|
Paul Youssef Matar
Catholic Archbishop, Lebanon
The division in the world goes back well before the bloody tragedy of 11th September, 2001, which however remains one of its most atrocious expressions. In fact the search for peace through justice has continued throughout human history, unless one admits the existence of a Golden Age at the dawn of history. As for the present-day tragedy of Iraq, it means that this country is caught between two fires under which the people cower. There is the fire of its deliverance by military force from state terrorism under the previous regime, but at the same time there is a long delay, foreboding serious consequences, in reaching any serious hopes of better days. There is also the fire of the violent reaction against this deliverance, led in the name of this same salvation and on behalf of the same people. When one is confronted by this tragedy, it is difficult for anybody not a professional politician, and so without any grounds for a claim to be heard beyond that of brotherly solidarity, to propose a plan for the solution of this crisis, which becomes ever more threatening. However, we feel that we have an absolute duty in view of the rapidly worsening situation in Iraq to affirm our attachment to those universal values which by their absence or dislocation would remove all meaning to life in human society and all hope of progress in human history. -1- The first of these values is that of peaceful coexistence between peoples. This value is under particular threat both from terrorist acts and from ideologies proposing terrorism as a means of forcibly imposing their own will or viewpoint on others. No world religion, no human culture, puts forward an ideology leading to terrorism. The so-called �fundamentalists�, whether known or unknown, are less the products of any particular culture than deviators or deformers of cultures. They are the weeds that flourish in any soil made fertile for them by particular circumstances of obscurantism, isolation or injustice. The world today has a right, even a duty, to combat terrorism. However the question must be asked whether terrorism can truly be eradicated merely by physical war against this evil or, better, by suppressing the causes which produce it and which are becoming more widespread around the world. One might also ask whether this beneficial undertaking should not be considered in a global perspective and in particular within the framework of the United Nations, whose historic vocation has been to prevent all the wars likely to cause suffering to mankind, wars of terrorism included. -2- The second value to be preserved is the participation of the United Nations in the maintenance of peace and in cooperation around the world. This desire was already expressed during the later years of the eighteenth century by the great German philosopher Emmanuel KANT, against the background of the insecurity created by the Napoleonic Wars. This idea had then to be nurtured during the following century, one which saw painful conflicts in the life of Europe and, by contamination, in that of the other continents. Mankind then undertook to set up the League of Nations, giving it the role of preserving world peace by consent and cooperation among all its members. Another still more murderous war right in the middle of the twentieth century led the nations to found a new world organisation, better structured and conceived, charged with settling global and regional differences by peaceful methods. This was the United Nations, an organisation which has lasted out the century of its foundation and rendered much beneficial service to mankind. Today, at the dawn of the twenty-first century and of the third millennium, and in view of the new evils that threaten humanity, we might well ask whether it is permissible to give up the United Nations, to sacrifice this organisation whose creation and role in the service of humanity cost so much blood and tears � or whether it would not be better to consolidate this Organisation and, if need be, improve its working. Is it reasonable to neglect or cast aside the means of progress of mankind towards peace and international cooperation represented by the United Nations? -3- The third value that concerns us here and is present in the conscience of us all is the human inheritance represented by Iraq and by the civilisations which followed each other on its soil. It is above all from this viewpoint that the liberation of Iraq should be the object of international concern in order to favour its recovery of its true self and its contribution to the destiny of its region and of the world as a whole. Is not Iraq seen by the followers of the monotheistic religions as the country of Abraham, father of all believers? Was not the state founded on law first conceived by King Hammurabi of Iraq, whose code is still studied in our universities and has its place in all our cultures? If law and civilisation began with respect for others and by their recognition as such, then it must be admitted that the Code of Hammurabi recommended and consecrated this orientation in the order of things. Accadians, Babylonians and Sumerians all came from Mesopotamia, and what is more legend places the first human paradise between the Tigris and the Euphrates. Further, during the Middle Ages, Iraq was a place where the Spirit blew for the advantage of the whole world; at that time, under the rule of the Abbasids, Baghdad was one of the world political and cultural capitals. The streets were lighted at night, a thing still unknown in the West. But beyond the lamps of the public places, Baghdad gave light to the Western World by transmitting the ancient culture of Greece to the peoples of Europe, heralding the Renaissance thanks to translations first into Arabic and then into Latin of the ancient treasures, the work being done by Assyrian, Aram�an or Maronite Christians. Islam and Christianity engaged in dialogue there in an atmosphere of tolerance and Christian poets had a place close to the Caliphs as much as Ministers of the Treasury. As for modern Iraq, after the Ottoman era it did not have the long-lasting opportunities enjoyed by Egypt, Lebanon and North Africa for building a state open to modern conceptions. The liberation proposed for Iraq will be meaningful only if it means a true resurrection. -4- The fourth value we consider in the present context is democracy. Admittedly, the efforts of local and international jurists to draw up a new constitution for Iraq are all very praiseworthy and are to be respected. However, democracy is at one and the same time a universal value and a value embodied in a particular local culture and set of circumstances. Ever since the philosopher HEGEL wrote, we know that the constitutions of the various states are not interchangeable but are rather the product of peoples who moulded them according to their historical situation. There are universal principles of democracy, certain norms which are recognised internationally. But democracy can take many different forms and evolve at different rates. It is therefore necessary for every country to consider the evolution which conforms to its structure and references in order to avoid useless plagiarism and consequently serious mistakes. Also, throughout the world, democracy is conditioned by the level of social evolution of the various populations and by an international economy based on solidarity suitable for guiding them along the ways of progress. The interaction between political democracy and social democracy has long been understood and one cannot have one without the other. Therefore people must be guaranteed the social and cultural conditions necessary for them to enjoy a successful democratic regime. There must be a struggle worldwide in order to ensure successful progress towards democracy. The stakes of democracy are therefore worldwide stakes and the solutions to its problems must be on a worldwide scale. As for democracy in Iraq, if it is merely an imported democracy, then it will not be a true democracy even if it does take advantage of international experience in this domain. So the Iraqis must be helped to set up their democratic regime through their own efforts and with their own interests in view. To this end it would be useless and even harmful to believe one can replace them. -5- A fifth value is equally important for us in our consideration of peace in Iraq, namely open dialogue between the cultures and religions of the world, and more particularly between the Christian and Muslim religions. We have all avoided, or tried to avoid, giving a religious meaning to the present fight against terrorism. But this effort can never be enough and must never slacken. Any rigidity on either side would do a disservice to the cause of mutual understanding between the countries and religions involved. It should be added that dialogue makes progress only if both or all sides are convinced of the possibility of success. There should be open-mindedness on their part, reinforcing the conviction that human cultures are complementary to each other and that mankind will finally be united within the variety of its cultural expressions. Exclusivity or claims to cultural superiority are therefore errors that all must put aside, and this can only be done in a climate of open-mindedness and of recognition of the various values. This leads us to affirm concerning Iraq that no dialogue is possible between any partners without mutual respect and hands sincerely outstretched towards this country. The language of reason cannot lead to mutual understanding without the language of the heart. Further, this dialogue cannot be simply a bilateral exchange, since Iraq belongs both to its Arab world and to its Muslim world. Christians and Muslims live there side by side within one people. Consequently, any climate of understanding and dialogue between the two worlds, Christian and Muslim, becomes an integral part of understanding within Iraq and about Iraq. Otherwise the tragedy will continue and, by its worsening, may lead the world into dangerous dead-ends for peace and for survival. Finally, to come back to our opening remarks, stressing that we ourselves are not competent to draw up a peace plan for Iraq, it seems to us clear, even indispensable, to assert that peace in this country is possible only if all the political, cultural, social and religious values that we have just enumerated are taken into consideration. There can be no peace in Iraq if one of these values is made to dominate over the others or if it is thought possible to insist on one value and to leave others aside. We call on those in authority for a solution of this crisis to adopt all these values together and not to give less importance to any single one of them. We do not know how precisely this may be done but we insist that it must be done, absolutely, in order to avoid general catastrophe. In other words, the struggle against terrorism cannot be envisaged without respect for the other values which both condemn terrorism and at the same time demand the reign of justice and of reason. Therefore the salvation of Iraq cannot be assured without the contribution of its own people, just as it cannot be achieved without international solidarity. In any case, can there be partial solutions in a world of mutual interaction such as our own? The Great Powers certainly have a leading role to play for the benefit of the world, but no one can be great all alone. Nobody is truly great except in relation to others. Peace in Iraq will either be a contribution to world peace or be something never achievable. Nobody wishes peace for this country to be the peace of the grave. Peace concerns us all and therefore must be the fruit of a global action wherein, as in the case of the famous heroine of Sophocles Antigone, the rights of man and the rights of God shall be respected.
|