Issue-oriented and thematic papers for PfL’s advocacy work, including statements, campaign materials, articles and updates on developing issues; and links to related resources and information
Some Comments on the International Ecumenical
Peace Convocation (IEPC) Message and
“The Ecumenical Call to Just Peace”
By NINAN KOSHY and KIM YONG-BOCK
2011 JULY 12
Prof Kim Yong-bock, PfL co-moderator, and Dr Ninan Koshy, member of the PfL Continuation Committee and former director of the WCC Commission of the Churches on International Affairs, sent a copy of this paper to WCC General Secretary Rev Dr Olav Fykse Tveit, WCC Central Committee members and “several other friends in the ecumenical community” on July 12. Appended to the main text is the email exchange between Prof Kim and former WCC General Secretary Rev Dr Konrad Raiser, moderator of the drafting group for the Ecumenical Call to Just Peace. The email exchange was first published by the Asia Pacific Institute for the Integral Study of Life of which Prof Kim is chancellor.
These comments are made with a strong affirmation of our full support to the current peace journey of the World Council of Churches. We had the privilege to be participants at the IEPC Convocation in Kingston in May 2011. We hope these comments will be received as a contribution to the ongoing discussions to clarify and deepen further the ecumenical understanding of peace and justice.
We begin with a few comments on the Message of the Convocation, held at Jamaica, Kingston, 17th-25th May 2011. We welcome the Message as an expression of the commitment of the ecumenical movement to peace, as reflected in the Convocation. The Message proposes several steps towards peacemaking, relevant in the context of today’s challenges.
“Just Peace”
We have serious concerns about the term Just Peace which has now become the mantra of the WCC for its understanding of peace and justice. These concerns arose already, while reading the drafts of the Ecumenical Call to Just Peace. Some of us had expressed them at that stage itself but there was no response from the WCC. The use of the term Just Peace in the Message has only added to our concerns. Pardon us for elaborating our concerns about the term as we consider them very crucial in articulating the peace commitment of the WCC.
There are two specific instances in the Message about which we have to express our reservations. In the introductory part of the Message it speaks of “seeking the means to address violence and to reject war in favour of Just Peace”. Again in the last part under ‘Peace among Peoples’ we read “We are moving beyond the doctrine of just war towards a commitment to Just Peace”. This tends to give the impression that our commitment to peace arises out of the rejection of the just war doctrine. This obviously is a distortion of the basis of the ecumenical commitment to justice.
The scrutiny of the term Just Peace is especially important in the context of the confusion created by the prevailing discourse on war and peace reflecting the hegemonic definitional power of the USA. President Bush addressing the graduating class of the Military Academy at West Point on June 3, 2002, at a time when preparations were in full swing for the military attack on Iraq, said, ‘We fight as we always fight for a just peace—a peace that favours liberty” (emphasis added). President Obama, accepting the Nobel Peace Prize at a time when he had just sent additional 30,000 troops to Afghanistan said, “It will require us to think in new ways about the notion of just war and an imperative of just peace.” (emphasis added)
The problem about the term may be further noticed if we look at some more sentences in Obama’s speech. He was not rejecting just war to move to just peace. He said, “There will be times when nations will find the use of force not only necessary but morally justifiable”. He added in the Oslo speech, “Yes, the instruments of war do have a role in preserving peace”, uncomfortably reminding us of a statement by President Bush that “The manufacturers of weapons are the peacemakers”. Obama said at Oslo, “Peace requires responsibility. Peace entails sacrifice. That is why NATO continues to be indispensable”. Obama was glorifying, in the name of peace, a military alliance which has one of the most aggressive strategic doctrines. Bush had declared in 2001 that “Pentagon is the biggest force for freedom in the world”. Both Bush and Obama linked just peace to weapons, military alliances and war. Just peace is a term in, what may be called, the imperial lexicon.
Against this background, Just Peace may be interpreted as legitimizing the peace that is claimed by the principalities and powers. Their peace is a false peace, more appropriately called today Imperial Peace. The basic question is whether the term just peace brings out fully or even adequately the Biblical understanding of peace. In our opinion it does not. We therefore request the WCC to reconsider the matter and reformulate the concept of peace in tune with the notion of peace and justice in the Bible, intertwined as components of the fullness of life.
The Message
We make the comments on the Message fully realizing that it will not be or rather cannot be changed. While some of the suggestions made, during the course of the rich debate on the Draft Message, were incorporated in the Message, we regret that several creative and valuable suggestions did not find a place in the final text.
The Message begins in a passive tone, a tone that characterizes both the Message and the Ecumenical Call. “We understand peace and peacemaking as an indispensable part of our common faith”. There seems to be some reluctance here for a declaration or a clear statement.
“We are unified in our affirmation that war should become illegal”. There are no demands made, no steps suggested, as if war would become illegal by some automatic process.
“We advocate total nuclear disarmament and control of the proliferation of small arms”. This is the weakest formulation on the nuclear weapons issue that the WCC has ever made. It appears that the WCC is not ready to make a call for the abolition of nuclear weapons and support who work for it. The formulation on small arms is confusing. What does control of the proliferation mean?
We don’t comment here on the different sections in the Message as they will be dealt with as we examine the Ecumenical Call for Just Peace.
The final part of the Message, which is a call especially with reference to the WCC Assembly in 2013, again raises the problem of ‘just peace’. The Assembly theme God of Life, Give us Justice and Peace reflects fully the Biblical understanding of peace and is broad in its scope. But the Message seems to suggest it should be narrowed down to Just Peace. In effect this becomes a reformulation of the Assembly theme, restricting its scope.
The Ecumenical Call to Just Peace
We begin with some general comments on the Ecumenical Call to Just Peace. The whole document is in a pacifist, pastoral tone which has its own merits. But little space is given to the prophetic element. There is no reference to struggles of people in different parts of the world for justice and peace. People’s resistance to occupation does not find any mention in the document. On the whole there is a studied reluctance to critique the powers and principalities of the world, especially those who continue to wage wars. There is no attempt to name names and denounce wars that are being waged now. There is no call to end wars and occupation taking place at the time when the WCC is claiming to build a new ecumenical consensus on peace.
2. “Let the people speak.” There is not even a short description or reference to the context in which the new ecumenical consensus on peace is sought. Major wars are being fought for years, new wars have begun. The military occupation of some countries continues indefinitely. Yet the Call does not deal with the critical issues of war and conquest. “Citizens in some countries face violence by occupation, paramilitaries, guerillas, criminal cartels or government forces”. Yes, occupation finds a place in the text but seems to be equated with much lower levels of violence. Occupation is the violation of the sovereignty of the people of a country and it appears that some countries claim they have the right to do so. This important issue is not highlighted nor is the claimed right challenged. There is a reference to national security here but there is no critique of it. In fact the notion of imperial security is gaining ground. The Biblical understanding of true security has to be expressed in terms of people’s security, a term first used by the Vancouver Assembly in 1983.
4. We are afraid that there is a selective use of Biblical passages here which fails to bring out several aspects of Jesus’ ministry. In this ministry, there is criticism of the rulers, there is denunciation of the exploiters and resistance to the status quo. None of these, directly linked to Jesus’ death, is brought out here.
The Way of Just Peace
8. The question of context is raised again by this paragraph. What is the violence that Just Peace deals with? It is not clear. What is clear is that inter-state violence of aggression and occupation is left out. There is an attempt to reduce violence to the personal level. The formulation “to pursue peace we must prevent and eliminate personal, structural and media violence against people because of race, caste, gender, sexual orientation, culture or religion” is not adequate. What about terrorism and the War on Terror in the name of counter-terrorism?
The reference to children in this paragraph as “tomorrow people” reflects neither the Biblical understanding of children nor the current secular concept. Children are not “tomorrow people”. They are an integral part of the people today. They have their own place, rights and role in the society. Their contribution is unique and cannot be made by adults.
9. “Non-violent resistance is central to the Way of Just Peace.” This is an issue that the WCC has wrestled with from its beginning and has suggested many helpful pointers in dealing with its complexity and dilemmas. It has held the view that we have no right to sit in judgment on people who, while resisting oppression and occupation, may have to resort to use of force, defensively. But the issue is dealt with here in a totally pacifist manner which obviously is not adequate.
10. The sentence “The Way of Just Peace is fundamentally different from the concept of just war”. This is a rather strange formulation which again raises the problem with the term Just Peace. ‘Just war’ provides more of a moral calculus for the determination of the moral justification of force than a theory or concept of war. New doctrines of war including preemption or preventative wars and technological advances in weaponry have made just war obsolete. This has to be recognized. The Christian understanding of peace has nothing to do with whatever theories of war may be prevalent from time to time. It is independent of them, beyond them and far above them and because of that, critiques them and judges them.
Living the Journey
14. “Those who have stereotyped and demonized their adversaries will need long-term support and accompaniment in order to work through their condition and be healed”. This may be true at the personal level. But what about the wars referred to in the opening sentence of the paragraph? In all the wars of the twenty first century, those who waged wars have stereotyped and demonized their adversaries, whether it is Saddam Hussein or Gaddafi. Does the sentence mean the Bushes of the world “will need long-term support and accompaniment”? Obviously clarification is needed on this point.
15. The real problem with peace agreements is that they are often conditions imposed by the victorious party or state in the context of war and conquest.
They have often very little to do with peace or interests of the people concerned. The other point is that the term peace is less used and instead the term security is more used in international parlance. Agreements are usually about security and not about peace. The imperial notion of just peace is an important matter to be considered when we speak of peace agreements.
Signposts on the Way of Just Peace
21. “Just Peace and the transformation of conflict.” This section also raises questions about the nature of violence dealt with in the document. Wars and inter-state conflicts are excluded, when for example it is said that “Conflict transformation aims at challenging adversaries to redirect their conflicting interests towards the common good”. The exclusion of wars is clear when the document says, “It also includes strengthening civic mechanisms for managing conflicts”. It is not clear what “managing conflicts” means especially in view of the fact there is no reference to conflict resolution in the paragraph. The “rule of law” is presented as the critical framework. The rule of law most often does nothing more than legitimize already existing legal relationships and power structures. Justice has to be the critical framework here.
22. “Just Peace and the use of armed force.” There is a partial acceptance of the just war criteria here. The problem arises when just war is linked to just peace, a problem we have already commented upon.
23. It is not clear why, in the paragraph on the authority of the United Nations, there is reference to just war. It is true that ‘secular’ international laws on war reflect to a large extent just war criteria. But that is not the issue here. The UN has authority for the use of military power within the constraints of international law, it says. The fact is that it is not the UN which uses military power but some states in the name of the UN, most often misinterpreting and misusing UN Security Council resolutions and flouting the UN Charter. This aspect has to be clarified. The formulation, the concept of just war and its customary use, needs explanation.
24. An Ecumenical Call, which claims to reject the just war theory, justifies it when it says, here, “The (moral) dilemma is partially resolved if the criteria developed in the just war tradition may still serve as a framework for an ethic of the lawful use of force”. As pointed out earlier just war has always been a moral calculus. The question is whether that calculus is applicable today. Some of the statements on just war in the document are contradictory and need to be looked at. There is also reference to the emergence of a new norm in international law around “responsibility to protect”. As the Message recognizes, this is prone to misuse and already there are instances where UN ‘authorization’ for “responsibility to protect” has been grossly misused and has become pretext for aggression.
27. “Building cultures of peace.” The title of the section has little to do with its contents. What are the components of a culture of peace as opposed to a culture of war? An identification of some of them will be helpful in moving towards peace. The role of religion or the misuse of religion in a culture of war has to be highlighted.
For peace in the marketplace
36. The term peace in the marketplace may give the impression of accommodation with the forces of market. The impression is sustained by the description. The sentence, “The widening socio-economic chasms within and between nations raise serious questions about the effectiveness of the market-oriented economic liberalization policies in eradicating poverty and challenge the pursuit of growth as an overriding objective for any society”, to say the least, is puzzling. It will appear that the objective of economic liberalization is to eradicate poverty and challenge the pursuit of growth. On the contrary economic liberalization, which is a project, places the pursuit of growth, at the expense of justice, as its main objective. Consequently it widens the inequity gap and throws millions of people into poverty.
The theme should be justice in the market place, as justice is denied by free market and free trade, two terms that do not get any reference. There are no calls for alternatives and changes, if any, have to be under the given framework. There is no reference to the economic and financial structures of domination. There is no critique of globalization here—globalization which has neither space nor scope for justice.
The important work of the ecumenical movement in this area, analyzing and finding responses to the structures, politics and ideology of the neo-liberal capitalist liberalization, finds no reference here. There is no questioning the idolatry of the system. WCC’s Porto Alegre Assembly’s call for the transformation of the dominant system also is omitted.
Peace Among the Peoples
39. “Global Challenges.” The section fails to identify the critical global challenges, in this case, to peace among the peoples, especially at the interstate and international levels. Instead it repeats the generalizations already given in earlier sections.
40. It is good that two important threats of nuclear holocaust and climate change are rightly mentioned. A call for a nuclear-weapon free world and the urgent need of the commitment of the churches for abolition of nuclear weapons should find a place here.
A few concluding observations
We conclude these comments again raising questions about the term Just Peace. The whole document reflects only the dichotomy between just war and pacifism. Pacifism is called Just Peace. This is not a true representation of the Biblical understanding or of WCC position on peace, as it is only one part of the Christian tradition.
The question as to whom the appeal is addressed is important. Formally it is addressed to the churches. But WCC declarations have always a much wider audience, especially on an issue like peace. They will be tested against the best available insights on peace in the secular realm. Here the document may fail in the test especially because, among other reasons, there is no criticism, let alone denunciation, of the forces that currently threaten peace in the world.
There is no sense of urgency in the Appeal. This seems to be a ‘timeless’ statement of principles. That may have its merits. But if we do not bring out the urgency and enormity of the challenge, a call for peace will not lead to action.
Responses to Comments on IEPC
On Fri, Jul 29, 2011 at 8:40 PM, Konrad Raiser <konrad.raiserarcor.de> wrote:
Dear Yong Bock and dear Ninan,
Thank you very much for your thoughtful comments on the message of the IEPC and the Ecumenical Call to Just Peace. I should have acknowledged your mail and responded to it much earlier; family obligation during this holiday period, where we had grand children with us, prevented me from writing earlier.
Even now, my initial response will be relatively brief, since I should not begin to “defend” the message or the call, simply by virtue of the fact that I was the moderator of the drafting group. But let me make a few explanatory comments:
The term “just peace” was not our invention; it was given to us through a resolution of the WCC assembly at Porto Alegre. We have tried in the “call” to give substance to the concept, making use of the many comments that were shared during the consultative process. As you know the term has a history of its own in ecumenical discussion which is independent of its problematic use in the political arena.
It is true that the DOV and the preparations for the IEPC were strongly influenced by the “pacifist” tradition of the historic peace churches. This has traditionally been a minority position in ecumenical discussion. The “call” is an attempt to take the debate beyond the old antagonism between “just war” and “pacifism”. The IEPC should have provided an opportunity to test out whether this is a valid approach. Unfortunately this opportunity has been missed.
I need not convince you that I’m fully aware of the long history of the ecumenical discussion on peace and justice. You may have seen the brochure called “Just Peace Companion” which was prepared by the drafting group to provide the necessary background for discussions of the “call”. In chapter 4 of the companion document you find a much more fully developed argument regarding the concerns expressed in your comments.
The drafting group (for the “call”) was conscious of the fact that a much fuller debate was needed before an “Ecumenical Declaration on Just Peace” could be formulated in the expectation that it would be received in the churches. The last substantial declaration on peace and justice was issued by the Vancouver Assembly in 1983. Time may be right, thirty years later, for such a declaration to be presented to and discussed by the Busan assembly in 2013. The “call” was and is meant to launch the discussion towards this aim.
The drafting of the message at Kingston suffered from the same weakness that characterized the IEPC as a whole, i.e. the lack of space for any substantial discussion among the participants. Under the circumstances, the text in the message is a brave attempt to articulate some of the concerns at Kingston; but it does not say anything that has not been said before, and much clearer and more strongly. I hope that the small group that was appointed to continue the process and link it with the preparations of the assembly will find ways to focus the discussion around a few central issues on which a common ecumenical affirmation can and should be made today.
I hope that we find an opportunity to continue this important exchange. Meanwhile I send you my very best wishes and warm greetings. Cordially yours
Konrad
Kim Yong Bock responded to Dr. Konrad Raiser’s Response
Dear Konrad,
Ninan and I feel very grateful for your short but very considerate response to our comments on the Declaration on Just Peace and the IEPC message. Our gratitude is not merely because of our mutual commitment to the ecumenical movement, centering WCC, but also because of your confirmation and suggestion to evolve a “Busan Declaration on Peace” (fully accounting the issue of justice and fully embracing the integrity of life.)
Our insistence has been that our historical context is a “radically changed” world and that our ecumenical movement has been facing at new and radical challenges. There may be different and diverse grasp of the new context of our world in which our ecumenical movement is placed. Our ecumenical movement has to come to terms with this current and new context, and our understanding of the power reality of the world should be deepened and broadened, seeking an ecumenical convergence in discerning the signs of times, seeking a convergent vision and discourse on peace in the world through ecumenical deliberations, and hopefully leading to the “Busan Declaration on Peace”
We are glad to recognize your assessment on the DOV and the IEPC in reference to the “pacifism.”
We were frustrated not being able to deal with newly emerging geopolitical question of the war with its all dimensions in its full scope.
We were greatly alarmed because the issue of justice is not treated with full seriousness considering new and radically changed world situation. Nowadays we fear that we, as ecumenical movement, are losing the prophetic stance on the issue of justice as well as the world seems forgetting justice discourse in the neoliberal regime of global economy.
Inter-religious ecumenism has reached a Kairotic time today. The issue of peace and justice cannot be dealt without a decisive step of our ecumenical movement in an orbit of seeking a common vision on peace and justice and forging convergent strategy toward realization of that vision. We believe that the Busan GA of WCC will give an opportune moment, for it is an “Asian” Assembly, recognizing that Asia is the birth place and home of world religions (Christianity and Islam included) as well as the garden of rich people’s religions. Just as our ecumenical movement intensify our commitment toward peace and justice among Christians, we are to take bold steps toward inter- and multi-religious ecumenism in order that our ecumenical movement become truly ecumenical, embracing the whole universe. We are also facing serious challenges of “radical political messianism” in the form of fundamentalism in all religious communities.
Political and economic powers that be, be it imperial nation states or global corporate powers, seem to have complete control and monopoly of power of science and technology by constituting the technocratic regime. This technocratic reality constitutes the vein and texture of the political, military and corporate powers which determine ultimately issues of peace and justice. Human technocracy has breached limits of created order, especially in the nuclear power and in the biotech manipulations. Ecumenical movement is so behind on this issue, we feel.
We hope that biblical witnesses can be recovered and transformed in order to enhance its faithfulness and integrity in the contemporary world of radical change through all of our deliberations on peace and justice.
We are happy that there is still a hope for a process of working towards a “Busan Declaration” – A Major and Substantive Ecumenical Declaration on Peace and Justice. Your suggestion on this process is most helpful.
With my best regards, I am
Cordially yours,
Kim Yong-Bock
Source:
http://www.oikozoe.or.kr/?p=302
Related page:
External links:
HOME
SITEMAP
TOP