Pax Christi - Middle East

Focus on the Middle East

For Latest!
on Middle East

N E W S
Paul Rogers' articles - Articles/Reports
Links

Israel
Palestine

Promoting nonviolent action in Iraq:
Voices in the Wilderness UK
Voices for Creative Nonviolence

Up-dates on Joe Glenton (July/2010)

Joe Glenton released from Colchester Prison, 13 July 2010

J oe Glenton jailed for nine months in prison for refusing to return to Afghanistan. Read more here

Read more background here from War Resisters International and here from York Against the War

Listen here to Joe speaking about his refusal to serve again in Afghanistan (July 2009)

Lance Corporal Joe Glenton outside Downing Street 03/08/09

AFGHANISTAN and IRAQ : a tragedy foretold... 6 YEARS ON!

6 YEARS ON, we revisit Iraq and Afghanistan to explore some of the costs of the war and the continuing challenge it brings to us as Christians.

In this leaflet you will find ideas for prayer and action. Use it within your parish, group and community to REMEMBER, PRAY and ACT for peace and justice for Afghanistan and Iraq.

Download the following additional resources to help you plan your own act of worship/vigil on March 20. Please let us know of your plans and we will post them on the website.

Worship outline - please adapt for local use
Listing of names of the dead from Iraq, the UK and the US to be read out during acts of worship/ at vigils
Litany prepared for use at vigil in Coventry

This action is in solidarity with Christian friends in the United States, Christian Peace Witness for Iraq, whose site gives more information and liturgical resources: www.christianpeacewitness.org

Find out more about Iraqi Christians in Need and support their work

20 March 2009

REMEMBER ACT PRAY

download leaflet

Pax Christi is not responsible for the content of external links

It's the last thing you'd expect from this administration. But here it is in full public view: Pentagon spokesmen announcing Directive 3000.05 from the Department of Defense. Henceforth, the making of peace, it seems, holds equal footing with the making of war. It is now official policy that “stability operations are a core U.S. military mission” that “shall be given priority equal to combat operations…..” “Stability operations”? In DoD's words, they are “military and civilian activities conducted across the spectrum from peace to conflict to establish or maintain order….” Their immediate goal, says DoD, “often is to provide the local population with security, restore essential services, and meet humanitarian needs. The long-term goal is to help develop indigenous capacity for securing essential services, a viable market economy, rule of law, democratic institutions, and a robust civil society.” It gets even more interesting. On December 7, President Bush gave his Secretary of State a peace mandate. Condoleezza Rice now has a new role: developing strategies for stabilization and reconstruction in conflicted countries. This will include leading interagency planning “to prevent or mitigate conflict”, and developing “detailed contingency plans for integrated U.S. reconstruction and stabilization” in conflicted areas. It will also include leading “development of a strong civilian response capability” in hot spots. What, lefties in the Army? A peacemaker in the White House? We witness here learnings from the school of hard reality, the results of deadly encounter with the limits of force as a tool for security. For well over a year, American military on the ground in Iraq have been reporting that success there requires more than destroying insurgents. “As long as there's no water, or clinics, or jobs, we've got no chance of winning this war,” in the words of an Army officer fresh out of Afghanistan and Iraq. These painful lessons are finally filtering up to the level of policy. Might hard reality help Americans to re-examine how to do national defense? We have long assumed that destroying the bad guys equals security. When I write about why the invasion of Iraq makes the world more dangerous for us I get a common response: “Face up to the reality that there is evil in the world! Someone has to destroy the bad guys!” The reasoning is simple: 1) There is evil in the world; 2) Good cannot succeed in the presence of evil; 3) Therefore to be safe and do good we must destroy evil. Yes, there is evil in the world. Yes, evil endangers good. But we destroy evil by destroying those who do evil? Not so fast. That may have been true in a time when wars were fought on battlefields, when enemies could be slaughtered and left behind in far away places. But those days are gone. Today enemies blend into civilian populaces. Ease of movement and cheap access to compact, powerful weapons mean that hatred against us planted anywhere on earth may well follow us home. To defeat the evil we face today we need to understand how it spreads. Those who commit evil acts against us are the extreme wing of a group of ordinary and decent people. The car bombers of Iraq are a small minority who have chosen barbaric means to accomplish something that patriots in every country want: the removal of heavily armed foreigners, who bring cultural and religious values different from those of many Iraqis, and whose real purpose for the invasion is, they believe, for the foreigners' benefit. Here's the rub: The doers of evil in Iraq are embedded in a larger society. And, many share their concerns even while rejecting their means. Thus every move on our part to destroy evil people gravely injures good people and stirs hatred against us. Simplistic strategies of destroying evildoers plant seeds of more evil. The more actively we campaign to destroy, the faster evil grows. The alternative? Don't fight fire with fire. Fight fire with water. Don't destroy evil with evil, but overcome it with good. America's security today will not be increased by increased capability to destroy evil. When ordinary people all over the world know that America makes their lives better, in terms of clean water, health, education, jobs, and a say in their own future, the appeal of terrorists will be limited. We can never make ourselves invulnerable to those who hate us, but with sensible defensive measures we can limit the damage they cause. And if we are creative, determined and generous, we can make it difficult for their hatred to spread to others. The good will of our global neighbors will bring us more security in the long run than all the guns and bombs we could ever hope to accumulate. There is reason for skepticism about the directives of Bush and the DoD. But for now we might applaud two moves in the right direction – and encourage many more like them.
by Ron Kraybill
Professor, Center for Justice and Peacebuilding
Eastern Mennonite University
Harrisonburg, VA

Click here to respond to this essay on the author's blog
Click here for a quick overview of ideas for true security .

This essay may be post on websites or reproduced if reproductions contain the following:
Copyright Ron Kraybill 2005. For more essays by the author go to www.RiverhouseEpress.com , a web source of booklets and edocs on peace including essays on alternative security, a blog , a conflict style inventory and tools for dialogue and group facilitation. To subscribe to Paxserve, a listserve that distributes essays on conflict resolution and alternative security by Ron Kraybill, send a message to listmgr@emu.edu In the body of the message write: SUBSCRIBE PAXSERVE YOUREMAILADDRESS , however instead of YOUREMAILADDRESS , type your address. You can leave the subject line blank. This list will not be given to any other users.

Back to TOP

'Huge rise' in Iraqi death tolls: 655.000 dead in Iraq according to new survey

Mortality after the 2003 invasion of Iraq: a cross-sectional cluster sample survey

(The Lancet, 14 Oct. 2006)
Gilbert Burnham, Riyadh Lafta, Shannon Doocy, Les Roberts

Summary Background
An excess mortality of nearly 100.000 deaths was reported (see below) in Iraq for the period March, 2003 – September, 2004, attributed to the invasion of Iraq. Our aim was to update this estimate.

Methods
Between May and July, 2006, we did a national cross-sectional cluster sample survey of mortality in Iraq.
50 clusters were randomly selected from 16 Governorates, with every cluster consisting of 40 households. Information on deaths from these households was gathered.

Findings
Three misattributed clusters were excluded from the final analysis; data from 1849 households that contained 12.801 individuals in 47 clusters was gathered. 1.474 births and 629 deaths were reported during the observation period. Pre-invasion mortality rates were 5.5 per 1000 people per year (95% CI 4.3–7.1), compared with 13.3 per 1000 people per year (10.9–16.1) in the 40 months post-invasion. We estimate that as of July, 2006, there have been 654.965 (392.979–942.636) excess Iraqi deaths as a consequence of the war, which corresponds to 2.5% of the population in the study area. Of post-invasion deaths, 601.027 (426.369–793.663) were due to violence, the most common cause being gunfire.

Interpretation
The number of people dying in Iraq has continued to escalate. The proportion of deaths ascribed to coalition forces has diminished in 2006, although the actual numbers have increased every year. Gunfire remains the most common cause of death, although deaths from car bombing have increased.

download full report

Summary Background
In March, 2003, military forces, mainly from the USA and the UK, invaded Iraq. We did a survey to compare mortality during the period of 14.6 months before the invasion with the 17.8 months after it.

Methods
A cluster sample survey was undertaken throughout Iraq during September, 2004.33 clusters of 30 households each were interviewed about household composition, births, and deaths since January, 2002. In those households reporting deaths, the date, cause, and circumstances of violent deaths were recorded. We assessed the relative risk of death associated with the 2003 invasion and occupation by comparing mortality in the 17.8 months after the invasion with the 14.6-month period preceding it.

Findings
The risk of death was estimated to be 2.5-fold (95% CI 1.6-4.2) higher after the invasion when compared with the preinvasion period. Two-thirds of all violent deaths were reported in one cluster in the city of Falluja. If we exclude the Falluja data, the risk of death is 1.5-fold (1.1-2.3) higher after the invasion. We estimate that 98.000 more deaths than expected (8.000-194.000) happened after the invasion outside of Falluja and far more if the outlier Falluja cluster is included. The major causes of death before the invasion were myocardial infarction, cerebrovascular accidents, and other chronic disorders whereas after the invasion violence was the primary cause of death. Violent deaths were widespread, reported in 15 of 33 clusters, and were mainly attributed to coalition forces. Most individuals reportedly killed by coalition forces were women and children. The risk of death from violence in the period after the invasion was 58 times higher (95% CI 8.1-4.19) than in the period before the war.

Interpretation
Making conservative assumptions, we think that about 100.000 excess deaths, or more have happened since the 2003 invasion of Iraq. Violence accounted for most of the excess deaths and air strikes from coalition forces accounted for most violent deaths. We have shown that collection of public-health information is possible even during periods of extreme violence. Our results need further verification and should lead to changes to reduce non-combatant deaths from air strikes.

Following a recent private meeting, the Cardinal Archbishop of Westminster, Cormac Murphy-O'Connor and the Archbishop of Canterbury, Rowan Williams, have issued the following statement concerning Iraq

On this Remembrance Sunday, when we pray for peace, it is ironic that we seem to be preparing again for war. Here I talk of a pre-emptive strike, but this will demand a moral justification that will be difficult to find. Certainly, unilateral action is not to be preferred. But, the imminence of any threat has still to be verified. We have to be careful that taking military action does not trigger the very instability in the

The following ecumenical declaration - made public on 21 June 2002 - is intended to express the concerns of British Christians regarding the ongoing effects of the so-called 'war on terrorism', particularly in view of the prospect of a renewed attack on Iraq.The document was produced by a consultation team including Tina Beattie, Rob Esdaile, Bruce Kent, Clare Prangley, Frank Regan, Phil Shiner and Brian Wicker, and it has the support of Pax Christi who are helping to publicise the declaration and to gather signatures. The declaration was presented to the Prime Minister Tony Blair at 10 Downing Street on August 6, 2002. It can be downloaded as:

THE MORALITY AND LEGALITY OF A WAR AGAINST IRAQ

A CHRISTIAN DECLARATION 'Given the neglect of peaceable virtues and the destructiveness of today's weaponry, serious questions still remain about whether modern war in all its savagery can meet the hard tests set by the just-war tradition.'

From The Harvest of Justice Is Sown in Peace,

A statement by the United States Catholic Bishops' Conference, November 1993 September 11th, 2001 demonstrated the new threat posed to the international community by groups seeking to achieve their political ends through violence and terror, outside the framework of the nation-state. This is an urgent problem that calls for a far-sighted and effective response through the authority of United Nations and the processes of international law, bearing in mind that 'terrorism' lends itself to different interpretations in different contexts. We deplore any military action that regards the deaths of innocent men, women and children as a price worth paying in fighting terrorists, since this is to fight terror with terror. We call upon the world's leaders to seek a just and peaceful solution to the problem of terrorism by setting in place an international system of law supported by all states, including the United States of America, that would allow for the arrest and trial of terrorist agents in properly appointed courts of justice.

The so-called 'war on terrorism' is an act of political rhetoric that must be distinguished from a military campaign against a sovereign state. It cannot be used to justify an attack on, and any offensive planned to counteract the perceived threat posed by Iraqi weapons of mass destruction should not be represented as a war against terrorists. We are pleased to note that Prime Minister Tony Blair has assured Parliament that will not support any military action against without the authority of the United Nations. With this in mind, we make the following observations concerning the morality and legality of any such proposed action.Conflict resolution must seek to address the historical circumstances that create and perpetuate hostilities. Apart from the effects of having lived for a generation in states of war of various kinds and under the cruelty of their own government, the terrible toll exacted on Iraq's civilian population by a combination of UN sanctions and US/UK bombing (including the premature deaths of hundreds of thousands of children) has contributed to the devastation of Iraq's infrastructure. Denis Halliday, former UN Assistant Secretary General and Humanitarian Aid Co-ordinator for, resigned in October 1998 in protest against the continued use of sanctions. In his resignation speech he said, 'We are in the process of destroying an entire society. It is as simple and terrifying as that. It is illegal and immoral.' However necessary sanctions may be, both humanitarian measures and diplomatic overtures are needed if the Iraqi nation is to be reincorporated into the international community - even if its leaders must retain their current pariah status. International contacts often serve to weaken totalitarian regimes more than isolation. The people of Iraq must not be made to suffer further because they are living under a dictator who in his early years in power enjoyed the collusion and support of the western nations. Christian reflection on the justice of going to war has always insisted that only duly constituted public authorities may initiate war. Since the signing of the UN Charter in June 1945, the only body with the authority to initiate military action is the United Nations Security Council, except in the case of self-defence when an armed attack has actually occurred against a sovereign state. Even then, the exception of self-defence, like all exceptions, is to be strictly construed. All signatories are bound by Article 2.4 of the Charter which says that 'all members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force;' Today, in the light of the UN Charter, especially Articles 2 and 51, it is plain that

the only circumstance under which a sovereign state might invoke the authority to go to war is when an armed attack occurs;
even in self-defence, it may do so only 'until the Security Council has taken measures necessary to maintain international peace and security' (Article 51).

It follows that, however dangerous Iraq's mass destruction weapons programme is claimed to be (though the evidence has yet to be produced), there can be no justification for war by another state unless and until the Iraqi government itself launches an attack. Pre-emptive war by one state against another is not permitted by the UN Charter, no matter how much evidence there may be of a potential for violence. Short of actual attack, 'all Members shall settle their international disputes by peaceful means' (Article 2:3). The above conditions must all be met when considering the possibility of a war against Iraq. They are based upon the traditional 'just war' requirements of Lawful Authority, Just Cause and Right Intention. They also illuminate the principle of Last Resort, given that the parties to a dispute 'shall first of all seek a solution by negotiation, enquiry, mediation, conciliation, arbitration, judicial settlement ... or other peaceful means' (Article 33:1).Re-introducing UN Inspectors to Iraq must be a necessary early step in this process and the call for the return of UN inspectors to Iraq is a reasonable one, granted current allegations. As a sign of good faith, it would be helpful if those countries calling for the return of inspectors, especially the United States and Britain, were to open their own nuclear, chemical and bacteriological facilities to the same process of international inspection. The demands made on Iraq should be matched by the actions of the existing eight nuclear weapons states. Moreover, it is essential that these countries abide by their own legal obligations. In 1996, the International Court of Justice declared there to be an obligation on the nuclear weapon states to bring to a conclusion negotiations aimed at the abolition of such weapons, but to date Britain has done little to achieve this. Moreover, it is a matter of grave concern that Geoffrey Hoon, Britain's Secretary of State for Defence, has threatened the use of nuclear weapons against Iraq, if an attack with weapons of mass destruction were to be launched against British forces deployed in the region. The use of nuclear weapons would violate all accepted international standards concerning the conduct of war, and it would constitute an act of indiscriminate violence not only against Iraqi civilians but against future generations living in the Middle East.

It is our considered view that an attack on Iraq would be both immoral and illegal, and that eradicating the dangers posed by malevolent dictators and terrorists can be achieved only by tackling the root causes of the disputes themselves. It is deplorable that the world's most powerful nations continue to regard war and the threat of war as an acceptable instrument of foreign policy, in violation of the ethos of both the United Nations and Christian moral teaching. The way to peace does not lie through war but through the transformation of structures of injustice and of the politics of exclusion, and that is the cause to which the West should be devoting its technological, diplomatic and economic resources.

21 June, 2002

Useful links on Iraq & the Middle East

International Middle East Media Center
Institute for War & Peace Reporting - Iraq
The Guardian's " Guide to anti-war websites
Stop the War Coalition (UK) - UK based "Stop the War Coalition" with the latest on national and local activities & events
Amnesty International- Middle East
UNAMI - UN Assistance Mission in Iraq. Web portal for UN Agencies and NGOs working in Iraq
CAFOD - focus on Iraq
Coalition of Women for Peace - Jewish and Palestinian women working together to restore justice in Palestine and Israel
Meet Refugee Children in the Middle East - link to Save the Children website
www.rethinkingschools.org/war - good resources for teachers and students

http://stopthewall.org/index.shtml - Palestinian Anti-Apartheid Stop the Wall campaign
www.pengon.org - The Palestinian Environmental NGOs Network
Jewish Voice for Peace - voice of the overwhelming majority of American Jews who support a peaceful resolution of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and an end to Israel's Occupation of Palestinian land
The Palestine Monitor - link to a wealth of meaningful, accessible, user-friendly information targeted to a foreign audience
Israeli/Palestinian ProCon.org - This Site claims to present, in an unbiased, primarily ProCon format, responses to the core question "What are the just resolutions of the Israeli / Palestinian conflict?"
Tent of Abraham, Sarah & Hagar Muslim, Christians and Jews concerned with justice peace and the earth

Al-Jazeera - English - Middle East coverage from an Arab perspective
BBC "in depth" reports on Iraq
Think Progress - american blog fighting against Corrupt Establishment Incompetent Establishment Braindead Media Radical Right-Wing Agenda
Human Rights Watch - focus on Middle East - North Africa
Iraq Body Count - The worldwide update of reported civilian deaths in the war on Iraq
Iraq Coalition Casualties Count
Muslim Peace Fellowship (USA)
Yahoo! Directory - Iraq - useful updates and background information
www.electroniciraq.net - US site on Iraq crisis - excellent source of information
www.voicesuk.org/ - Voices in the Wilderness - authoritative briefings on the humanitarian situation in Iraq and action points
www.opendemocracy.net - see Paul Rogers’ column on this site - authoritative and in-depth analysis
w ww.j-n-v.org - ARROW - Active Resistance to the Roots of War
Christian Peacemaker Teams
www.christianpeacewitness.org - Christian Peace Witness for Iraq
www.wcc-coe.org/wcc/what/international/iraq.html - World Council of Churches
www.labouragainstthewar.org.uk - Labour against the war with Iraq
www.cnduk.org - Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament
www.oxfordresearchgroup.org.uk - Oxford Research Group