A Pilgrimage for Peace

We are now clearly on the path to war, and neither side is blinking. The momentum toward destruction is gaining speed, and dangerous brinkmanship seems to be the operative policy of the conflicting parties as deadly deadlines draw near. George Bush and Saddam Hussein may well be seriously miscalculating each other's resolve and intentions in a high-stakes game of "chicken" to see who will back down first.

I returned from a weeklong visit to the Middle East, including time in Iraq, with both an ominous sense of impending confrontation and an even clearer picture of what a peaceful resolution of this conflict could look like. But during the time of our pilgrimage for peace, undertaken by 18 U.S. church leaders just before Christmas, it was readily apparent that neither Washington nor Baghdad was much interested in talking. Haggling over dates for meeting dominated the news, while the growing prospect of catastrophic war hung over the world like the Sword of Damocles.

The irony and promise of Christmas carols over the radio accompanied us throughout our ecumenical journey, which took members of our delegation first to Cyprus and then, in smaller groups, to Jerusalem, Beirut and Damascus, Amman and Baghdad. Our invitation came from the Middle East Council of Churches, whose members served as our gracious hosts in each place, and was coordinated by the National Council of Churches in the United States.

I was a member of the group that went first to Amman, Jordan, and then to Iraq. The sword of war hanging over us became frighteningly visual one day in Baghdad.

We were taken to a huge parade grounds, with stadium-like reviewing stands overlooking an expanse wide enough for more than 100 vehicles across, and at least half a mile long. At each end is an identical "gate" of enormous crossed swords, extending 100 feet toward the sky. Each sword is held in a giant hand -- the hands of Saddam," explained our young interpreter.

Cascading down from the hands and swords are hundreds and hundreds of helmets. They are the helmets of dead Iranian soldiers, many with visible bullet holes, embedded in the concrete of this chilling monument and all across the road. You must drive over them to enter the parade grounds.

The sight was overpowering, until the words of a familiar scripture flooded my mind: "And nations shall beat their swords into plowshares ... and neither shall they learn war anymore." I asked the young woman serving as our official guide, who wore a cross around her neck, if she had ever heard of this promise from the prophet Micah. She hadn't. Nor has most of the world at this critical moment, I thought to myself as I gazed at the sun setting behind the mammoth swords of war.

ANOTHER IMAGE THAT HAS stayed with me came from earlier that same day, as we were being shown around Baghdad's main art center. On the wall of one of the gallery's many rooms is a beautiful painting. The figure is Jesus, looking out over the world with an expression of profound sadness and pain. A closer look revealed that this Christ stands handcuffed and wears a Palestinian scarf around his neck.

The art expressed the helplessness I felt as we spoke to religious and political leaders in the Middle East and heard news from the United States. Peaceful resolution of the Gulf crisis is possible, but the prospects for peace have been handcuffed by political intransigence and the reliance on mutual threats over substantive dialogue.

This was my first visit to Baghdad, a modern city on the banks of the Tigris River, with a curious mix of traditional Islamic and contemporary Western styles of culture and dress. Government buildings, offices, stores, and hotels give the appearance of any large U.S city, but the flowing garments, the tall minarets and domes of many mosques, and the Arabic signs testify to the religion and culture of the East, which is so unknown to most Americans. A small boy riding a donkey in New York-style downtown traffic, slowly wending his way through the fast-moving cars and taxis (with both boy and donkey looking very nervous) revealed the uneasy juxtaposition of two cultures.

As in most places I've visited, children created the lasting impressions in Baghdad. It was difficult to look into their faces without easily imagining them as victims of U.S. bombing attacks. But for now, everything appears normal. Young school girls, with books under their arms, smile and laugh together as they wait at a bus stop, and boys run up and down an athletic field chasing after a soccer ball.

While we were waiting in line to get on our flight to Baghdad from Amman, a young Iraqi couple in front of us was struggling to carry their two small children and assorted boxes and pieces of luggage. Edmond Browning, the presiding bishop of the Episcopal Church and leader of our delegation, offered to help and picked up a box. The couple's gratitude was evident, and I smiled at the simple parable of what relations between Americans and Iraqis might better be.

OUR CONVERSATIONS WITH Iraqi officials were not always so easy. The anger and entrenched positions on both sides of the Gulf conflict seem to be growing in the absence of any dialogue. After one particularly frustrating conversation -- or rather, lecture -- from a government bureaucrat, who continually repeated half-truths and outright falsehoods about the policies and behavior of his government, I said to another member of our group, 'The enemy is who he appears to be. But the answer is still not war."

A discussion on our last day with State Secretary for Foreign Affairs Mohammed Said Al-Sahhaf was more fruitful. He laid out his government's case and concerns, but then called for a genuine dialogue in which everything would be on the table, including Iraq's withdrawal from Kuwait. "Through sincere, serious dialogue," he believes, "the parties, for sure, will reach some solution."

I told him that to rely on U.S. public opinion alone to prevent a war would be a serious mistake on Iraq's part, that the Iraqi officials must be careful not to miscalculate the U.S. government's willingness to resort to force. "While many of us in the churches would oppose the war option with all our strength, we may be unable to stop it unless some political solution is found," I warned. He assured us that they were not miscalculating and had things under control. However, a young staffer from the Foreign Ministry who was in the room thanked me afterward for making the point and said he believed it had been heard.

We did not see Saddam Hussein. We were told that a meeting with the Iraqi president was being arranged but that it would require several more days of waiting. That seems to be the usual pattern. Iraq is run by a stifling and inefficient bureaucracy, which creates a great deal of frustration for anyone visiting Iraq these days. We were no exception.

I believe the Iraqi officials wish to avoid war. They know that war would be costly, unpredictable, and destructive. But, as a matter of national pride, they also appear quite ready to fight. Iraq is very unlikely to back down with none of its concerns addressed.

Iraqi officials seem to be holding on to at least two illusions at the moment: U.S. public opinion will prevent a war; but if attacked, the Arab masses will rally to Iraq's support and Iraq ultimately will win. But George Bush has publicly expressed his determination even to go against public opinion if necessary to fight this war. And while an attack by mostly Western forces would likely galvanize Arab opposition, Iraq cannot win.

Indeed, there will be no victory for anyone.

THE ALTERNATIVE TO WAR became most clear during our days in Amman, Jordan. Our delegation was deeply impressed with the role the Jordanian government continues to play in the midst of the Gulf conflict. That role has been misunderstood in the United States and consistently both caricatured and thwarted by the Bush administration.

Working together, the government, churches, and private organizations in Jordan took responsibility for 750,000 evacuees who fled from Kuwait and Iraq during the early days of the invasion. Through one of the largest airlifts in history, most of the three-quarters of a million people have now been safely returned to their home countries.

Walking through one of those dusty refugee camps one day, I was reminded of another rule of war: It is always the innocent and the poor who suffer the most. Two days earlier, the president of Cyprus, George Vassilliou, had said to us, "If it were possible to have a war and only the villains would suffer, I wouldn't mind. But usually the innocent suffer and the villains escape."

We were standing in the midst of the evacuee camp, with displaced Asian workers all around us, when the camp's director said to us, "If there is a war, we will see a million more refugees."

Jordan has been democratizing, which cannot be said for the U.S. Arab allies in this crisis, and certainly not for either Kuwait or Saudi Arabia, whose royal families are among the most wealthy, corrupt, and autocratic in the world. It was in Jordan that we heard the most about the unbelievable wealth of the Kuwaiti and Saudi royal families, along with the other Gulf sheiks. "Four or five [of them] could literally wipe out the debt of the entire Arab world," Jordan's foreign minister told us. In the meantime, most Arab people are poor, with the petro-dollars being spent on enormous luxury, Western investments, and corrupt pleasures.

We met with Crown Prince Hassan, the brother of Jordan's King Hussein. Jordan has maintained a "principled opposition to aggression and forcible annexation," he told us, but disagrees with the United States on what policy will resolve the situation. "We have tried to play a mediating role, but the U.S. says, 'You are either with us or against us,'" explained Prince Hassan.

He said Jordan has tried to "play the role of a facilitator for peace, based on the principle of withdrawal," and has pushed for an "Arab contribution" to solving the crisis. "There is no contradiction between U.N. resolutions and an Arab contribution," he told us. "An Arab solution is not undercutting, as the U.S. suggests."

Indeed, he claimed that King Hussein had received from Saddam a commitment of withdrawal from Kuwait in the first 72 hours after the invasion and that an Arab solution was then possible. But events moved too quickly, the massive U.S. role abruptly changed the dynamics, Arab relations disintegrated, and both sides became more and more entrenched.

The formula for peace Prince Hassan suggests is withdrawal, followed by direct negotiations between Iraq and Kuwait. He reminded us that the U.N. resolutions do not call for the destruction of Iraq and that the critical problem of weapons of mass destruction could be dealt with through agreements for monitoring and verification, with confidence-building measures, as part of a necessary process of armament build-down in the region.

We discussed how "linkage" (of the Gulf crisis to the Palestinian-Israeli conflict) and "negotiations" had become negative words in the debate, but that the interrelationship of issues in the region and the requirement of real dialogue are absolutely critical to any possible settlement. "If Iraq overemphasizes linkage, war will result and the Palestinians will suffer," said Prince Hassan. "If the U.S. says there is no interconnection, they are increasing the bitterness of the people involved."

Jordan admits to seeing the Gulf crisis through a "Palestinian prism." All over the region, our delegation heard the words "double standard" in regard to U.S. policy in the Middle East and now in relation to the Gulf. U.N. resolutions have been passed and massive armies sent in response to the invasion of Kuwait, but the 23-year Israeli occupation of the West Bank and Gaza with its accompanying oppression of Palestinians generates no such outcry or action.

Prince Hassan seemed gripped with a sense of impending tragedy. He spoke of the "inexorable movement toward war" and the dilemma posed by "the burning desire for peace among many and the investment in the military option by many others." His face evidenced sadness and helplessness.

"War will be the beginning of a political moonscape," he said. "Whatever Arabs feel about Saddam and Kuwait, most won't support [the United States] in a war with other Arabs." He said war will also be an "ecological disaster" and will cause the total breakdown of food systems and other infrastructures. It could lead to U.S. forces occupying Arab holy places and delegitimate political authority throughout the region.

The next morning, Jordan's foreign minister, Marwan Al-Qassan, reviewed for us the history of events leading up to this crisis. Misconceptions and miscalculations, lack of dialogue between states, and mixed signals to Iraq (including from U.S. officials) all contributed to the explosion of August 2. He also believes the Pentagon has consistently wanted a long-term U.S. military presence in the region to protect U.S. interests and control the flow of oil, and this crisis could easily lead to that, with or without war.

He challenged U.S. policy on moral grounds. "In a 'new world order,'" he asked, "how can we morally accept such tragedy for Palestinians?" Then he added, "Peace is indivisible in the Middle East," interjecting a clarity that transcends the present debate over linkage. By failing to be consistent, he said, Americans have lost credibility in the Middle East, and the forces of Islamic nationalism and fundamentalism are converging against the United States.

"We don't like dictators either, but do you wipe out the whole region because of a dictator, and destroy your own interests for a generation to come?" the foreign minister asked. "In your overkill, you have made Iraq an underdog."

We found few people in the Middle East who like Saddam Hussein. But he has articulated the deep-seated and unresolved issues of the region. That he uses them for his own purposes should not obscure the fact that the issues are real and are not going away. They emerge in almost every conversation.

In standing up to the West and in raising the issue of redistribution of Arab wealth and power, Saddam has struck a raw nerve. Apart from Saddam Hussein, and with or without him, the time has come to deal with the real issues in the Middle East. Everyone we talked with seemed to agree on this point: Whether or not there is a war, we can never go back to the way things were before August 2. This crisis has already changed everything.

WHAT IS THE ALTERNATIVE to war in the Middle East? Any alternative would have to bring about the withdrawal of Iraq from Kuwait, along with post-withdrawal agreements and procedures to resolve the outstanding issues between the two countries. It would have to initiate a process to reverse the regional arms buildup and to eliminate weapons of mass destruction. And it would have to deal finally with the Palestinian-Israeli conflict, probably through the convening of an international conference under the auspices of the United Nations.

The sequence and timing of the above could be worked out in any number of ways, with confidence-building measures to satisfy the needs of the parties involved. A U.N. peacekeeping presence in both Kuwait and Saudi Arabia could replace the massive U.S.-led force now deployed and remain until all agreements were carried out and some reasonable stability established.

But all that requires genuine dialogue and a serious effort to find another option apart from the threat of massive violence. That is the real alternative to war. So far, neither side has honestly sought it.

Upon our return from the Middle East, Edmond Browning met for 40 minutes with President George Bush and Secretary of State James Baker. He reported what we had seen and heard and urged the president not to pursue the war option. He told them "the Middle East will be scorched beyond belief, and the recovery of such destruction would be almost impossible."

Browning told Bush that war would serve neither the national interest nor his presidency, and encouraged him instead to take the high moral ground and do whatever is necessary to find a peaceful solution. Bush responded that he "hates to have his bishop in opposition." Browning then told Bush, "Mr. President, I really do love you and want you to know that I am praying for you every day."

As I write, both sides in the Gulf conflict are still threatening each other and Christmas is two days away. The prospects for peace seem as fragile as that little boy on the small donkey winding his way through downtown Baghdad traffic. But especially in this season, there is very real hope in such symbols -- a poor child born in a cattle stall is still a sign of the world's hope for peace.

Beyond all the political issues and possibilities, there are some moral and theological issues Christians must face, regardless of what the ruling authorities decide to do. All the churches' various statements on the Gulf crisis have a common theological core -- the war option, as laid out by our own political leaders and military experts, stands in direct violation of historic Christian teaching on the questions of war and peace.

With the weapons the nations possess, the scenarios that would be followed, and the resulting consequences in human lives, war in the Middle East is morally indefensible. There can be no just war here. The choice for war must not be made. Period.

Having warned our political leaders that the war option is morally unacceptable, we must be ready to respond on moral grounds if war is initiated. If our government goes to war, it would be morally indefensible for us not to resist the violence, after what we have so clearly stated.

The churches must be prepared to encourage their young men and women not to obey orders if they are sent to bomb the children of Baghdad. Even now, churches must become safe havens and supportive places for those considering conscientious objection to military call-ups and potential drafts. Non-cooperation, tax refusal, and nonviolent civil disobedience will become even more imperative if war breaks out. By taking action for peace at this crucial historical moment, the religious community could help find a way out and a path forward through this crisis, helping to create the climate, conditions, and even the ingredients that would make a peaceful solution possible.

Above all, we must continue to insist that there is an alternative to war. This special issue of Sojourners clearly lays out what such an alternative could be. It is on behalf of that alternative that we must now mobilize our energy, prayers, and actions.

Jim Wallis is editor-in-chief of Sojourners.