[1] The later part of the 1990s saw an increased assertion of
right-wing Hindu militancy in India, resulting in an unprecedented
hate campaign against Christians. Poor tribal and low caste
communities in rural areas were attacked and their churches burnt
down. The political arms of these violent fundamentalists explained
that these atrocities were a retaliation to the large-scale
forcible conversion of innocent tribal people to Christianity by
missionaries. Later, social researchers investigated the reasons
given for these attacks and discovered that there were neither
missionaries nor any cases of conversion that could be classified
as forced. Interestingly, their work exposed that the allegations
of forcible conversions were only a pretext to stop the work of
certain social activists who happened to be Christian. These
long-exploited tribal communities had begun to demand justice and
fairness in matters of work and wages because of the awareness
building, education and skills training which these activists had
provided. Those who had hitherto benefited from the ignorance and
powerlessness of these communities pressed religious loyalties into
service and tried to block the processes of social transformation
among these communities. The allegations of forced conversion
certainly helped the right-wing Hindu political interests, calmed
the public outrage against the attacks, and provided a ready-made
reason for further attacks that followed. Hatred, rumours and
suspicion are the substance that these forces continue to thrive
on.
[2] When governments, institutions and ideologies obsessively
villainize, we need to explore their intentions critically. Such
hate campaigns are often orchestrated to divert public attention
from more pressing domestic problems; an exercise familiar to those
in the Indian subcontinent. Frequent tensions between India and
Pakistan are exploited by political leaders who go on "peace
missions" and return with millions of dollars, having sold arms to
both the countries. Ever since the end of the cold war, during
which communism and the communist block were portrayed as the
enemies of humankind, the world has seen certain
others--individuals such as Fidel Castro, Mohammar Gaddafi, and now
Saddam Hussein, and nations such as Iran and North Korea who have
also been named part of the 'axis of evil'. It is strange that the
word's most powerful nation feels threatened by these individuals
and smaller countries. While proof of the alleged terrorist plans
from these countries remains highly dubious, such rumours have
certainly created a public opinion more favourable to the
aggressive foreign and military policies of the United States,
marked by increased expenditure on the military and the production
and purchase of weapons. These hate campaigns have also
successfully anaesthetised the public from reacting to the
starvation deaths of hundreds of thousands of Iraqi children and to
encourage the public to approve the path of violence that U.S.
administration has taken for peace and security. A patriotism bred
on arrogance, hatred, and fear can never keep a nation strong, as
it destroys the values of love, justice, and tolerance which are so
crucial for a cohesive social fabric.
[3] The Bush administration's hectic lobbying and military
preparations during the last three weeks makes one wonder whether
there are any justifiable reasons for this belligerence. No links
between Al Qaeda and Iraq have yet been established, no threats
have been made by Iraq, and there is no certainty about the
continued possession of chemical and biological weapons. Even when
the Iraqi government has opened its door for inspection without any
conditions, the Bush administration seems obstinate that Saddam's
removal is crucial for the safety of Americans and goes on
expanding its list of reasons for an immediate military action. Let
us hope that this renewed inspection under the aegis of the U.N.
will put an end to this hostility. However, even if Iraq offers all
cooperation during this process, which will take several months,
one cannot be sure whether the U.S. will remain patient or ever be
satisfied with it. Recently, the opinion has surface time and again
that the plans for a military attack against Iraq to destroy the
alleged weapons is only a pretext to justify the enormous spending
on defence and for greater and easier access to oil from the
region. Iraq sits on the second largest oil reserves in the world,
after Saudi Arabia.
[4] Therefore the possibility of war, unfortunately, still looms
large. Whatever the claims and counter-claims, a U.S. military
action against Iraq, besides causing enormous human suffering, also
poses serious challenges to the ethical integrity of our world
today.
The legitimization of the abuse of power
[5] In the unfortunate event of a U.S. military action against
Iraq, hundreds and thousands of Iraqi civilians (not American
civilians) are going to die, because the attacks will be carried
out mainly in urban areas. As always, the innocent and the weak
will pay the price for the interests of the powerful. It is sad
that those who insist on war do not see what it can do to those who
cannot run away from its consequences. Such acts of injustice
abound all over the world but when this is done globally and so
boldly, these will have their impact elsewhere in legitimizing the
continued victimization of the innocent and the powerless for the
benefit of the rich and the powerful. A dominant trait that seems
to guide U.S. policies has been to depict its own interests as more
important than the genuine aspirations of the poorer nations, and
American lives as more precious than others elsewhere in the world.
U.S. double standards regarding the Israeli and Iraqi violations of
U.N. Security Council resolutions is another case in point. It
seems to reiterate the logic that those who are strong and powerful
and who have military strength, wealth, political power, and the
ability to mould public opinion have the ultimate power, can set
their own rules and need not feel restrained by common ethics. The
challenge that the world confronts today is the blatant
legitimisation of the unbridled abuse power to deny, belittle and
trample over the rights and needs of others.
[6] The U.S. President George Bush tried to rekindle a sense of
pride and patriotism by saying that it was their values which were
attacked on September 11. What were these values? The U.S. has
consistently undermined the sanctity and importance of the U.N.,
refused to approve the plans of the International Criminal Court,
refused to ratify the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty and failed to
ratify a number of other international treaties and conventions.
The U.S. withdrew from the 1972 Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty and
began work on a national missile defense system and was critical
toward U.N. negotiations on small arms, withdrew from the Kyoto
Protocols on climate change, opposed the proposed talks to prevent
the weaponization of space, failed to ratify U.N. conventions on
the international control of terrorism, and withdrew from the World
Conference against Racism. The U.S. has not complied with the
global public opinion facilitated by the U.N. but wants the U.N.
and the world to bow to its ambitions.
Seeking peace through violence
[7] Violence breeds more violence. An unprovoked war such as this
is likely to have more devastating and long term effects; one of
the most dangerous being the possibility of terrorism becoming the
only weapon of the powerless. The U.S., in trying to root out
terrorism violently, may in fact be sowing more seeds of violence.
It is also likely to further widen the gap between the Arab and the
Western world. Passions are likely to be particularly high in light
of strong U.S. support for the policies of Israel's rightist
government and its continued occupation of the West Bank and Gaza
strip.
[8] Structures of power for the sake of their continued monopoly
rely a great deal on the logic of violence. These give themselves
the authority to judge and condemn others from their own vantage
point. They absolutize their own versions and solutions. It is
these cases of abuse and misuse of power that create conditions for
more violence and vengeance. Whose justice do these so-called "just
wars" seek to uphold? If possessing weapons of mass destruction and
using them or threatening to use them is the issue, then the U.S.
is clearly the most dangerous nation in the world. The Central
Committee of the World Council of Churches in February 2001 called
for the churches and for all people of goodwill to "overcome the
spirit, logic and practice of violence" and said: "under the
sovereignty of God, no nation or group of nations is entitled to
prosecute vengeance against another. Nor is any nation entitled to
make unilateral judgements and take unilateral actions that lead to
the devastation of another nation and the massive suffering of its
people." Meeting in mid-July, Pax Christi UK also made a pointed
remark that the pronouncements of war plans against Iraq by the
USA, with a possible British support, as immoral and illegal, and
deplored the fact that the world's most powerful nations continue
to regard war as an acceptable instrument of foreign policy, in
violation of both the United Nations and Christian teachings.
Security through intimidation and
aggression
[9] It is a known fact that the U.S. enjoys overwhelming military
superiority on all levels: nuclear, conventional, air force, and
navy and it continues to spend more and more every year to remain
the strongest. It has no inhibitions about its unflinching faith in
military solutions to its diplomatic problems.
[10] The September 11 attacks have exposed the myth that
military superiority ensures security. Yet the U.S. seems convinced
that the elimination of all potential enemies through violence will
guarantee a safer America. These notions of security arise more out
of a logic of violent power than a logic of ethics that affirms the
mutuality and interdependence of human existence and upholds the
values of justice, fairness and mutual accountability in
relationships. At the beginning of his ministry, Jesus rejects the
temptation of seeking foolproof security when the devil asks him to
jump down from the pinnacle of the temple. (Matt. 4: 5-7) Instead,
Jesus affirms his vulnerability and advocates security that comes
through a life rooted in God's will and purposes. Following this
event, he calls people to love their enemies, pray for them and
bless those who persecute them ( Matt.5: 6, 10, 43-48). Ethical
security comes through the recognition of human interdependence.
The most effective ways of combatting terrorism are to be found in
being just and in building a just world order. Acknowledging our
vulnerability is not a sign of weakness; it is intrinsically and
undeniably human. Such recognition will lead us toward seeking
co-operative solutions instead of conflict and violence.
[11] What then are the antidotes to these processes of moral
degeneration of our world? Unfortunately, in times of crisis with
the added media blitzkrieg, we are wary of exercising our
democratic rights and are reluctant to oppose the establishment.
Yet, the onus remains on us to raise our concerns publicly and to
challenge our leaders to honor moral obligations and
life-sustaining values. "The history of the human race is not a
history only of cruelty, but also of compassion, sacrifice, courage
and kindness."1
However, people, not structures, are capable of upholding these
values. In the context of a world led by allies and unions for war
and violence, we need allies and unions for peace, justice, human
rights, and common good.
1 Howard Zinn, "The Possibility of Hope" in Peace is Possible
Frederik S. Heffermehl, ed. (Geneva: IPB, 2000).