBook ISBN: 9781441160850
• Edition: 1
• Topic: Theology & Religion
• Subtopic: Religion

For more than twenty years, Bishop Tom Butler has related religious belief to the events of public life, both national and global, in regular contributions to BBC Radio 4's Thought for the Day. Each 'Thought' is prompted by current events, without knowing how the news will develop, thereby illustrating how religion relates to contemporary life and how the insights it offers may develop over time. Here, Tom Butler explores themes ranging from The Gulf Wars and Terrorism via Science, Medical Ethics and Political Life to Religion itself. Drawing on (and incorporating) a selection of Thought for the Day scripts covering a twenty-year period, he charts the developing relationship between religion and public life and explores the Church's role of bringing religious values and insights to bear on topical issues and restating the public's hopes and fears in religious language.

1

Religion and the Gulf Wars

Probably no event, or series of events has been more divisive during the last two decades than the Gulf wars. They have divided opinion within Britain and Europe and have had a detrimental effect on relationships between Muslim and Western countries. With emotions beginning to calm with a new generation of political leaders, now is perhaps a good time to seek to examine events and decisions using the time honoured Christian criteria for the ‘just war’, which since the time of Thomas Aquinas in the thirteenth century has provided rulers and ruled with a benchmark to consider whether it is right to go to war or engage in a rebellion against civic powers. It might be thought that the concept of the just war is rather dated when considering modern warfare and weaponry, but it is on the syllabus of military academies as well as theological colleges and, as we shall see, gives us a very helpful perspective in judging the wisdom or otherwise of engaging in the Gulf wars.

The criteria for the just war are well known. Because Christian teaching honours both human life and a society working for the common good, it sees the killing of individuals as a serious sin which we should strive to avoid. Because of this many Christians, amongst others, refuse to take up arms whatever the cause. This has not been the mainline position of the Church, however. Rather taking up arms in self defence or in the face of an oppressive regime has been seen as a legitimate last resort with several provisos.

First of all, other methods of ending the dispute must have been attempted and failed. Secondly, there must be legitimate and lawful authority for going to war. Thirdly, the war must be fought with the right intention; material gain for example, is not a just purpose. Fourthly, because all war causes suffering, there must be a reasonable belief that the war will have a successful outcome; if there is doubt here, it might be better to live with some injustice and oppression, rather than cause great suffering to no human benefit.

If it is judged that these conditions have been met and that going to war is legitimate then other criteria kick in concerning the conduct of the war. As far as is possible war must only be fought against enemy soldiers and civilian casualties should be avoided. Once enemy soldiers have surrendered and have been disarmed they must be treated with respect. With modern weaponry getting more and more powerful it might be thought that the avoidance of civilian casualties is a vain hope, but it has been claimed that the development of ‘smart’ weapons gives military commanders more control over the destruction they cause. In any event, another criteria within war is that the force used must be proportionate to the wrong that has been done and the possible good that can come out of the war; a wasteland of burning oil fields, for example would be to nobody’s benefit. In general, the force and weaponry used should be the minimum necessary to achieve the desired outcome.

There are further criteria for a just cause to end the war. The stated desired aim should have been met and terms of surrender negotiated: also, even a war having a just cause can be ended if it is clear that victory cannot be achieved. Peace terms must be negotiated and agreed between legitimate authorities and should be proportionate to the original reason for going to war and should not be the cause of such grievance, resentment or hardship such as to plant the seeds of a further future conflict. There must be no revenge taken and any punishment should be limited to those who were directly responsible for the conflict.

Unpacking the events of the Gulf wars within the perspective of these criteria is instructive, not least because the messy outcome of the First Gulf War simmered throughout the next decade and overlapped with the given causes of a Second Gulf War. Eight ‘Thought’ scripts are included here from different times during these disputes and illustrate how, at the time, I was trying to interpret day-by-day events.

The first ‘Thought’ comes from January 1991, six months after Iraq’s invasion of Kuwait. Of course this invasion came out of turmoil in the region in earlier years. Almost one million people died in the Iraq–Iran war from 1980 until 1989. In 1981 Israel had bombed the Iraqi nuclear plant near Baghdad. In 1987 there had been reports of Iraqi chemical attacks on Kurdish villages, and soil samples confirmed the use of mustard gas and the nerve agent Tabun.

The immediate response to the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait in August 1990 was a series of UN resolutions calling for Iraqi withdrawal, stating that the annexation had no legal validity, demanding the release of foreign nationals that Iraq was detaining and, in some cases, using as hostages in Iraq and Kuwait. At the same time the UN called for economic sanctions against Iraq. In September 1990 Iraq called for the overthrow of leaders in Saudi Arabia and Egypt, and there was US military build-up in Saudi Arabia. On 9 September there was a joint US–Soviet statement affirming the principle that ‘we must demonstrate beyond any doubt that aggression cannot and will not pay’. Finally, at the end of November, UN resolution 678 authorized the use of ‘all means necessary’ after 15 January 1991 to enforce previous UN resolutions, including that requiring Iraqi withdrawal from Kuwait.

With all of this it would seem that all the just conditions for going to war had been met. The invasion of Kuwait by Iraq had been ruled by the UN to be illegal and illegitimate. Other diplomatic and economic pressure had been attempted and force would be being used as a necessary last resort, with legitimate authority and with the aim of forcing Iraq to withdraw from Kuwait. This thinking was behind the ‘Thought’ script, delivered on 2 January 1991, which anticipated the use of allied force, yet expressed the hope that ‘now the world community, having shown its willingness to shoulder bravely its load of care, find a way of ensuring freedom and justice without precipitating itself into the horror of war’. This hope was not realized and ‘Operation Desert Storm’ began with an Apache helicopter strike on 17 January 1991.

ZULU, 2 JANUARY 1991

The film Zulu was shown on television again just after Christmas. It tells the story of an engineering officer who, with his platoon of soldiers, was sent way out into the bush to build a bridge across a river in South Africa. Whilst there they were attacked out of the blue by a large force of Zulu warriors. An unexpected load had to be shouldered by the officer, a load of care – the defence of his men.

The load of care soon grew because, as senior officer, the defence of the whole area became his responsibility. Before long the war started in earnest. The Zulus attacked in wave after wave. Many of the British soldiers were killed. Others fought on bravely yet, finally, it seemed that all was lost. The Zulus grouped for a last attack. But then, astonishingly, instead of pressing home their advantage, they formed up and saluted the British soldiers for their bravery and they then withdrew, leaving the commanding officer smiling with relief and saying, ‘After all, I only came here to build a bridge.’

The load of care is often so. It comes out of the blue. It expands, yet those shouldering it bravely can win respect and even honour. Christians at least shouldn’t be surprised by this, for Jesus of Nazareth bore an ever expanding load of care. First as teacher and healer in the hills of Galilee; then as prophet in Jerusalem; finally as crucified saviour of the world. And it was an unknown Roman soldier who, witnessing Jesus’s courage on the cross, spoke wiser words than he knew, words of honour and respect: ‘Behold the man.’

The hero of our film went out to build a bridge, yet he found himself, with his comrades, caught up in something quite different – a fearsome war. Our thoughts at the present time go out to those of all nations who fear that they too might be caught up in the midst of a brutal war. Perhaps they joined the army, British, American, Syrian, Egyptian, to see the world, or learn a skill, or perhaps they were bored, or wanted to do their bit for their country. Whatever they thought they were doing, now they’re in the desert sand protecting freedom, or oil, or the world economy, facing a war that might seem to be the least of several evils, but is no less terrifying for that. The load of care has expanded and they and we are stuck with it.

In the film it took the slaughter of a large proportion of the young Zulu and British warriors before mutual respect brought the battle to an end. It’s sad that such mutual respect and honour can’t more often be found before a war rather that after it, for sometimes the negotiations of the thoughtful can be just as heroic as the dogmatic certainties of the belligerent. In the Gulf, Iraqi expansionism has been halted by a swift and steadfast use of military force. Might now the world community, having shown its willingness to shoulder bravely its load of care, find a way of ensuring freedom and justice without precipitating itself into the horror of war? If so, the world might know a happier New Year. [The defence of Rorke’s Drift on 22–23 January 1879 – the event portrayed in the film Zulu – occurred after a Zulu army had wiped out a British column of more than 1,300 men at the Battle of Isandlwana earlier on 22 January.]

Within six weeks the fighting was over but not before Scud missiles had hit Israel. The aftermath of the war was to prove to be rather more controversial than the war itself. The UN resolution 687 in April established the peace terms, including the return of Kuwaiti property, economic sanctions and Iraqi disarmament. Iraq was to provide a list of all weapons of mass destruction (WMD) in its possession. United Nations Special Commission (UNSCOM) inspectors were to ascertain that the arms had been surrendered. Here lay the seeds of a future war, for there never was agreement that Iraq had declared or surrendered all of its WMD.

President George Bush (Sr) was criticized by some for halting the war as soon as its objectives had been achieved, the expulsion of Iraqi forces from Kuwait. Many felt that the allied forces should have gone on and finished the job with the expulsion of Saddam Hussein from power. In terms of just war criteria, however, President Bush’s action was quite correct, for the UN had not given authority for regime change. This would clearly have been seen as an illegal action with little support from neighbouring countries.

However, another consequence of careless planning following the ceasefire could be criticized. At the end of March, with US encouragement, the Shia in the south of Iraq and the Kurds in the north rebelled against the Saddam Hussein regime. The Iraqi army and air force had not been disarmed and within a month the rebels were crushed with approximately one and a half million Kurds fleeing into neighbouring countries.

The ‘Thought’ of 9 April 1991 speaks to this peace plan that has gone astray. It compares the Shiite and Kurdish rebels to a class’s pet snake. During the half-term holidays the teacher left a live rat for food in the snake’s tank. Unfortunately for the snake, the cleaner turned off the heat and the snake went into a deep sleep. When the class returned that snake had not eaten the rat, the rat had eaten the snake. Following the war, Saddam Hussein, the rat, was very much alive and dangerous. As events in Iraq unfolded, the just war criteria of giving just as much attention to building a just peace as to planning and waging a just war are well illustrated, and because, with the best will in the world, there will be unforeseen consequences, those waging war must always be ready to generously contribute to the care of the casualties, not only of the war, but of the peace.

SADDAM HUSSEIN AND THE SNAKE, 9 APRIL 1991

A year or so ago I read about a teacher who’d attempted to keep her class’s pet snake well fed during the school half-term holiday by leaving a small live rat in the tank with the snake when the class went home. Unfortunately for the snake the school cleaner switched off the tank’s heating system along with the school room lights when she went home. As the tank cooled, the snake went into a deep sleep and when the teacher returned from her holidays she was horrified to find that the snake had not eaten the rat, but the rat had eaten the snake.

Something similar seems to be happening in the Middle East. The plan of the allies following the war with Iraq surely was to leave behind a snake of rebellion which would eat the rat-like Saddam Hussein. Unfortunately for the Shiite and Kurdish rebels, it seems that the snake of rebellion has not eaten the rat, but the rat, still armed to the teeth, is busily eating the snake.

A military friend of mine told me before the war started that a plan of war rarely survives the outbreak of hostilities – the unexpected invariably happens. Now it seems that the plan of peace has not survived the ceasefire – the unexpected has happened. It is ever so. To paraphrase Robert Burns – the best laid schemes of mice and men tend to go astray.

It’s just because human plans do tend to go astray that protection, compassion and charitable-giving feature high in the demands of any world religion – for the battered victims of human and natural disasters are ever with us. The story is told of a rich man who, when he went for prayer, was led by his servants along a route which avoided meeting with any people begging for food or healing, because it was believed that to hear the cries of suffering people and not respond to their needs turned the heart to stone. And so it does, but the answer is not to protect our humanity by avoiding the cries of the needy; the answer is to protect their humanity by mobilizing our hearts and minds to better their situation.

St Paul, even whilst he was spreading Christianity amongst the fringe people of the cities of the Mediterranean world, at the same time was collecting money from them, to ease the suffering of those in Jerusalem who’d been dispossessed due to war or religious faith.

Avoiding the cries of the needy then is not a luxury open to people of faith – and it is certainly not a luxury open in this situation to those of us from the nations which made up the allied armies. The casualties of peace are an unforeseen consequence of a war undertaken in good faith and a peace plan which has gone badly astray. As a nation we were prepared to dig deeply into our pockets to fund the war, we had now better dig even more deeply in it if the casualties are to be tended, and a true peace is ever to be found.

For the next three years occasional skirmishes occurred until in November 1994 the Iraq National Assembly officially acknowledged Kuwaiti sovereignty with Saddam Hussein ratifying the decision the same day.

It was in this year that David Steele, now Lord Steele, and I paid a humanitarian fact-finding visit to Iraq to seek to judge how sanctions were effecting the life of Iraq’s schools and hospitals. With air links cut, we travelled across the desert in an ancient taxi from Amman. We were met in Bagdad by the Baath party official who was to be our constant and attentive ‘minder’. This was useful in arranging visits to institutions and government ministers, but it was quite obvious that nobody was going to be at all critical in his presence. At 2 p.m. each afternoon, however, he delivered us to our rooms for an afternoon nap, collecting us later at 4.30 pm. We used the afternoon not in sleep but in slipping out to meet NGOs and Church members who fed us with useful and perceptive questions to ask of ministers the following day. I mention this visit in my ‘Thought’ of 4 February 1998 when military action was once more being discussed.

IRAQ, 4 FEBRUARY 1998

There’s a flawed logic which goes like this. The situation is terrible. Something must be done. This is something. Therefore we must do it. I fear that this kind of logic might lead to premature air strikes on Iraq.

The situation is terrible. Saddam Hussein is a danger to his own people and neighbouring countries. Something must be done. But is an air strike the ‘something’? In 1994, three years after the end of the Gulf War, Sir David Steele and I went on a humanitarian fact-finding visit to Iraq. We had an official programme of visits to hospitals and clinics, but we were also quite skilful at slipping away to pay private visits to ordinary Church people. Speaking for myself, I wasn’t too surprised by the atmosphere of fear – but you could cut it with a knife, I was surprised and disturbed by the extent of child malnutrition and disease – sanctions were biting deeply even then, and I was astonished at the fury and the blame which ordinary folk directed, not at their own government and its leader, but at the United States and Britain because of the air strikes and sanctions. You can put it down to propaganda or to national patriotism, but there was no doubting its reality and I doubt whether much has changed in four years.

Jesus Christ, who could be remarkably hard headed at times, once said, that no king goes to war without very carefully counting the cost of the enterprise and the chances of success. Later this became one of the basic principles behind the categories of a just war. War inevitably causes damage and death to the innocent, so you should weigh up the outcome of the war very carefully before embarking upon it, and in particular you should weigh up whether the likely gains will be worth the innocent suffering which will be caused.

When Sir David and I were leaving Iraq we were parked at the border post in a VIP lounge. We were joined by an Iraqi minister entering his country from Jordan. He engaged us in a civilized conversation and then because it was midday Friday went to say his prayers kneeling on the corner of the carpet. He retu...

Table of contents

• 1
• 2
• 3
• 4
• 5
• 6
• 7
• 8
• 9