Is this revenge or justice?

US politicians are trying to rationalise a response to the horrors of September 11 as if they were preparing for an attack by those kamikazi pilots they encountered in the Second World War.

The US and Britain may now avenge the attacks of September 11 with attacks on innocent people like you and I, including those of the same nationality, faith or ethnic group as the perpetrators of the evil deed in New York.

The US response will affect the stock exchanges of the world and the price of fuel as much as it will the people in Iraq and Afghanistan going about the difficult business of trying to survive from day to day. Yet the US is attempting to deal with the mentality of suicide bombers holding religiously fanatical beliefs by declaring war on a sovereign state which was not even referred to at the time as responsible for September 11 or as having a link with Osama bin Laden.

Britain suggests that Saddam Hussein is ignoring 23 out of 27 obligations set out in nine separate resolutions. There is still doubt however, as to whether these resolutions grant the US and Britain the right to take military action against Iraq, either to enforce UN rule or to topple Hussein.

The Parliamentary Under Secretary of State, Ben Bradshaw, in the House of Commons, indicated that the Government would seek to suggest that the ceasefire following the Gulf War was no longer valid. The ultimate question for the lawyers is does the authorisation of the 1991 Gulf War remain in force?

The counter arguments to those hawks who are cleaning their armoury in preparation for high noon in Iraq does not represent some weak, nave response to the horrors of what happened on September 11. The following is not the mealy mouthed utterings of some 'hairy lefty', but the sober testimony of a body of thought which sees the very real possibility that the world could be entering the early stages of a Third World War, impacting upon human civilisation, our children and their children.

The hawks have only to look at what has happened following the political rhetoric of 'war against terrorism'. Bin Laden has not been found and the Taliban has dispersed; Afghanistan is disintegrating into turmoil, the arms industry is still supplying the terrorists, directly or indirectly, with profitable weaponry.

Sanctions against Iraq have not ceased the despotic evil regime of Saddam Hussein, and people all over the planet are living in fear.

It is the roots of violence that have to be addressed. It is the Quaker experience that these lie in the way our world community is organised.

Although many feel an urgent need to react strongly, including turning to violence, vengeful retaliation will not make the world safer from such threats. Indeed, it will only feed the cycle of violence behind these horrific acts of terrorism. Rather, the security of nations and peoples must be based on human well-being, strengthened international co-operation and norms and respect for the rule of international law.

Although it is important not to understate the potential threat posed by Saddam Hussein as opposed to the people of Iraq, no convincing evidence has been presented, or is likely to be presented, to support the argument that Iraq is rebuilding its weapons of mass destruction programme, or that Iraq poses an immediate threat to regional or international security.

Instead, the arguments put forward in favour of military action reflect the priorities of American foreign policy. This would be difficult to reconcile with the British Government's interpretation of the legal implications of UN resolutions, and with any just war concept of Christianity preached by hawks in the Church.

In effect, the military response is the cruel thirst for vengeance and bears no resemblance to acting positively and with strength, with a non-violent response that actually achieves long standing security for the world and not a precipice from which we slip into oblivion.

The failure to find a link between Iraq and al Qaida has meant that justification for US policy has fallen back on arguing that, since December 1998, Iraq has steadily rebuilt its weapons of mass destruction programme and now poses a threat to regional and international security. This has been fuelled by reports from two Iraqi defectors and a new posture adopted by the Pentagon advocating the possibility of pre-emptive nuclear strikes against countries such as Iraq.

Following President Bush's 'axis of evil' speech, the British Government has bought into this argument. In fact, UN reports up to 1998 have shown that Iraq's defence programme had been effectively neutralised.

In November 2000, Peter Hain, the Minister responsible for Iraq, wrote: "Sanctions have not been counterproductive to the disarmament objective. On the contrary, sanctions have kept a brutal dictator contained for ten years and have blocked his access to equipment and parts to rebuild his weapons of mass destruction programme." To now argue that the weapons programme has advanced is to admit that the last eleven years of sanctions has been an impressive policy failure.

Indeed, this has been the view of Denis Halliday, UN Assistant Secretary General, who claimed upon his resignation that "an entire society in Iraq was being destroyed (by sanctions) in an illegal and immoral act."

Eleven years of sanctions have done nothing to help redevelop Iraq's infrastructure. The UN humanitarian aid programme, the oil for food programme, is a humanitarian relief rather than development programme. Any military action risks further damage to an already precarious situation in Iraq and a deterioration in the living conditions of the average Iraqi.

Little international consideration appears to have been given to any post-war settlement that might emerge following military action. If the genuine aim of US policy is to replace the current Iraqi government with a government respectful of human rights and other internationally agreed standards, then it is important to give serious and realistic attention to help build an alternative. In light of US involvement in Afghanistan and Somalia, there is little evidence that the US is interested in nation-building.

Following September 11 there have been a number of initiatives from a faith perspective, involved in creating a dialogue with Muslim communities in the UK. Muslims have been able to communicate their anxieties and concerns to a wider society. Despite the insistence that the war on terrorism is not directed at Islam per se, Muslims have felt that their identity as British citizens has been questioned; they have also been subjected to physical and verbal abuse.

There can be no doubt that involvement in military action by the British Government would multiply the anxieties and problems faced by Muslim communities here. Inter-faith relations may suffer. An attack on a sovereign Muslim state in response to terrorism could be taken to be an attack on the Islamic world.

Even if the concept of a 'Just War' was adopted by hawkish bishops and priests in the Church, this raises two questions: whether there is proper authority to military action, and whether there is right intent.

It is difficult to see how either of these have been met in the situation of Iraq. No explicit UN Security Council Resolution currently exists that would legitamise military action, and it is difficult, given the lack of international consensus, to see how this could be achieved.

We are fortunate enough to live in a democracy. In the 21st Century, if our Government wishes to send our military into war, we are entitled to ask for full disclosure of the evidence of Iraqi intent to harm or threaten us. We are also entitled to debate the evidence in the home of democracy, the long-established British Parliament.

There is an increasing body of hard line political and military opinion in the US which takes a mature step backwards in relation to the situation of Iraq, and questions what the outcome of this action is supposed to be. We are a civilised country and need to act accordingly. Our younger cousins across the Pond need to be reminded of this.

The US citizen, Martin Luther King stated that: "Violence is a descending spiral, begetting the very thing it seeks to destroy, adding deeper darkness to a night already devoid of stars. Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that."

* Glen Reynolds is a Quaker