 |
Note: Bishop Theodore McCarrick
of Newark, N.J., is chairman of the United States Catholic Conference's
International Policy Committee.
February 5, 1998
The Honorable Madeleine K. Albright
Secretary of State
U.S. Department of State
2201 C Street, N.W.
Washington, DC 20520
Dear Madame Secretary,
I write to express serious concern over the moral dimensions of the
worsening crisis in Iraq. We support international efforts to address
Iraq's continuing noncompliance with U. N. cease-fire resolutions; we
urge new efforts to address the continuing, unmerited suffering of
innocent Iraqi civilians; and we earnestly hope that diplomatic solution
will be found so that renewed military action will be avoided.
First, I wish to re-emphasize that, since the end of the Gulf War, the
U.S. Catholic Bishops have supported international efforts to ensure
that Iraq complies promptly and fully with the U.N. cease-fire
resolutions on chemical and biological weapons.
The government of Iraq must cooperate fully and promptly with the
United Nations in the elimination of its capacity to produce weapons of
mass destruction, including chemical and biological weapons. The use of
these weapons is morally unacceptable under all circumstances, as is
their possession by a state which has in fact employed such weapons,
both against its neighbors and its own citizens.
Because the Iraqi government has repeatedly attacked its neighbors and
repressed segments of its own population, especially its Kurdish and
marsh Arab populations, its possession of weapons of mass destruction
and the capacity to manufacture them properly are of grave concern to
the world community. The world should unite in nonviolent opposition to
the intransigence of the Iraqi government.
Secondly, I would reiterate our call to reshape the existing embargo
against Iraq so as to end the suffering of the Iraqi civilian
population. Some targeted sanctions are justified to contain Iraq's
threat to its neighbors but sanctions must not destroy the lives of
Iraq's civilian population. The immunity of innocents that applies in
armed conflict is also valid when pursuing measures short of war.
In July, 1991, my predecessor, Archbishop John Roach, summarized our
concerns in a letter to your predecessor, Secretary of State James
Baker:
- The inadequacy of existing humanitarian relief efforts, the
conviction that coercive measures should be strictly limited in
their ends and means, and the mounting evidence of disproportionate
harm to the civilian population lead us, Mr. Secretary, to the
judgment that the embargo, as now applied, unduly risks violating
fundamental moral norms and prolonging human suffering.
Unfortunately, the experience of the last seven years has confirmed
the judgment that Iraqi civilians are suffering disproportionate and
unacceptable harm, not only as a result of the action sof their own
government, but also as a result of U.N. sanctions.
The U.N. sanctions regime has achieved some of its objectives of
disarming Iraq. We believe, however, that it is time to acknowledge that
the death and suffering of the Iraqi people brought about because of
sanctions seem to us morally intolerable and unacceptable.
We acknowledge that primary responsibility for remedying this situation
lies with the Iraqi government. Unfortunately, it is evident that the
government of Iraq has done little to alleviate the suffering of its own
people and has even exacerbated it. It is wrong to punish the Iraqi
people for the actions of a government they cannot control.
From 1991 to late 1995, the government of Iraq refused to accept
legitimate U.N. conditions for the food-for-oil program, thereby
foregoing a critical opportunity to limit the humanitarian consequences
of sanctions. Since the Iraqi government agreed to the food-for-oil
program last year, it still has not taken advantage of this program to
the full extent possible. At the same time it continues to divert scarce
resources from providing the basic needs of its people to rebuilding its
military arsenal, and it has attempted to manipulate the food program in
ways which were calculated to receive negative response from the U.N.
Sanctions Committee.
Nevertheless, it is beyond dispute that the U.N. embargo has been a
contributing factor in the widespread death, malnutrition and disease
among Iraq's civilian population. According to the reports of our
brother bishops and other reliable sources, adequate food, clean water
and health care are lacking for hundreds of thousands of people. To
contribute significantly, though indirectly, to their hunger and disease
is unconscionable, no matter how egregious the actions of their leaders.
We cannot fail to heed their cries for help.
As the Holy Father said in his January Address to the Diplomatic Corps,
"I must call on the consciences of those who, in Iraq and
elsewhere, put political, economic or strategic considerations before
the fundmental good of the people and ask them to show compassion."
For that reason we welcome recent proposals to expand the food-for-oil
program and streamline its implementation. Even without full Iraqi
collaboration, this program has helped to mitigate the impact of
sanctions on the Iraqi people. Under current conditions, however, this
program does not seem adequate to alleviate human suffering.
Accordingly, we urge, in addition, that steps be taken to reshape the
embargo, establishing clear criteria for lifting the restrictions on
trade in civilian goods, while retaining a strict embargo on military
equipment and technology, as well as appropriate political sanctions. We
believe that containment of Iraq's ability to threaten peace and
security in the region should be pursued through a military embargo,
deterrence, and carefully tailored economic sanctions supported by the
world community.
We appreciate efforts by the Administration and Congress to review the
use of economic sanctions in diplomacy, and we are prepared to assist in
these reviews. We strongly urge that moral considerations as well as
economic and trade factors be part of this review.
Third, Iraq's failure to cooperate with legitimate U.N. efforts to
enforce the cease fire resolutions is a serious matter and its attempts
to develop weapons of mass destruction, including chemical and
biological weapons, are a clear danger. Nevertheless, every effort must
be made to resolve the present crisis through diplomatic means at your
disposal.
In our judgment, the resort to major military action that is now being
considered demands careful scrutiny in the light of the canons for
justifiable use of force. We wish to raise three issues in particular:
discrimination and non-combatant immunity, proportionality in the
application of force, and the probability of success.
- Would the contemplated forms of military action risk
indiscriminate harm to innocent civilians whether directly or
indirectly through destruction of civilian infrastructure?
- Given Iraqi compliance with other arms control provisions of the
cease fire resolutions, would massive military action be a
proportionate response to Iraqi obstruction of U.N. weapons
inspectors?
- Would military action be likely to achieve the stated objective
of eliminating stockpiles of weapons of mass destruction and Iraq's
capacity to produce them? Would military strikes lead to further
Iraqi compliance with the cease-fire resolutions, or instead have
the unintended effect of strengthening the regime's power and
increasing its transigence?
In our judgment, in the present circumstances, a massive bombing
campaign unduly risks violating some of the relevant moral criteria
governing such action. We fear that the use of military force in this
case could pose an undue risk to an already suffering civilian
population, could well be disproportionate to the ends sought, and could
fail to resolve legitimate concerns about Iraq's weapons of mass
destruction.
There are no easy answers to the Iraq crisis, but our two-fold moral
message is clear. On the one hand, the Iraqi government must use the
resources at its disposal to feed and care for its own people whil it
ends its threats of aggression and eliminates its capacity to produce
weapons of mass destruction. On the other hand, the international
community with the United States int he lead but not acting unilaterally
must avoid measures which lead to the death and suffering of innocent
people as it seeks to accomplish the legitimate objectives of containing
aggression and preventing the development and use of weapons of mass
destruction.
Attaining these twin goals may require establishing clearer criteria
for Iraqi compliance with the cease-fire resolutions, lifting controls
on food, medicine and essential humanitarian goods, and reshaping but
not eliminating the remaining sanctions so that they are more narrowly
targeted against those who bear actual responsibility for Iraq's
actions. At the same time, given the moral complexity of the situation,
the international community should give new diplomatic and political
efforts priority over resort to military force. Pursuing a political
solution may be a difficult and demanding task, but it is called for
given the moral necessity of protecting innocent Iraqis and serious
doubts about the ability to eliminate Iraq's capacity to produce weapons
of mass destruction through military strikes. Means short of war must be
found to contain and overcome the Iraqi regime's threat to its own
people and to the world.
I deeply appreciate your consideration of these concerns.
Sincerely yours,
[signed]
Most Reverend Theodore E. McCarrick
Archbishop of Newark
Chairman, International Policy Committee
Top of page |
