Church accuses Blair of 'cruel thirst for vengeance'
   By Jonathan Petre, Religious Affairs Correspondent
   (Filed: 24/03/2002)

   THE Church of England is on a collision course with the Government
   over Iraq by producing a report for bishops which argues that an
   attack on Saddam Hussein would be immoral and seen as the "cruel
   thirst for vengeance".

   The report, by the Church's Board for Social Responsibility, says that
   it would be difficult to see how Western military action in Iraq could
   meet the criteria of being a just war.

   Instead, in an implicit criticism of the hardening stance being taken
   by Tony Blair, the briefing paper says that calls for such action
   merely "reflect the priorities of American foreign policy".

   It adds that the Church would also have "grave concerns" about
   inter-faith relations in Britain in the wake of an attack on another
   Muslim country such as Iraq.

   The paper follows Wednesday's warning by Geoff Hoon, the Defence
   Secretary, that Britain would be ready to launch a nuclear strike
   against states such as Iraq if they used weapons of mass destruction
   against British forces.

   His words came as officials in Washington and London privately
   predicted that military action to topple Saddam was likely at the end
   of the year.

   Although Mr Hoon denied that a decision had been taken on such action,
   his comments about nuclear arms fuelled beliefs that preparations were
   being considered.

   The private paper by the Church's board, chaired by the Bishop of
   Southwark, the Rt Rev Tom Butler, is not policy but a strong
   indication of Church thinking. It says that, for a war to be just, it
   has to have "proper authority and right intent".

   It continues: "It is difficult to see how either of these have been
   met in the case of Iraq." No explicit UN resolution existed that would
   legitimise military action, and it was hard to see, given the lack of
   international consensus, how this could be achieved.

   Although Mr Blair originally played down talk of action against Iraq
   because Saddam was not linked to the September 11 attacks, ministers
   have since said that such an operation would be justified because Iraq
   is in breach of UN resolutions and Gulf war ceasefire agreements.

   The paper says: "Although it is important not to understate the
   potential threat posed by Iraq, no convincing evidence has been
   presented to support the argument that Iraq is rebuilding its WMD
   [weapons of mass destruction] programme or that Iraq poses an
   immediate threat to regional and international security.

   "Instead, the arguments put forward in favour of action reflect the
   priorities of American foreign policy. This would be difficult to
   square with the Government's interpretation of the legal position. Any
   such attack could be perceived as the `cruel thirst for vengeance'.

   "An attack on another Muslim country - particularly one with no proven
   link to the September 11 atrocities - would be taken by many as
   evidence of an in-built hostility to the Islamic world. . . The
   consequence for inter-faith relations of an attack on Iraq must
   therefore be of grave concern."

   The paper was dismissed by Ann Widdecombe, the former Tory minister.
   "If Saddam is stockpiling weapons of mass destruction, it is not
   vengeance but self-defence to stop him," she said.

   "I don't know where the Church gets its information that he isn't
   stockpiling such weapons. Perhaps they get secret intelligence reports
   every day?"

     © Copyright of Telegraph Group Limited 2002.