Rowan Williams, the next Archbishop of Canterbury, has stated that it is more important to “maintain the society of states” than to depose a murderous dictator, namely Saddam Hussain.
Now if Williams was of the opinion that Saddam Hussain was just the victim of western calumny and he was in fact the generous benefactor of the Iraqi people, then it would be quite understandable that he would oppose starting (or more accurately, completing) a war with the object of deposing him and crushing Ba’athist Socialism.
Yet that is not the case: Williams describes Saddam Hussain as “brutal and violent” and yet still takes the view that the stability of those collective edifices called ‘states’ is more important that the right of Iraqi civilians not to be murdered in order to ensure the supremacy of the Ba’athist Party.
Here is a man who, as an Anglican Archbishop, is presumably concerned not with geopolitics but with Christian morality and yet takes the view that the political stability of the Islamic world’s sundry despotisms matters more ending the nightmare of the 23 million people who live or die at Saddam Hussain’s whim. The fact Hussain is “brutal and violent” matters less than the needs of Realpolitik.
This is exactly where collectivism can lead even an Archbishop, because morality and collectivism are antithetical.
I wonder if the Archbish is deliberately trying to annoy the government into disestablishing the Church of England. something most Anglican clergy want, I’ve heard?
If the church was independent of the state, then there could be much less objection to remarks like this, surely?
I particularly like the part in the article where he gives as a reason for not attacking that Saddam might do something sufficiently horrible to Israel in response that Israel would retaliate (and they have nuclear weapons, you know). The logic is perverse: I can not defend myself against aggression because someone else might then defend himself against aggression, and we can’t have that, can we?
Why can’t you at least keep your clergy honest? Just kidding, ours aren’t any better.
I don’t agree with the archbish but one can’t fault his consistency. I have read that he was once arrested whilst performing a service on a USAF runway back in the old Greenham Common days which, if you are going to protest, is a pretty good way to do it.
Isn’t the current Archbishop also a druid? I know, New Age “Druids” are hokey in the extreme, but still, an odd thing to be as a Christian clergyman.
Message to the Archbish: criminal societies need to be undermined.
Blair:
“Who will rid me of this troublesome priest?”
Is this idiot on the government payroll?
What is even more disturbing is the confusion between morality and risk assessment. Rowan Williams is stating that the possible risks of instability and catastrophic annihilation lead him to support stability in the Middle East.
This is the precautionary principle writ large and applied to geopolitics rather than environmental politics.
Take no action because the changes cannot be controlled and may do some wrong!
This, of course, channels into the whole ideology of state action keeping you safe and preventing change, progress or innovation.
What the fuck is the Prime Minister doing selecting archbishops anyway? Who made him bigger than Jesus? Was the Queen even consulted in all this?