The faith behind those who go cheerfully into war

The war in Iraq ended more than a month ago, leaving a country in shambles. Neville Watson, a Christian minister from Wembley Down Uniting Church in Perth, was a peace activist in Iraq at the time of the bombing. He witnessed the "shock and awe" bombing campaign waged by the U.S. coalition.

In an interview with The Jakarta Post's contributor Prapti Widinugraheni, Watson, 73, who was a member of the Iraq Peace Team formed by the non-government organization Voices in the Wilderness, expresses despair at the use of military might, concern about the future of democracy and hope in what he sees as the center point of all religions.

The following are excerpts of the interview:

Question: The U.S.-led coalition argued that the war was necessary to fight terrorism. Did they achieve that goal?

Answer: You can gauge the confusion by the number of ways and the number of times in which the description of the war has changed. We started off as a war against terrorism and when it couldn't be proved that Iraq was associated with terrorism, it became a war against weapons of mass destruction and when that couldn't be found, it became regime change.

And when it was pointed out that that kind of preemptive action is both immoral and unlawful, it came down to liberation of the Iraqi people.

For the last 10 years, the sanctions that have been applied in Iraq have been devastating. According to the UNICEF, 50,000 children a year have died because of waterborne disease and lack of medicine.

I asked some Iraqis whether they were pleased that Saddam Hussein was gone. They said, of course, but not in this way. And they made two points: One, that the only way that people can be free is by taking that freedom by themselves. It cannot be imposed or given to them. And two, they objected the way in which it was achieved -- the "shock and awe" bombing.

And I say: Iraq was attacked by terrorists, because the aim of the "shock and awe" bombing was that it would create fear by the use of violence. That's precisely what terrorism does ...

Q: What would the Iraqis want in terms of a new, truly democratic government?

A: I think what will happen in Iraq is that the Shia Muslims who are in the majority will be very effective. I talked to some of them and they're going to adopt a civil disobedience type of approach.

I would not be at all surprised if, when the elections are held, they would be able to win the day and establish an Islamic state. (U.S. Secretary of Defense) Rumsfeld has already said that that will not be permitted under any circumstance. So there's a recipe for disaster starting right now.

Whatever the nature of the state that emerges, it's going to be strongly Islamic and this isn't going to be in accord with the wishes of the Americans. What they want is a pro-American state; they don't want a democratic state.

Q: Before the war started, there was much discussion in the Australian media on the war's legality and public opposition to Australia's involvement in it. And yet Prime Minister John Howard's government went ahead. How do you view this in the light of democracy, which Australia claims to uphold, and the peace movement?

A: The fact is that 71 percent of the people of Australia did not want the war. When that was made known to John Howard, he said it was not going to change his mind. I thought it was the mind of the people that counted as far as a democracy was concerned.

The war constituted not a failure of the peace movement but a failure of democracy insofar that they still went to war notwithstanding the fact that the people were against it.

Democracy is about open and free discussion. We never had open and free discussion (on the issue). We got to the stage where, whenever we wanted it debated, Howard would say, "We haven't decided yet as to whether we want to go to war".

What happened was the ridiculous situation where the debate was taken after the decision to go to war. Ten years ago, Australia was probably the world's best multicultural country. And then the racist card was played and we're going backwards.

I talked to soldiers in Iraq and, with only one exception, they all said that they had joined the Army to get an education. What they were saying is that it is impossible for people without money to get a college education in America. Now, if America is the greatest democracy on earth and you can only get an education if you've got money, something is basically wrong with democracy.

Q: As a Christian minister, you have preached that war is not the answer. And yet, there are Christians like George W. Bush, who believe otherwise. How do you see this strand of Christianity?

A: Obviously the two are very different insofar that George Bush says "God bless America" as (the U.S.) goes off to war. I would regard that as probably one of the greatest blasphemies that I could think of.

As far as Jesus is concerned, he is non-violent. But the God of the Old Testament is very violent. And there are so many instances of war, death and destruction that the church has this big problem of having a non-violent Jesus and a violent God.

There is an Old Testament and there is a New Testament. And the Old Testament is precisely what it says it is: It is old, and it has been superseded by the New Testament. And how Bush and others can hold to a faith in violence when Jesus is the epitome of non-violence, I have great difficulty in understanding.

The only way I can think of it is that he is still in terms of the Old Testament rather than the New Testament.

Q: How do you see the future of inter-faith relations in the world following the Iraq war?

A: I've been trying to work out how you relate with people (of other faiths) when there are so many differences. If you think of it as a semi-circle, there is the center of the semi-circle, and from the center, you have radiuses. One radius leading from the center to the circumference would be Christianity, another would be Hindu, another, Muslim and so on.

At the circumference, the differences are huge but the more you come down towards the center, the smaller the differences become until you get to the center, which I would say is faith in the giftedness of life. There, there's almost no difference at all. When relating to other faiths, you have to go deeper and deeper into the faith and you eventually come to the point where you are aligned with others. Some people, however, operate at the circumference where Christians have one view, Muslims have another, and the idea is that they should overcome each other.

Q: Do you believe religious fundamentalism is gaining popularity around the world?

A: I think it's always been popular because it's simple and clear-cut. And people have a great need for something that is simple and clear-cut. Unfortunately, fundamentalism does provide that. One of the sad things is that religion, which should be a means of promoting love and peace, has been more effective in the history of the world in promoting violence than any other feature.

There is a quote from 17th century philosopher Blaise Pascal: "Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as when they do it from religious conviction."