|
| |
Index of Documents:
| Statement on Iraq by Catholic Bishop's Conference of England and Wales
14th November 2002 1. War is a route from which there is no return. The need to avoid war is a cornerstone of Christian teaching. The UK and the USA are currently preparing to send their armed forces into war. If there is war, as well as military casualties on both sides thousands of Iraqi civilians will die. It is our moral responsibility to avoid this war unless, in the face of a 2. Military action can only be a last resort. We recognise United Nations Security Council Resolution 1441 as the legitimate expression of the international community collective determination to disarm Iraq. At the same time we strongly urge the international community to pursue alternatives to war before it is too late. 3. Sanctions have not worked. They have imposed a decade of misery on ordinary people whilst allowing an exploitative regime to sustain itself in power. It is time to find a policy that offers Iraq a positive incentive to comply with the demands of the Security Council. In return for genuine disarmament, monitored and verified by the United Nations, the lifting of comprehensive sanctions, and the reintegration of Iraq into the international community, is the route which must now be explored. 4. Grief for those killed and wounded in war will be the more agonising if their loss results from an armed conflict that could have been avoided without compromise to the common good. We pray that both sides step back from the brink of war. Along with our fellow bishops in other countries we ask our Catholic community and all people of faith to join us in this prayer. |
| WASHINGTON, Nov. 13 - USA Roman Catholic bishops declare that they cannot now find a moral justification for a pre-emptive war against Iraq because there is no adequate evidence that Iraq is about to attack.
The bishops, gathered here on the third day of their annual fall meeting, urged the United States government and the world to "continue to pursue actively alternatives to war." They said that an attack on Iraq did not meet the Catholic tradition's criteria for a "just war," in part because such a war could create more "evils and disorders" than it would eliminate. They said that a war against Iraq could cause more suffering to Iraqi civilians, provoke wider conflict and instability in the region and detract from the effort to stabilize Afghanistan and prevent terrorism elsewhere. "We continue to find it difficult to justify the resort to war against Iraq, lacking clear and adequate evidence of an imminent attack of a grave nature," the bishops' statement says. "With the Holy See and bishops from the Middle East and around the world, we fear that resort to war, under present circumstances and in light of current public information, would not meet the strict conditions in Catholic teaching for overriding the strong presumption against the use of military force." In introducing the statement for the bishops' consideration today, Cardinal Bernard F. Law of Boston, chairman of the bishops' international affairs committee, said that the statement "does not ignore Iraq's dangerous behavior, intentions and threats... We call on the government of Iraq to comply with the world's legitimate demands," Cardinal Law said. The bishops debated an amendment from Auxiliary Bishop Thomas Gumbleton of Detroit pledging the "prayerful support" of the bishops to military personnel who "conscientiously dissent from a choice for war." Auxiliary Bishop John J. Kaising, an auxiliary bishop of the military services who is also a veteran, objected to Bishop Gumbleton's amendment, saying: "If we pass this, does that mean that those who do not object and who go because their units are going and their commanders say they've got to go, does that mean they're wrong? I don't think we can do that to a soldier, sailor or marine who follows his commander in chief." The final statement included a compromise in which the bishops state: "We support those who risk their lives in the service of their nation. We also support those who seek to exercise their right to conscientious objection." The bishops' statement praises the United States for winning the unanimous support of the United Nations' Security Council for a resolution calling on Iraq to disarm. The bishops said they would pray that the United Nations action "will not simply be a prelude to war but a way to avoid it." Full text available from Pax Christi or http://www.nccbuscc.org/bishops/iraq.htm |
| Homily by Rt Rev Thomas Burns, Bishop of the Armed Forces Remembrance Sunday - Aldershot 10th November 2002. On this Remembrance Sunday, when we pray for peace, it is ironic that we seem to be preparing again for war. There I talk of a pre-emptive strike, but this will demand a morel 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 Middle East that everyone I trying to avoid. Although it may satisfy legitimacy, a UN resolution could still have immoral implications. For, the objective appears changeable (e.g. regime change) has been replaced by disarming Iraq). Genuine purpose (e.g. removing a serious threat) can become compromised by self-interest (e.g. securing oil supplies). The question ha to be asked: What benefits will hostilities bring that will improve the current situation? Moving against Iraq brings no guarantee that terrorist incidents or suicide bombings will be reduced or eliminated. Some might way, on the contrary, that the risk of further terrorism I increased. There is a danger that a war that I seen as winnable may become a useful diversion from helplessness in the face of bombers and terrorist, because world leaders will feel satisfied that they have done something. No comment has been made on the destruction caused by trade embargoes and thousands of missiles that already are ranged against Iraq. If they have achieved some good because of evil avoided, then for how much longer must this go on? Have negotiations reached the point of lat resort? What is there about going to war that will achieve something that ha not been achieved already? The families, friends, and loved ones of those killed and wounded will grieve al the more if the losses they face result from a non-credible cause. Service people want to know that they are decent people, carrying out decent orders, given to them by decent superiors. The prospect of British troops arriving home from war in body-bags is never acceptable, though sadly it is often inevitable. The burden may be easier to carry if they have died in a just cause, in pursuit of something believed in, in defence of a widely embraced principle. When a bereaved family ask me if their loved one died in a just cause, I want to be able to reply unequivocally: YES. When they say: Was it worth it? I want to be able to look them in the eye and say without hesitation: Yes, it surely was. War diminishes countries on both sides. For a peaceful solution has not been found, and it is the innocent and helpless who suffer. Can this situation be avoided? It has to be. |
| “The Morality and Legality of a War against Iraq - A Christian Declaration” |
The following ecumenical declaration 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.
If you would like to add your name to the signatories, please either send an e-mail to declaration@uk2.net or send a postcard to Pat Gaffney, Pax Christi, St. Joseph's, Watford Way, Hendon, London NW4 4TY, including your name, title and institutional affiliation if relevant. If you would like to receive updates including lists of signatories, please indicate this and provide either an e-mail or postal address. Unless otherwise indicated, we will assume that you are willing for your e-mail address to be included in a group mailing - this considerably reduces the administrative workload. The declaration can also be downloaded from the Pax Christi website as:
| PDF format (get Acrobat Reader) |
Word Document (click once only) |
The declaration was presented to the Prime Minister Tony Blair at 10 Downing Street on August 6.
| THE MORALITY AND LEGALITY OF A WAR AGAINST IRAQ '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, 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 Iraq, 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 Britain will not support any military action against Iraq 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 Iraq, 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
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. |
|
As Christians, we are called to be peacemakers. Yet as a nation we are sowing the seeds of war around the world by exporting hundreds of millions of pounds of armaments. The proliferation of weapons around the globe does not bring security - in fact, just the reverse. The lesson of the last century is that wars cause further wars, fuel deep hatreds and rarely solve problems of injustice or abuse of rights. Scripture tells us that real security does not come from weaponry but from justice. 'Integrity will bring peace, justice give everlasting security ' says Isaiah (32:17). To be a nation that is known for providing real security in the world, to be a nation that truly defends the poor and needy, we need to do all that we can to bring justice and peace to the world. Christian communities around the world remind us that fundamentally we are all sisters and brothers, children of one God. They urge us to do what we can to stop the flooding of their countries with weapons and to end the exploitation of political differences and conflicts to make financial profit . We believe that these pleas from our brothers and sisters around the world amount to a call to conversion. We believe that it is time to have a fundamental review of our role in the world with regard to our arms dealing. Whilst it is true that the current government has recently introduced legislation to close certain loopholes and has somewhat improved the transparency of weapons dealing, the actual amount of arms that are exported continues to rise - from £3.2bn ('93), to £4.8bn ('95) to £5.9bn ('99). We have greater expectations of those who govern us. In addition, the majority of arms export licenses are granted for exports to Middle East and developing countries. As Pope John Paul II has said, the "inherent violence" of the "scandalous arms trade … spawns the many armed conflicts which stain our world with blood". In recent years, our Churches have made clear statements on the evils of the arms trade, offering other visions for peace and security. We are at the beginning of the World Council of Churches Decade to Overcome Violence and the United Nations Decade for a Culture of Peace and Non-violence for the Children of the World, we believe that this is an opportune moment to begin a process of conversion which will lead us to action and change. In particular
We call upon dioceses, parishes, groups and all individuals of goodwill to join our call to conversion and action in a spirit of love, justice and peace." |
Signed:
| Revd Dr Rowan Williams, Archbishop of Wales |
Bishop Malcolm McMahon OP, President of Pax Christi |
| Bishop Thomas McMahon, RC, Brentwood |
Bishop Wilfred Wood, Anglican, Croydon |
| Bishop John Perry, Anglican, Chelmsford |
|
| Baptist Peace Fellowship |
CIIR |
| Africa Europe Faith & Justice Network UK |
Christian CND |
| Anglican Pacifist Fellowship |
Columban Faith and Justice |
| Conference of Religious |
Jesuit Refugee Service |
| Missionary Institute London |
National Board of Catholic Women |
| National J&P Network |
Northern Friends Peace Board |
| Quaker Peace & Social Witness |
Unitarian Peace Fellowship |
| “Reflection and Action: Ideas at a "Time of War and Rumours of Wars" |
Read about prayer/action suggestions to help us respond to the current menacing developments on the world scene.
Click below to access this information in printable format so as to distribute it freely to others:
| PDF format (needs Acrobat Reader) |
Word Document (click once only) |
| “Perspectives on the Conflict between Palestinians and Israelis” |
Jerusalem, May 8, 2002
LATIN PATRIARCHATE - JERUSALEM
Reflection from Michel Sabbah, Patriach of Jerusalem
| Latin Patriarchate of Jerusalem - P.O.Box 14152 - Jerusalem 97500 |
|
| E-mail address: |
|
| Personal e-mail: |
|
| Patriarchate's Homepage: |
|
| Personal Homepage: |
|
| My brother's Homepage: |
|
A friend of mine who teaches in the local public school reported that this was the first question asked her by third graders the morning of September 11th, as the news of the terrorist attacks filtered out across the social landscape of America. Reflecting on that throughout the following days, I concluded that once again the children have pointed us to the truth.
Insofar as “the magic Kingdom” can stand in as a preeminent metaphor for the insular fantasy of American innocence and denial—our myth of the nation as Adventureland, Fantasyland and Tomorrowland all at once, the happiest place on earth—then Disneyland truly did suffer indelible destruction. But what world lies outside our shattered dream of ourselves?
Among those who have been trying to be introspective rather than vengeful over the last ten days, one question has recurred, and it is an important one: What has the U.S. done that some people would hate us so much to do this to our people? It takes courage to ask this, and even more courage to consider possible answers.
Predictably, the New York Times on Sept. 16 asserted that the terrorists acted out of "hatred for the values cherished in the West as freedom, tolerance, prosperity, religious pluralism and universal suffrage." This self-congratulatory line of the dominant media pretends no knowledge of U.S. policy and practices over the last two decades that might be at issue. A very different perspective is given by Chalmers Johnson, president of the Japan Policy Research Institute, who wrote the following prescient words in an important but largely overlooked book published last year entitled Blowback: The Costs and Consequences of American Empire (Henry Holt, 2000):
"Terrorism strikes at the innocent in order to draw attention to the sins of the invulnerable. The innocent of the twenty-first century are going to harvest unexpected blowback disasters from the imperialist escapades of recent decades. Although most Americans may be largely ignorant of what was, and still is, being done in their names, all are likely to pay a steep price—individually and collectively—for their nation’s continued efforts to dominate the global scene." Chalmers reminds us that there is a context for these actions that cannot be ignored:
"What U.S. officials denounce as unprovoked terrorist attacks on its innocent citizens are often meant as retaliation for previous American imperial actions. Terrorists attack innocent and undefended American targets precisely because American soldiers and sailors firing cruise missiles from ships at se or sitting in B-52 bombers at extremely high altitudes or supporting brutal and repressive regimes from Washington seem invulnerable."
USC professor Ronald Steel, it a September 14th New York Times editorial, calls such terrorism a struggle “in which the weak have turned the guns of the strong against them,” and points out that it has characterized many modern politico-military resistance movements: from southern Africa to Ireland, from Basque separatists to Saudi dissidents, and from Palestine to Afghanistan. Neither Steel nor Chalmers are justifying terrorist attacks, but they are trying to understand the new postmodern condition of international politics that has seen a steady stream of ever more destructive attacks on U.S. people and property and that of its allies at home and abroad over the last twenty years. <p>Chalmers draws our attention to the term “blowback,” “which officials of the Central Intelligence Agency first invented for their own internal use”:
"It refers to the unintended consequences of policies that were dept secret
from the American people. What the daily press reports as the malign acts of “terrorists” or “drug
lords” or “illegal arms merchants” often turn out to be blowback
from earlier American operations." In the present case one can point to
the legacy of what Fred Halliday called “the largest covert operation in
the history of the CIA,” which
throughout the 1980s, and with the cooperation of Pakistan, funded, trained,
armed and provided political cover for the Mujahideen in their struggle against
the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan. More than 35,000 Muslim radicals from forty
countries made up this force being, among whom (as is now widely acknowledged)
was Osama bin Laden, as well as others who were subsequently suspected of attacks
on the U.S.
Bin Laden and many others trained in terrorist and guerilla tactics turned against the U.S. in 1990 at the point that the Pentagon established permanent military bases in Saudi Arabia in preparation for the Gulf War. This was seen as an analogous occupation to that of the Soviets in Afghanistan, and particularly odious in the land of Mecca.
This antipathy, widely shared by Saudi dissidents and other Muslim nationalists, was intensified by other U.S. actions: the slaughter of Iraqi civilians during and after the Gulf War; ongoing support for Israel in the construction of Palestinian apartheid; the bombing of the Sudan, and even U.S. involvement in the Balkans. At issue also is the (correct) perception that U.S.-sponsored economic globalization means cultural destruction for all traditional societies. Meanwhile, veterans of the Mujahideen also continued to struggle against other hostile forces, such Russians imperialism after the collapse of the Soviet Union (for example in the war in Chechnya). In 1995 they succeeded in setting up the fascist Taliban regime in Afghanistan, whose brutal rule has until last week been tolerated by the U.S. State Dept.
Of course most Americans don’t want to be confused by such geopolitical and ideological complexity, particularly when trying to generate war fever between the forces of good and evil. Nevertheless, even a Pentagon study (a 1997 Defense Science Board report) admitted “historical data show a strong correlation between U.S. involvement in international situations and an increase in terrorist attacks against the United States.” Chalmers concludes:
For any empire, including an unacknowledged one, there is a kind of balance sheet that builds up over time… Most Americans are probably unaware of how Washington exercises its global hegemony, since so much of this activity takes place either in relative secrecy or under comforting rubrics… But only when we come to see our country as both profiting from and trapped within the structures of an empire of its own making will it be possible for us to explain many elements of the world that otherwise perplex us.
Or, as Steel puts it: “We proudly declare that we are the world’s undisputed Number one. Then we are surprised that others might hold us responsible for all that they find threatening in the modern world.” Innocent lives were lost in the attacks of last week, and for this we rightly mourn and are justified in seeking to bring the perpetrators to justice. But the national response of outraged victimhood presumes that the U.S. itself is innocent. To insist on that is to continue to live inside the insular (though now breached) walls of “Disneyland.” If we do not have the courage to face our own imperial policies and practices, and how these “sins of the invulnerable” are perceived among many of the wretched of the earth, we will never be able to “root out” terrorist attacks because we have not addressed their true genesis. So with Jesus we may weep over our cities, but we will not yet “know the things that make for peace” (Lk 19:41-43)
--
Ched Myers
Bartimaeus Cooperative Ministries
706 Burwood Terrace
Los Angeles, CA 90042
Tel: 323-256-5748
Fax: 323-256-6655
Correspondence: chedmyers@igc.org
Scheduling: scheduling@bcm-net.org
| “Bruce Kent's Honorary Doctorate Citation - Middlesex University” |
Chancellor,
Bruce Kent admits to two significant political successes- the adjustment of parking regulations in the street where he lives and the installation of a zebra crossing nearby. It is not, however, for these achievements alone, that we are honouring him with a doctorate today.
For over 40 years Bruce Kent has devoted himself to building and promoting an alternative view of the world in which war and poverty are abolished. He is not, however an idle dreamer. He has worked with humanity and reason through active campaigning and articulate public debate to offer an alternative society in which resources are fairly distributed without the distortion of the arms trade and where irrational methods of resolving inevitable conflict are replaced by rational recourse to international law.
He accepts, however, that this requires nothing short of cultural change, so embedded are economic inequalities and militarism in our way of life. Bruce Kent's work can be seen as an attempt to bring about this immense change. A concern with these interlinked themes of poverty, disarmament and justice can be traced through out his considerable achievements.
Born in 1929 and educated at Stoneyhurst college, Bruce had what he has described as a fairly privileged start in life. He became a second lieutenant in the 6th Royal Tank Regiment from 1947-49 and this experience of the military has stood him in good stead since. In debate he can use their language convincingly.
In 1948 he also realised that he should become a priest with a passion, in his words, that was as powerful as following Arsenal. He delayed his vocation, however and read law at Brasenose College Oxford, He was ordained in 1958 and as a fairly conventional churchman rose through the ranks of the catholic church from curate to secretry of Archbishops House Westminster, chair of the Diocesan Schools committee and from1966-1974 Catholic Chaplin to the University of London.
During this time he also became committed to the peace movement. He soon realised the need to involve young people in thinking about peace and building positive International relations and so through Pax Christi set up summer meetings and eventually hostels. This belief that education is a powerful tool to change the world is shared by many of us here today; either those about to embark on a teaching career, those of us who are already involved as teachers or those who have benefited from the life changing opportunities that education at all levels can offer.
Bruce Kent achieved wider recognition as an anti nuclear campaigner when in 1967 he launched a major correspondence in the Times concerning the morality of nuclear deterance. In 1974 he had been instrumental, with other Peace organisations in setting up the Campaign Against the Arms Trade which has done much to bring to the publics attention the links between the arms trade and world poverty.
Working to alleviate the suffering of the world's poor has been central to Bruce Kent's achievement. In 1967 he founded the Nigeria Biaffra Committee to end arms supplies to both sides in the civil war and helped set up the Justice for Rhodesia campaign. In 1971 he served as director of an emergency refugee hospital in Calcutta during the Indo Pakistan War and soon after became the chair of War on Want which had sponsored the hospital.
Closer to home he established in his own Parish in Somers Town -a place of welcome for people from all over the world -with a one World Shop and Education centre. He also set up several initiatives to raise money for Northern Ireland reconciliation projects and has worked for the rights of prisoners. The Prisoners Project set up in 1975 campaigned for amnesty for prisoners of conscience and improved prison conditions. This resulted in the establishment of a Prisoners Sunday in the Church Calendar.
Since 1980 when he became the General Secretary of CND he has frequently been involved in public debate about disarmament and poverty. This role as public educator was particularly crucial during the cold war years. A measure of his success was that membership of CND rose from 2000 to 100,000 and from 30 active local groups to nearly 1000.
His anti nuclear campaigning work has become increasingly international. From 1985-92 he became president of the International Peace Bureau promoting the campaign to declare the possession and use of nuclear weapons illegal and, through the World Court Project, brought the issue of nuclear illegality before the international Court in the Hague. In 1999 he organised the Hague Appeal for Peace a conference initiating a number of campaigns including those against small arms, those against the use of child soldiers and those to promote peace education.
Actively involved in the United Nations Association he has visited over 150 secondary schools to speak about international issues of peace and development. He enjoys meeting with young people and encouraging them to realise that they can change things too. Rather like his own 'true' political successes with which I started.
This exhausting list only highlights some of Bruce Kent's achievements. Driven by a conviction that the world can be a fair, more just, and peaceful place he has worked through action and argument to promote this vision. In this work, however he clearly demonstrates that unquestioning obedience can be a dubious virtue- some of our present audience from the Ministry of Defence police may have seen him in a different perhaps arresting capacity-
At school prize givings He has often commented that the prize that is missing is that for disobedience. Bruce Kent this is your prize for disobeying.
Chancellor I present to you Bruce Kent a man eminently worthy of the award of Doctor of the University Honoris Causa.
prof. Gavin Baldwin
19 July 2002
