Liza Featherstone’s article, “Peace Gets a Chance,” provides a helpful overview of the various coalitions being formed to protest America’s regrettable foreign policy decisions of late. The largest gathering in America so far was on October 6 in New York City, where 20,000 assembled as a response to Bush’s call for war. Strange that such a large gathering took place and I’d heard nothing of it, particularly when I live in a culture dominated by the liberal media. I guess it’s true what they say about a tree falling in a forest.
To me, the most interesting part of the piece is this quote from Global Exchange‘s Jason Mark, who claims that the challenge now is to oppose “the idea of American empire without sounding like 1970s leftists. People don’t want to sound off-the-wall, but the words ’empire’ and ‘imperialism’ are fair game because they’re using them.” With the failures of, first, the New Left, then the collapse of Communism, the left has been struggling for some time now to find a practical approach to global issues, one that acknowledges the potentially positive influence of capitalism without surrendering its progressive stance on humanitarian issues. As a child of the 80s, I’m beginning to feel something like excitement for the first time, guarded but hopeful that a popular movement — one with a moral foundation and genuine political substance — might coalesce in response to America’s economic (and now militaristic) imperialism.
On a whim, I googled “Christian peace movement,” which returned a fascinating assortment of sites. Of particular note are Pax Christi: The International Catholic Movement for Peace and The Quaker Peace and Social Witness Programme. Both links will take you to statements on Iraq — both from a British perspective and both well worth reading. The following is the final paragraph from Pax Christi’s statement:
It is our considered view that an attack on Iraq would be both immoral and illegal, and that eradicating the dangers posed by malevolent dictators and terrorists can be achieved only by tackling the root causes of the disputes themselves. It is deplorable that the world’s most powerful nations continue to regard war and the threat of war as an acceptable instrument of foreign policy, in violation of the ethos of both the United Nations and Christian moral teaching. The way to peace does not lie through war but through the transformation of structures of injustice and of the politics of exclusion, and that is the cause to which the West should be devoting its technological, diplomatic and economic resources.
By the way, Stark hasn’t been the only person making noise on Capitol Hill. I seldom find the motivation to watch C-Span, but lately I’ve been riveted by Senator Robert Byrd’s eloquent, impassioned speeches in defense of the Constitution and its separation of powers. I’ve grown quite fond of that man, who seems now to be the only member of the Senate (on either side of the aisle) that respects history and understands the inevitable consequences of recent decisions. Here’s a tasty snippet from his comments of October 3:
As James Madison wrote in 1793, “In no part of the constitution is more wisdom to be found, than in the clause which confides the question of war or peace to the legislature, and not to the executive department. Beside the objection to such a mixture to heterogeneous powers, the trust and the temptation would be too great for any one man….”
Congress has a responsibility to exercise with extreme care the power to declare war. There is no weightier matter to be considered. A war against Iraq will affect thousands if not tens of thousands of lives, and perhaps alter the course of history. It will surely affect the balance of power in the Middle East. It is not a decision to be taken in haste, under the glare of election year politics and the pressure of artificial deadlines. And yet any observer can see that that is exactly what the Senate is proposing to do. . . .
The President is using the Oval Office as a bully pulpit to sound the call to arms, but it is from Capitol Hill that such orders must flow. The people, through their elected representatives, must make that decision. It is here that debate must take place and where the full spectrum of the public’s desires, concerns, and misgivings must be heard. We should not allow ourselves to be pushed into one course or another in the face of a full court publicity press from the White House. We have, rather, a duty to the nation and her sons and daughters to carefully examine all possible courses of action and to consider the long term consequences of any decision to act.
And finally, congrats to Karen, et al, on the relaunch of Beyond Magazine. Good luck.