George W Bush and the pope (or the tortoise and the hare)

by Michael Shackleton · Published January 28, 2004 · Updated October 17, 2008

In a telling phrase in his message for the World Day of Peace last month, the pope voiced his disapproval of the temptation today to appeal to the law of force rather than the force of law. Plainly, he had in mind the go-it-alone policy of the United States in defiance of the United Nations charter, to invade Iraq and create a new and ongoing bloody conflict there.

The force of law, as the pope used the words, refers to the strong who are a law unto themselves, and who can make the weak do exactly what they want them to do. It is the old Machiavellian concept of “might is right”.

The rift between pontiff and president was unavoidable from the moment that President Bush�s formidable military forces struck at Iraq. Notwithstanding the easy acceptance of the president�s decision among his admirers, there is no denying that most of Europe has not accepted it, and the South African government likewise has censured it.

From the outset, the Vatican warned the United States to consider the consequences of its actions, and not to ignore the status of the United Nations. In response, the president acknowledged the importance of international institutions, but cautioned the United Nations that it must not choose its own irrelevance, as the League of Nations had done when Adolf Hitler�s pre-war Nazis were clearly a threat to European stability.

President Bush and his advisers are shrewd, however. He is a Republican, and belongs to the conservative wing of American politics, especially the evangelical Christians. He employs words such as evil and aggression to America�s perceived enemies, and favours moral values. In his recent State of the Union address, the president stoutly defended the traditional and Christian concept of marriage, saying that gay marriages would not be permitted in the United States. That will be applauded by the fundamentalist Christian sects and might win him votes in the upcoming presidential elections, as well as more sympathy outside the United States.

This has not fazed Pope John Paul, however. He will surely appreciate Mr Bush�s defence of what is in effect Christian morality, but he has stuck to his criticism of the president in the principal sphere of unilateralism dominating multilateralism.

The pope has agreed that international terrorism must be stopped, but his is a non-aggressive argument. Terrorism, he said in his New Year message, cannot be successfully contained by repressive and punitive operations alone. Respect for human life must be the guiding principle in efforts to eliminate situations of injustice. And this requires patience and negotiation.

This tension between the head of state and the head of the Church has not led to a major diplomatic stand-off, and each man is conscious of the highly visible injustices in all parts of the world.

The pope has conceded that international attempts to create harmony out of conflict are inadequate, implying that the United Nations has not been as effective in peace-keeping as it should be. When he addressed the general assembly nine years ago, he reminded delegates that the organisation must not get bogged down in administration at the cost of moral values and the need to bind nations together in mutual respect.

President Bush�s impatience with protracted parleying does not mean that he scorns such measures. His motives are perhaps not entirely selfishly American. But he must not see his country as the world�s sheriff.

In our times of microchip immediacy, there is little tolerance for the long haul in finding solutions to troublesome political problems. None the less, like in the fable of the race between the tortoise and the hare, there is no substitute for solutions that are slow but steady, and also just and lasting.