Beyond
11 September:
Implications for US Churches and the World
5
- 6 August 2002
Washington DC
The
meeting The
changes in the United States and in the world since 11 September have
been far-reaching. People and governments in every region of the world
have had to react not just to the violent attacks on Washington and New
York, but also to the consequences of the US "war on terrorism."
In late November 2001, the World
Council of Churches convened a meeting to discuss some of the possible
implications of these events in the specific areas of global governance
and disarmament, the economy, inter-faith relations and human rights,
and humanitarian issues. That meeting produced lively discussion and a
deepened understanding of the unfolding consequences of 11 September and
the US military response to terrorism. Participants called for the convening
of similar meetings in other regions, particularly in the United States.
At its meeting in February 2002, the WCC Executive committee asked that
a meeting be organized with US churches and international participants
to discern together the consequences of the post-11 September events,
and that a report of this meeting be shared with the WCC Central Committee
meeting in August 2002.
Thus, the World Council of Churches,
in consultation with the National Council of Churches of Christ of the
USA and Church World Service, convened a second meeting in Washington
to bring together representatives of US churches and churches from other
regions to discern together the implications of the events of 11 September
and their aftermath. The letter of invitation to the consultation noted
that there seemed to be a wide gap between mainstream public opinion in
the US and the rest of the world about the US "war on terrorism" and that
many in the world have the impression of a certain "quietism" among the
US churches when it comes to expressing their views of the policies and
actions of their own government. The
purpose of the meeting was not in the first instance to come up with concrete
recommendations for action, but rather to deepen the analysis of what
these events mean for the United States and for the world. In the course
of the discussion, participants indicated that their priority must be
to engage their congregations to discuss these issues in a different way
and they agreed on the outlines of a "guide for reflection" guide to be
adapted and used by denominations in the congregations. This guide (attached)
poses questions to encourage congregations to think beyond the "common
wisdom" that presently characterizes much of the public discourse on these
issues in the United States. The meeting also adopted a short message
to the WCC Central Committee in hope that it would feed into deliberations
by that body on public issues.
This was a rich and dynamic
meeting. The introductory presentations were substantive and thought-provoking.
The international participants brought questions and challenges to their
US counterparts, but they also came to listen and understand. Although
it was painful to consider the consequences of US policies, the tone of
the meeting was not one of "we versus they" but rather of a common seeking
for truth and understanding. For two days, participants struggled with
questions of power, ethics, security and fear. Given the complex reality
in which we are now living, they found no easy answers, but the process
of open discussion and dialogue stimulated analysis and a commitment to
do more to encourage similar discussions at the congregational level.
This report includes summaries
of the main presentations and a brief description of the discussions that
took place. Quotations from participants are included throughout the report
to give a sense of the flavor of the discussion.
|
|
"The pain is still very raw. It is
always just below the surface. It doesn't help to be told that it's time to
move on. The grief is still there."
Following opening worship and introductions,
Elizabeth Ferris explained that this meeting had been called to offer an opportunity
for US churches to meet with international church representatives to analyze together
some of the implications of the tragic events of 11 September and the US reactions
to those events. While there is no shortage of analyses or media coverage of these
issues, there is a need for alternative interpretations and especially for ethical
and theological perspectives. She briefly reviewed the response of the World Council
of Churches to these horrific events, including statements and letters, a "Living
Letters" delegation to the United States in November, the organization of inter-faith
encounters, the development of an alternative news service to lift up voices which
are not generally heard, and the November 2001 meeting which began to analyze
some of the implications of these developments. Decisions taken in the United
States have repercussions throughout the world, and churches in other parts of
the world are yearning to hear from and to engage with their US counterparts.
After reviewing the agenda, she suggested three themes that run throughout all
of the specific issues to be discussed: US power in the world today, US unilateralism,
and US intentions, particularly now with respect to Iraq. The United States is
by far the most powerful nation in the world today. Increasing expressions of
US unilateralism and US threats against other countries are challenging the very
basis of international law and distorting global governance. (See attached overview.)
"I believe that the United States
today is the principal subverter of the international order."
In terms of process, she indicated that
in organizing this meeting, the possibility of a collective statement or message
from the group had been left open but that WCC had not come with the draft text
for such a statement. In the course of the discussions, US participants indicated
that they did want to send some kind of a message, but that it should be directed
towards their congregations. While church leaders are aware of many of the consequences
of US actions, many in the parishes and congregations around the country just
don't know what's going on. They need to be challenged, but they also need to
be heard. A small drafting group was set up to work on the outlines of a study
guide for congregational use. When the draft document came back to the final plenary,
participants affirmed its importance (and made numerous suggestions for strengthening
the document) but they also indicated their desire for a message to the WCC Central
Committee to be used by that body in its deliberations on public issues.
Ethical
and theological Perspectives
Dr. Walter Altmann (Lutheran, Brazil)
began by expressing the wave of solidarity which Latin American people felt
with the people of the United States on 11 September. Even while that solidarity
was being expressed, they knew that the US would likely respond with military
action. Latin Americans hoped that if such a response were to come it should
be a multilateral and not a unilateral one. In the initial aftermath of the
attacks, there was a hope that these universal feelings of solidarity would
lead to renewed efforts to create a more just world - but these hopes have now
largely vanished.
Ethical assessments about the use of
power and the use of military force must be applied to all phases of the process
– not just from the "starting point" of 11 September. We must reject the
idea that because 11 September was evil, the US response to that expression
of evil is therefore good. Furthermore, we must consider whether there was a
"necessity of war" in responding to the 11 September attacks. How did we move
from viewing the appropriate response as an issue of police enforcement to an
issue of war? War is not an effective answer to ending terrorism, but rather
will entrap us in a spiral of violence. War will never change people's hearts.
The use of violence in responding to terrorism would give rise to the permanent
use of violence.
We must recall the fundamental dignity
of human life. All human beings are made in the image of God, thus solidarity
must be universal and expressed towards all those who suffer disease, poverty,
hunger, war and despair. Recognizing the universal dignity of every human being
does not exclude a preferential option for the poor. How can one justify the
result that more and more resources are being made available for war while assistance
to those suffering from HIV/AIDS or hunger is diminishing? The Biblical understanding
of shalom goes beyond military security. It has to do with fundamental well-being
for all that is the only basis for true human security.
We need to reflect on God's will and
vulnerability. It is God's will to rescue every human being from bondage and
that we recognize the precariousness of our own existence. Vulnerability is
intrinsic to the human condition. In spite of the pain, the experience which
American people have of their own vulnerability should be seen as a positive
development. Efforts to create an international order which seeks absolute protection
runs counter to human life. People need a consciousness of shared vulnerability
and must always be open to criticism of how they respond to their own sense
of insecurity.
Already in 1997 CLAI (the Latin American
Council of Churches) selected "free to build up peace" as the theme for its
2001 assembly held in Barranquilla, Colombia. This theme was rooted in the deep
desire of the Colombian people to have peace, but in recognition of the fact
that peace needs to be built. In the Assembly's deliberations on the theme,
it recognized that in order to build peace people need to be free.
Given the prevailing culture of violence, such freedom does not come readily.
By the time the Assembly was held in 2001 this theme had a new resonance and
meaning.
Mary Lord (Quaker, USA) began her remarks
by noting that on 11 September she faced a dilemma of how to carry on with a
planned peace network meeting scheduled for the days immediately after the attacks.
Earlier the network had decided to meet in New York and to focus on Africa.
In the immediate aftermath of the 11 September attacks, there was some question
about whether the agenda and focus of the meeting should be changed in light
of the attacks in New York. The network decided to go ahead with their planned
agenda. One million people have died in Congo, ten percent of the Quaker population
in Burundi has been killed. The discussion of 'what does it mean to forgive
and work for peace in the midst of war?' in the African context offered insights
which could be helpful to Americans struggling with similar questions in their
context.
God is present in all places and in
all people. We must remind ourselves, for example, of God's love for soldiers
who are doing what they think communities want them to do. Work for peace must
never demonize persons; we are all children of God.
As a country we seem to be moving towards
becoming a "new Rome" and we should seek repentance. We are crossing a threshold
when we talk of nuclear weapons not only in terms of their use as a deterrent
but for use in pre-emptive strikes. It is dangerous even to contemplate the
use of nuclear weapons. It is unbelievably arrogant to assert that any human
being could be trusted with decisions to use nuclear weapons. Our government
is now pursuing a military policy of "full spectrum dominance" - a belief in
the need for US dominance in all aspects of military force - rather than a commitment
to pursuit of objectives through multilateral means. This is the policy our
leadership has chosen and thus far as a people we have been silent in challenging
it.
Pacifists are often depicted as naïve,
but we need to argue that war, not peacemaking, is naïve. It is naïve to believe
that war works and that spending $400 billion on weapons makes us safe. Militarism
is the expression of blind faith in and practice idolatry of weapons. History
shows that peacemaking works. We need to tell the stories of successful conflict
prevention, redemption and reconciliation. People do not know that peacemaking
is effective and practical – that there are alternatives to violence.
Yet this information is available and one is prompted to ask, to what extent
is the US population willfully ignorant?
The prophet Ezekiel was told by God
to deliver a message to the people which he did not want to give. God tells
him that if he speaks and the people listen, they will be saved. If he speaks
and they do not listen, the fault is with the people. If the prophet knows the
message, but does not deliver it, both the people and the prophet are lost.
Today in the United States our people are afraid and lost, and yet Christians
do have an answer – the Gospel of Peace.
In the discussion,
participants asked about the role of religion in conflicts, noting that in some
university settings, people are trying to push religion to the side in the debate.
Another participant remarked that in comparison with other Western countries,
Americans are a deeply religious people. Can we take the best learnings from
Christianity and from the other world's religions to give us examples of best
practices to live together? At the same time, another participant remarked we
are living in a time of civil religion. Americans live with compartmentalization,
putting their religion into little boxes. There is a tension between living
out civil religion and living out our faith. Another participant raised the
question of what is our critique of just war? How glibly we have supported US
"holy war" through military intervention, another participant commented, even
as we have criticized jihad.
Walter Altmann responded that while
it has not been given to him to be a pacifist, he would like to see non-pacifist
churches take the just war theory seriously. The concept of just war was intended
to limit the use of force by setting out criteria and conditions. If the criteria
were truly applied, there would be almost no cases where war was legitimately
used. In today's context of high technology weaponry, we should be raising questions
about whether any war can any longer be regarded as just.
"Just war theory includes the criteria
that those using force be willing to assume some personal risk. But with today's
military technologies, there is little personal risk. Look at NATO bombing
of Yugoslavia a few years ago. Using this criterion, Vietnam may have been
a more humane war."
Participants emphasized that in order
to reach the people in the pews, we need to begin by listening to people's fears
and helping congregations to hear what people in other parts of the world are
feeling and saying. We must learn to listen. Another participant commented that
churches outside the United States have been very critical of US policies and
of US churches for not speaking up more. But we here who can hear this criticism
must not be arrogant for we do not represent the majority opinion in the United
States. How can we help change the mood and the mindset? Mary Lord commented that
there is a fundamental difference between war-making and peace-making. When you
are going to make war, you cannot listen to what the "enemy" says. When you are
making peace, you have to listen and to see the humanness of the other. Today
it is perceived as unpatriotic to try to understand the other side's viewpoint.
To hear the other voice is to weaken the resolve for war. Perhaps this is the
reason that pacifists were ridiculed after 11 September.
The pressures for militarization in US
society are growing. Participants affirmed the need to look at the economics of
war and the role of the profit motive in driving the war machine. One participant
asked: did a desire for profit play a role in determining the nature of the US
military response?
"Presently half of the world's military
expenditures are made by the US government. Our public sector is becoming
militarized as is evidenced by what is happening in the schools. The only
way many poor kids can go to university is with a military scholarship through
the Reserve Officers Training Corps (ROTC.) ROTC has long been in our high
schools, now it is moving into our middle schools."
Many participants raised questions about
what the church is saying in the midst of these pressures towards war. US churches
were prophetic in the months leading up to the 1991 Gulf war. They took the risk
of speaking out on unpopular issues, but why are they silent today?
"The church has a role in comforting
the victims, in offering a moral perspective on the world, but the church
also has a role to play in disturbing us. The US churches appear to be accomplices
to the state. I say this not to make you feel guilty but to stimulate your
thinking."
A New Yorker spoke of the immediate aftermath
of the attacks where the graffiti was raw – racist, violent. But the families
and friends of the immediate victims were not calling for revenge. In fact, the
immediate impulse of many Americans was to protect the stranger.
We need to trust people's better instincts
and recognize that these got hijacked by the drive to vengeance.
"On 11 September we were meeting
in South Carolina in a church that had been burned by hate crimes in domestic
terrorism. People in that church prayed for the perpetrators of that crime
against them. What does this say to us?"
Participants grappled with the issue
of how we relate to the 'other.' How ready are we, one asked, to allow the 'others'
to interpret themselves? Don't we interpret jihad, for example, in the way it
suits us? How can we use concepts of restorative justice in the aftermath of the
attacks of 11 September?
"I was in a Liberian church recently
where 675 worshippers had been killed in a senseless attack. The women of
that church presented a petition for peace – not a cry for vengeance
– for that atrocity. A message of that kind from Ground Zero would be
a powerful message for peace."
As the scope and depth of the problems
emerged, some participants struggled to find hope for the journey. As one participant
said: "Sometimes I feel like I just can't go on. There is so much despair. We
need hope." Some participants lifted up examples of just peacemaking as signs
of hope and stressed the need to make these actions toward peace as practical
and as concrete as our present understandings of military action.
International
perspectives
Ernie Regehr (Mennonite, Canada) explained
that the current security debate in Canada is often depicted as between multilateralism
and continentalism. Is Canadian security better furthered through alliance with
the United States or through multilateral bodies? While it is sometimes useful
for Canadian leadership to criticize US policies, there is also a sense that
Canadian interests are inextricably linked with those of its southern neighbor.
Since territorial defense is not a major issue for Canadian security, the question
is whether Canada should shape its armed forces primarily for participation
in UN peacekeeping operations or for participation in "coalitions of the willing"
- which in practice means allying with the United States. There is a perception
in the United States that its border with Canada is porous and insecure, although
none of those implicated in the 11 September attacks were found to have crossed
the US-Canadian border. Presently Canada is spending $7 billion on issues of
homeland security in response to US security concerns rather than Canadian interests.
Much of Canada's defense policy is undertaken to reassure its southern neighbor
that US assistance with security issues is not necessary.
Dora Arce (Presbyterian, Cuba) remarked
that even in that small, isolated country that has suffered greatly from US
intervention, there was a popular outpouring of grief and mourning with the
victims of the 11 September attacks. But the attacks also provoked fear and
uncertainty about the nature of the US military response. If there is any question
about the effectiveness of hostile military actions, one only has to look at
Cuba. Forty years of a blockade against Cuba has not brought about meaningful
change or increased US security. In fact, US policies toward Cuba seem to be
driven by internal US political interests, particularly the impact of right-wing
Cuban emigrés in Florida. Violence by the powerful leads to further violence
against those who are weaker. Or as one writer explains: "just as the husband
beats the wife who beats the child who beats the younger child who kicks the
dog who chases the cat who eats the rat." When we talk of power, we also have
to talk of responsibilities.
"I ask you, representatives of churches
in the most powerful country in the world, what are your responsibilities?"
Paul Renshaw
(CTBI, UK) said that in Britain,
the 9/11 experience was, of course, shocking in many deep ways and all-absorbing
in its dramatic, media-facilitated immediacy. But it was not apocalyptic in the
same way as some have felt it in the USA. In Britain, there are a number of human
rights concerns, including the radically strengthened European anti-terrorism
legislation and early in 2002, the violation of the rights of detainees at Guantanamo
Bay. The UK's political stand in support of the USA has been strongly articulated
by Prime Minister Tony Blair. However, as the apparent clarity of objectives of
the original "international coalition" has faded, so has the political space that
would allow Tony Blair to remain unequivocally "shoulder-to-shoulder" with George
Bush. Churches' responses to 9/11 (available at www.ctbi.org.uk.)
focused on a number of concerns including: talk at the earliest stage about "waging
war" as opposed to "counter-terrorism;' the "proportionality" and justice" of
the coalition's war aims; the lack of transparency that prevents the Government's
own choice of "just war" language from being evaluated; the humanitarian crisis
in Afghanistan; civilian casualties in general and the vulnerability of civilians
to cluster bombs in particular; and the (ab)use of the UN at different times,
a concern surfacing again over Iraq and US (and, perhaps, British) intentions.
At the bottom of all of this is the dilemma of how to find a language with which
to engage politicians who see their role in managerial, problem-solving terms
with more than one eye on short-term electoral considerations.
John Langmore (Anglican, Australia, UN)
shared some insights from his experiences at the United Nations, noting that relations
with the United States are at the center of foreign policy concerns for most countries
of the world. While US unilateralism has been most vividly illustrated in discussions
around the International Criminal Court, it was also in evidence in the UN Conference
on Finance for Development held in Monterrey, Mexico. This well-prepared meeting
had elicited good cooperation within the international financial institutions
and major preparatory meetings. But US actions weakened the Conference's final
outcome. At the meeting itself the European Union announced a $7 billion increase
in foreign aid which was followed by President Bush's announcement of an increase
in its foreign aid of $5 billion over the next five years. However, even with
this increase, the US still ranks in last place among Northern governments in
terms of foreign aid as a percentage of GNP. The continuing US failure to pay
its full UN dues undermines the UN's ability to act. There is great fear that
the UN will be further weakened if the US decides to engage in military action
against Iraq without formal consultation with the UN Security Council.
Eunice Santana (UCC, Puerto Rico) reported
that surveillance is coming back in cruder forms. Airports are now under federal
control, there is new talk of the police coming under military control, treatment
of political prisoners has become harsher since 11 September, and non-violent
protests at Vieques have become more difficult. The behavior of military personnel
has become more aggressive and the US federal courts are imposing longer sentences,
encarcerating protesters for as long as six months. Puerto Ricans have long been
divided on the question of Puerto Rico's status vis-à- vis the United States but
united over US military occupation of island of Vieques, there are now new divisions
over Vieques where protest is seen by some as unpatriotic or unsympathetic. At
the governmental level, there is a general sentiment that 'we do not want to upset
the USA.' On an unofficial level there is religious intolerance, with people being
ridiculed for their religious beliefs. There is also a perception that the role
of Christians is to help Israel. The case of Jose Padilla, a Puerto Rican detained
by US authorities for alleged cooperation on terrorism, is a particular concern.
Renta Nishahara (Anglican, Japan) reported
that since 11 September and the US military response to terrorism, the Japanese
government has also steadily progressed towards readiness for war under the new
guidelines for Japan-US Defense cooperation. This emergency legislation, submitted
to the Japanese Diet in May, requires ordinary citizens to cooperate in their
workplaces and local areas to support US military actions for the war on terrorism
and Self-Defense Force operations. It violates the war-renouncing article of our
Peace Constitution. Japanese churches feel that the legislation is excessive and
dangerous and are continuing to work for its rejection. The churches are also
concerned about the US inclusion of North Korea in the 'axis of evil' and about
Japanese cooperation in this endeavor. Japan, which is partly responsible for
the division of the Korean Peninsula, is preventing the peaceful unification of
North Korea and South Korea.
Archbishop Nicolae (Orthodox, Romania)
reported that Romanians too experienced a deep wave of compassion for the victims
of the 11 September attacks but that there were differences of opinion about the
US military response. The majority of the population initially opposed a military
response to Afghanistan, but after a few months the worsening economic situation
dominated public opinion. The question of Romanian integration into NATO has thus
been the focus of much of the debate. The Romanian government has a clear interest
in working towards NATO membership and supports US policies.
Abla Nasir (Orthodox, Palestine) began
by noting that security was weakened throughout the world as a result of the attacks
of 11 September.
"It wasn't only Americans who felt
vulnerable after 11 September. We all felt frightened. Our whole sense of
security was shaken. When President Bush said that "you're either with us
or you're against us," we Palestinians knew that we would be put on the side
of the 'other.' In a conflict between good and evil, we would be seen as the
evil ones."
The Israeli government took this opportunity
to launch the fiercest war ever against the Palestinians. Now all of the Palestinian
territories (except for Jericho, which is a closed area) are under occupation.
While Palestinians are seen as terrorists, Israel got a green light to go ahead
with its policies; the leader of the Palestinian people is not trusted by the
US, but Sharon is depicted as a man of peace. Israeli officials have emphasized
the similarities between 11 September and the suicide bombings. Suddenly, the
legitimate right to resist occupation is called terrorism. The Palestinians are
being blamed for everything – even for Israel's aggression against us when
in fact it is Sharon's policies which are responsible for the increase in the
number of suicide bombers.
Today 700,000 people live under curfew
and limitations of movement. Travel from Ramallah to Jerusalem, for example, involves
passing through a series of humiliating checkpoints. The war on terrorism has
a high human cost. Recent surveys show that 30 percent of Palestinian children
screened suffered from chronic malnutrition and 21 percent from acute malnutrition,
while in 2000, only 7.5 percent and 2.5 percent of children suffered from chronic
and acute malnutrition respectively. More than 30 percent of the 3.5 million Palestinians
in the West Bank and Gaza are dependent upon food handouts from NGOs and international
institutions. Surveys show that 50 percent of people need to borrow money to purchase
basic foodstuffs while 16 percent are selling assets for the same purpose. Interruptions
in electricity supplies cause vaccines to spoil and the child immunization programme
is breaking down. 70 percent of Palestinians in the West Bank and Gaza live below
the poverty line of less than $2 per day. These things are being allowed in the
name of the war against terror.
"Great power has to come with great
responsibility. We don't know what kind of Palestinian state Bush envisions.
Perhaps spiritual power through faith in God can overcome the political and
military power. It has to. We're giving up on governments."
Carmencita Karagdag (Philippines Independent
Church, Philippines). People's power catapulted Gloria Arroyo into the presidency,
raising high expectations for positive political and economic changes in the country.
But her brazen support for the US war on terrorism has widened the gulf between
Arroyo and those who originally supported her. She opened Filipino territory to
US troops and totally reversed the gains of the nationalist movement. Those opposing
her policies are seen as disloyal. With the impending signing of the Mutual Logistics
Support Agreement, the Bush administration managed to circumvent the Philippine
constitution that bans US troops and bases. What was not possible before has now
become possible. Over 3,000 US troops participated in recent military exercises
and there is fear that the Philippines will be used as a springboard to other
countries in the region where the US has vast economic interests. Some 8,000 US
troops are expected to arrive in the Philippines for nine months of 'military
exercises' this fall. Christian-Muslim relations have been affected and human
rights abuses are increasing. These are all very important issues for the churches.
While the Catholic Church openly welcomed foreign troops, the National Council
of Churches of the Philippines (NCCP) is trying to educate people about the realities
of the situation. NCCP is convening a meeting, together with WCC and the Christian
Conference of Asia, on "Terrorism in a Globalized World" in September 2002.
Bishop Mano Rumalshah (Church of Pakistan,
Pakistan). With the US military action against Afghanistan, Islamic militants
have changed tactics; they have gone underground and diverted activities into
other areas, as evidenced by the increasingly aggressive militant activity in
Kashmir. In Pakistan, President Musharref is living on borrowed time. He came
out in support of US policy because a gun was held to his head. While he is trying
to seek acceptance in the Western world, the price at home is very high. There
are fears that he will not be toppled politically, but rather that he will be
ousted through an act of violence. Relations between Christians and Muslims have
deteriorated. Just yesterday the government announced a change in the "minority
seats" policy which has long been sought by Christians. The very next day a Christian
school was attacked. Within the broader region of South Asia (a region of 1.5
billion people), there have been other consequences. Religious militancy in India
has been validated and made acceptable. In Sri Lanka there is a ray of hope and
a conscious movement toward peace, but it is still very fragile.
"Popular feelings against US arrogance
are great. We feel that the US just doesn't give a damn. We don't know where
it will lead. But until the Palestinian issue is faced – which means
more than the creation of a Palestinian state – there won't be a big
change in the West's relations with the Islamic world."
Walter Altmann reported that there has
been an increased interest in religions in Brazil, especially Islam, and in looking
at the relationship between religions and peace. There is a great deal of concern
about US double standards. For example, while the US talks about free trade and
about working together against terrorism, tariffs are raised on Brazilian exports
to the US. The landmines treaty is another example. Brazil has been a big exporter
of landmines to Africa. But in spite of its significant economic interests, Brazil
signed the treaty and is helping with de-mining in countries such as Angola. At
the same time, the US government says that it cannot afford to sign the treaty.
On the economic front, US Treasury Secretary O'Neill said no new loans would be
extended to Brazil and Argentina, causing our currency to be devalued by 20% in
a single day. The Brazilian public avidly follows the daily risk indicators for
loans to Brazil; presently we are paying around 25.5% interest rates for loans.
"The National Council of Churches
of Brazil organized a prayer service for the victims of the 11 September attacks
at the US Embassy. Now the Ambassador has called and asked us to participate
in organizing an anniversary event. But things have changed. What was quite
natural last year has now become almost impossible."
Global
Security/National Security
Ernie Regehr structured his remarks
around five points:
1. Unilateralism.
Central to US unilateralism is the fact that the US equates its own self-interest
with the general public good. This "unilateral perception of the public good"
leads the US government to cast its own strategic interests in universal terms.
US relations with the rest of the world are defined in terms of its own strategic
interests rather than based on multilaterally-defined international law or international
standards of human rights. Thus US interests in bringing about a peace agreement
in Sudan were driven almost entirely by its own perception of US strategic advantage
rather than by a concern with the victims of the conflict. We need to press
for a multilateral definition of the public good. The public good can only be
legitimately defined through multilateral means.
2. Interdependence and vulnerability.
Rather than inter-dependence experienced as vulnerability or mutuality of interests,
the US perceives that stability depends on its ability to override the international
order. This gives rise to the military policy of "full spectrum dominance" ideology
that Mary Lord has discussed. This policy will continue until the US sees interdependence
as a source of strength rather than weakness.
3. Extraordinary times.
It has become commonplace to assert that "everything changed on September 11th,"
but the subtext to that is that the old rules are no longer applicable. There
is a sense that this extraordinary crisis requires extraordinary measures. This
claim implies that the US cannot be constrained by the ordinary rules of the
game. This approach is in sharp contradiction to understandings of common security
or mutual security in which one's own security is enhanced when the security
of others is increased. An approach based on human security argues that the
well-being of people is a measure of true state security. Implicit in discussions
of human security is the international community's obligation to the poorest
and most vulnerable members of society. We should recognize that this is inherently
an interventionist philosophy – that we have a common obligation to those
who are vulnerable and threatened even if that goes against the interests of
their government.
4. A lesson for peacebuilding.
Peace is built – not defended. We have to recognize that terrorism has
a history and a past. Seeking to understand the causes of terrorism does not
justify its use. We know that taking military action against the perpetrators
of the attacks is not effective. While we argue that the perpetrators of the
crime need to be brought to justice, we are a bit uncertain in proposing ways
in which this could be done. It is ironic that the US undermining of the International
Criminal Court and the arbitrariness by which perpetrators are pursued is radically
undercutting current efforts to challenge impunity.
5. Arms control and disarmament.
There is a long list of international arms control agreements that the US is
weakening. At the nuclear level, the US nuclear posture review shows a recommitment
to nuclear unilateralism which will add unbearably to the proliferation of nuclear
weapons. If NATO (which includes Canada) can assert that nuclear doctrine is
essential to its security, India and Pakistan can make a similarly credible
claim. On the other end of the arms spectrum, the refusal of the US government
to agree to the establishment of global norms on small arms is deeply troubling.
There is a profound ambivalence about
US policies with envy and admiration of the United States mixed with a profound
distrust of US motives. The fact is that the world desperately needs the United
States. At a time when the Nonproliferation Treaty was being devastated by US
action, criticism was muted precisely because US Secretary of State Colin Powell
was in the Middle East. We need the US to play a role in bringing about a peace
agreement in the Middle East.
In the discussion,
participants noted the domestic and international impact of major increases
in US military spending, the pushback on human rights, the resumption of arms
sales to countries that violate human rights, and the ideological shift from
seeing the situation in Colombia as a 'war on drugs' to a 'war against terrorism.'
If nuclear arms are good for the United States, why not for other countries?
Particular concern was expressed at
the slow pace of refugee resettlement as a result of heightened security concerns
– even though resettled refugees are the most vetted groups of immigrants
entering the USA. The detention of asylum-seekers, including detention of children,
is continuing both in the United States and in many other countries.
"If the 'eye for an eye' approach
worked, the safest place to be in the world would be Israel."
The people designing US foreign policy
seem to have a view that military force is the only way to protect the world and
multilateral approaches are not to be trusted. One participant remarked that the
US relies on military force in order to protect its wealth. Some commented that
Third World people in the United States have long lived with the experience of
terrorism and harassment. We also need to recognize that the world is in the United
States. In many ways, New York is a microcosm of the world.
One participant asserted that we need
to unpack the word "terrorism." Others spoke of their communities – of new
interfaith peace and justice networks emerging in one while in another, a White
Pride Fest was organized.
"How can we recognize the genuine
need to grieve without being swept up in the patriotic tide? Can we prevent
the anniversary of 11 September from becoming another 4th of July? The victims
of 11 September have been exploited. We have an obligation to explore this
and to bring their exploitation to light."
Several participants decried the emphasis
on patriotism and efforts to push patriotism on young people, including in the
schools. We need a strong message from the churches against the peddling of fear,
one participant said. This fear reinforces the insistence on strengthening national
security and militarization.
"Fear is gripping the country. There
is fear of the unknown, fear of terrorism. Some people do not want to move
to Washington because it is seen as too dangerous. There is also fear of war
in Iraq and of its consequences. There is a sense that such a war would last
a long time, and would directly impact people in the United States. And there
is a generalized fear of "big things" – of big government, of big bureaucracies,
of big corporations. I'd like to invite US church people to reflect on how
other people have lived with these fears. We have a lot to learn."
We need to face the tough questions,
several participants remarked. In the immediate aftermath of 11 September we asked:
'Why does the world hate us so much?' We still need to face those questions -
but that kind of soul-searching is seen as unpatriotic. One participant asked:
how did our leaders – our political leaders, our church leaders –
allow the dialogue to be stopped? It will take a lot of courage to open the debate
again.
"God has a bias for the terrorized.
No one deserves to be terrorized. God is on the side of the victims."
Human rights
Wendy Patten (Human Rights Watch, USA)
began by detailing the situation of detainees in the US in the aftermath of
11 September, with emphasis on three groups of people: those detained on Guantanamo
Naval Base, those detained inside the US on immigration charges and as material
witnesses, and those detained in the US as enemy combatants, e.g. Jose Padilla.
Those being held on Guantanamo were
apprehended on the battlefield in, or around Afghanistan. While the military
has the authority to detain people, they are obliged to follow the humanitarian
standards set out in the Geneva Conventions. There are two primary concerns
about this group. While most international lawyers agree that those fighting
with the Taliban should be considered as prisoners of war, the Bush administration
sees them as unprivileged combatants. Under the Geneva Conventions, in cases
where there is doubt about the status of those apprehended, a special tribunal
should be set up to judge the merits of the case. This has not happened. Secondly,
there is concern about the length of detention. Under international law, they
can be held until the cessation of active hostilities, but what does that mean
if the relevant war is a rhetorical "war on terrorism?" There is fear that the
length of detention will be far higher than it should be.
The second group of people, known as
INS detainees, are being held on immigration charges. Although the exact number
of these detainees is unknown, they are estimated to be about 1200 and have
been designated as special interest cases by the Justice Department. The detainees
are being held not on probable cause, but on immigration charges though they
are being questioned about possible involvement in terrorism. While the government
has the right to apprehend those suspected of immigration fraud, the rules of
criminal justice should apply, such as the right to counsel and to open proceedings.
It appears that the government is avoiding the protections inherent in the criminal
justice system by holding people on immigration charges. None of the INS detainees
has been charged with a terrorism-related crime. The names of those being held
have not been released. Every time a district court rules that the names must
be made public, the Justice Department appeals, effectively freezing the case.
A second concern about this group is the fact that secret immigration hearings
are taking place. While usually there are hearings to determine if a person
facing an immigration violation should be detained or can be released on bond,
this has not occurred with those detained in the aftermath of 11 September.
The third category of detainees is
that of José Padilla – a US citizen apprehended in Chicago whose custody
was transferred from the Justice Department to the Defense Department as an
enemy combatant. The concern here is that a person can be detained solely on
the president's authority with no effective checks or balances.
In addition to concerns about the detainees,
Wendy Patten highlighted some overall themes and questions about civil liberties
in the United States.
1. What is to be the balance between
national security and human rights – and who decides what that balance
is to be?
2. The scope of executive authority
is being re-defined. The Justice Department has imposed draconian measures,
including refusing to release the names of detainees, imposing secret immigration
proceedings and lengthy detention, and giving greater surveillance powers
to intelligence agencies. Yet Congress is not exercising an assertive oversight
function and judicial checks have been minimal. This raises major questions
about checks and balances in the US political system as well as about due
process of law. Even fundamental principles such as habeas corpus are being
questioned.
3. Secrecy. Court decisions requiring
the release of names have been and will probably continue to be appealed by
the government. The government has been unwilling to let independent human
rights groups visit Guantanamo Naval Base to monitor the detainees. While
the International Committee of the Red Cross has been given access, their
reports are not public.
4. Fundamental to the US legal system
is the presumption of innocence. This is presently being turned upside down
as people are being detained in secret, with no access to counsel or to trial.
"President Bush asserted that it
was our values which were attacked on 11 September. But now those values are
being undermined in the war on terrorism. In times of fear, we have seen that
innocent people have been scapegoated which has later been regretted. This
was the case, for example, with the internment of Japanese-Americans during
World War II. Are we doing the same thing again?"
Clement John (WCC) began by affirming
the important role which US churches have played in the international cause of
human rights for more than 50 years. The US churches were pivotal in contributing
to ecumenical social thought and to the creation of international standards and
UN mechanisms for upholding human rights. In the 1970s and 1980s, churches in
other regions would not have been able to challenge unjust structures in their
own societies without the support of US churches. Support for human rights is
central to the churches' work and WCC seeks to shed light on the Gospel promotion
of one human family for the benefit of all. WCC is often asked, what are US churches
doing about those detained in the aftermath of 11 September? The fact is that
most statements of concern about the detainees have come from human rights groups,
not from the churches.
Worldwide, those most affected by the
measures implemented in response to 11 September have been mainly religious minorities
and political dissidents. In Pakistan, for example, Christian churches and institutions
have been targeted because they are perceived to be aligned with the 'Christian
West'.
In the 1970s the ideology of national
security was used against human rights activists. Today the ideology of anti-terrorism
is being used against them. In this ideology, the face of the enemy is blurred,
widening the scope of possible repression. The US Patriot Act in 2001 and the
UK Anti-Terrorism Act of 2002 are paralleled by similar restrictive legislation
in India, Malaysia and the Philippines. The war on terrorism is being used to
justify repression of political dissent.
Clement John then outlined some of the
challenges for the churches. How do churches react to the trend of governments'
using statutory violence through anti-terrorism measures? Governments are increasing
their military budgets leading to violations of basic human rights. Anti-terrorism
measures are directed towards Muslim minorities in Europe and North America and
towards Christian minorities in Asia. What can churches do? How can inter-faith
dialogue be more effective? Presently, this dialogue largely takes place among
the liberal and progressive sectors of both faiths, but we need to ask: how does
dialogue filter down to the grassroots level? As religions are not monolithic
entities, we need to encourage intra-religious dialogue as well. The regions still
look to US churches for solidarity. What can churches do to counter terrorism
without brutalizing the civilized impulse? A climate has been created which is
anti-foreigner, xenophobic and where the persecution of minorities is on the increase.
How can churches be encouraged to address this climate?
In the discussion,
participants commented on the role of public opinion. Polls indicate that Americans
are willing to give up some of their fundamental rights in return for greater
security. For example, a recent poll indicated that a majority of young people
would be willing to spy on others to enhance their security. Another questioned
the reference to polls, noting that most polls are quite superficial and depend
on the way a particular question is phrased. Deeper polling shows popular support
for the war on terrorism but a preference for multilateral and UN responses. (See
for example: www.pipa.org)
"We're now asking police and postal
workers to report on suspicious activities by ordinary people. This is like
East Germany or the Soviet Union during the Cold War era."
There was considerable discussion about
whether we are indeed living in extraordinary times. One participant insisted
that if we do not acknowledge the extraordinary nature of the attacks, we will
lose all credibility. That corresponds to people's understandings of the situation.
We have to acknowledge that things have changed.
"The administration argues that these
are extraordinary times which require extraordinary measures. But when the
'extraordinary times' are extended over several years, they don't seem so
extraordinary. How long will these extraordinary times last?"
"Churches need to give leadership
in going beyond a fixation on the events of 11 September. Once the anniversary
has passed, we need to talk in terms of the global context. A focus on September
11th is becoming harmful as a reference point."
Several participants raised the issue
of the interrelatedness of human rights; although we have focused discussion here
on civil and political rights, it is important to bear in mind the inter-connected
issues of economic, social and cultural rights. Others indicated a preference
for a focus on justice rather than human rights. Several also pointed out that
the decline of civil liberties in the United States makes it more difficult for
the US to advocate for human rights in other countries.
"As a nation we are losing our moral
authority. When we challenge undemocratic governments in the Middle East,
for example, it seems like a farce. How can we now challenge Egypt which has
been living under emergency laws since 1973? The US has been an international
precedent-setter on human rights, in part because of its power and in part
because of its commitment to principles of human rights. But that is now being
lost."
Interfaith
Relations
Victor Makari (Presbyterian, USA) began
this discussion by reporting that immediately after the attacks, Muslim leaders
issued statements condemning the violence. They did not want to be associated
with these evil attacks. There were attacks on Middle Eastern and Islamic centers
in the US in the aftermath of 11 September, but there were also many spontaneous
cases of churches and communities responding to counter this violence. While
interfaith tensions were brought out, so were many efforts to bridge these tensions.
Popular interest in Islam increased dramatically and copies of the Koran were
sold out. There was renewed interest in inter-faith initiatives and many inter-faith
services were carried out. Shortly after the attacks, a beautiful interfaith
service was held at the National Cathedral. The service was a wonderful image
of diversity and inter-faith cooperation until the President of the United States
spoke – in a sort of benediction to the service – by issuing a call
for war. The use of the term "crusade" by US President Bush provoked a strong
negative reaction for Muslims around the world. While Bush later moved away
from using this term, the memories lingered. There have been some consequences
for churches entering into an inter-faith approach, particularly the case of
a Lutheran Church-Missouri Synod pastor who was removed from his position for
appearing publicly at an Inter-faith prayer service for the victims of the tragedy.
Victor Makari closed by noting that churches are taking a number of initiatives
to improve inter-faith relations. His church, Presbyterian Church (USA), has
invited interfaith teams, each composed of one Muslim and one Christian from
10 different countries to meet with local congregations around the country over
a 2½ week period.
Bishop Rumalshah began by noting that
Islam is part of the lineage which we take from Abraham. Islam is the only other
religion that gives space to Jesus Christ in its holy book. While we assume
that Islam is monolithic, in fact, there are major divisions and schisms within
Islam which should be recognized. While most South Asian religions have a cyclical
view of life and death and are non-competitive in approach, Christianity, Islam
and Judaism all have a linear approach which stresses missionary activity and
competition. We have to acknowledge the diversity within the religious communities.
Numbers and location matter in inter-faith relations. Muslims act differently
when they are in the minority than when they are in the majority. Muslims behave
differently in different parts of the world and even in different parts of the
same country. Muslims in Delhi are different than Muslims in Lahore. While Western
faith is individual and privatized, Muslims see faith as relational and community
based. We need to recognize this difference in inter-faith dialogue. We need
to follow a policy of conscious engagement with the world of Islam and of conscious
seeking toward a common goal.
"I do not know what it is like to
be normal. In Pakistan, as a Christian, I am a minority because of my religion.
In Britain, where I live, I am a minority because of my race."
Ecumenical
Relations
Oscar Bolioli (NCCCUSA) began his reflections
on ecumenical relations in the United States by recounting that when news of
the 11 September attacks came, NCC General Secretary Bob Edgar immediately began
drafting a statement by the churches which was the only tool available at that
time to make the case against a vengeful response. The "Deny them their victory"
statement was eventually signed by over 4000 religious leaders. The National
Council of Churches of Christ in the USA received 70 messages of condolences
from different ecumenical bodies around the world while denominational bodies
received many more messages of support from their partner churches in other
countries.
The churches were deeply involved in
the tasks of healing within their communities and in providing pastoral care
to the many who were traumatized by the events. Church World Service, building
on experiences of the Oklahoma City bombing, developed programs to provide pastoral
care and counseling to people affected by the attacks. Some 65,000 people in
New York were treated for Post-Traumatic Stress Syndrome and many more for depression.
Local mental health authorities reported that 120,000 people received treatment
in the nine months after the attacks.
Churches issued statements and the
peace churches took the lead in arguing for a nonviolent response to the attacks.
But of all these statements, only three raised the issues of the reasons for
the attack – on why it happened and why "they hate us." Islamic centers
opened their doors, inviting the public to visit and to learn about their religion.
The NCCCUSA General Secretary met with Muslim leaders and they agreed to continue
to meet on a monthly basis – a pattern that has continued. Some 500 cases
of violence against foreigners were reported. The NCCUSA mission book on Islam
was reprinted. While churches took the lead in inter-faith dialogue and in providing
pastoral care for the victims, they were not so strong in speaking out on the
political issues of power and abuse although the NCCCUSA statement on 15 November
did refer to the impact of these events on the rule of law and the protection
of civil liberties. The strongest statement was that issued by the National
Council of Churches on 27 June which denounced the limitations being imposed
on civil liberties. But we are still not dealing with some of the issues –
particularly the reasons behind the attacks. We are still focused on "us" rather
than on the consequences of US actions for others. We need to talk about our
ecclesiology. Mission work still has not educated Americans about the reasons
for poverty. We are concerned about our security when others are concerned about
justice.
"Justice for others means that we
must give up something. Our way of life is built on the insecurity of others."
Elizabeth Ferris then spoke about global
ecumenical developments, noting that in the months following 11 September, there
was little direct contact between US churches and ecumenical bodies who were struggling
to formulate a common response. In the months following 11 September, WCC responded
with prayer, letters, statements, a pastoral visit to the US, an alternative news
service, inter-faith meetings and a brainstorming meeting to begin to look at
the consequences. These are dangerous times and unfortunately ecumenical structures
are weak. Ecumenical bodies throughout the world are experiencing difficulties
with a resurgence of denominationalism and dwindling financial support for ecumenical
organizations at the regional and global levels.
Yet in spite of these difficulties –
or perhaps because of these difficulties - we need to find new ways of working
together. If there is a US military intervention against Iraq, how will churches
worldwide respond? Will each one respond on its own? Can we develop means now
to consult one another? What does it mean to be a fellowship of churches if we
respond to dangerous developments by turning inwards?
The events of 11 September changed the
dynamics of how churches in other parts of the world view the United States. There
was an initial opportunity to show solidarity towards the US – as US churches
have so often demonstrated toward churches in other regions in the past. There
was a new awareness of the vulnerability of US churches on the part of churches
in other regions and a yearning to engage, to listen, to learn, to share, and
to accompany. There is a renewed emphasis on churches in the US on the part of
the WCC. This meeting, for example, was called for by the WCC Executive Committee.
There are new opportunities to deepen the fellowship even in a time such as this.
Discussion
focused largely on the need for inter-faith dialogue and the need for intra-faith
discussions on what it means to engage in interfaith dialogue. While interfaith
dialogue has a long history in the United States, it did not become a passionate
issue until 11 September. One participant remarked that we have seen a sharpened
theology of intolerance since 11 September.
Many participants talked about the challenges
to ecumenism today. There are fierce battles within our denominations about where
the church ought to go, one participant remarked. We have a huge ecumenical challenge
within our own denominations, another added. We need to regard the other within
our own denominations, to reach out and talk with people who hold different views.
Sometimes it is easier to talk with progressives in other traditions than to reach
out to fundamentalists within our own churches. We have to struggle to maintain
a sense of the dignity and that of God which is within each person. At the same
time, another remarked, there is a huge evangelical constituency within the country
and we need to begin the conversation with them. At the same time, another participant
reminded the group, we cannot allow the prophetic voice to be silenced in the
name of tolerance. Another participant commented that while the dialogue between
global partners is not always self-evident, Americans attending their local congregations
usually do not even see the global church. How do we make the church the conscience
of this country? One participant remarked that while we may feel powerless and
our sermons do not move people, we have a powerful constituency which we are not
using. It is not our power, one participant reminded the group, it is the power
of the Spirit that moves through us.
Final Session
Discerning the "signs of the times"
is a difficult and on-going task. The discussions in Washington, D.C. represented
a small "window" of time during which participants could work together to try
to understand what is happening in the world and what the churches are called
to do at this particular moment in time. The presence of international participants
and the rich worship life of the meeting enabled participants to discuss their
fears, their frustrations, their uncertainties and their hopes. Throughout the
meeting, however, participants recognized the need for further discussions.
They expressed a need to broaden the debate and particularly to engage their
congregations in discussions about the implications – for the United States
and for the world - of the "war on terrorism." In the final session, participants
agreed on the outlines of a study guide consisting largely of questions for
use in congregations, understanding that these questions may be adapted by denominations
for their own constituencies. Participants also agreed to send a message to
the WCC Central Committee for its use in drafting a public statement on the
issues emerging from the attacks of 11 September and the response to those attacks.
Although time did not permit universal agreement with the text of that message
during the meeting, almost all of the participants subsequently indicated their
support for the final message by electronic mail a few days after the meeting.
The message will be shared with the WCC Central Committee meeting in Geneva
from 26 August - 3 September 2002.
Overview
Statement: Elizabeth Ferris
Beyond 11 September: Implications
for US Churches and the World
5-6 August 2002
Washington, DC
Elizabeth Ferris
World Council of Churches
Introduction
WCC, in consultation with NCCCUSA and
CWS, has convened this meeting as part of an on-going process of discernment
among the churches about the way forward in this post-11 September world. Since
the attacks on the US and the subsequent military response, reams of media reports,
statements, analyses, and reflections have taken place. There is no shortage
of media coverage or written analyses on the consequences of 11 September for
the world. But these developments are not just political events; they are also
areas which cry out for theological and moral perspectives and which challenge
us to find new ways of understanding, interpreting, and acting. International
ecumenical gatherings, by bringing the richness of different Christian traditions
and different regional perspectives, offer a unique opportunity to look beyond
the headlines to discern the "signs of the times."
In November 2001, WCC convened a meeting
at short notice, to begin to explore some of the consequences of the attacks.
At that meeting, participants identified a particular need to organize a meeting
in the United States with representatives of US churches. At times in the past
11 months, it has seemed that there has been a gap between churches in the USA
and in the rest of the world. Sometimes we have seen that churches in other
parts of the world are not aware of what the US churches have said and done,
asking for example: where is the US church response to US President Bush's statements
about an "axis of evil?" Sometimes we get the sense that US churches have turned
inward and have felt defensive at queries from other parts of the world. Sometimes
we have felt a yearning on the part of churches in other parts of the world
to hear from their US brothers and sisters about their interpretation of events
and about how they are responding.
This
meeting and process
This meeting seeks to analyze, reflect
and pray together – to try to understand what is happening, to draw the
attention of the global church community to the implications of current political
developments, and to try to discern together a way forward. As Konrad Raiser
said in November 2001, "The churches are called to an act of discernment in
trying to understand the significance of the events on 11 September. Such discernment
must include a critical evaluation of the interpretations given to the events.
This is all the more important since the interpretation determines to a large
extent the nature of the response. The official interpretations offered by the
Government of the United States and by other centres of political authority,
including the Security Council of the United Nations, have
set an agenda which is presently
being implemented. Can the churches go along with these interpretations and
the form of response?" Konrad
Raiser, "Beyond 11 September: Implications for the Churches," from Beyond
11 September: Assessing Global Implications,
Geneva: WCC, 2001, p. 15.
In the months since these remarks were
made, we have seen that decisions made by US officials to respond to a new sense
of vulnerability are having major consequences in the US (homeland security,
financial implications, the relative power of the President vis-à-vis the Congress,
civil liberties, spending on social issues, etc.) But decisions made by US officials
to respond to that vulnerability also have major consequences for the rest of
the world and are carried out in a context where US unilateralist behavior was
a cause for concern long before 11 September. What are the consequences for
international law and the United Nations (both of which the churches have long
supported)? What are the consequences of living in a world with one superpower?
What are the moral and theological insights which can churches offer?
We have deliberately left the agenda
of this meeting fairly loose – not wanting to impose a prearranged outcome
on the meeting. But participants here can choose to draft a statement which
can be widely shared among both the US and the international community. The
Central Committee of the World Council of Churches is meeting later this month
and is open to receiving words of guidance from this group. The National Council
of Churches of Christ in the USA will hold its Assembly in November of this
year. Church World Service has set up a committee to examine some of these consequences.
There are representatives from all of these bodies here with us – as well
as representatives of many churches who can feed whatever "outcome" there is
of the meeting into their own processes. We can choose to draft something from
this meeting – and there are some excellent drafters with us – this
evening to consider tomorrow afternoon. This could perhaps be based on the observations
at the WCC's CCIA meeting in June (attached) which drew attention to some of
the concerns about the implications of 11 September.
Since time is limited, we may also
choose to use these two days to deepen the analyses of what is taking place
in our world and to share the analyses with the broader ecumenical community
without worrying about how to reach consensus. Or we may leave it open and come
back at the end of the day to see where we want to go with all of this discussion
– whether we want to ask a small drafting group this evening to work on
a draft statement or outcome.
We have structured the agenda around
6 themes:
Ethical and theological perspectives
International perspectives
National/global security
Human rights
Inter-faith relations
Ecumenical responses
For 5 of the 6 themes, we have asked
two people – one from the US and one from the international fellowship
– to begin the discussion by posing questions or reflections (in only
5-10 minutes each) . For the session on international perspectives, we are asking
each of the international participants to give us a very short sketch of how
current events are perceived in their regions.
The issues are many and our time together
is short, but with the help of the Holy Spirit, we hope to be able to move toward
a greater understanding of the challenges which we face in this post-11 September
world.
To begin
the discussion…
"The smoke from the explosions
is part of a larger smoke screen that blocks our view. As vengeance breeds
vengeance, each act of terrorism sends us stumbling deeper into darkness."
Eduardo Galeano
Eduardo Galeano, "A Tragedy of Errors: No one yet knows who is who" The
New Internationalist,
no. 340, November 2001.
We see "through a glass darkly" and our
analytical tools seem inadequate to understand what is happening at a global level.
In the November meeting, Konrad Raiser, General Secretary of the World Council
of Churches, suggested that what is fundamentally different about this conflict
is its symbolic nature. Unlike previous conflicts, this is not a struggle for
resources, trade routes or territory but for symbolic hegemony. This is one of
the reasons that our traditional analytical models are inadequate to understand
the conflict and why theology and religious insights are needed. Power is legitimized
through symbols and religion is the strongest carrier of the symbolic."
Raiser, WCC Report, p. 13.
Insights from theological and ethical
perspectives bring a needed dimension to the analysis of the current state of
affairs. In particular, I would like to highlight three global trends which cut
across all the issues to be discussed here and which are in desperate need of
theological reflection:
· US power
· US unilateralism
· US intentions
US power
"It is true that no nation since
Rome has loomed so large above the others, but even Rome eventually collapsed"
Joseph Nye
Joseph S. Nye, The Economist,
23 March 2002, p. 23. (author of the
Paradox of American Power: Why the World's Only Superpower Can't Go it Alone,
Oxford University Press, 2002.
Many have written about the dominance
of US power. The United States will spend more on defense in 2003 than the next
15-20 biggest spenders combined. The US "enjoys" overwhelming military superiority
on all levels: nuclear, conventional, air force, and navy. This trend is likely
to continue as US spending on research and development is far ahead of all other
countries. "The US spends more on military research and development than Germany
or the United Kingdom spends on defense in total…No state in the modern
history of international politics has come close to the military predominance
these numbers suggest." Brooks
and Wohflorth.
As The Economist pointed out in its special
issue on US power in the world, on traditional measures of power, the US ranks
far ahead of all other countries:
Global population – US 4.7%
of total
Global GDP – US 31.2%
Global defense spending – US
36.3%
Global spending on research and development
– US 40.6%
Global cinema box office revenues
– 83.1% "A survey of
America's world role," The
Economist 29 June 2002,
p. 4.
But the United States was the most powerful
nation in the world before 11 September. What has changed since then? A partial
response would include: the painful realization of US vulnerability, the resurgence
of US nationalism/patriotism, and a growing willingness to use US power to confront
enemies who do not play by the rules. How can Christian perspectives on power
be introduced into the debate – power not as military might or economic
superiority – but power to nurture and protect and confront injustice. What
do churches have to say about a world order dominated by one superpower?
US President Bush has cast the struggle
as a conflict between the forces of good and evil. In his June address at the
West Point graduation ceremony, he cast the present conflict in moral terms: "some
worry that it is somehow undiplomatic or impolite the speak the language of right
and wrong. I disagree. Moral truth is the same in every culture, in every time,
and in every place." In other statements, he and members of his administration
have made it clear that they intend to use this power for good. For example, Richard
Falk cites military commentator Eliot Cohen: "in the twenty-first century, characterized
like the European Middle Ages by a universal (if problematic) high culture with
a universal language, the US military plays an extraordinary and inimitable role.
It has become, whether Americans or others like it or not, the ultimate guarantor
of international order." Article
in Foreign Affairs,
cited by Richard Falk, "The New Bush Doctrine," The
Nation, 15 July 2002. Falk
discusses the implications of this far-reaching assertion, including its assumptions
about the role of democratic institutions and about the international order.
What are the theological and ethical perspectives which churches bring to this
debate, couched as it is in moral terms? How can churches "speak truth to power"
in this context? How can they challenge the use of moral language by politicians?
What do churches have to say about nationalism? How can the positive advantages
of affirming a sense of community and belonging be affirmed while challenging
the uses to which nationalism and patriotism have been put?
"The United States has been fading
as a global power since the 1970s and the US response to the terrorist attacks
has merely accelerated this decline."
Immanuel Wallerstein
Immanuel Wallerstein, "The Eagle has Crash Landed," Foreign
Policy, July-August 2002.
While there are few analysts who challenge
the primacy of the United States, there are a few lone voices, such as Immanuel
Wallerstein, who question how long the US can maintain this position. He argues
that in spite of this dominance, the seeds of US decline are already evident.
The US currently finds itself "a lone superpower that lacks true power, a world
leader nobody follows and few respect, and a nation drifting dangerously amidst
a global chaos it cannot control."
Wallerstein, July-August 2002.
"At the moment the United States
is unlikely to face a challenge to its pre-eminence from other states unless
it acts so arrogantly that it helps the others to overcome their built-in
limitations."
Joseph Nye
Joseph S. Nye, The Economist,
23 March 2002, p. 25.
Questions about the dominance of US power
are inextricably linked to concerns about US unilateralism.
US
Unilateralism
Before 2001, there was ample evidence
of US unilateralism. Even before the election of US President Bush, the US had
failed to pay its UN dues, expressed reservations about the International Criminal
Court, refused to ratify the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty and failed to ratify
a number of other international treaties and conventions, such as the Landmines
treaty and the Convention on the Rights of the Child.
Note that the US has not ratified a number of other important conventions, including
the Convention on Racial Discrimination, Covenant on Economic and Social Rights,
American Convention on Human Rights, Convention to Eliminate Discrimination
against Women. The Economist,
29 June 2002, p. 22.
President Bush continued and intensified this unilataralist trend, with US withdrawal
from the 1972 AntiBallistic Missile Treaty, beginning work on a national missile
defense system, adoption of a critical posture toward UN negotiations on small
arms, withdrawal from the Kyoto Protocols on climate change, opposition to proposed
talks to prevent the weaponisation of space, failure to ratify UN conventions
on the international control of terrorism, and withdrawal from the World Conference
against Racism only weeks before the 11 September attacks.
There were some initially encouraging
signs in the months immediately after the 11 September attacks as the US government
hastily paid some of its outstanding UN dues (although leaving US$1 billion
as yet unpaid) and began negotiations to put together a coalition against the
perpetrators of the attacks and more generally, against terrorism. UN Security
Council resolutions authorized strikes against Afghanistan and NATO, for the
first time in its history, invoked Article 5 calling for collective defense.
"We're so multilateral it keeps
me up 24 hours a day checking on everybody."
Secretary of State Colin Powell
Quoted in James B. Steinberg, "Counterterrorism: a new Organizing Principle
for American National Security," The
Brookings Review, vol.
20, no. 3. Summer 2002, pp. 4-7.
Since then, however, the trend toward
unilateralism has accelerated. The US has withdrawn from the International Criminal
Court (the first time any country has formally withdrawn its signature from an
internationally-agreed convention) and held UN peacekeeping operations hostage
until US forces could receive an exemption from the provisions of the ICC. The
US has pulled out of efforts to agree on a verification protocol for the Biological
Weapons Convention. It has disregarded the Geneva conventions on prisoners of
war in determining the legal status of people captured in Afghanistan and taken
to Guantanamo Bay for questioning. President Bush has said he will not resubmit
the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty to the Senate for ratification (which was rejected
in 1999) On the economic front, the US has imposed new trade barriers on steel
and agricultural products.
The churches have long advocated for
the rule of international law and the strengthening of international institutions
to promote peace and justice for all. How can churches continue to advocate for
international law and institutions in a climate of increasing unilateralist behavior?
What role do US churches play in this regard? How can churches in other parts
of the world continue their advocacy for a just world order?
Among the many troubling signs of US
unilateralism, the assertion by US President Bush that the United States has the
right to use military force against any state that is seen as hostile or makes
moves to acquire weapons of destruction -- nuclear, biological or chemical
Cited by Richard Falk, "The new Bush doctrine," The
Nation, 15 July 2002.
stands out as particularly dangerous. This claiming of a right to pre-emptive
strikes, although in clear contradiction of international law, raises the specter
of new US military actions.
US
Intentions
"I very much fear that we are
on the eve of a new and terrible global war."
Mary Lord
Mary Lord, "Reflections on Friends Peace Testimony: A New Global War," presented
to the Annual Meeting of the Friends World Committee for Consultation, Section
of the Americas, 15 March 2002.
The danger inherent in a war against
terrorism is that it is a war without limits and a war where the enemy is defined
by the dominant power. President Bush's statement that the US would confront the
"axis of evil" and naming of North Korea, Iran and Iraq has led to fears that
further military action is imminent. Recent press reports indicate planning for
such military action against Iraq is well underway. Richard Sale, for example,
reports that plans are for round-the-clock air strikes, US ground forces numbering
200,000 (with an additional 25,000 troops to be provided by Britain), operations
to be carried out from staging areas in Kuwait, Oman, Qatar, Saudi Arabia and
Turkey, and with casualty estimates of 2,000.
Richard Sale, "US plans massive invasion of Iraq," UPI, 10 July 2002.
Some US church leaders have spoken out against plans to topple Iraq's president
as they would endanger civilian lives in Iraq and also be de-stabilizing for the
region.
ENI – check date – Bob Edgar and John Thomas.
How can churches challenge the mindset
of power, the assumptions that a military response is the best way to achieve
security? How can churches respond more effectively at a time when war scenarios
are being painted in the media and the signs are present that further US military
actions may be forthcoming? How can the international ecumenical movement take
steps now to prevent further wars and rumors of wars? How can churches hold governments
accountable for the actions they take?
These are just three of the trends which
shape the world in which we are called to witness and which cry out for moral
perspectives and theological insights. As religious leaders from the Former Yugoslav
Republic of Macedonia stated in a different context, "these are issues that are
too important to leave to the politicians.
Annex.
At its 2002 meeting the Commission
of the Churches in International Affairs reviewed the implications of the tragic
events of September 11th for the ecumenical movement as follows:
The global situation has become more
complex, making a coherent and effective ecumenical response more difficult
to shape. The proliferation of internal and international conflicts has placed
unprecedented challenges to the churches at all levels.
There has been an accelerated attack
on the framework of global governance, the rule of law and the institutions
painstakingly built over the past fifty years to apply it. Treaties have been
abrogated for the first time in many decades, and a systematic effort is being
made from several quarters to weaken the system of obligations freely entered
into by states and to erode international protections. The USA has led this
trend, withdrawing its signature from the Rome Statutes of the International
Criminal Court and giving notice that it would no longer abide by the terms
of the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty.
Taking advantage of the climate created
by the "War on Terrorism," a number of states have resorted to "states of emergency,"
undermining due process of law with respect to dissidents, minority groups and
persons suspected of involvement in terrorism. This has resulted in grave violations
of human rights and threatens a return to national security doctrines.
Major increases in military budgets
have been made in a number of countries, further limiting resources available
for economic, social and environmental needs.
Efforts to control the production,
transfer and use of weapons, has been slowed in the conventional sphere, and
despite the new agreement between the USA and Russia on decommissioning nuclear
weapons, for the first time in decades a new generation of nuclear weapons is
being developed and new threats of the use of such weapons in regional wars
have arisen.
1. The process of globalization and
economic neoliberalism has reduced the capacity of many nation-states to determine
and implement strategies to meet the needs of their own people, strengthening
the powers of the major industrialized nations and weakening those of most developing
nations, widening the gap between rich and poor.
The blatant unilateralism of the USA
and its attempts to impose its own will and standards on the entire world has
severely weakened the project of world order provided by the UN Charter which
foresaw a form of governance in which all nations, small and large, rich and
poor would have a say.
Religion has been pushed back into
the center of world affairs and that of the peoples, reversing the trends of
secularization that dominated in previous decades and calling into question
many of our previous assumptions based on the secular society. It has become
a central factor in many open conflicts, making them more resistant to peaceful
resolution.
There has been a political backlash
in many countries of the North that is deeply troubling. It has a particular
impact on human rights, particularly those of the uprooted. It also has had
serious implications for the churches.
At the same time, the churches, the
ecumenical movement and its institutions, including the WCC have seen their
resources dwindling to an extent unprecedented since the WCC was formed. The
resultant weakening of ecumenical structures has been accompanied by trends
toward uncoordinated and sometimes competing responses to crises by churches
and related agencies.
Message to
the WCC Central Committee, August 2002
Message to the WCC Central Committee
from participants in the meeting "Beyond 11 September: Implications for US Churches
and the World," organized by the World Council of Churches in consultation with
the National Council of Churches of Christ in the USA and Church World Service
from 5-6 August 2002 in Washington, DC.
As the anniversary of 11 September 2001
approaches, we came together as Christians from the United States and other parts
of the world to discern together the challenges which we now face as a result
of the horrific events of 11 September and the US response. Our prayers are with
all those who suffered loss in the events of September 11 and acts of terror around
the world. While much of our discussion focused on peace and security, as Christians
we affirmed that true security comes only from Jesus Christ who is "the way, the
truth and the life" (John 14:6)
We have come to understand that ongoing
dialogue, with churches worldwide and other faith communities, is essential to
formulating a constructive Christian response to the insecurities and vulnerabilities
that we and other people around the world experience. We encourage our churches
– from the global to the congregational levels – to engage in sustained
study and reflection on the meaning and sources of true peace and security in
the present age.
In looking at threats to peace and security,
we particularly lift up the concerns in the Middle East. We call on U.S. churches
to press their government to work for a just resolution of the Palestine-Israeli
conflict, without delay, which will result in a viable and secure Palestinian
state and a secure Israel at peace with its neighbors. Furthermore, at this particular
moment in history, U.S. churches are called to speak out against the threat of
a military attack by their government against Iraq.
Our discussions affirmed certain fundamental
principles:
*Security must be grounded in respect
for human rights, due process, and international law. Security does not result
from military actions.
* Moreover, human security and national
security depend on economic justice and peace, in our own countries and throughout
the world. We fear that the military response to terrorism will further divert
needed resources away from meeting human needs.
*Peaceful relations among nations and
peoples are achieved through multilateral decision-making, not by the unilateral
economic and military actions of one country. The current US-led "war on terrorism"
undermines these principles and threatens genuine peace and justice.
*As Christians we put our security in
the hands of Jesus Christ and the biblical witness which
says "perfect love casts out fear." I
John 4:18a
Guide for
Reflection
Beyond 11 September:
Implications for US Churches and the World
Orthodox Feast of the Transfiguration
of Our Lord
Anniversary of the Dropping of the
Atom Bomb on Hiroshima
6 August 2002
The Prophetic Voice of the Churches
For from the least to the
greatest of them, everyone is greedy for unjust gain; and from prophet
to priest, everyone deals falsely. They have treated the wound of my people
carelessly, saying, "Peace, peace," when there is no peace.
Jeremiah: 6: 13-15.
Across the ages, the prophets of
the Hebrew scriptures have warned their people to turn from their wicked ways,
to speak out against injustice and to put their faith in God. Sometimes, prophets,
such as Ezekiel, resist delivering God's message to their errant people. But
God tells Ezekiel that he will be held responsible if the message is not delivered
and if people perish because they did not hear the prophecy (Ezekiel 3:17-24).
Speaking out against the prevailing powers is often uncomfortable. But the
experience of the prophets compels us to speak even when it is uncomfortable
to do so.
Introduction
A group of Christians from various
churches gathered in Washington, D.C. from 5-6 August 2002 at the invitation
of the World Council of Churches (WCC) in consultation with the National Council
of Churches of Christ USA (NCCC) and Church World Service (CWS) to discern
together the implications of the 11 September attacks for the US churches
and the world. Participants at the two day meeting included representatives
of churches in the United States and from churches located in other parts
of the world, as well as staff from the WCC, NCCC and CWS. It was an intense
meeting as participants struggled to understand what is happening in our world
and to discern God's will for themselves and for their churches. With the
approach of the anniversary of the 11 September attacks, participants expressed
their continuing grief and solidarity with those who lost family members and
friends in the attacks. At the same time, participants felt called to extend
their solidarity to the many who are suffering from the consequences of US
policies in the aftermath of the 11 September attacks.
There have been many efforts by ecumenical
organizations to express solidarity and to discern the meaning of these events
A number of initiatives were organized WCC, including letters to the US churches
and the UN Secretary-General; inter-faith meetings; the November 2001 visit
to the United States of an international delegation of religious leaders as
"Living Letters" to the churches and people of the United States; the November
2001 meeting whose report is entitled "Beyond 11 September: Assessing Global
Implications," and an alternative news service known as "Behind the News:
Visions for Peace, Voices of Faith , For further information on these ecumenical
perspectives see: http://wcc-coe.org/wcc/behindthenews/index.html.
The National Council of Churches of Christ in the USA has issued a number
of statements and collected resources, including a liturgy to mark the anniversary
of the 11 September attacks. See http://ncccusa.org.
A collection of US church statements on 11 September is available at http://www.wcc-usa.org.
Churches in other parts of the world have also organized initiatives to express
solidarity with US churches and to try to understand the consequences of the
changing world. See for example: "Bridging the Gaps: Report on an ecumenical
visit to the USA March 2002 – six months after 9/11 by Churches Together
in Britain and Ireland," May 2002. http://www.ctbi.org.uk/010911/index.htm
and this meeting sought to build
on these previous efforts.
There was a sense among those gathered
at the meeting that immediately following the attack, a window of time opened
during which people from every corner of the world stood with the people of
the United States, sharing their horror, outrage and grief. And there was
a moment in time when the people of the United States stood with the rest
of the world with a new understanding of the horrors of vulnerability many
others had been experiencing long before September 11. The sense of global
community deepened. The window seemed to provide an opportunity for people
to listen to one another and for Americans to recognize US interdependence
with the rest of the world. The sense of global community deepened with the
possibility that a US response to these horrific attacks could lead to a more
just world where all would be more secure. Now this window seems to have closed.
US policy internationally -- particularly
in Afghanistan, the Middle East, and Iraq -- and also domestically has eroded
the goodwill born of the tragedy of September 11 and has alienated many who
were predisposed to stand in solidarity with the United States. In considering
military response, many in the United States feel so violated by the events
of 11 September that no response by the United States would have seemed too
severe. Others are horrified by the intensity of the response and a perception
that undisclosed motives underlie both the choice of aggressive action abroad
and the undermining of constitutional principles at home. The United States
government is seen as embracing a policy of "America first and foremost" and
to be pursuing unilateral policies based on its own self-interest rather than
working to support multilateral efforts to promote the common good.
US churches are still responding
to grief, to broken communities and to the shock of unfamiliar vulnerability,
but some are also beginning to raise larger questions about the meaning of
these events and about US policies in the world. They are grappling with these
many issues without clear consensus within their own countries or among their
leadership. There is also a sense that the influence of US church leaders
has not been felt or, in some cases, sufficiently exercised.
At the meeting, the international
participants expressed their solidarity and support for the pastoral responsibility
of the US churches. However, they also expressed their concern that US policies
intended to respond to terrorism may undermine fundamental responsibilities
in the global system, such as commitment to multilateral actions, respect
for human rights, acceptance of cultural diversity, national sovereignty and
social justice.
Those gathered at this meeting have
chosen to offer the following questions for further reflection by the churches
of the United States and by churches throughout the world through the ecumenical
fellowship of churches. They do so in the conviction that all people of faith
are called to live their lives in a manner consistent with that faith.
Reflections
on the situation of the Churches of the United States
Many people in the United States
continue to grieve, both for those lost directly in the attacks and for the
loss of their sense of security.
· How do churches help people to heal
from grief, hurt and trauma so that they can move toward reconciliation and forgiveness?
· Can individual experience of fear and
vulnerability move us to greater compassion towards all those whose lives have
long been characterized by fear and vulnerability?
· How can the churches help define the
difference between justice and vengeance?
· What is the responsibility of Christians
in the United States to learn about US policies abroad and their consequences?
· In thinking about forgiveness, whom
should we forgive and from whom should we seek forgiveness?
The people killed on September
11, 2001 included citizens of nations from every corner of the globe and adherents
of many different faiths. The US population includes people from nearly every
religion, and race. As the people of the world gathered in prayer, faith communities
were challenged to recognize in one another a common humanity and kindred
spiritual quest. The search for restoration of a sense of security challenges
assumptions about "we" and "they." God's love extends to the whole world.
· How do US churches witness to the Christian
understanding that each and every human being is made in the image and likeness
of God?
· How do Christian churches maintain
the full integrity of faith in Jesus Christ while embracing people of other faith
traditions?
· What can the churches do to promote
inter-religious dialogue as a vehicle to protect and promote human rights of all
people?
· How can churches work together to overcome
the fear of the "other?"
· How should the churches of the United
States engage in dialogue on these issues with other Christian churches and ecumenical
partners?
· What can churches contribute to the
public debate about the use of political discourse to classify some nations or
peoples as "evil?" and to classify ourselves as "good?"
· What does the response of the United
States to September 11 show us about racism, both domestically and in US foreign
policy?
Soon after September 11, the genuine
sense of national unity experienced by many Americans was directed into the
expectation that patriotic citizens would acquiesce to all decisions by the
country's political leaders. Criticism of the government, its actions, direction
or motivation, whether by elected officials, public figures, church leaders
or anyone else, was portrayed as disloyal and unpatriotic.
"Oh Lord, open my lips, and
my mouth will declare your praise." Psalm 51:15.
· How can churches find their prophetic
voice in critiquing policies of the US government during times of uncertainty
and fear?
· Is there danger that 'worship of nation'
has replaced worship of God?
· Has use of the language of religion
and moral authority been manipulated by governmental officials? Does this affect
the authentic voice and moral authority of the churches?
· How can Christians honestly confront
the causes of terrorism without justifying its use?
· What should be the role of the church
when statutory violence is used by government to counter "terrorism" that may
have political, social, religious or economic roots?
The United States embarked on
a war against Afghanistan described as a justified response to the September
11 attacks and is threatening unilateral war against Iraq without consultation
with other countries through the UN Security Council. The United States spends
more on its military than do all of the other nations of the world combined.
Many Americans are questioning the influence of economic and corporate interests
in their political system and their military policies. The international community
fears the unilateral exercise of military power by the world's most powerful
country.
· Do Christians need to re-examine the
long-standing debates on "pacifism" and "just war" in light of the continuing
development of new weapons of mass destruction and the preponderance of bombing
campaigns from the air in recent US military attacks?
· What does "just war" mean in the context
of the present situation? Do US military actions fulfill the criteria of just
war theory? For example, was the military campaign in Afghanistan a proportionate
and just response to the attacks of September 11?
· What is the role of the churches in
responding to current discussions about increasing US security? What are the tradeoffs
for Americans of trying to enhance security?
· What are the consequences for other
countries of US efforts to achieve greater security? What has it meant in places
like the Philippines, Puerto Rico, and the Middle East?
· What is the role of US churches in
speaking about military engagement and intervention by the US government?
· To what extent is US foreign policy
driven by the desire to preserve the wealth of its citizens? What is the relationship
between policies to assure the comfort and well-being of US citizens and poverty
elsewhere?
· Are Christians called to be peacemakers?
What does Christian peace-making mean in today's world? How can churches do more
to lift up peacemaking as an alternative to military action?
The United States sees itself
as having been uniquely injured by "terrorism" on September 11 and thus as
uniquely entitled to retaliate globally and preemptively against terrorism.
Many countries have lived for decades with uncertainty in an atmosphere constantly
at risk from terror. In the United States, September 11, 2001 is seen as a
turning point in international affairs;but in other countries, there are other
turning points, e.g. HIV/AIDS, poverty. The terms "terrorism" and "war on
terrorism" have often been used in other countries and contexts to justify
heightened military activities, violations of human rights and repression
of political dissent.
· How can churches contribute to the
effort to counter terrorism without condoning the brutalization of civil societies?
· What are the similarities between the
actions of 11 September 1973 – when the CIA supported a military coup in
Chile – and the attacks of 11 September 2001? Are there other dates which
mark turning points in our understandings of international events and the exercise
of power?
· How can churches provide a historical
memory of events which have marked turning points in regions without the massive
media coverage which marked the events of 11 September 2001?
· How do churches in areas of the world
that have endured violence and terrorism for decades or generations support the
churches of the United States in their pastoral work with Americans?
· How can churches help to ensure that
all victims of violence are given a voice?
· How should the churches support and
protect non-violent movements for justice and freedom?
The United States is the richest
nation in the world, although there are significant inequalities in the distribution
of that wealth. The ethical and moral justification for policies of the United
States that place the United States and its citizens first as an individual
nation rather than as part of the global community have been called into question
by the international community.
"Truly I tell you, just as
you did it to one of the least of these who are members of my family, you
did it to me." Matthew 25:40.
· What is the relationship of the US
churches to the parable of the rich man and Lazarus? Is it wealth or the indifference
to the suffering of poverty that condemns the rich man in the parable?
· What does the separation of church
and state mean in the current crisis?
· What is the responsibility of the church
in the development and preservation of international law and cooperation?
· How do we find the words and actions
that can change the agendas of politicians?
· Is the United States self-interest
equivalent to the public good?
Conclusion
This is an extraordinary time in
the history of the United States. It is a time that calls the religious community
to articulate a faithful response and to speak truth to power. Christian churches
have a particular message rooted in their understandings of the Gospel and
must not be silent. The power of the churches is not solely in its human institutions
but in the presence, inspiration and grace of God. It is the power of the
Holy Spirit which brings peace and speaks the truth.
This meeting encourages the churches
in the United States to give attention to these and related questions and
concerns as they assess the ongoing response of their government, not only
to the events of September 11, 2001 but also to the exercise of US power in
the world. The way in which this power is exercised has major consequences
for all people living on earth.
Among many such challenges, the discussions
identified a number of areas where further discussion and reflection are needed,
including:
1. The impact of the "war on terrorism"
for human rights and security in the US and abroad
· The erosion of constitutional principles
and civil liberties at home, including the treatment of detainees
· The impact of US policies on human
rights in other countries
· US policies toward states it has identified
as supporters of terrorism, with particular emphasis on Iraq
· The contrast between national security
and global security
2. US policies toward specific countries
directly impacted by the US response to the attacks of 11 September
· Israel and Palestine
· Pakistan and India
· Afghanistan and its efforts to recover
from war
3. National defense and arms control
· The impact of the US assertion of a
right to make preemptive strikes, including with nuclear weapons
· The consequences of US resumption of
nuclear testing
· The effects of US policies toward the
sales of small arms, including to non-state actors
· The impact of diversion of scarce resources
to military forces
· The need to develop alternatives to
war
4. The United States as a member of the
Global Community
· The impact of US unilateral actions
in areas such as the environment, UN conferences, UN peacekeeping operations,
and disarmament for global peace and security
· The effects of US opposition to the
International Criminal Court and weakening of other international treaties
· The extent to which US actions are
undermining international law and global governance
· The perception that the US has abrogated
its moral authority to mercantile interests
Those gathered at this meeting urge
the churches of the United States and the leadership of the churches to engage
in dialogue on these issues and to make the opportunity to consult with and
listen to their ecumenical partners from the international community.
Is this not the fast that I choose:
to loose the bonds of injustice, to undo the thongs of the yoke, to let the oppressed
go free, and to break every yoke?
Is it not to share your bread with
the hungry, and bring the homeless poor into your house; when you see the naked,
to cover them, and not to hide yourself from your own kin?
Then your light shall break forth
like the dawn, and your healing shall spring up quickly; your vindicator shall
go before you, the glory of the Lord shall be your rear guard.
Then you shall call, and the Lord
will answer; you shall cry for help, and he will say, Here I am. If you remove
the yoke from among you, the pointing of the finger, the speaking of evil,
If you offer your food to the hungry
and satisfy the needs of the afflicted, then your light shall rise in the darkness
and your gloom be like the noonday.
The Lord will guide you continually
and satisfy your needs in parched places, and make your bones strong; and you
shall be like a watered garden, like a spring of water, whose waters never fail.
Your ancient ruins shall be rebuilt;
you shall raise up the foundations of many generations; you shall be called the
repairer of the breach, the restorer of streets to live in.
Isaiah 58: 6-12.
List
of Participants
Beyond 11 September:
Implications for US Churches and the World
World Council of Churches
5-6 August 2002
Ms Mia Adjali
UMOUN
777 UN Plaza, 11th fl.
New York, NY 10017
United States of America
Work tel: +1 212-682-3633
Work fax: +1 212-682-5354
eadjali@gbgm-umc.org
Dr Walter Altmann
Evangelical Church of the Lutheran Confession
in Brazil
Rua Pastor Rodolfo Saenger 284
Sao Leopoldo / RS
BR 93035-110
Brazil
Work tel:+55 51 592 6835
Work fax:+55 51 589 6439
waltmann@est.com.br
waltmann@sinos.net
Rev. Dora Arce
Presbyterian Reformed Church in Cuba
Reforma 560 e/Sta.Ana y Sta. Felicia
C. Habana 10700
Cuba
Work tel:+(53 7) 33 96 21
Work fax:+(53 7) 98 48 18
darce@enet.cu
ceprel@ip.etecsa.cu
Mr Liberato Bautista
General Board of Church and Society
777 UN Plaza, 11th fl.
New York, NY 10017
United States of America
Work tel:+1 212 682 3633 ext 3112
Work fax:+1 212 682 5354
levindjeck@msn.com
lbautista@umc-gbcs.org
Rev Oscar Bolioli
PCUSA / National Council of Churches
USA
National Council of Churches USA
475 Riverside Drive, Room 812
New York, NY 10115
United States of America
Work tel: +1 212- 870 24 21
Work fax:+1 212- 870 22 65
obolioli@ncccusa.org
oscar@ncccusa.org
Bishop Stephen P. Bouman
Evangelical Lutheran Church in America
475 Riverside Drive, Suite 1620
New York
NY 10115
United States of America
Work tel:+1 212 665 0732 ext 234
Work fax:+1 212 665 8640
sbouman1@aol.com (c/c jstrunck390@aol.com)
Mr Jim Bowman
Lutheran World Relief, Office of Public
Policy
122 C Street, N.W., 125
Washington D.C. 20001-2172
United States of America
Work tel: +1 212-783-6887
Work fax: +1 212-783-5328
jbowman@igc.org
Mr Dale W. Brown
Church of the Brethren
1101 College Avenue
Elizabethtown, PA 17022
United States of America
Work tel: +1 717 361 9020
Work fax: +1 717 361 1443 (c/o Young
Center)
dwb1926b@aol.com
Mr Vernon S. Broyles, III
Presbyterian Church (USA)
National Ministries Division
100 Witherspoon Street
Rm 4607
Louisville, Kentucky 40202-1396
United States of America
Work tel: +1 502 569 5812
Work fax: +1 502 569 8116
vernonb@ctr.pcusa.org
Mr Daryl J. Byler
MCC U.S. Washington Office
110 Maryland Ave. NE #502
Washington, DC 20002
United States of America
J._Daryl_Byler@mail.mcc.org
Mr Steven Cupic
Office of International Affairs of the
Serbian Orthodox Church in the US and Canada
2311 Street, Suite 402
Washington, DC 20037
United States of America
exec@oea.serbian-church.net
Ms Lois McCullough Dauway
United Methodist Church
Women's Division: General Board of Global
Ministries
United Methodist Church Global Ministries
475 Riverside Drive, #1502
New York, NY 10115
United States of America
Work tel:+1 212 870 37 34
Work fax:+1 212 870 37 36
ldauway@gbgm-umc.org
Ms Marie Dennis
Maryknoll Office for Global Concerns,
Peace, Social Justice and Integrity of Creation
P.O.Box 29132
Washington, D.C. 20017
United States of America
Work tel: +1 202 832-1780
Work fax: +1 202 544-2820
mdennis@maryknoll.org
Mr. Derek Duncan
Middles East & Europe Office
Common Global Ministries Board
United Church of Christ and Christian
Church
700 Prospect Avenue
Cleveland, OH 44115
United States of America
Work tel: +1 216 736 3220
Word fax: +1 216 736 3203
Dr Elizabeth Ferris
World Council of Churches
International Affairs, Peace & Human Security
150, route de Ferney
P.O. Box 2100
1211 Geneva 2
Switzerland
Work tel: +41-22-791 6318 / 791 6111
Work fax: +41-22-791 03 61, 791 4122
Mr Dennis Frado
Lutheran Office for World Community,
Division for Church in Society, ELCA
777 United Nations Plaza
New York, NY 10017-3521
United States of America
Work tel:+1 212 808 5360
Work fax:+1 212 808 5480
dfrado@earthlink.net
Rev. Barbara Gerlach
Justice and Witness Ministries
United Church of Christ
1302 Geranium St. N. W.
Washington, D. C. 20012
United States of America
Work tel: +1 202 726 4382
Work fax:+1 202 347 4911
Gerlachmack@erols.com
Ms Anne Glynn-Mackoul
Greek Orthodox Patriarchate of Antioch
and All the East
25 Gallup Road
Princeton, New Jersey 08540
United States of America
Work tel:+1 609 924 60 47
Work fax:+1 609 279 14 54
aglynnmac@worldnet.att.net
Ms Catherine Gordon
Presbyterian Church (USA)
110 Maryland Avenue, N.E. 104
Washington, D.C. 20002
United States of America
Work tel:+ 1 202 543-1126
Work fax: +1 202 543-7755
cgordon@ctr.pcusa.org
Rev. Canon Brian J. Grieves
Director, Peace and Justice Ministries
The Episcopal Church Center
815 Second Avenue
New York, NY 10017
United States of America
Work tel: +1 800 334 7626
Work fax: +1 212 490 6684
Bgrieves@episcopalchurch.org
Mr. Gabriel Habib
Greek Orthodox Patriarchate of Antioch
and All the East / National Council of Churches in the USA
5500 Holmes Run
Parkway
Alexandria, VA 22304
United States of America
Work tel: +1 703 751 5844
Work fax: +1 703 751 5844
gaby@ncccusa.org
Mr Chris Hobgood
Christian Church (Disciples of Christ)
11501 Georgia Avenue
Wheaton, MD 20902
United States of America
Work tel: +1 301-942 8266
Work fax: +1 301-942 8366
chobccca@aol.com
Ms Mary Yoder Holsopple
Peace and Justice Collaborative
3003 Benham Avenue
Elkhart, IN 46517
United States of America
Work tel:+1 574 596 6276
mholsopple@ambs.edu
Mr Victor Hsu
Church World Service and Witness
475 Riverside Drive, Room 700
New York, NY 10115
United States of America
Work tel:+1.212 770 23 73
Work fax:+1.212 870.35.23
vhsu@churchworldservice.org
Mr Philip Jenks
US Office - World Council of Churches
475 Riverside Drive, Room 915
New York, NY 10115
United States of America
Work tel:+212 870 3193
Work fax:+212 870 2528
pej@wcc-coe.org
Mr Clement John
World Council of Churches
International Affairs, Peace & Human Security
150, route de Ferney
P.O. Box 2100
1211 Geneva 2
Switzerland
Work tel: +41-22-791 6317 /6041
Work fax: +41-22-791 6122
Mrs Carmencita Karagdag
National Council of Churches in the Philippines
879 Epifanio de los Santos Avenue
Quezon City, Manila
Philippines
Work tel:+63 2 928 86 36
Work fax:+63 2 926 70 76
cpk@philonline.com
Ms Kathleen Kern
Representative of the Mennonite Church
USA
293 Brooksboro Dr.
Webster, NY 14580
United States of America
Work tel:+1 585-265-4313
Work fax:+1 585-265-4313
kk@igc.org
Mr John Langmore
ILO Liaison Office to the UN
220 E. 42nd Street, Suite 3101
New York, NY 10017
United States of America
Work tel: +1 212 697 3030
Work fax: +1212 963 3062
langmore@ilo.org
Ms Mary Lord
American Friends Service Committee
1501 Cherry Street
Philadelphia, PA 19102
United States of America
Work tel: +1 215 241 7000
Work fax: + 215 241 7000
Mlord@afsc.org
Dr Janice Love
United Methodist Church
419 Edisto Avenue
Columbia, SC 29205
United States of America
Work tel:+1 803 777 7363,
+1 803 799 4332
Work fax:+1 803 777 0213,
+1 803 777 8255
love.jan@gwm.sc.edu
Rev. Dr Victor Makari
Presbyterian Church (USA)
100 Witherspoon Street
Room 4412
Louisville, KY 40202-1396
Work tel:+1 502 569 5314 /+1 888 728
7227 ext 5324
Work fax:+1 502 569 8039/8040
victorm@pcusa.org
Ms. Kim Mc Dowel
Church of the Brethren
4413 Tuckerman Street
Hyattville, MD 20782
United States of America
Work tel: +1 301 864 4328
Upcob@aol.com
Dr Belle Miller McMaster
Presbyterian Church (USA)
52 Lakeshore Drive
Avondale Estate, GA 30002
United States of America
Work tel: +1 404 - 284 6676
Work fax: +1 404 - 727 2494
mmbruegg@aol.com
Ms Jennifer Morazes
US Office - World Council of Churches
475 Riverside Drive, Room 915
New York, NY 10115
United States of America
Work tel: +1 212 870 2522
Work fax: +1 212 870 2528
Ms Abla Nasir
YWCA Palestine
P.O.Box 20044
Wadil joz Street, Cheikh Jarrah Quarter
Jerusalem
Israel
Work tel: +972 2 628 2593 or 6282 087
Work fax: +972 2 6284 654
abla@ywca-palestine.org
Archbishop Condrea Nicolae
Romanian Orthodox Church
Windsor
Canada
Work tel: +1 519 948 0818
Work fax: +1 519 948 0818
corincondrea@hotmail.com
The Rev Renta Nishihara
The Anglican Church in Japan
1-12-31-B1 Yoga
Setagaya-ku
Tokyo 158 0097
Japan
Work tel:+81 3-3701-8324
Work fax:+81 3-3701-8324
renta@rikkyo.ne.jp
Ms Wendy Patten
U. S. Advocacy Director
Human Rights Watch
1630 Connecticut Ave., N. W., Suite 500
Washington, D. C. 20009
Work tel:+1 202 612 4349
Work fax:+1 202 612 4333
Pattenw@hrw.org
Ms. Susan Peacock
1940 Biltmore St., NW, #2
Washington D.C., 20009
United States of America
Work tel: +1 202 797 1076
Susancpeacock@earthlink.net
Mr Ernie Regehr
Project Ploughshares
Institute of Peace & Conflict Studies
Conrad Grebel College, University of
Waterloo ON N2L 3G6
Canada
Work tel:+1 519 888 6541 x263
Work fax:+1 519 885 0806
eregehr@ploughshares.ca
Mr Paul Renshaw
Churches Together in Britain and Ireland
35-41 Lower Marsh
London SE1 7SA
United Kingdom
Work tel:+ 44 20 7523 2112
Work fax:+ 44 20 7928 0010
paul.renshaw@ctbi.org.uk
Ms Barbara Ricks Thompson
National Council of Churches of Christ
USA
1121 University Blvd. West, #1005
Silver Spring, MD 20902
United States of America
Work tel: 1 301 649 1160
Beerix@aol.com
Bishop Mano Rumalshah
U.S.PG
Parternship House
157 Waterloo
London SE1 8UU
United Kingdom
Work tel:+44 171 92 88681
manor@uspg.org.uk
Rev. Eunice Santana
Christian Church (Disciples of Christ)
P.O Box 2244
Arecibo
Puerto Rico
Work tel:+1 787 878 5427
Work fax:+1 787 880 9287
santaniza@aol.com
Ms Sandy Sorensen
United Church of Christ
110 Maryland Ave., Suite 207
Washington, D.C. 20002
Sorenses@ucc.org
Rev. Angelique Walker-Smith
National Baptist Convention USA
Church ederation of Indianapolis
1100 West 42nd Street, Suite 345
Indianapolis, IN 46208
United States of America
Work tel: +1 317 926 5371
Work fax:: +1 317 926 5373
Bishop C. Dale White
United Methodist
117 Eustis Ave
Newport, RI 02840
United States of America
Work tel: +1 401 847 3419
dwhite12@earthlink.net
Ms Lisa Wright
Church World Service and Witness
110 Maryland Ave., N.E. #108
Washington, DC 20002
United States of America
Work tel: +1 202 544 2350
Work fax: +1 202 543 1297
lwright@churchworldservice.org
Back to Behind the news
Back to International Affairs, Peace & Human Security homepage