Church leaders tackle Blair on morality of war

Archbishop of Canterbury Rowan Williams and Catholic Archbishop of Westminster Cormac Murphy-O’Connor today issued a joint statement expressing doubts about the “moral legitimacy” of a war on Iraq and calling for a continuation of weapons inspections.

The churchmen’s intervention came as a setback to Tony Blair, who responded to last week’s million-strong march in London by vigorously asserting the “moral case for removing Saddam”.

Despite global anti-war protests last weekend and the support of most UN members for continued weapons inspections, Britain and the US last night made clear their determination to press ahead with preparations for war.

Diplomats at the UN said a new resolution would be presented to the Security Council within the next few days, setting a deadline for Iraq to give up its weapons of mass destruction or face “serious consequences”.

And the Foreign Office last night urged all remaining British nationals in Iraq to leave the country immediately as more UK troops headed out to the region.

It cited the “increasing regional tension” as well as the risk of terrorism.

“If you are considering going to Iraq you should be aware that British nationals were used as hostages during the 1990-91 crisis by the Iraqi regime, being held where their safety was at most risk,” it said.

“You should also be aware that there is no British diplomatic presence in Iraq to offer consular assistance.”

It is estimated that there are between 150 and 250 Britons still in the country, including journalists and volunteer “human shields” – anti-war protesters hoping their presence will deter any attack by the US and Britain.

Britons were also advised against non-essential travel to Kuwait – the main centre of the British and US military build-up – and Israel, and recommended to leave the West Bank and Gaza Strip.

Meanwhile, Iraqi President Saddam Hussein has told a visiting delegation of Russian politicians, including Communist Party leader Gennady Zyuganov, that Baghdad wants peace – but not at the price of its dignity and independence.

The Iraqi leader yesterday said that if the US carries out its threat to attack, Iraq will, “Triumph over it, God willing”.

“Iraq doesn’t want war,” he said. But he added that peace “at any cost” was not acceptable. “We shall not relinquish our independence, our dignity and our right to live and act freely.”

The archbishops’ joint statement, drawn up at a recent private meeting, expressed “deep disquiet” about the possible consequences of an attack, which it said could lead to “unpredictable humanitarian and political consequences”.

“War is always a deeply disturbing prospect,” the archbishops said. “One that can never be contemplated without a sense of failure and regret that other means have not prevailed, and deep disquiet about all that may come in its train.

“The events of recent days show that doubts still persist about the moral legitimacy, as well as the unpredictable humanitarian and political consequences, of a war with Iraq.

“We recognise that the moral alternative to military action cannot be inaction, passivity, appeasement or indifference. It is vital therefore that all sides in this crisis engage, through the United Nations – fully and urgently - in a process, including continued weapons inspections, that could and should render the trauma and tragedy of war unnecessary.”

Mr Blair is likely to hear a similar message from the Pope on Saturday, during a planned audience during his visit to Rome. John Paul II has publicly expressed grave concern about the prospect of conflict in Iraq.

Britain’s UN ambassador Jeremy Greenstock last night said a draft resolution was “highly likely” to be presented to Security Council members within the next few days.

US and British officials said the final language in the resolution has not yet been decided by Mr Blair and US President George W Bush, but both sides were close to agreement.

Ambassador Greenstock said he expected it would “explicitly or implicitly” set a deadline for Iraq to disarm or face the use of force.

He predicted that debate over this “crunch decision” would go beyond chief weapons inspector Hans Blix’s upcoming third report to the Security Council at the end of this month, pushing back the earliest start-date for an assault to March.

But it was unclear whether the US-British resolution could secure the nine votes it needs for adoption by the 15-member council, while avoiding a veto.

Reports suggested several countries, including Mexico and Chile, were privately threatening to abstain unless the US and Britain found a way to ease tensions with veto-wielding permanent members, France, Russia and China, who want continued inspections.

In Washington, White House spokesman Ari Fleischer said Mr Bush “intends to work with our friends and allies to offer a resolution either this week or next”.

At the end of a two-day open Security Council meeting dominated by calls for a peaceful solution to the crisis, Iraq’s UN ambassador Mohammed Al-Douri yesterday pledged that his country “will continue to cooperate constructively”.

“Iraq is determined to cooperate both in substance and in process in order to cut off at the knees any allegations that Iraq has weapons of mass destruction,” he said.

Nearly 60 countries spoke out at the council, with a large majority urging that all avenues to peacefully disarm the country be pursued before resorting to war.

Military preparations received a setback when Turkey and the US failed to reach agreement on a multi-billion dollar economic aid package for the Ankara government in return for allowing US troops to use Turkish bases.

The US wants to station tens of thousands of troops in Turkey to attack Iraq from the north in the event of war.