Letter: Church voices on force in Bosnia

Sir: In your leading article 'The bishop is for bombing' (9 August) you hope that the Bishop of Barking's call for military action to save Sarajevo will 'persuade some of his colleagues to stop hiding behind the feeble argument that Bosnia is too complex an issue for public Church comment'.

In fact, there has been much public Church comment, national and international - from the Archbishop of Canterbury, from the Roman Catholic bishops and others. There have been visits of Church leaders; the most recent of many press releases was sent to you on 6 August by the Bishop of Coventry, chairman of the international affairs committee of my board. It seems strange that your leading article made no reference to it. The German press has seen fit to carry reports of Church statements; the British press has largely seen fit not to.

You liken the Bishop of Barking's comments to those of Bishop Bell in the 1930s, rightly saying that George Bell 'was then virtually alone among churchmen in condemning the Nazi rampage'. Many Church voices have explicitly condemned the 'ethnic cleansing' of the last two years. For example, the Bishop of Coventry on 6 August said:

We view with abhorrence the attempt to undo the ethnic and religious pluralism of Bosnia and establish an 'ethnically cleansed' state free from Muslims and other groups. This is totally indefensible and recalls the worst practices of our history. We utterly refuse to support the idea of a 'crusade' against Muslims, and regard the use of such slogans in this conflict as offensive and completely contrary to the genuine Christian way.

I believe that morally the use of force to oppose evil is justified; the action must be under the control of the United Nations. But one of the tests for a war to be justified is whether the action would be effective. It is clear that a large body of military and political opinion has ruled out full-scale invasion and imposed settlement as either a realistic or durable option. There is dispute about whether such views are accurate, but that is a matter of military and political judgement; it is not a moral or theological question.

Edward Cowan has made it clear ('Sarajevo could yet be saved', 10 August) that a ground force of at least 40,000 would be needed in addition to air strikes to intervene effectively. Is there the international will to put such a force on the ground and into effective action before the winter? If the answer is no, it would be a very dangerous step to take more limited action by air strikes, which would put the humanitarian and life-saving operation at grave risk.

A lasting solution must ultimately be political: the long-term role of the Churches is in reconciliation between the communities. The short- term, but life and death, question is about supplying provisions for the winter. That remarkable international effort kept millions alive last winter.

Yours sincerely,

DAVID LIVERPOOL

Chairman

Church of England Board

for Social Responsibility

London, SW1

11 August