The issue was highlighted by later military interventions in places like Somalia, Bosnia-Herzegovina and later in Kosovo that were sometimes justified as necessary for "humanitarian reasons."

Church and ecumenical debates on these questions during the last decade of the 20th century risked being divisive of the fellowship, frequently along the lines of theological perspectives about the degree to which Christians can accept the use of armed force in any circumstance. Yet churches were being sought as partners in dialogue by government and international policy-makers seeking accompaniment as they too wrestled with the moral, ethical and even theological questions involved.

These issues are complicated, reflecting the new moral and ethical dilemmas with which the world and the ecumenical movement have increasingly been confronted since the end of the Cold War. The Commission of the Churches on International Affairs (CCIA), that was charged with carrying out the study requested by the Central Committee, immersed itself in these complexities and produced a draft of the attached document. This was significantly revised by the Central Committee at its meeting in Potsdam, Germany (January-February 2001), where the Decade to Overcome Violence was launched. It understood that efforts to overcome violence are made in a violent world where populations are endangered even as these discussions are going on. The debate on the draft again revealed clearly the different theological perspectives among member churches with respect to violence and non-violence.

Members of the Central Committee were invited to submit this draft to the responsible policy bodies of their churches for further dialogue and reflection before the meeting and to submit their reactions and those of their churches to the Central Committee in the hope that a formulation might be found which could be adopted by consensus.

Such a consensus could not be found, however. The differences of perspectives among Christians with respect to the use of armed force -- described in more detail below -- continue. On the substance of the concern to protect populations caught in situations of armed violence described in the following background document there was broad agreement. The Central Committee reviewed and refined further a set of proposed criteria and guidelines for the protection of endangered populations in situations of armed violence. On these, some differences remain.

BACKGROUND TO THE ECUMENICAL CONCERN

1. The moral obligation of the international community to protect the lives of civilian populations that are at risk in situations where their government is unable or unwilling to act has long been widely accepted in and beyond the ecumenical movement, and questions of Christian responsibility in humanitarian crises have often been the subject of reflection, discussion, and prayer among churches. However, since the end of the Cold War, the practice of what was called "humanitarian intervention" has given rise to an often-heated international debate. The WCC Eighth Assembly (Harare 1998) affirmed

the emphasis of the Gospel on the value of all human beings in the sight of God, on the atoning and redeeming work of Christ that has given every person true dignity, on love as the motive for action, and on love for one’s neighbors as the practical expression of active faith in Christ. We are members one of another, and when one suffers all are hurt. This is the responsibility Christians bear to ensure the human rights of every person.

3. A study document entitled, "Overcoming the Spirit, Logic and Practice of War," responding to this request was presented to the Central Committee at its meeting in Johannesburg, 1994.¹ It noted that the 1992 decision that had been reached following a Central Committee debate on the conflict in the former Yugoslavia:

restated one of the oldest concerns of the ecumenical movement, one which has been formulated in different ways according to changing historical contexts. The most often quoted version, is the affirmation by the First Assembly (Amsterdam 1948), which held that

War as a method of settling disputes is incompatible with the teaching and example of our Lord Jesus Christ. The part which war plays in our present international life is a sin against God and a degradation of man.

A decade earlier, the Oxford Conference on Church, Community and State (1937) had said, on the eve of the Second World War,

If war breaks out, then pre-eminently the Church must manifestly be the Church, still united as the one Body of Christ, though the nations wherein it is planted fight each other, consciously offering the same prayers that God's name be hallowed, His Kingdom come, and His Will be done, in both, or all, the warring nations.

In 1948, no agreement was possible on how to answer this question. The most the Assembly could do was to restate the opposing positions as they had been outlined at Oxford:

(1) There are those who hold that, even though entering a war may be a Christian’s duty in particular circumstances, modern warfare, with its mass destruction, can never be an act of justice.

(2) In the absence of impartial supranational institutions, there are those who hold that military action is the ultimate sanction of the rule of law, and that citizens must be distinctly taught that it is their duty to defend the law by force if necessary.

(3) Others, again, refuse military service of all kinds, convinced that an absolute witness against war and for peace is for them the will of God, and they desire that the Church should speak to the same effect.

The (First) Assembly went on to describe the dilemma in terms which apply to the debate as much today as it they did at the founding of the WCC:

We must frankly acknowledge our deep sense of perplexity in the face of these conflicting opinions, and urge upon all Christians the duty of wrestling continuously with the difficulties they raise and of praying humbly for God’s guidance. We believe there is a special call to theologians to consider the theological problems involved. In the meantime, the churches must continue to hold within their full fellowship all who sincerely profess such viewpoints as those set out above and are prepared to submit themselves to the will of God in the light of such guidance as may be vouchsafed to them.

6. During the decade of the 1990’s WCC Assemblies and the Central Committee repeatedly debated the appropriate Christian response to violent conflicts, and they condemned both the use of disproportionate armed force intended to control some such conflicts and the failure of the international community in others, like Rwanda, to protect populations in the face of predictable massive violence. It has drawn attention to the need to respond to emerging crisis at the earliest possible stages when non-violent action can be most effective in addressing the root causes of conflict.

7. In response to questions raised at the Central Committee in 1994 about whether, and under what conditions, the use of coercion is an acceptable tool to enforce human rights and the international rule of law in violent or potentially violent situations, the CCIA prepared for the Central Committee in 1995 a "Memorandum and Recommendations on the Application of Sanctions" and it adopted a set of "Criteria for Determining the Applicability and Effectiveness of Sanctions."

8. In September 1999 the Central Committee adopted a "Memorandum and Recommendations on International Security and Response to Armed Conflict" that called for new approaches to international peace and security in the post-Cold War world and highlighted some of the dilemmas around "humanitarian intervention" raised especially by the Kosovo experience. The Central Committee called on the WCC General Secretary to: Facilitate a study, in consultation and cooperation with church-related and other humanitarian agencies, and with competent research institutes, to be presented to the central committee on the ethics of so-called "humanitarian intervention," taking into account the legitimate right of states to be free of undue interference in their internal affairs and the moral obligation of the international community to respond when states are unwilling or incapable of guaranteeing respect for human rights and peace within their own borders.

9. A study process was initiated to clarify the issues and to develop guidelines to assist the churches. A background paper was prepared and widely circulated for comment. It was discussed by the Commission of the Churches on International Affairs (CCIA) in January 2000, and in a revised form it served as the basis for discussions in an ecumenical seminar hosted by the Ecumenical Institute at Bossey in April 2000. Participants in the seminar came from all regions and included specialists in humanitarian response, international law, human rights, ethics and theology, including representatives of churches whose countries have been affected in one way or another by recent interventions. Together with staff of the WCC and the Lutheran World Federation, participants reflected from an ethical perspective on the responsibility of the international community to protect populations at risk within the borders of sovereign states. The extensive report of that consultation was again widely circulated for response and comment to member churches and WCC-related agencies. Finally, the document was refined by a specialized CCIA reference group for presentation to the Central Committee for consideration as a companion document to the one adopted on sanctions in 1995.

10. Almost simultaneously with the completion of this document, the report of the Panel on United Nations Peace Operations (popularly known as the "Brahimi Report")²was presented to the UN Security Council and was considered in the 2000 Millennium General Assembly in New York. This landmark study offered not only a serious critique of UN peacekeeping, but made innovative suggestions for improvements that closely paralleled the conclusions of the WCC document. Subsequently, Canadian Minister of Foreign Affairs, Lloyd Axworthy, took the initiative to form a high-level panel to study further these issues, and invited the WCC to cooperate with it, providing its particular moral and ethical perspectives.

Re-shaping the debate
11. In calling for the present study, the Central Committee expressed its skepticism about the term by referring to "so-called ‘humanitarian intervention’." The consultative process showed that others are equally wary of this term. Many participants in the study process were hesitant to discuss the "ethics of ‘humanitarian intervention’." For them, the most important contribution of the churches was to help re-shape and clarify the terms of the debate in a way that would emphasize the fundamental ethical issues at stake.

12. Historically, and especially since 1991, intervening powers have often used the term humanitarian to characterize their motivations and to justify their actions. In fact, as repeated WCC Central Committee documents have argued, the motives for most interventions are at best mixed and often more in the self-interests of the intervening powers than of the endangered populations they purport to rescue.

13. The decision of Gulf Coalition Forces led by the USA to extend their operations to the Kurdish areas of Northern Iraq for "humanitarian reasons" raised doubts about the distinction between military strategic interests and the legitimate needs of the population at risk. This was followed almost immediately by the "humanitarian intervention" in Somalia that cut short UN-sponsored mediation efforts. The debate became more critical still when the UN peacekeeping force in Rwanda was withdrawn in 1994, abandoning the population to the forces of genocide. The often unequal protection offered civilians during the war in Bosnia-Herzegovina, and the spectacular NATO intervention in the case of Kosovo added fuel to the fire.

14. The word "humanitarian" has a special place in international humanitarian law which conveys the attributes of universality, independence, impartiality, and humanity. It is important to recall that the evolution of the humanitarian ideal did not happen overnight. In fact, over a hundred years passed between the time Henri Dunant saw the need for an impartial humanitarian response on the battlefields of Solferino and subsequently founded the Red Cross that codified basic principles of humanitarian action. Humanitarian assistance is to be extended to people solely on the basis of need, irrespective of religion, ethnicity, class, nationality or political opinion. Especially in today’s world of highly politicized actions, the idea that meeting humanitarian needs should be a priority is an ideal which needs to be preserved and protected from casual or self-serving usage.

15. The term intervention also has varying connotations. In some contexts when people think of "intervention" they have in mind the actions of international financial institutions, transnational corporations and powerful states that intervene at will in the internal affairs of weaker sovereign nations, often against the interests of the people. Others think of the military "interventions" of dominant foreign powers which overthrow elected governments or interrupt popular democratic processes. In some other contexts, "intervention" has the positive connotation of liberation or national salvation for civilian populations under siege or caught in brutal civil conflicts.

16. Thus for most churches the juxtaposition of the words "humanitarian" and "intervention" provokes unease, since in practice it too often represents a contradiction between humanitarian principles of compassion and the use of lethal military force.

17. What is the appropriate response of the international community to conflict situations in which whole populations are at risk and their governments are either unable or unwilling to protect them? For the churches in the ecumenical movement, the international community has a responsibility for conflict-prevention, peacebuilding, conflict-resolution and reconciliation. The decision to use of armed force to respond to situations in which large numbers of people are endangered very often signals a failure of the international community to take necessary preventive actions in response to early warnings of crisis.

18. Rather than using the term "humanitarian intervention," discussions within the World Council of Churches suggest the alternative: "the protection of endangered populations in situations of armed violence."

19. Actions to this end must be planned and carried out as part of a long-range strategy that moves from local conflict transformation efforts to the use of diplomatic pressure, economic sanctions, and the deployment of an international protection force. The "Brahimi Report" represents a significant corrective to much of current peacekeeping practice, highlighting preventive action and peace-building and "a doctrinal shift in the use of civilian police and related rule of law elements in peace operations that emphasizes a team approach to upholding the rule of law and respect for human rights and helping communities coming out of a conflict to achieve national reconciliation; ...disarmament, demobilization, and reintegration programmes." The report identifies the need, however, for a peacekeeping doctrine and well-defined mandates in which the "consent of the local parties, impartiality and the use of force only in self-defence should remain the bedrock principles." The report recommends that forces deployed should "be capable of defending themselves, other mission components and the mission’s mandate. Rules of engagement should be sufficiently robust and not force United Nations contingents to cede the initiative to their attackers."³

20. The protection of endangered populations in situations of armed violence often requires "robust" action to stop atrocities and restore the rule of law, but then move beyond this to rehabilitate the physical, political and civil infrastructures of the country; set up peace-building and conflict-resolution mechanisms and make provisions for the reconciliation of society. It must also be understood that different organizations and personnel will be required to implement the different phases of the process.

The responsibility of the international community for prevention of violent conflict
21. First and foremost, the international community (governments, intergovernmental organizations, international financial institutions, transnational corporations, the mass media and civil society) has a responsibility to address the causes which lead to violent conflict. It must take timely, effective action when conflicts do emerge in order to prevent their escalation. Churches are often particularly well-placed to read the danger signals in their communities and to call for appropriate action before conflicts become violent. In some cases, these early warnings lead to effective preventive action by the churches or the broader international community. Too often, however, the international community - and the churches - fail to take effective action during the period in which conflicts are most susceptible to transformation through non-violent means. Churches often speak therefore of kairos - the recognition that a particular historical moment has come when faith compels Christians to action.

22. Through the World Council of Churches’ Program to Overcome Violence, churches have developed a greater awareness that conflict-prevention goes hand in hand with building cultures of peace in which metanoia - a change of heart - and reconciliation efforts contribute to conflict transformation, the Christian’s preferred alternative to the lex talionis - an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth. This approach involves long-term commitments to things like community-building, peace education, civic education, election monitoring, inter-faith dialogue and human rights awareness-raising where the churches can and must play a particularly active role.

Impunity, Truth and Reconciliation
23. Post-conflict responsibilities of the international community include efforts to prevent the resurgence of conflicts and to ensure peace and stability in countries which have experienced the trauma of war. Again here, churches are often well-placed to monitor the implementation of peace accords and to alert the wider international community when problems arise.

24. In the post-conflict period, the challenge remains of overcoming impunity by bringing perpetrators of violence to justice. Not only is there a need to hold individual leaders accountable, but also to develop structures, such as the International Criminal Court, to uphold the principle and practice of accountability. The churches, together with other members of civil society, can play major roles in this complex and often painful process, as shown by the pioneering work of South Africa’s Truth and Reconciliation Commission and efforts to hold Chilean General Augusto Pinochet accountable for the crimes committed under his leadership. The churches have a pastoral responsibility to help the healing processes in their communities by encouraging people to share their memories, by working to build a collective history of a conflict and by preaching forgiveness and reconciliation. WCC studies in recent years have shown how essential this work is to the process leading to reconciliation. This is reflected in the priority the Central Committee has given to the role of the churches in reconciliation in making it one of the major emphases of the Decade to Overcome Violence.

25. Once a peace agreement has been signed and once the television cameras have moved on to other crises, there is a tendency for the international community - and the churches - to pay less attention to post-conflict situations. Yet, peace is a fragile process which requires sustained attention and nurturing to flourish and grow. When there are inequities in the implementation of peace accords and when genuine reconciliation does not take place, the seeds of future conflicts are sown. Reconciliation is thus both a means of preventing further violence and the basis for the construction of societies in which only non-violent means are used to resolve the inevitable conflicts which arise between social groups.

When prevention fails
26. However, in a sinful world with a propensity to violence, even the best efforts of the churches and the international community are likely to be inadequate to prevent some violent crises. In such cases, a range of non-violent responses to armed conflict are available and need to be tried:

fact-finding missions, diplomacy and offering their good offices; provision of humanitarian assistance in a way that can build confidence between parties; protection of human rights through a variety of mechanisms including the appointment of special rapporteurs and the provision of technical services;

pastoral delegations, information sharing from the affected regions, public statements to clarify the nature of the conflict, maintaining an international presence to help protect populations at risk, advocating at various levels for peaceful resolution, and bringing churches and other religious communities from different sides of a conflict together to provide a common witness for peace.