The Cruel and the Unusual
By Andrew
Baker
At least 500,000 Iraqi
children under five have died since 1990 as a result of the sanctions against
Iraq and the effects of the Gulf War.
A
report by the UN states:
In addition to the
scarcity of resources, malnutrition problems also seem to stem from the massive
deterioration in basic infrastructure, in particular in the water-supply and
waste disposal systems. The most vulnerable groups have been the hardest hit,
especially children under five years of age who are being exposed to unhygienic
conditions, particularly in urban centers. The [World Food Program] estimates
that access to potable water is currently 50 percent of the 1990 level in urban
areas and only 33 percent in rural areas.[1]
In facing the cold reality of the situation a
Mennonite friend of mine who works at the United Nations recently conversed
with me. I pointed out that Stanley
Hauerwas in a lecture at Duke University made the claim that during the Vietnam
war, for pacifists to be honest they would have to admit that even though
pulling out US troops from Vietnam would have led to the slaughter of everyone
who supported the United States, that it was morally the right thing to
do. In other words, pacifism does not
guarantee less violence, but is sometimes the most violent option.
In
light of the situation of sanctions and this statement my friend asked, “Is it
not better that we just attack Iraq and get it over with rather than prolong
sanctions for many years and multiply the suffering of innocent Iraqis?”[2] The underlying assumption here is that we
need to do the least violent thing that saves the most lives.
The first question I have in response is who is
“we”? Do you mean “we” as in
“Americans” meaning every single individual American? Or only the American government and the politicians and soldiers
within that government? Or do you mean
“we” as in every person from the wide world who is bent on doing something to
Iraq, such as Great Britain (which then brings up the previous question of “who
is Great Britain?”)? Or do you
mean “we” as in you and I, “we” Christians?
The importance of getting the pronoun precise is not
a small matter. For the question
assumes a Constantinian stance. It
assumes that “we” when taken to mean the sum total of each individual as an
ethical agent has the social power to do what is required. The “we” in the question, in other words, is
a Constantinian “we”; it is a “we” latent with political and military
power. It assumes that “we” have the
luxury of calculating alternatives and favor one option above the other, in
which “we” dole out and withhold power and death. “We” Mennonites do not have that social prowess, and neither do
any biblically faithful Christians.
So clearly the “we” cannot mean, “biblically faithful
Christians.” We are simply not in a
position to decide one way or the other.
So how then do we speak of these wars and rumors of
wars? Are we then relegated, as the
Neibuhr’s claimed, to some sort of irrelevant ethic, in which we have nothing
to say about such public matters?
Absolutely not. The
ghetto-counter-culture of the church is not irrelevant to societal problems
such as these rumors of war. But it is
not a Constantinian relevancy.
It is a ghetto relevancy.
We have something to say, and that is first and foremost, everyone ought
to be Christian. Every single person is
called to come out and be a part of God’s foretaste of the eschatological
city.
Secondly we have a social critique to
communicate. We are able to calculate
the claims as such that it is less violent (and therefore means less suffering)
to attack then to prolong sanctions.
The sanctions on Iraq are the result of bombings. The bombings themselves have killed
thousands of people, destroyed the infrastructures that are now causing the
deaths of the people. It is not the
sanctions that have caused the deaths of nearly a million Iraqi people, it is
the initial bombing of the water supply, the sewage treatment systems, the schools, and the
hospitals, and
other infrastructure in Iraq.
Can you and I seriously believe that attacking this
nation with more bombs will cause less suffering? The little bit of infrastructure that has been rebuilt will
likely be bombed again, only causing more death. Need I even mention that a certain percentage of bombs dropped
are guaranteed to miss there target and kill children, and other people who do
not have anything to do with the government of Iraq?
Thirdly I want to point out that when the United
States government bombs a nation and attempts to set up a puppet government,
suffering has not historically been alleviated but has heightened. Let us take Afghanistan at present. Whatever one thinks of the Taliban, they
brought stability to the region. There
was not warlord fighting and chaos in the streets before the US bombing
campaign. A Christian Peacemaker Team
delegation to Afghanistan in December and January 2002 reported that in one
night there were 70 armed robberies that were reported. There have also been
cases of car-jackings by the Northern Alliance, killings, and young women being
taken while walking down the street for “marriages.” Doug and Gene were unable
to travel more than a few miles between provinces because of the “checkpoints”
on the roads operated by bandits at which they steal, kidnap, physically harm
and sometimes kill travelers. Does this
sound like “less violence?”
Let
me give another example to show this is not an anomaly. An article on Znet makes the case for me:
“The CIA-backed assassination of Patrice Lumumba of the Congo in 1960 made way
for the 32-year reign of terror by the former dictator Joseph Mobutu, later
Mobutu Sese Seko. The 1954 coup in Guatemala led to 35 years of civil war that
left more than 140,000 dead.”[3]
Not only should this dispel the myth that US
intervention by attacking governments will create less suffering, but it should
dispel a new claim made by the government when they declared that the CIA would
have the official and public go ahead to assassinate foreign leaders such as
Saddam: the claim is that the CIA can bring the less violent solution.
Military intervention, assassinations, etc have not
been less violent solutions historically.
The consequences of such actions are usually ambivalent before hand, and
historically these consequences have not meant less suffering but more.
A Christian witness to the state then is to proclaim
this type of social critique throughout the world (and we could go much much
further). To speak such criticism does
not entail a Constantinian stance.
Speaking the truth does not mean setting up a “Christian” government or
reforming it with “Christian” principles.
The “we” here assumes a ghetto stance, a viewpoint from the other, from
the enemy. What this does is call the
statesman to take a step of faith, to take a step towards the Gospel call to
love one’s enemies.
A
Christian might also give an alternative to sanctions and to bombing. How about opening up dialogue? This seeking to eliminate everyone who
opposes you is ridiculous. The church
has a practice of hospitality, in which we seek to be friends with strangers,
to welcome the other and seek the possibility that even though we are different
we can agree on something. The problem
is that we are talking about systems here, and not individuals. The systems (the nation-states) have control
over us and necessitate that those in power not dialogue but kill each other in
their attempts to expand and take control of more and more lives. We need not dialogue between nation-states,
but between people.
What the US President says when he shuts down
dialogue is that he cannot talk to anyone.
It is the president who has no ability to talk things out. The US does not apologize no matter what the
facts are, but a Christian does. And
Mr. Bush as an individual needs to hear this.
God give him wind of it.
Andrew Baker currently works with the mentally disabled in
New York City. He is a Mennonite and is active in his local congregation. He
has a BA in theology from Wheaton College and is currently considering seminary
studies.
[1] United Nations, "Report of the Second Panel Pursuant to the Note by the President of the Security Council of 30 January 1999 (S/1999/100), Concerning the Current Humanitarian Situation in Iraq," Annex II, S/1999/356, March 30, 1999, p. 6, article 20.
[2] My fellow Mennonite was asking this question to consider an argument not because he believes we should attack. However some people think we should attack based on this type of argument.