Too many churches seem afraid to speak out against the injustices carried out in the name of the war against terrorism. Perhaps some are afraid of being associated with terrorism. Depending on one's identity and location, such charges could mean anything from the discomfort of marginalisation to serious legal consequences, even death. Americans may believe that any form of dissent is disloyal when one's country has been attacked. In cases where people of faith have spoken out, one ponders whether we have been bold enough.

Shortly after the September 11 attacks, US Christian, Muslim and Jewish clergy issued a statement insisting, "We must not, out of anger and vengeance, indiscriminately retaliate in ways that bring on even more loss of innocent life." The statement concluded with a call to "rededicate ourselves to glo-bal peace, human dignity, and the eradication of injustice that breeds rage and vengeance." (1) Although signed by over 2,500 religious leaders, making it one of the most inclusive religious statements ever released, it received little publicity. Many US media outlets are corporately owned and dissenting voices are not given a hearing. Yet I have to wonder if the statement would have received more publicity if it had been accompanied by bold action. What might these actions have been? Would they have influenced public opinion positively? Or would they be perceived as the work of "extremists" sympathetic to terrorism?

A crucial task, particularly for churches, is to help people reflect on our fears and desires. I suspect it is at this point that I speak especially to other Americans, but these concerns are relevant beyond our borders. In the US, too many of us have a sense of American exceptionalism, of being the nation which can be free of fear and insecurity. As we work through the grief and anger we feel about the September 11 attacks, we need to put our experience into historical and global perspective. People of faith and good will from other parts of the world can help us reflect on what policies and actions of our government may have contributed to hostility against us. This ranges from increasing knowledge of the history of US military intervention to awareness building about the impact of the US government's external economic policies.

Of particular concern are "structural adjustment programmes" (SAPs), which function as structures of economic violence bringing suffering and death to too many of the world's people. Thousands of children die needlessly each day due to malnutrition or lack of access to clean drinking water and basic medical care. These children likely live in countries that have been required by the IMF to cut back on social spending, shift from subsistence agriculture to export-production, and privatise, deregulate, and liberalise their economies (key elements of "the Washington consensus" and the neoliberal agenda).

SAPs increase both poverty and women's workload. Girls may leave school to take up part of this increased load, with long-term negative consequences. Sociologist Saskia Sassen calls this situation "the feminisation of survival". These economic policies also contribute to widening gaps between the wealthy and poor (within countries and between countries), increased migration, disruption of In-digenous communities, and ecological degradation. Those of us in the North need to take seriously the claim of people from the South that structural adjustment programmes and the larger neoliberal agenda are forms of recolonisation. The reality they experience contrasts sharply with the rhetorical commitment of the US and other northern countries to democracy, human rights, and women's rights. (3)

damage from even a "small" nuclear war are unthinkable. Physicians for Social Responsibility rightly claim this would constitute a "crime against humanity". Even if these weapons are never used, their production entails immense social and environmental costs. Another arms race could be ignited, which would drain even more funds from meeting basic needs, for health and education, and other econ-omic justice programmes.

Clearly, there are more effective and humane ways to provide security against terrorism. At the recent UN Conference on Financing for Development, Sierra Leone development minister Kadi Sesay pointed out that "a lot of conflicts around the world now have an underlying cause, which is poverty". This should be a matter of serious concern to rich countries, if "they want global peace and stability". (5) From her point of view, development assistance from rich countries is a responsibility owed not just to the poor but also to their own citizens.

In proposing to increase US development aid funds, President Bush offered a similar argument. Although he noted that "poverty doesn't cause terrorism", he acknowledged that "persistent poverty and oppression can lead to hopelessness and despair". He added that "when governments fail to meet the most basic needs of their people, these failed states can become havens for terror," giving Afghanistan as an example. (6) However, his proposed increase in development aid has strings attached - political and economic reforms that are part of the neoliberal agenda.

This presents a dual challenge for churches and non-governmental organisations working for social and economic justice. Since president Bush stated soon after the September 11 attacks that "if you are not with us you are against us," groups who challenge the conduct of the "war against terrorism" risk being associated with terrorism. Now that he has linked the neoliberal economic agenda to the fight against terrorism, groups who question this agenda, whether in terms of conditions for development aid or expansion of NAFTA to all of the Americas, also risk being associated with terrorism.

Clearly, these are difficult times for those of us seeking peace with justice. I suggest, though, that we resist fear and intimidation and speak and act boldly. We must shift the terms of the debate from "who is against us because they are not with us" to "what can we do together to build more just and sustainable communities". This is not an easy task. Those of us seeking economic justice must sharpen our analysis of the failures of neoliberalism and clarify our alternative vision. Churches and other groups in civil society must take the lead in asking what really contributes to human security. We need to develop our networks and collaborate more effectively in our efforts to shift the agenda of international institutions (some would dismantle them) like the IMF, World Bank, and WTO from growth to equity and sustainability. We must strengthen our grassroots organising and coalition building to include all those from various religious traditions - or none - searching for peace with justice.

It is crucial that women speak out on these issues. We must ensure that women are included in organising and decision-making as our experience of poverty and conflict is not the same as that of men. Too often, we bear the brunt of economic and other forms of violence as class exploitation, racial/ethnic oppression, and patriarchy intersect. We bring innovative ways of addressing conflict. We want to take our rightful place in church and society, in movements for peace with justice. Without our participation, those who seek economic justice lack significant and effective partners. We will work to see that there is food enough for all, that no country's military budget is greater than its combined health and education budgets. We are tenacious in our desire to end all forms of violence, to ensure human security for all.(7)"

Dr Pamela Brubaker is associate professor of Christian ethics at California Lutheran University.

Notes

1. See "Deny Them Their Victory: A Religious Response to Terrorism", Sojourners (November/December 2001), 26 or www.sojo.net.

2. Only Denmark, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, Norway, and Sweden meet or exceed the 0.7% of GNP target for official development aid set by the UN. The average is 0.22% of the GNP of the industrialised countries; in 2000 this came to about $56 billion. Compare this to the $400-some billion spent on advertising, or the more than $700 billion of military spending. Aid data from Kjell Magne Bondevik and others, "Official Development Aid: The rich countries will have to do better," International Herald Tribune, March 21, 2002. For an insightful analysis of this issue, see www.realityofaid.org.

3. Saskia Sassen, "Women's Burden: Counter-Geographies of Globalisation and the Feminisation of Survival", Journal of International Affairs 53, no. 2 (Spring 2000): 503-24. My own awareness-building of the impact of these policies began with testimony I heard at the NGO Forum held during the 1985 United Nations Decade for Women Conference in Nairobi, Kenya. It was deepened by a WCC-sponsored Women-to-Women visit in Uganda and participation in the End of the Decade of the Churches in Solidarity with Women Celebration in Harare, Zimbabwe in November of 1998.

4. See the report at Physicians for Social Responsibility, http://www.psr.org/NPRfactsheet.html.

5. Quoted in Alan Beattie and John Authers, "Delegate puts aid donors on trail along with poor nations", Financial Times, March 25, 2002.

6. Quoted in Edwin Chen, "Bush Proposes Major Boost in Development Aid", Los Angeles Times, March 15, 2002.

7. I am drawing here on the statement from the "Peace with Justice: Women Speak Out" Consultation, March 17-20, 2002, sponsored by the World Council of Churches, Lutheran World Federation, World Alliance of Reformed Churches, and the Council of European Churches, in which I was a participant.