Part I: The Sixth Principle: The Goal of World Community

The sixth principle of our religious tradition calls us to affirm and promote the goal of world community with peace, liberty and justice for all. This conception of international relationship was first expressed in the 1940's as a shared understanding among Unitarians. The principle of that era called for allegiance to the cause of a united world community. Although I do not know the precise reasoning for including it among our principles, one might easily surmise that the effects of two world wars played a role. It also reflects the awareness that our participation in humanity extends beyond national borders. Yes, we are citizens of these United States of America, and we are also citizens of the world, part of one human family.

That principle conceived in the 40's also reflected the views of our national leadership who imagined the possibilities of the United Nations:

We the peoples of the United Nations determined: to save succeeding generations from the scourge of war, which twice in our lifetime has brought untold sorrow to mankind, and to reaffirm faith in fundamental human rights, in the dignity and worth of the human person, in the equal rights of men and women and of nations large and small, and to establish conditions under which justice and respect for the obligations arising from treaties and other sources of international law can be maintained, and to promote social progress and better standards of life in larger freedom.

These stirring words are from the preamble of the United Nations' Charter which officially came into existence on October 24, 1945. They speak to a vision of a world community in which nations recognized their partnership with one another. The name "United Nations", coined by United States President Franklin D. Roosevelt, was first used in the "Declaration by United Nations" on January 1st, 1942, during the Second World War, when representatives of 26 nations pledged their Governments to continue fighting together against the Axis Powers. At the end of World War II, the United States was, as it is now, the predominant military power and the only superpower in the world. Yet, having come through that terrible war, our country's leadership understood that no single nation could maintain the conditions necessary for peace, liberty and justice to prevail in the world.

It's so different from the attitude of our nation's leaders today. The National Security Strategy of the United States,a document recently revised by the Bush Administration, stipulates that: "Our forces will be strong enough to dissuade potential adversaries from pursuing a military buildup in hopes of surpassing, or equaling, the power of the United States. . ." That requirement implies that our national leaders intend to retain our place as the world's leading military power, and it conveys a belief that our security can only be assured by our independently retaining military dominance.

It's suggestive of a sentiment expressed by a frumpy elderly couple in an old Guindon cartoon in which mother's sitting on the steps of the basement workshop, and father's in his work apron apparently just having completed his task. Both are quite pleased, smiling at one another. The caption reads: "Herman and Florence Walters are feeling a whole lot better about things
now that they have their very own bomb." Like Florence and Walter our nation's leaders seem to lack an understanding about what constitutes true security. It feels to me that as a nation we lack a vision about how to be part of a world community in which peace, liberty and justice is truly the goal for all people.

Since the events of September 11, 2001, the ensuing national dialogue, rather than opening us to a fuller examination about why such horrific acts might be perpetrated upon us has contracted to talk about evil-doers who hate us for our freedoms. In his paper, "Search for Meanings of 9/11," Evergreen professor and congregational member, Zahid Shariff wrote:

[Our] dominant understanding and interpretation of 9/11 gravitates toward pointing the finger at some variant or the other of Islam (Wahabi.. madrassah-based, fundamentalist… jihad-oriented, the list goes on)… There is another explanation too… For many, including Muslims, the meaning of 9/11 is to be found by searching not for vague clues, subtle hints, or hidden messages, but by recalling some of the major events in the U.S. foreign policy - from the overthrow of the democratically elected government of Iran in 1954 to the present support of Israeli treatment of Palestinians, and a great deal in between. That explanation holds that the bitter memories of humiliation and exploitation of those policies provided the seeds from which we are reaping the current harvest of terror."

Clearly, the President and our other national leaders have the responsibility to protect American citizens, and in the situation in which we find ourselves that can mean military action. And I also will point out that in The National Security Strategy of the United States, to which I referred earlier, there is the recognition that the extreme poverty impairing the lives of so many is both unjust and destabilizing and needs to be addressed by our country. Nonetheless, the fact remains that both of these obligations -the protection of American citizens and redressing the issues of global poverty- are conceived within a context of retaining American supremacy rather than creating a world community with peace, liberty and justice.

If we were able to imagine ourselves as part of a world community then we might be better able, as Professor Shariff has pointed out, to consider the possibility that the tragic events of September 11, did not only arise because of the misguided hatred of a deviant Muslim sect, but those attacks were an outcome of roles and policies of out nation. That is not to say the attacks of September 11th, were justifiable, by any means, but it is to say that if we truly want to know security, we will be better served by trying to understand others' perspectives, and by moving beyond an 'us versus them' diatribe to a dialogue in which we can hear how our actions affect and are perceived by those with whom we share this planet. Then we might begin to know the peace, the liberty and justice, that comes from cherishing the interdependence of world community.

Part II: Iraq and Our Pursuit of World Community

In an address to Iraq's National Assembly on September 8th, of this year, a former chief United Nations weapons inspector and former United States Marine officer, Scott Ritter said: "My country seems on the verge of making a historical mistake, one that will forever change the political dynamic which has governed the world since the end of the Second World War; namely, the foundation of international law as set forth in the United Nations Charter, which calls for the peaceful resolution of problems between nations. My government has set forth on a policy of unilateral intervention that runs contrary to the letter and intent of the United Nations Charter."

Upon reading that I wondered why would our nation's leaders embark upon such a seemingly dangerous course of action. What is the vision that impels them? And in asking that question I'm reminded of the words written on the eve of the First World War by the British mystic and theologian Evelyn Underhill: "We are often told that in the critical periods of history it is the national soul which counts: that 'where there is no vision, the people perish.' No nation is truly defeated which retains its spiritual self-possession. No nation is truly victorious which does not emerge with soul unstained."

I would add a corollary to the adage, 'where there is no vision, the people perish.' Where the vision fails to reflect the nation's noblest qualities, the people respond to world events from fear rather courage and compassion, and the national soul withers with its obsession for security through military supremacy. Presently, our nation's vision is focused on our retaining military supremacy and insuring our security and well-being through our dominance as the world's only superpower.
That's why we would seriously consider a course of action as dangerous, Scott Ritter declared, as unilateral intervention through pre-emptive war with Iraq. As the superpower, our leaders believe we can establish a separate set of rules to meet our needs, and our superior military force will protect us from any repercussions.

I am not suggesting that I know the best way for dealing with Iraq, or that a different course of action will guarantee war can be avoided. In a Calvin and Hobbes cartoon strip six-year-old Calvin approached his father who was reading the newspaper. "Dad, Calvin asked, "How do soldiers killing each other solve the world's problems?" In the next two frames Calvin's father looked stupefied and was speechless. Finally, Calvin just walked away, saying, "I think grown-ups just act like they know what they're doing." Truth be told, that's often right. We frequently don't know what we're doing. Our lives didn't come with prepared scripts, rather we're writing them as we go. That is why our nation's vision is so important, for it helps shape our understanding of what is important in life. While it does not tell us how to respond to every situation that arises, it sets us on a path.

I believe the kind of vision that would enrich our national soul would be one, such as that which inspired the words of the United Nation's preamble, and inspired the creation of the United Nations itself. It would be one that would bring us closer to building a world community with peace, liberty and justice for all. Such a vision could have a radical affect on our nation's way of participating in the world. I imagine we would become strongly supportive of the United Nations;
we would pay up our dues, ratify the children's and women's rights treaties. Regarding Iraq, we would adhere to the ideals delineated in the preamble of the UN's charter: "to our strength to maintain international peace and security, and to ensure…that armed force shall not be used, save in the common interest."

That means we would never unilaterally choose to go to war, and while war remained an option, it would truly be the reluctant choice of last resort. Even then, the decision of whether or not to go to war, and if war is finally deemed necessary, the decisions about how to wage it would be made within the context of agreed upon guidelines. I believe the principles of the just war, first proffered by Augustine and later refined by Thomas Aquinas in the Catholic tradition provide a good starting place for such guidelines. Some might argue that a just war is an absurd oxymoron. When you look at the devastation wars cause, it's hard to disagree. Nonetheless, I do not believe our ways of life have yet evolved to a place where we can rule out war for any reason. And if war is to remain an option at all, we need criteria for determining whether and how to wage it to make an inherently horrific endeavor as humane as possible.
Let's look at the just war principles ever so briefly to see to what extent the Administration's current proposal for waging pre-emptive war against Iraq meets the criteria of being a just war.

• The first principle states: "A just war can only be waged as a last resort. All non-violent options must be exhausted before the use of force can be justified." There are many, such as Scott Ritter, who would argue that we haven't exhausted our last resort
  until Iraq refuses to readmit inspectors or we can prove- not surmise- but prove, Iraq is developing weapons of mass destruction.
  
  
• The second principle states: "A war is just only if it is waged by a legitimate authority. Even just causes cannot be served by actions taken by individuals or groups who do not constitute an authority sanctioned by whatever the society and outsiders to the society deem legitimate." Of course, the United States is a sovereign state, but we are also part of the United Nations, as such we can't pick and choose to which articles we'll adhere. According to articles 41 and 42 of the United Nations Charter, no member state has the right to enforce any resolution militarily unless the Security Council makes that determination. From my perspective to act unilaterally would be to act illegally.
  
  
• The third principle states: "A just war can only be fought to redress a wrong suffered." Ours would be a pre-emptive war, not one to address a wrong. If terrorism has, as our President has stated, changed our understanding about the need for pre-emptive wars then that needs to be determined by the United Nations not the United States alone.
  
  
• The fourth principle states: "A war can only be just if it is fought with a reasonable chance of success. Deaths and injury incurred in a hopeless cause are not morally justifiable." What is the measure of success here? Being rid of Saddam Hussein? If it's regime change, what is our plan for establishing a stable government? What is our long-term commitment? Have we demonstrated in Afghanistan, a serious commitment to nation building?
  
  
• The fifth principle states: "The ultimate goal of a just war is to re-establish peace. More specifically, the peace established after the war must be preferable to the peace that would have prevailed if the war had not been fought." Will the peace after the war be preferable? It's most likely such a unilateral war would inspire more terrorism, and possibly destabilize other Middle Eastern nations.
  
  
• The sixth principle states: "The violence used in the war must be proportional to the injury suffered." To date neither we nor our allies have suffered any injury.
  
  
• Finally, the seventh principle states: The weapons used in war must discriminate between combatants and non-combatants. Civilians are never permissible targets of war, and every effort must be taken to avoid killing civilians." (The language for the seven principles taken from Principles of the Just War by Vincent Ferraro, Professor of International Politics, Mount Holyoke College) I believe our country certainly attempts to make that discrimination, but it's likely Saddam Hussein will not place his forces in the open. Rather he will mix them in with civilian populations, making such discrimination impossible.

If we accept those criteria as valid for determining when a war is just, then I would say the war proposed by the administration is clearly not just. In remarks to the Iraqi Assembly Scott Ritter said something else that I found very important. He told them: "Americans are a good people. No, Americans are a great people capable of doing great good. Never forget this. There has been a disturbing tendency among certain nations, Iraq included, to try and make a distinction between the people of the United States and the government of the United States. This is wrong. Ultimately, there is no difference, and indeed there can be no difference between the people of the United States and the government of the United States, because thanks to our Constitution, we the people of the United States of America are the government. In America today, we take very seriously the concept of government of the people, by the people and for the people. This represents the very foundation of the democratic way of life we love and cherish. And you do us a great disservice if you think and say otherwise."

I believe that is true, and if we go to war against Iraq, it is not simply our government that's waging the war, it is us. If we disagree with our nation's leaders about this proposed action, we need to let them know. We need to assume our responsibility as citizens to make our voices heard. And we need to lift up another vision for our nation - one which honors world community and one that seeks peace, liberty and justice for all.

So may it be. Amen.