Do you recognise the following passage?

WE THE PEOPLES OF … DETERMINED

• to save succeeding generations from the scourge of war, which twice in our lifetime has brought untold sorrow to mankind, and
• to reaffirm faith in fundamental human rights, in the dignity and worth of the human person, in the equal rights of men and women and of nations large and small, and
• to establish conditions under which justice and respect for the obligations arising from treaties and other sources of international law can be maintained, and
• to promote social progress and better standards of life in larger freedom,

AND FOR THESE ENDS

• to practice tolerance and live together in peace with one another as good neighbours, and
• to unite our strength to maintain international peace and security, and
• to ensure, by the acceptance of principles and the institution of methods, that armed force shall not be used, save in the common interest, and
• to employ international machinery for the promotion of the economic and social advancement of all peoples,

HAVE RESOLVED TO COMBINE OUR EFFORTS TO ACCOMPLISH THESE AIMS

It is of course the preamble to the Charter of the United Nations. It may be more familiar to me than it is to you because I read International Relations at university over forty years ago. I have always rather wondered why, as I cannot claim to have used the degree at all since then (though I suppose it was useful as a means of ‘training the brain’).

Lambeth Palace

In the last few weeks, the language of the Charter (and other UN founding documents) seems to be permeating the statements emerging from Lambeth Palace. As Archbishop Justin said last week on his blog:

The journey of transforming conflict is a long and hard one (by the way that is how I understand reconciliation in the church: not agreement, but conflict transformed from being destructive). It is also always a necessary one – and essential if our preaching of the good news of Jesus is to have any credibility. It does not mean compromise – that was clear in what we heard at Coventry – but it does mean allowing the Spirit of God to warm our hearts towards those whom we too easily classify as to be hated.

I just give this as an example – there are many others.  Two people who specialise in the resolution of conflict are among the first of his public appointments.  And we remember his interview with Giles Fraser when he talked about perception being the means of squaring the circle.

Peaceful Co-existence

The Soviet Union promulgated a system of ‘peaceful co-existence‘ between the capitalist and the communist worlds. This was a good deal less than brotherly love, but it was also a means of avoiding direct conflict. (As we know, the USSR did not feel prevented from indulging in indirect conflict, as in the Middle East, Afghanistan, Cuba and so on).

The Archbishop of Canterbury seems to be proposing a system of ‘live and let live’, which is slightly warmer than ‘peaceful co-existence’ and holds out the hope of supping together at the Eucharist.

No doubt we will hear a more detailed plan in due course – in the meanwhile, it is to be hoped that someone at ‘head office’ is looking through the theoretical and practical experience of the United Nations in its peace-keeping role. Does the Church of England have anything to learn here?

Since 1948, the UN has helped end conflicts and foster reconciliation by conducting successful peacekeeping operations in dozens of countries, including Cambodia, El Salvador, Guatemala, Mozambique, Namibia, Tajikistan, and Timor-Leste. UN peacekeeping has also made a real difference in other places with recently completed or on-going operations such as Sierra Leone, Burundi, Côte d’Ivoire, Timor-Leste, Liberia, Haiti and Kosovo. By providing basic security guarantees and responding to crises, these UN operations have supported political transitions and helped buttress fragile new state institutions. They have helped countries to close the chapter of conflict and open a path to normal development, even if major peacebuilding challenges remain.  In other instances, however, UN peacekeeping – and the response by the international community as a whole – have been challenged and found wanting, for instance in Somalia, Rwanda and the former Yugoslavia in the early 1990s. These setbacks provided important lessons for the international community when deciding how and when to deploy and support UN peacekeeping as a tool to restore and maintain international peace and security.

Each UN peacekeeping force has its own acronym – UNFICYP, (United Nations Forces In Cyprus), UNRWA, etc. Perhaps we could have a UNFICOE  (United Nations Forces In the Church of England)? Or perhaps, Cantuar would prefer to do his own thing. We could have COEFICOE. Of course you could ask a splendid chap like the former Secretary-General Kofi Annan, to head the force. Then you would have KOFICOEFICOE.  Rolls trippingly off the tongue, doesn’t it?