April 8, 2003
by Konrad Raiser

GENEVA - As we are being prepared for a longer and probably more destructive war in Iraq than was initially projected, voices opposed to the war grow louder, challenging the legitimacy of the decision by the United States and Britain to use military force to disarm Iraq and achieve a regime change there.

Victory in itself will not establish legitimacy. By acting outside a United Nations mandate, the coalition partners deliberately took the risk of conflict with international law, hoping that quick success would silence those who questioned the wisdom and legitimacy of their undertaking. But now the question is being raised anew, and it may well begin to haunt the governments involved.

The U.S. administration seems intent on reinstating the old imperial logic of power that "might makes right," and that the fear of superior power, acting as a deterrent, subsumes legitimacy. But a unilateral exercise of power is unacceptable in a highly interdependent world. The development of international law reflects the recognition that a viable international order can no longer be built on mere balance of power.

The exercise of power and its legitimacy must be subjected to legal norms and procedures. The system of international law is still fragile and incomplete, and the instruments of law enforcement are weak. Nevertheless, it has become an indispensable source of legitimacy, especially where the use of force in resolving international conflict is concerned.

Having deliberately stepped outside the framework of international law, the coalition governments are in a dilemma. They increasingly employ moral arguments, suggesting that they are conducting a "just war," and appeal to patriotic sentiments about freedom. They even affirm a "divine calling" to defend humanity against the forces of evil. But the use of moral or religious arguments to justify political decisions is precisely what characterizes those fundamentalist political forces that they set out to combat in the post-Sept. 11 war on terror.

It can be disastrous to translate moral imperatives into political action without submitting them to critical judgment as to the possible consequences of such action. Legal norms, when rooted in the recognition of moral values and standards, can mediate between morality and politics. They protect the community against oppressive moral rigorism as well as against arbitrary political decisions. Of course, the simple fact that a certain exercise of power is within the law does not automatically establish legitimacy. Outside or in opposition to international law, morality cannot provide legitimacy.

An appeal to religious values is even more risky. In all cultures, divine sanction is the ultimate source of the legitimacy of power. So government leaders who engage in war - the most questionable form of exercising power - wish to secure religious approval. But they run the risk of provoking prophetic protest when their use of force violates the divine commandment to rulers to safeguard justice and peace.

In all religions, it is the role of prophets to provide such critical mediation between the will of God and political action. Yet the "false prophets" on both sides of this conflict sanction the actions of political leaders with religious arguments and seem to see this confrontation as an inevitable clash of civilizations and religions.

It is all the more significant, therefore, that Christian churches of all traditions have unanimously condemned the war on Iraq, and have protested in particular against any attempt to sanction it with religion. This has been noted with relief among those in the Muslim community who are resisting the siren call of militant Islam. Indeed, prophetic protest is the only legitimate religious response to this illegitimate war.

The Reverend Konrad Raiser is general secretary of the World Council of Churches. This article was originally published in the International Herald Tribune.