For thousands of years, our world has been using war as the final answer to conflict resolution. Similarly, in today's world, when everything else fails - diplomacy, negotiations, economic sanctions, moral pressure, etc. military power is used against the aggressor under the pretense that it will restore justice. Some cases in point from recent history would be Iraq and Kosovo. The 'just-war theory' has been evoked in both these conflicts and seemed attractive to many Christians.

At the same time, more and more Christians are uncomfortable with war as an instrument for conflict resolution, even in the face of a Milosovic or a Saddam. Where are other effective sources of power that Christians can draw upon in the face of grave injustice? What alternative strategies and methods can Christians lift up before a world that is tired of the destructive nature of war, even when it is perceived by some as just? What is our theology of the cross; and how can it be of help to us in arriving at those alternatives?

From one theological perspective, the cross reflects the vulnerability of God, and God's experience of helplessness in the face of evil powers that are able to crucify the innocent. In the scheme of redemption, the reality of the resurrection had to be preceded by the reality of the cross, of total vulnerability and helplessness. We, therefore, see a need to accept this principle of loving vulnerability as a legitimate way of addressing evil.

How can we translate this theological foundation practically?

1. One way, which must be more seriously explored, is to impress on governments the need to begin training huge numbers of people as 'armies for peace'. Instead of military training, they would be trained in non-violent resistance. In areas of conflict, these 'armies' would be dispatched with no military arms except their moral presence, acting as human shields in the face of the aggressors, even at the risk of losing their own lives. Such actions have been practiced on a small scale at different times and in different places, and have had considerable success. They need to be tried on a larger scale. Obviously, they demand the total conversion of our world's political, and other, leaders for a new approach to conflict resolution. It will take time and this new strategy will require continuous refinement, but it is worth considering. Some of us believe that its rate of success will be greater than its rate of failure.

[An important follow up is to request churches and governments to invest in more serious research in peace studies, with a focus on alternatives to war.]

2. The importance of empowering the UN so that it can be, as much as possible, non-partisan and impartial in its decision-making, and more effective in implementing its resolutions.

3. The importance of demanding that the United States and Britain see their role within the UN, and not above it.