A War in Iraq

One point is missing from Bishop Hugh Montefiore's very clear exposition of the issues.

He says that many think that the sanction of the UN is essential if force is to be used against Iraq. Surely it is also essential that the UN's agreement be obtained on the strength of the arguments, and not by arm-twisting or inducements by the great powers?

Whether or not by coincidence, at the same time several Eastern European countries are being invited to join NATO. Some commentators are asking whether NATO still has a role. There is a very clear one: to persuade countries which can ill afford it to spend a lot of money buying updated weaponry from countries more industrialized, and wealthier, than themselves.

Martin Wright, London SW2

Thank you for the well informed and interestingly presented article on the pros and cons of the possible war in Iraq.

I feel all churches in our diocese should pray, by name, for the three players in this terrible plot - Bush, Blair and Hussein. Surely no one in his or her right mind really wants mass destruction, it only encourages more of the same; as a Christian community we must hammer Heaven with urgent pleas for a peaceful resolve to this problem, pray for each of the players EQUALLY; pray for all those who make decisions in top places; pray constantly, not forgetting to praise God as well as plead with him.

Ann Harvey Blackheath SE3

It is not Tom Sutcliffe's piece on Iraq that cries out for comment but Bishop Tom Butler's.

He concludes: 'if the UN Security Council refuses to adopt clear and robust resolutions or if Saddam Hussein refuses to allow inspectors back in to do their job properly, in such circumstances, the use of military force might prove the least worst option.'

Crucial questions seem not to have been asked about why we should attack Iraq.

Question 1: Is Iraq to be attacked because it incorrigibly cheats on UN Security Council resolutions?

If so, why was Israel not attacked after it had entered Lebanon in 1978? UNSCR 425 of 19 March 1978 required it to 'withdraw forthwith all its forces from all Lebanese territory.' It did not. Instead, it stayed until May 2000, 22 years later and killed at least 14,000 civilians during its stay. No one lifted a finger to enforce the international will. Israel remains in defiance of other resolutions regarding the annexation of the Golan, East Jerusalem and its settlements, all of which defy international law. So why is the West so anxious to enforce the UN will in one case but not in the other?

Question 2: Is Iraq to be attacked because it is assembling weapons of mass destruction?

Who could doubt the value of an inspection team? Within the region Israel also has weapons of mass destruction. One need not doubt that in extremis it would use them. In Asia, India and Pakistan seemed close to using them very recently. Russia and the Ukraine have a vast array of weaponry. So does North Korea. In the West the UK, France and the US hold weapons of mass destruction, the latter having the dark distinction of actually having used them. The US and UK are also reported to be developing a new generation of chemical weapons. So why is there no will to insist all countries be subject to a UN Inspectorate? If we were half serious about world peace surely this is the path we would take. But would the US allow inspectors on its own soil? I doubt it.

Question 3: Bishop Tom says that the wellbeing of Iraqis is being sacrificed for Saddam's toxic arsenal.

He is probably right. But do we think either the US or UK genuinely care about Iraqis or their human rights? This, I regret to say, is how much the US cares for democracy and human rights in the Middle East: (a) it almost certainly supported the coup that removed Syria's only democratic government in 1949; (b) it (and the UK) engineered the overthrow of the nationalist government in Iran in 1953 to put the despotic Shah back on the throne; (c) it has winked at Israel's theft of Palestinian land and water and vetoed numerous Security Council resolutions aimed at ensuring Israeli respect for international law (d) it supported Iraq when it had invaded Iran in 1980, providing it with intelligence and material. So, also, did Britain (remember 'Arms to Iraq'?). And the real irony? As the tide turned in its favour, Iran insisted it had no territorial ambitions, its sole aim being the removal of Saddam Hussein from office. But, as in the Middle Ages, the West proved paranoid about Islam and so helped a man it already knew to be profoundly brutal and utterly unprincipled to frustrate an Iranian victory.

Neither the US nor the UK did anything when Saddam gassed his Kurds during 1988. Instead, Britain doubled its export credit line to Iraq. I can offer an authoritative confirmation. The Foreign Office desk officer for Iraq told me in conversation shortly after the gas attacks that the UK 'would not jeopardise its political and economic interests in Iraq because of the Kurds.'

So it secretly relaxed export restrictions to Iraq, as the Scott Enquiry later revealed. Oh yes, and Britain participated in the Baghdad Arms Fair, April 1989. In 1996 I found myself in the State Department in Washington, ostensibly to discuss Iraq's Kurds. After a couple of minutes the conversation moved to the US need to remove Saddam Hussein. My interlocutors were obsessive on the subject and they still are.

I still passionately believe that Saddam should be arraigned for war crimes. But I can think of no two countries less qualified to carry out this task than the US and UK. Call me old-fashioned but I still cling to a dream of Christ's reign of peace and justice in the world. The prospective attack on Iraq by the US and the UK has no part in it.

David McDowall Richmond

We agree with Tom Sutcliffe and find his view like a breath of fresh air.

It is more like the truth than a lot of war rhetoric we hear. Contrary to the Government statement that Iraq consistently refused to allow UNSCOM inspectors access to the Presidential sites, there were, in fact, a series of agreements between UNSCOM and Baghdad between 1996 and 1998, enabling UN inspectors to visit 'sensitive sites'. These agreements were still in place but now the USA is trying to derail the inspection process by tearing up existing agreements and demanding 'anyone, anytime' inspection rights.

Of course it is obvious that all this is a cover for the fact that the war is really about gaining control of Iraq's oil. If we all write to Tony Blair, perhaps he will change his mind about supporting the killing of thousands of Iraqi men, women and children.

Margaret Yearsley, Putney

I must commend Tom Sutcliffe for having the courage to speak out and disagree with Bishop Tom's views.

Frankly speaking I am rather disappointed with the views put forward by Bishop Tom; I find them spurious and tendentious. Like Mr Blair, the Bishop seems unable to distinguish between evidence and propaganda!

Where is the 'mounting evidence' of which he speaks and what is the 'relentless pressure applied by the Iraqi regime in its attempts to develop weapons of mass destruction'? It would seem that the Bishop is privy to information not available to most of us! None of us who have been following events in the Middle East this last year or so, would believe that it is safer for Israel to have weapons of mass destruction than any of its Arab neighbours - least of all under Ariel Sharon.

A.C. Connell, Tooting