Links
Promoting nonviolent action in Iraq:
Produced by IKV Pax Christi Netherlands, download the document here (requires Adobe pdf reader).
In this Syria Alert policy brief, IKV Pax Christi recommends to focus on protecting civilians in Syria and on de-escalating the violence on the ground and in the region. The international community should specifically:
1. Provide technical, financial and moral support to the nonviolent forces that promote a democratic Syria for all its citizens;
2. Seek political engagement of all relevant actors, including China and Russia, in pressuring Damascus to allow entry to UN human rights observers and in promoting a political way out of the crisis
3. Assess all possible non-military instruments to protect Syrian civilians and not exclude the option to pragmatically use military instruments to protect civilians.
Paul Rogers is Professor of Peace Studies at Bradford University and is openDemocracy's International Security Editor. A consultant to the Oxford Research Group, the second edition of his book Losing Control has just been published by Pluto Press. His latest book is Global Security and the War on Terror: Elite Power and the Illusion of Control (Routledge, July 2007).
From OpenDemocracy.net:
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
Mortality before and after the 2003 invasion of Iraq: cluster sample survey
Les Roberts, Riyadh Lafta, Richard Garfield, Jamal Khudhairi, Gilbert Burnham
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.
Download full report.
While no formal 'ending' of the war has been announced the plight of the peoples of Iraq is slipping off the political agenda. In order that our Churches and communities can remember all those who had died in the war to date Pax Christi produced a Condolence Book of more than 6,000 signatures which was sent to the American Ambassador in London and Mr Tony Blair at the end of June 2003. To see the wording of the Condolence message see below.Click to download (PDF format - you need Acrobat Reader) to print copies.
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:
War is always a deeply disturbing prospect; one that can never be contemplated without a sense of failure and regret that other means have not prevailed, and deep disquiet about all that may come in its train.
We are very conscious of the huge burden of responsibility carried by those who must make the ultimate decision in these matters. They are daily in our thoughts and prayers, as are all those who would find themselves caught up directly or indirectly in a war. The events of recent days show that doubts still persist about the moral legitimacy, as well as the unpredictable humanitarian and political consequences, of a war with Iraq.We recognise that the moral alternative to military action cannot be inaction, passivity, appeasement or indifference. It is vital therefore that all sides in this crisis engage, through the United Nations - fully and urgently - in a process, including continued weapons inspections, that could and should render the trauma and tragedy of war unnecessary.We strongly urge the government of Iraq to demonstrate forthwith its unequivocal compliance with UN resolutions on weapons of mass destruction. The season of Lent is now approaching, a time when all Christian traditions encourage us to examine ourselves honestly, to acknowledge our shortcomings and to seek reconciliation with God. We must hope and pray that with God's guidance, an outcome which brings peace with justice to Iraq and the Middle East, may yet be found.
Cormac Murphy-O'Connor, Cardinal Archbishop of Westminster
Rowan Williams, Archbishop of Canterbury
20 February 2003
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
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
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
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.
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 Middle East that everyone is 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 has 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 say, on the contrary, that the risk of further terrorism is increased. There is a danger that a war that is seen as winnable may become a useful diversion from helplessness in the face of bombers and terrorists, 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 last resort? What is there about going to war that will achieve something that has not been achieved already?
Ethical theories about war speak of the 'jus ad bellum' and the 'jus in bello .' The 'jus ad bellum' is the right to go to war for some just cause. The 'jus in bello ' is the right way to fight such a war. Where the 'jus ad bellum' remains in doubt, or is at least blurred, then the conduct of a war might create an evil of enormous gravity or bring consequences that are out of all proportion to the good and proper things that are being sought or defended. This could have links back to considering the validity of the 'jus ad bellum.' It could bring into question the very right to go to war in the first place.
The families, friends, and loved ones of those killed and wounded will grieve all 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.
"Pax Christi, the International Catholic Peace Movement, has a wealth of experience in the fields of peacemaking, reconciliation and human rights. These experiences tell us that the way to peace and true justice does not lie in war and militarism but through international co-operation, conflict prevention and resolution, and a transformation of the root causes of injustice and oppression. We now add our voice to that of many church institutions and Christian leaders in the USA , the UK and throughout the world who believe that war with Iraq would be both illegal and immoral.
Pax Christi International rejects the threatened pre-emptive strike against Iraq . We believe that the lives of the peoples of Iraq are already blighted by the war of 1991, by oppression and the effect of unfocussed sanctions. A war would cause enormous added suffering for these people. A war would also set a dangerous precedent for resolving conflict and threaten the fragile stability of the Middle East and could escalate the violence and counter-violence. The Israeli Palestine conflict could deteriorate further and may even lead to a Third World War. Much is at stake.
Pax Christi International recognises the need for the Iraqi leadership to be held accountable for its abuse of human rights, as reported by the UN Commission for Human Rights, and for its non-compliance with UN resolutions. All other countries, including Israel , should be held similarly accountable for non-compliance with UN Resolutions. However, we believe that this must be done not through a rush to war but through rigorous political and diplomatic means. In the case of Iraq for example, diplomatic co-operation with the UN must be strengthened, UN weapons inspections must re-start and any sanctions which are imposed should be focussed on the Iraqi regime and not on the civilian population. Pax Christi International also urges the international community to use its skills and resources to support a peaceful and democratic future for the people of Iraq .
The international peace organisation believes that the European Union has a special responsibility to prevent a war and to act in order to achieve peace in the region. The EU should speak out to challenge the unilateral approach of the USA and reinforce and strengthen the role of the UN in creating a just peace and building democracy for the people of Iraq . This would send a clear message to those who believe that war and bombing is the way to deal with Iraq .
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 both the ethos of the United Nations and the moral teaching of all faiths, including our Christian one. Western governments and intergovernmental organisations should do all they can to make available human, economic, political and technological resources to ensure the peaceful solutions to international conflicts, to advance democracy and human rights, and to promote sustainable economic and social development."
Executive Committee.
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:
| PDF format (get Acrobat Reader) | Word document (right click) |
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
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
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
www.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