Dealing with it all

I have written and rejected several posts over the past few days.  The shooting in Connecticut has been deeply troubling to me, and I wanted to respond soon after, but found myself unable to make a coherent statement.  So I suppose that I should just remind you to pray, or ponder, or meditate on the lives of everyone deeply affected by this event.  In fact, having read this far, I would ask to to pause briefly and collect your thoughts.
       ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
To date, I have put the prospect for peace in a neat package, with the optimistic, yet I feel sound, belief that we are evolving to a peaceful world.  I can rationalize this belief by pointing to the better governance of nations, the growing access to simple human rights, and, assuming that we are good custodians of the planet, better access to resources.  The process is easy to grasp, but hard to bring about.  That's OK, it is good to have a purpose in life.

I had thought a great deal about what happens when we start to get a handle on the horrendous conflagrations, protracted civil wars to attain dignity to the downtrodden, and all manner of large scale conflict.  Although we have a great mountain to move in that regard, there is still work to be done.  Sadly, we cannot build the bigger peace all the while ignoring our own communities and families.  As I have  said before, peacemaking starts at the personal level and wells up from there.  As we advance civilization beyond wars we will not have a truer sense of peace until we can address the community tragedies that mat be as horrific as in Newtown, Connecticut, or the scourge of domestic abuse, or the violence common among the marginalized in our society.

Yet, if we hold to th principles of a larger world peace,and apply them to our communities, we will see less violence on streets, in schools and in families.  To be sure, we will never eliminate the tragedy of mental illness, or the occasional violent consequences; we probably cannot truly eliminate a social stratification scheme that pushes vulnerable people to the margins, and compels them to lash out; we cannot make every home idyllic.  But we can take determined steps to approach peace for everyone.

There is much more wrong with our stewardship of our communities than manifested itself in the Newton killings.  But if I may, I will address some of the things that might be done which will allow us to avoid some similar events in the future:

• Prioritize mental health - The news reports are awash with our broken mental health infrastructure.  This infrastucture must be rebuilt and cared for.  We also need to care more for one another, and reach out to the lonely, the sad, the bullied, and the poor.  Remember, I said it begins with us as individuals.
• Work for gun control - It's no secret that there is a large segment of society that opposes any gun control.  Often, I find the rhetoric and political tactics of those who would reject all limits of gun ownership as distasteful and dishonest.  Reasonable control of devices designed to kill should be the responsibility of any society.
• Be active - Let your elected representatives at all levels of government know that there is a public safety responibility that they bear, and that we are willing to work with them if they will lead us in building communities which apply common sense laws and reach out to those most at risk as victims of violence, including those driven to cause violence through irrational or desparate means.

Peace to you all.  Please accept my Christmas blessings whether you share in my belief or not.  If you remain troubled, as I do, about this tragic killing, know that you will also see great joy again.

Talking to Iran

I’m going to try to finish my thought on US-Iran prospects for peace tonight.  It’s a good time to reflect, as everyone in the US is preoccupied with domestic budgetary issues (the so-called fiscal cliff), and the Gaza crisis has cooled off.  Sadly, the day following his world premiere into international diplomacy, Egypt’s President Morsi decided he wanted to be the new Nasser, and gave himself extraordinary powers.  I still admire his role is stopping the killing, but what is wrong with Egyptian leadership? 

The new Gaza crisis underscores the fragility of the region, and Iran’s role in making it that way.  But here’s the problem.  If you want to tie all that stuff to talks with Iran, or if Iran does, talks will bog down and stop.  We should be prepared to try to discuss the US-Iran relationship irrespective of Israel, the Palestinians, Hamas, Syria, Iraq, and all of that  We can tell Iran that if they want to discuss regional strategic policy with us, we first need to develop a two way understanding.

Both sides have work to do.  From the US side, we need to acknowledge that we have done a great deal to thwart Iranian national goals, as the primary underwriter of the Shah, and developing the concept of revolutionary Iran as an enemy of the US, using rhetoric like ‘Axis of Evil’ to describe them (well with a couple of other state entities we had issues with).  After thirty years of rule by the Islamic Republic, we should tell them that it is not on our agenda to overturn the Republic, regardless of serious disagreements.

Iran needs to respond in kind, recognizing that we are a nation with a pluralistic culture, part of which embraces Islam among a vast number of other ideas.  We are neither immoral nor amoral.  We need assurances of whatever type they can honestly reply, that they are not going to disrupt the status quo through violent means.

If this beginning feels too ethereal, please understand the amount of hatred which has been hurled both ways.  This basic discussion is to stop the poisonous atmosphere, so that we can lay a groundwork for peace.

With such prerequisite understandings achieved, we need to appeal to Iran over the benefits of non-proliferation.  We need to discuss this with humility as the super-power with the largest stockpile of nuclear weapons, and we need to acknowledge that as a result we are forced into a terrible responsibility to never again use them in aggression.  If we were to hear Ayatollah Khamenai speak to this moral trap of nuclear weapon possession, then we begin to unwrap the distrust.

In the short term, these talks do little.  If they get Iran to adhere to UN resolutions on enrichment, we can start to unwind the sanctions, and stop discussing ‘red lines’.  Even if we don’t achieve that much, we have the basis for a relationship that isn’t based on mutual hatred.  Let the hawks laugh at this as a ‘soft’ approach, but I cannot imagine a path forward from ‘hard-liners’ in any countries achieving better results.

Peace to all of you.

Hope

Today I’m going to take a break from the troubles of today’s world and dwell on an important topic:  Hope

Of all of the higher thought processes we are endowed with, the idea of hope is unique, and perhaps is one of the most important concepts that cause humanity to stand separate from the rest of the known universe.

Hope is a highly evolved concept, because it is purely forward looking.  Before we can have a sense of hope, we need to imagine different futures, and make discernment over the best outcomes.  It is also my observation that when people make outward proclamations of hope, they tend to be heavily weighed toward what we would universally describe as good; a good in the moral sense that also seems to be uniting in raising humanity.

Hope and Peace are inseparable.  The state of our global community is not a state of Peace, though thankfully, most people in the world enjoy a modicum of peace in their personal lives.  When we look ahead to the lives of our children, we discuss their futures in terms of our hopes for them.  Invariably, people invoke peace as a hope for their children and grandchildren.  This is true in the relative safety of Massachusetts, where I live and write from, as it is in Gaza, Sudan, Syria or anyplace else where one would think that Hope would be hard to come by.

Hope makes us ambitious.  It is Hope that informs us that Peace is so much more than safety from violence, but a sense of security, fairness, access to basic needs and rights, and the desire to perpetuate that deeper understanding of Peace.

Hope grows.  It springs from a passing wish of how things could be, and germinates into a belief of how things should be.  Beyond that it becomes inspiration, where we make that transformation from how things should be to how things will be.  Several months ago, I stated that I believe humanity is on a long road toward true Peace.  Whether, as I believe, a divine guidance leads us there, or if you prefer, the natural ascendancy of mankind makes it inevitable, you can draw the same conclusion. 

Informed, perhaps, by my assertion of eventual peace, it is a wellspring for Hope, that we may see it begin during our lives.  If we are destined to wander in the desert of War for our lifetimes, perhaps we will be graced in our final days by a glimpse of that promise on the far side of the river, comforted that it is the inheritance of our children, who will pass over into a world of Peace.

About Iran and the Gaza Crisis

The day Hamas launched long-range rockets toward Israeli population centers I had tried to post using the comment section under last week's post.  Sadly, my sketchy tech abilities weren't turned on that day I guess, because it never showed up.  OK, maybe a few days' reflection will help me sort through this ugly development.

If you've been a frequent reader, you'll know that I try very hard to maintain a neutral position.  After all, we ultimately need to get everyone together if we're going to have peace.  Sadly, I found that an even-handed approach is not always going to be the best policy.  Regarding the Sudan/South Sudan problems I ultimately got very frustrated trying to avoid criticism of Sudan's President Bashir in the face of outrageous behavior. His South Sudan counterpart, President Kir, was also unneccesarily belligerent, so the whole crisis was a demoralizing display of leadership.

Today's Gaza crisis is larger, and the cast of badly behaving characters is long, and very closely ties to the US-Iran issues that I have been writing about.  What I intend to do today, is to call out the bad policy from all sides, and establish some of my personal biases.  I have no intent of being particularly partisan to one warring faction over the other, and I will try to avoid labelling anyone, but some frank discussion is due here.

I'll take on the state of Israel, and PM Netanyahu first.  I want to be clear that Israel's existence, it's right to be free from violent threats, and it's right to engage in defensive military actions to assert it's rights and the safety of Israeli citizens is just.  From that perspective, Israel has acted justly over the past several days in response to rocket attacks from Gaza.  The air strikes to disarm Hamas and the threatened land invasion are akin to disarming a dangerous person to prevent further harm.  They have not yet reached a point of unjust retaliation.

Sadly, the story is far more complex than stating Israel's right to defend.  Israeli policy of a Gaza blockade has been unjust, and has caused terrible suffering.  Gaza has been, effectively the world's largest prison for several years.  Further, the Netanyahu administration, and the Sharon administration before it, have myopically seen the status quo, where Israel dictates the fate of Palestinians without regard for their rights, as a seemingly permanent state of affairs.

Israel needs to realize that the dignity and autonomy of the Palestinian people is the only long-range strategy that will yield peace.  I am confident that this will be the outcome  at some point in the future,but I would be very happy if Israel would gain some clarity in this regard.

Secondly, I will address Hamas.  I think it is a disservice to everyone to continue to label Hamas as a terrorist organization, and therefore beyond the reach of diplomacy.  They are the democratically elected governmnt of Gaza, regardless of their previous atrocities and their disturbing view of a future Middle East.  Israel and the US have been responsible for empowering Hamas through 'get tough' approaches, which have driven the Palestinians to them for support.

Hamas has acted reprehensively since taking over the government of Gaza.  If Israel has been myopic in their treatment of Palestinians over the past several years*, it is largely because Hamas has stolen their eyeglasses.  They have been violent and unyielding, and can take blame for the shedding of blood in Gaza today.  They need to be negotiated with because they are Gaza's government, but no concession needs to be made in bad faith.  Hamas must either acknowledge a realistic path forward to a peaceful world, or understand that continued belligerence will perpetuate misery and death.  Only they can answer the question of whether they can volve to leaders with their people's interest in mind, or an ugly by-product of poverty and injustice that will need to be resected.

Thirdly, my own country, the US, needs to be considered.  The US is well intentioned, but our self professed dual roles as defender of Israel, and brokers for peace are probably untenable.  For this reason and for internal political reasons, the world's great superpower comes to the table looking like a stumbling oaf.

The pro-Israel lobby in the US has done a great service to the cause of justice and peace, by keeping us in mind of our commitment to defending Israel's right to exist.  It is a matter of good statesmanship to keep our promises and remember our friends.  What we fail to do, however, is to maintain a reasonable sense of arm's-length separation, and advise our friend when they need to consider peace with far more assertion.  The same pro-Israel lobby screams that we are appeasers, or somehow weak if we criticizethe Israeli government, when in fact we could be helping steer them toward a more moderate approach to the Palestinian's that would ultimately be beneficial.  It is also illegal for US representatives to talk to Hamas because they are 'terrorists', leaving us no one to deal with on one side of the table, unless we prefer to pretend that Fatah represents the people of Gaza.

It frustrates me that my country can intend such good, and miss the mark so widely.

Fourth, I will take up the case of Iran.  The current Iranian government may be as bad as we fear they are.  Certainly some of the current 'hard-liners' would relish posessing nuclear weapons, and if fact may be of a mind to use them in anger.  They may be actively working toward these prospects.  If they aren't the primary supporters of Hamas' outrages, and the material source for their medium range missiles, then I would be geatly surprised.  This makes Iran at least as culpable as Israel for locking the people of Gaza behind barbed wire.  Let me be clear.  I am accusing Iran of war-mongering.  I am also advocating negotiations with them.

The regime of President Ahmadinejad will be gone soon.  Engagement with Iran is not only possible, but crucial, and the likelihood of reasonable talks is greatly increased with a new presidency.  Contrary to our pervasive view in the US, fueled by the 1978 revolution, our best chance at peaceful ties with Iran may come from Ayatollah Khamenai, the religious leader in Iran.  The Islamic leaders have been distrustful of their government's prospect of using nuclear weapons, and the ethical concerns of such weapons in general.  The religious leadership might be profoundly different than the caricature we have built of them.  In short, Iran has not acted in the interests of peace recently, but I am hopeful, especially if we give them a fair hearing.

I have saved the good news for last..  When Egypt's President Morsi was elected recently, many shuddered, fearing the rise of the Muslim Brotherhood.  Nonetheless, he strikes a good (hardly perfect but let's not complain) balance between the Egypt revered for the Camp David Accord, and the pro-Palestinian Islamic Egypt.  Moreover, he has taken his position proactively, and made Cairo the center for peace talks.  Right now, he is probably the only person in the world in a postion to offer a peace table, and to his great credit, he's done it.  In days or years to come, he may disappoint us, but today he has marked himself as a world leader and perhaps a peacemaker.

I realize I've been pretty harsh on most of the parties at play today, but I have a high regard for them as well.  The elements of peace are available, and I believe that most are willing to utilize them.  I remain skeptical of Hamas' willingness to do so, but John Lennon used to tell us all to give Peace a chance.

*I will not try to recreate a tit-for-tat countback of who can be blamed for every insult back to Britain's 'liberation' of Palestine from the Ottoman's in 1916 (but I can do a better job than many), because it's time to realize that the back story is nothing but an ugly unchangeable story.  Let's keep to the recent past.

 

Alternative to Negotiating with Iran?

The path to peace isn't going to be easy or quick with Iran.  The US and Iran share distrust and dislike in many respects.  So, a little formal analsysis of the situation is in order.  First, We should consider what the best alternative to a negotiated agreement (i.e. BATNA - for how this analysis works I recommend the book Getting to Yes, by Fisher and Ury).  As I see it, the best alternative is to continue to apply a rigid regime of sanctions on Iran to possibly compel them to cease alleged weapons grade erichment.

The sanctions regime is a good option from the perspective of being a non-violent confrontation.  It offers a potnential end to a long-standing crisis without war.  In turn, the success of sanctions could yield an atmosphere where dialogue could be conducted and relationships created, post crisis.

The negative aspects of a sanctions regime, are numerous.  First, Iran may be able to push past the sanctions and create nuclear weaponry, if we assume that is their intent.  Second, it is a continuation of a long standing face-off between Iran and the US.  For the sake of simplicity, I will ignore the many other players in this issue for now.  It allows a status quo to continue in the Middle East, which serves no one's interests.  Third, the sanctions will end sooner or later, and they merely create a holding pattern until the parties come to the point of agression, or a satisfactory conclusion.  That elusice satifactory conclusion can only come from actions taken by Iran, confirmed and accepted by the US, and allies, and concluded with a negotiated settlement.  So, sanctions are merely a deferral of a negotiated agreement, or a collapse into war.  To avoid war, we must eventually talk with the Iranians.

So, is the real 'best alternative' to negotiation war?  Perhaps. And perhaps it affords us the opportunity to conduct limited warfare.
If a full scale infntry-led war with Iran sounds like a nightmare, perhaps we can engage in tactice we used against Iraq between the Gulf War and the 2003 'shock-and-awe' invasion.  We supressed their military capabilities by force by placing a no-fly zone in place, and tightening a sanctions noose around them.  It was ultimately a failure, when the US 'confirmed' WMD's in Iraq, while at the same time sanctions collapsed.  The US invoked "The Bush Doctrine" and launched a preemtive attack to prevent deployment of the WMD's.  Limited war failed.

Since we have already started a punishing sanctions regime on Iran, it seems unwise to stop those sanctions until we receive some sort of response from Iran.  Nonetheless, we MUST be willing to listen to Iran, and sieze the opportunity to talk.  A surgical strike of a supposed nuclear weapons deveopment site will not in any way I can forsee, stop at a surgical strike, nor is it likely to satisfy skeptics that Iran is no longer capable of nuclear deployment.  Such a move is a prelude to a nightmare war.

In the end, there is no acceptable substitute for negotiated agreement with Iran.

Now it gets quite tricky.  First, what are the parameters to be negotiated, Second, who is present to conduct negotiations, and third, what are the conditions under which negotations are started, and continued.  I'll save the negotiation parameters until the next time.  Meanwhile, I hope you find personal peace, and continue to commit to being a peacemaker.

Why we Must Avoid War with Iran

What do the Vietnam War, the Iraq War and the current Afghan War have in common from the American perspective?  In each case it seemed important to commit troops, wage war against a much smaller nation, and ‘fix’ a foreign policy problem.  The cause could have seemed important; the communist dominoes, the weapons of mass destruction, or the elimination of terrorist havens were all deemed important enough to send Americans to die for.  In all cases, out troops were well trained and possessed weaponry that would presumably defeat all enemies.

War doesn’t work the way we have presumed.  In our most recent adventures we have been quick to gain key military objectives, and drive the enemy into a guerrilla, or ‘asymmetric’ fighting position, where they proceed to fight back ad infinum.  We are left with young men and women in harm’s way, without an outcome that could be deemed victory.

Our exit strategy in all three cases I have mentioned has been to leave a trained native army in place to hold up the government we had helped to create.  This led to a disaster in Vietnam, an emerging situation in Iraq that will probably give us ambiguous results at best, and we worry about our Afghan legacy, with hawkish lawmakers saying we need to devote more time and energy to help the Kharzei regime stand on its own.

Now, we contemplate war with Iran.  The cause seems just; a nuclear Iran is a bona fide threat to Israel.  There is pressure to ‘draw a bright red line’ beyond which, Iran will be subject to our military wrath.  Sadly we should know that making ultimatums will simply lead us into another pointless war.  I specifically mean pointless, because a war in Iran will do nothing to secure Israel from attack.  It will delay Iran’s deployment of nuclear weaponry, but it will make worse the visceral hatred that poisons the Middle East, and we will soon fear the same threat from Pakistan or Sudan, or a radicalized Egypt, or any number of other scenarios.

Once in Iran, what would we do?  It is a large country filled with daunting terrain and an enormous populace, and the cost to wage a war there, in blood and dollars, would dwarf the adventures of the past dozen years.  It would most likely require a much larger military, likely from the re-emergence of a draft.  Still, if it would bring peace, shouldn’t we undertake it?  The prospects of peace through war with Iran are purely rhetorical.  There is only one way to avoid catastrophe, and that is via dialogue.

When I resume this discussion (i.e. post back with your thoughts), I want to tie up a few loose ends on the prospects of war in Iran, such as surgical strike, and ‘no-fly’ strategies, and then talk about the basis for a dialogue, cutting through the clutter, and getting toward some understanding that will benefit not only Iran and the US, but Israel, the Palestinians, and Syria.  It’s good to be writing again!

Life has been full of sundry challenges for me, and I have contemplated leaving this blog, and pursuing a different way to promote peace.  Frankly, though, I can't find a reason to let it wither, so hopefully you'll see more of me soon.  The reason I'm writing briefly today, however, is both sad and meaningful.

Yesterday, America lost an unusual hero, Senator George McGovern.  George McGovern, more than anything, was an inspiration.

As a young man, George McGovern fought in World War II.  This is important, because when a war veteran comes later in life to the cause of peace, we should all sit up and listen.  McGovern himself cited his war experiences as foundational to his pursuit of peace in Vietnam.

As the 1968 Democratic nomination process deteriorated in the wake of LBJ's departure, and the horrific murder of Bobby Kennedy, McGovern emerged at the Chicago convention, as a challenger to the status quo, on an anti-war platform.  He failed.

In 1972, the badly damaged Democrats tried to defeat President Nixon.  The primaries were destructive again, but in '72 McGovern's anti-war message was harder to ignore and he became the nominee for the party.  In the general election, McGovern failed again.  This time his failure was historic in its proportion, with only Massachusetts and DC backing him.

He finished his senatorial career in 1980, defeated by the wave of conservatism ushered in by Reagan's presidency.

This is a seemingly strange tribute to someone who is quite correctly a hero in the cause of peace.  In his political career, aside from his ability to keep the South Dakota Senate seat for several terms, he failed time after time.  In part, that is what made George McGovern a hero.

In 1972, McGovern's campaign was a potent magnet for people of peace, who wanted to change the world, or at the very least pry us from the tragedy in Vietnam.  He inspired an entire generation to consider the possibility of America as a force for peace.  He propelled Hillary Rodham and Bill Clinton to a life of public service, and a vision of the world as a community rather than a group of opposing power blocs.

He may have been influential in Nixon's ultimate decision to pull out of Vietnam, as many suspect, but I cannot delve into the inner thinking of that man.  Regardless of his influence on Nixon's decisions, he abruptly changed the American conversation, and made peace a item for discussion at our dinner tables.  As a twelve year old in 1972, I can literally recall this occuring, except ours was a 'supper' table.

In science, scientific progress has been likened to "standing on the shoulders of giants", a phrase often attributed to Sir Isaac Newton.  Like science, peace is a growing, evolutionary process, where we can harvest fruit higher on the tree because of those who came before us.  I proudly stand on the shoulders of George McGovern, and as a result can see further into the future of a peaceful world.

Thank you, George McGovern.  Because of the legacy you leave, all of your endeavors, regardless of their temporal shortfalls, add up to a very successful life.

Hello again and peace.

I'm afraid I'm going to break a couple of my informal rules, first by talking about myself, and second by talking overtly about religion.  It's OK though - these things need to be said before I get back into the blog.

When I last left you, I found myself in a quandry about what to do.  I had meant to follow up, but personal issues got in the way, and after a while I wanted to post again, but I really had lost my thread of thought.  So here are some of my thoughts from this summer.

First, I have mentioned in this space before that I am a Christian.  I am happy with my life in Christ, and consider myself dedicated to my Christianity.  It greatly informs my attitudes toward peace, form my belief that peace is ultimately going to be the state of mankind (here I need to promise some of my friends to let Immanuel Kant rest for a while longer :-) ).  It also informs me that working for peace is a vocation of mine, and I ignore that vocation at my own peril.  I think Jesus Christ has allowed me a little enjoyment in writing this to encourage me to keep going.

Now, if my inspiration is coming from Christ, why have I been so reluctant to be more open in this forum about that inspiration?  Let me explain.

The first reason is humility.  I am no Elmer Gantry, preaching until my tongue is on fire, then living a compromised personal life.  If I am to evangelize for Christ, my manner would be to learn about Jesus and consider his message.  Then, if you feel like you'd like to talk to me about Him, I'd be glad to do so.  Secondly, I am the epitome of the popular bumper sticker, "Christians aren't perfect - Just forgiven".  I am a classic 'screw-up' sometimes. My friends who read this can stop nodding so vigorously now.  I try to live the life I'm supposed to, but like everyone else, I occasionally need some wiggle room.

The second reason is my distaste for stereotyping.  Some days I feel lonely in the community of my fellow Christians, when I place a priority on social justice, peace, and love for my neighbors, in accord with the Great Commandment.  I couldn't care less if your theology is based on a tradition of hierarchal interpretations, a list of demands nailed to a door 500 years ago, or a 'literal' reading of the Bible, as long as you heed the Great Commandment.  I care a lot about my own theology, but that's my own business.

The stereotyping issue, at least in the US, stems from a tradition of evangelical zeal, which is a good thing, overlaid with a demand for protestant orthodoxy (I couldn't resist the oxymoron there), that equates modern American Christianity with some sort of Calvinist political right, which is neither good nor bad, until one starts to make it a litmus test for being a 'true Christian'.  In fact the whole litmus test thing is destructive, and sends people away who otherwise share an honest affinity for Christ and his teachings. 

Let me be clear that  I view Christianity as very demanding of anyone who decides to follow Jesus.  Nonetheless, that heavy demand is the burden of that person alone, and not subject to the bias of anyone else.  There is one truth and one good, but no onein this life is bestowed with enough wisdom to determine what that is in its entirety.

I am dwelling on the stereotyping issue because it has a profound impact on the work of peace.  Peace is not the solitary domain of  a few left-leaning Christians in long hair and sandals in Massachusetts, but the solemn responsibility of everyone who dares to take up the cross.

The third reason is the Great Commandment itself.  I am called to love my neighbors.  I believe that I have about 7 billion neighbors.  They include despised felons in prison, immigrants, poor people, the Taliban, as well as personal friends, my church 'family', my actual family, and people I admire.  There are no conditions to being a neighbor.  Sadly, I fall short of loving every one of them, but I really try hard.  Promoting peace is my best chance for improving my Christian response.  Of course, the Great Commandment is really two commandments.  I am also called to love God with my whole heart and soul.  Working for peace is critical to this effort as well; in fact, I find the two components of the Great Commandment so deeply interrelated that I view them as a single command.  Feel free and comment on that peice of theology, I'm interested in how other Christians approach this.  The love of God portion of the Commandment however, gives rise to my fourth and ultimate reason for hesitating to make this a 'Christian' blog, even though I hope by now you have an appreciation for how Christ informs my writings for peace.

The fourth and most important reason to stay secular in this blog (OK, today firmly excluded!) is that although I am Christian, and can read the Nicene Creed without a stutter more days than not (apologies to any of my fellow Christians that have no regard for the Council of Nicea - just making a point), the mysteries of God are more wonderful than any of us imagine.  As such, I think it is short-sighted to think that Christianity is the sole fountain of theological truth.  Please remember that Judaism and Islam worship the same Father as Christians.  Even beyond that, other religious traditions have profound truths which we can attain wisdom from.  Buddhism's Eightfold Path, for instance is perfectly compatible with Christianity, makes no claim of divinity, and is well worth studying and applying to one's own life.  Reaching even farther, past the bounds of metaphysics, scientific truths, even with regard to the origins of the universe, can inform us as members of Christ's communion.  With many caveats, I will even assert that some atheistic thought is worth study.  The point is, that as Christians we are commanded to seek peace, but we do not OWN peace.  The wellspring for peaceful ambitions can be derived from God, philosophy, humanism, any other kind of -ism, or just personal conviction.  Christianity is my principle driver, but if you want to help find peace, and it's not where you're coming from, I have one word for you - "Welcome!"

Needing some help with Sudan - anyone care to opine?

I thought I had done some careful analysis.  I was happy when the UN and the AU laid out UN resolution 2046 (Please read my previous posts if you need to catch up).  I still think peace is with reach.

Now I am having second thoughts about a central premise I have held, and I am asking for your feed back.  It's about leadership.

I have made the case for peace based on a status quo assumption.  Differences would be resolved withing the 2046 framework, then the internal difficulties in Sudan and South Sudan would resolve.  I'm not naive enough to assume that it would be resolved soon or 'cleanly' - there's a lot of anger there.  But my premise was that in the absence of war, we might start to see peace (peace is much more than the simple absence of war).

Now, as to Salva Kiir in South Sudan, I don't think he is well acquainted with peaceful nation-building.  He is a hardened soldier having led the South Sudanese to liberation after years of war.  He is also not above the dirty tricks played along the Sudanese border that have caused so much friction.  The attack on Heglig was pure aggression even if provoked.  Nonetheless, if I may judge him from another continent, I see someone who really wants to get his country to a place of stability, prosperity, and, yes, peace.  It's an extremely tall order, and he may have flaws, but I can honestly reach out in my heart to wish him well.

Omar el-Bashir is who I'm worried about.  I have councilled that one should not condemn either side in a dispute in lieu of negotiation.  But what if I am wrong about Bashir?  What is to be done then?

There are credible reports that the Sudanese air force is bombing South Sudan as talks in Addis Ababa are taking place.  There are reports that his forces have not completely left Abyei as per res 2046.  He has already been accused of heinous crimes in the Darfur crisis.  Finally, I am now hearing that refugees have been reaching South Sudan from the Kordofan region speaking of slaughter, and starvation tactics.  The ugly accusation of starving blacks out of regions in favor of Arab races (or is it along religious lines? - it's nearly impossible to tell) sounds too familiar to the Darfur story - murky, confusing suspicions of ethnic/tribal/religious murder are too credible to think that a Bashir-led Sudan and peaceful coexistence of the multicultural nation is anything but a long shot.

The people of Sudan are not evil.  Whole millions of people are, I am convinced, incapable of evil.  But are they manipulated by a regime with a terrible agenda?  If so, how are they stopped?  Is there an Arab Spring ready for Bashir?  And will it play like Egypt or Syria if it starts?

When I started my series of posts on the Sudan crisis, Syria was the bigger tragedy.  I chose not to write about Syria though, in part because I thought that Assad was too far down the path of war.  I reasoned that the Sudan crisis could yield peace.  With all of the discredit heaped on him, Bashir could be negotiated with.  We weren't headed for inevitable war, and there was a path to peace.  Kofi Annan had more faith in Syria than I did.  He went to Damascus with an olive branch.  Mr. Annan is a truly great man and a man who has worked hard, and often successfully for peace.  In Syria, it is becoming clear that he was wrong.

I am miniscule compared to the great Kofi Anan.  I write a blog in suburban America that occassionally reaches further than my circle of friends.  But I try to see the way forward.  I thought I saw a peaceful future in Sudan and South Sudan.  It's too early to despair.  But, what if I am wrong?

Memorial Day

One of the most unfortunate aspects of the peace movement in the US has been the tendency against veterans.  As I've said before in this forum, human civilization is evolving toward peace.  We aren't there yet, and we need to work hard to progress.  Sadly, we live in a time where many people have gone to war to defend noble things, and died in that pursuit.  National leaders would do well to remember the human cost of violence before committing to war.  But today, Memorial Day, is a day to remember those who have fought our wars.

Peaceful people may confuse the poor judgements made by leaders who have been aggressors, or have opted to turn to war when patience should have prevailed with those who served.  This is not the day to discuss what wars may have been necessary to curb aggression, or to decry foolish wars.  Regardless of the merit of reason, war creates hardship and tragedy.  People who fight and die, whether for martial pride, patriotism, to escape poverty, or because of conscription, are people who left families, friends and communities behind.  They were loved, and are fondly remembered.

I like Memorial Day, and how it is celebrated in the US.  It is a day of rest, and starts the summer vacation season.  It also allows us to pause and reflect over specific losses in our own hearts, or the loss suffered by everyone in the course of war.

The only thing that bothers me about Memorial Day is excessive jingoism.  It is easy to recall the glory of war, and the patriotic fervor that accompanies military honor is too often an excuse to proclaim our march to war as righteous.  I suppose it is just another reminder that there is a long road ahead to peace, and regardless of this aspect of honoring those who served, it is an important day to reflect.

I hope that everyone had a Memorial Day that afforded them the time to reflect on sacrifice and loss, and then perhaps have an enjoyable early summer holiday.

I wish you all blessings and peace.

Peace Update in Sudan

Bill McKenna © 2012

The news is quite good from Africa today.  Sudan and South Sudan are resuming peace talks tomorrow in Addis Ababa, Ethiopia, in accordance with UN Resolution 2046.  The African Union is mediating the talks, and former South African president Thabo Mbeki is the lead mediator.  Mbeki’s tenure as president in South Africa is marred with some controversy, but his international experience and high profile make him an excellent choice for this role.  The issues to be discussed under resolution 2046 are all negotiable, and there is no reason that a comprehensive settlement of grievances cannot be completed this summer

Sadly, there will be remaining problems after the crisis is over.  The most intractable between the nations is distrust.  For peace to take hold there must be a mechanism for building acceptance, then trust between the two governments.  Remembering that this task is to take place amidst the historic backdrop of terrible civil wars, the challenge is formidable.  Nonetheless, both countries will be participating in a business structure which will set a fee for South Sudan transshipments of oil to the Red Sea.  Ideally the fee structure will be mutually fair and profitable to everyone.  This arrangement will both require trust, and, ultimately, build trust.

The second long term challenge to peace is the internal warfare that both nations are struggling with.  Whether or not the one country is aiding rebellions in the other is almost moot.  Given the insecurity of the border, it is almost certain that some of Sudan’s rebels are coming from South Sudan, and vice versa.  The important concept is to build a stable peace where people can live and thrive.  The SPLM was the rebel group that successfully broke the south away from the north, and is essentially the current government of South Sudan.  The fact that there is now an SPLM-North fighting in the Sudanese border provinces of South Kordofan and Blue Nile is understandable, as the international boundary was drawn behind them.  Nonetheless, the border, once settled must be respected, and it is unrealistic to believe that Sudan will not defend its right to that vast area.  At the same time, the SPLM-N should, peacefully, request that Sudan acknowledge these provinces as culturally sub-Saharan, and Christian, and have the right to request appropriate human rights as a disparate culture within a primarily Islamic, Saharan state.  The South Sudan infighting is a bit more complex, as tensions run along tribal lines.  The largest tribe, which is also the predominant tribe of the government, is the Dinka.  The Dinka people need to develop a multi-tribal power sharing system to bring peace and all of its benefits, to everyone.  At this writing there are reports of minority tribe civilians being killed in Jonglei province, near the Ethiopian border,  As the larger peace process moves forward, it is important that internal strife is minimized,  and that the surplus of weapons in the area due to years of civil war are reduced.

Peace will result if negotiations supersede violence, and the smaller issues are not pushed down the road.  Peace should yield economic progress as well, and generations of people who found that survival often required a rifle, will now learn that a good life will require development and education.

Finally what about you and I, learning about Sudan’s troubles mostly in developed western countries?  I think there are several things we are responsible for: 

·         We need to be educated about the current state of the world and what is being done to resolve conflict.  The average US ignorance to international news is unacceptable, and we need to improve our literacy in world affairs.

·         We need to follow the progress of Resolution 2046, and prepare for what may be in store for the Sudans if it fails, or, hopefully, succeeds.

·         We ought to keep our noses out of the business.  Contrary to some attitudes, we are not the world’s policeman, and past actions have left much of the west in disrepute.  Trust them to build their own future, unless the lives and human rights of the people there are in danger by our inaction.

·         Finally, it is my understanding that South Sudan football (i.e. soccer) was accepted by the international federation (FIFA) this week.  Cheer them on a bit.  A little bit of non-military pride will go a long way.

The role of NGO's

I intend this to be a brief post, but in my final posting about the Huffington Post article about Sudan by Don Golden, I want to address his assertion that NGO's need to perform their roles in the peace process.

First, let me cast no shadow here - I agree with Mr. Golden.  Non-governmental organizations are typically the representatives of the kindness and wellwishes of the world made into human and material resource to relieve suffering.  The impulse to intervene in this kind of way is often an example of humanity at its best.  Don Golden's own NGO, World Relief, is a good example of an NGO that knows its business, particularly in East Africa, and works toward a future of peace, which goes beyongd resetting the agendas of the people with armies and weapons, and looks at communities and helps figure out how that peace might be sustained through humanitarian assistance when needed and economic growth when possile.

Of course it's never as simple as it forst sounds.  It is a sad fact that belligerent governments, particularly in the Sudan and South Sudan, will always try to redirect or limit the deployment of NGO's.  The allowance offrree movement and unfettered access to people in need is sadly a weapon used by powerful people.  The NGO's need to be able to use their own diplomatic leverage, and sometimes the diplomatic leverage of nations to counter the 'pawn' effect.  Sometimes it works, but it alweays seems like climbing a cliff.

Another peril facing NGO's is the idea of aid 'with strings attached'.  NGO's are often sponsored from wealthy (western??) countries.  The recipients of the aid may feel that the largesse offered is done at the behest of US and European powers, which sadly have used muck of their goodwill in imperialist and post-imperialist endeavors.  The NGO must be able to convince its aid receipients that it is not simply another western power exerting control.  Established groups with local ties do better in these situations, and again I see World Relief in the fore in East Africa.

The other 'strings attached' concern, is the makeup and mission of the NGO itself.  Is the mission of the group simply to build peace, or is there a cultural, moral or religious backdrop that serve as another motive, real or imagined by the recipient population?  Again, using World Relief as a test case, we see that it is a US based group formed by and supported by evangelical churches.  It is easy to imagine that wary recipients may feel that there is a price to pay for th largesse received.  Again, World Relief gets good marks here, as the often prove themselves as true to their word in sponsoring aid, without an overt pro-US message, or an overwhelming christian missionary component.  The fact the World Relief may in fact act as an ambassador for the better angels of US citizens, or as exemplary Christians shouldn't be a disqualifier in participating in the imprving chances of peace for people who need it.  But a careful line between showing who the NGO's are and the advancement of a noisome side agenda can be a tricky balance.  A group like World Relief should be well received in South Sudan, where the largely Christian population with no overt anti-American bias, should make them as welcome as seasonal rain.  In majority Muslim Sudan, however, the US/Christian label may represent, perhaps unfairly, a new type of cultural imperialism.

The final caveat about NGO's is that it is sometimes difficult to separate independant NGO's from state sponsored aid.  USAID is a truly worthwhile organization, which, particularly after President Obama's comments this week, promise to bring great relief to Africa.  USAID, however is a tool of the US State Department, and exists to promote the interests of the US government.  Those interests could be the same pure interests of many NGO's; to feed, heal and revive war-weary people; there may be less atruistic aims from a USAID perspective too, such as a counter to Chinese goodwill in a resource rich region, or isolation of a 'bad actor' in the US governments view.  T othis, I would plea with my own government to answer the cries of those in need, and avoid the traps of imperialism.

The African Union

Continuing on my analysis of the Golden article from the Huffington Post, I have come to the role that the African Union should play in resolving the Sudan-South Sudan disputes.  When I started my research on this particular aspect, I wasn't that interested, but the more I found out the more intrigued I became.

This is a real good news/bad news situation, and if you've been following my posts you know that the optimist in me will start with the good news.

That good news is that the AU is really coming of age, and showing itself to be a real force in promoting the welfare of Africa.  To any skeptical readers I will only ask that they do some research of what the AU is doing now, and forget its past reputation as a weak, corrupt or compromised body.  The AU today shows signs of becoming what it should be, and although it is premature to hand out laurels, the progess of the AU is nearly miraculous since 2002, given the scope of the challenge in raising Africa to its proper place in the world.  Both Sudan and South Sudan are members, and the AU could be a real partner in the peace process.

The bad news is that the AU is not a neutral player.  Please remember that the goal is peace between Sudan and South Sudan.  You should also recall that Omar el-Bashir is notorious for his role in the Darfur crisis and the South Sudan civil war.  It is difficult to see el-Bashir as a peacemaker.  It is incumbent on the process, however, to not stigmatize him.  The AU has been a key partner in bringing the Darfur crisis to a level of stability, which, though far from peace, is far better than it was several years ago.  In the process, the AU was forced into a role of confrontational negotiations with el-Bashir.  Further, the AU may be perceived to have a sub-Saharan bias, hence favoring South Sudan, at least arguably.

The other regional group in the area is the Arab League.  In their case, Sudan is a member, while South Sudan is not.  Further, there is a much better argument that the Arab League has a bias in the conflict toward Sudan.  Nonetheless, they may have a role as a counterweight to the AU.  In fact, given the personal acrimony between el-Bashir and Kiir, both organiztions may be able to aid negotiations as proxies, although that may be asking too much, admittedly.

My conclusion is that the AU can be quite effective in supporting peace efforts, along with other regional players.  The situation is a good reminder that we should be very careful before villifying or labeling.  The fact that Sudan has been labelled as a state that has supported terrorism by the US, and that el-Bashir has ben accused of war crimes by the UN make the 'west' largely ineffective in the process, in addition to the old but festering wounds of imperialism.  Of course, you must realize by now that everyone needs to act as peacemakers, so the discredited western powers need to mend fences, and humbly apply themselves to the peace process in Sudan.  In that spirit of humility, we don't need to bow before evil, however you may think that evil manifests itself, as is so obviously has in East Africa, but stopping the shedding of blood must be a higher priority than preemptive justice.

South Sudan and the UN

As noted in the Golden article (see 2 posts ago),  The United Nations needs to rededicate itself to peace in Sudan.  To this lever in providing peace, I couldn't agree more.  In many ways the Sudan-South Sudan conflict in a perfect venue for the UN to work in.  Many detractors find the UN to be a weak instrument, especially through the filter of the divided Security Council.  This crisis is an example of when the UN can take a lead role in effectively promoting peace.

On May 2, the Security Council unanimously endorsed a resolution demanding both sides to end hostilities and resume negotiations, with appropriate measures leveled for failure to do so, in Resolution 2046 (2012) http://www.un.org/News/Press/docs/2012/sc10632.doc.htm

Specifically to cessation of hostilities, both sides are to unconditionally withdraw forces from the others' territory, place appropriate border security within a week, and cease hostile propaganda and inflammatory statements in the media.

The resumed negotiation portion of the request includes a timeline of three months to conclude negotiations on:

• Oil and associated payments,
• The stautus of nationals of each side in the others country,
• resolution of border claims, and
• the final status of Abyei.

Resolution 2046 is an outstanding document, insofar as it is neutral in tone, and demands specific actions to be taken within a defined time.

There are certainly foreseeable problems with accomplishing the steps 2046 recommends.  Foremest of these is the high degree of animosity between the countries.  The second is the damage done in the recent outbreak, particularly in Helgig.  The third are the issues not addressed in 2046, specifically, the anti-government forces in South Sudan actively resisting, and perhaps receiving aid from Sudan, and the rebellions in South Khordofan and Blue Nile, Sudan provinces, perhaps receiving aid from South Sudan.

I feel that both countries would benefit by complying with Resolution 2046 as soon as practical.  It is important to note, though, that this resolution merely ends current hostilities.  Peace will be a lot tougher to find.

Blaming the media (2)

I searched hard for a major media outlet that does as I suggest, and provides good, informative background links:  Please take a look at the profiles provided as links to appropiate web stories from the BBC1:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-14069082
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-14094995

Please note that I intend to refer to these articles in my following posts.  Please give them a good read. 

1 links provided in accordance with Terms of Use of BBC Online Services - Personal Use

Blaming the media

In my prior post, I asked you to review Don Golden's very good piece from the Huffington Post.  In the paragraph I quoted, he cites the relative silence of the media as a danger which could unravel years of peace work.

With all respect to this well reasoned article, I think the media's responsibility is not the fault that really needs to be addressed.  I did some surfing on the internet last night to see if I could locate articles about the current Sudan crisis.  I found most media outlets covered the Helgig raid by South Sudan, and the Sudanese retaking of the town.  The stories each added a little knowledge, as each came from a slightly different angle, and focused on a different aspect.  So the reporting was there, but ut was buried deep into the international section.  This is hardly a media problem (with 2 exceptions I'll note below);  There have been news items which clearly gained some traction yesterday, most notably the conviction of Charles Taylor in Sierra Leone.  I did find that the CNN site had no articles, which surprised me; I also discovered that Fox News doesn't even have an Africa desk.  I'll try to be as neutral as I can in writing these posts but I'm neither surprised that Fox had nothing to say, nor concerned considering their seeming inability to report without editorializing at the same time.  I also checked English and French speaking sites from Europe and Canada, and found that coverage in the US was similar to countries with comparable media.

The media clearly did not ignore the South Sudan story, but it was far from being a lead story.  Given the events of yesterday, it is quite understandable.  So if the media reports, why aren't we paying attention?

I think there are two problems playing out here:  First, to the few people who try to keep abreast of African issues, there is a certain weariness of the ongoing problems in Sudan.  The Darfur issue, hudreds of miles from South Sudan, was a loudly decried crisis a decade ago, and has not been satisfactorily addressed.  Omar al-Bashir has been president for eighteen years in the Sudan, and is an accused war criminal.  The civil wars that ended in a treaty between Sudan and it's rebelling provices destroyed an entire generation there.  So, after more than 20 years of continuing bad and intractable news from Sudan, is it any wonder that many gloss over a new crisis and shrug it off?

The second problem with paying attention to the Sudan is a lack of education about geography, recent history and background about the Sudan in particular, but also with the wider world.  I don't think this problem is limited to my fellow US citizens, but it is a general malaise of developed countries toward the rest of the world.

Now I'm getting to a point that the media ought to be doing better:  educating and informing.  With the tools available to modern news organizations, I would like to see a synopsis article written for the Sudan, along with maps explaining where the important sites are (South Kordofan and Abeye for example), and a chronology of the crisis.  It should be linked to each new article about a violence flare up, a diplomatic event, or any other newsworthy event.  In that way, the web-based reader can get a background briefing if needed, or as television begins to become interactive, links to a synopsis would greatly aid the viewer.  Newspapers have traditionally given in-depth synopses on critical matters, but as we move to a new media paradigm, we need to rely on some sources are good at streaming 24-hour current events, but are simply terrible at in-depth explanations.

So there it is.  The media are NOT silent.  they are, however not engaging the reader who needs to know the basis for the events thrown at him or her.  If Mr. Golden is right, that we risk years of peace work by ignoring the current crisis, then I for one call on the new media to learn how to engage the audience.

Redirection, and a few thoughts about South Sudan

Every 'hobby' blog I come across seems to eventually have a lot of posts starting with "sorry I haven't written in so long..." or some such posting.  In fact, although I have been absent for a while, I've been actively pondering the direction to take this writing, and the break has been, more or less, intentional.

When I finished my philosophy segment I started out on a tactical approach to organizing.  It's not a bad approach, but honestly, it didn't feel right.  I wanted to really talk about peace and peacemaking.  Tactics can be left for any organization that I find myself in to do this work.  I think this blog represents an intangible soap box for me where I can carefully consider the state of peace in the world.

It's been a terrible month for peace, most notably in Syria.  Let's hope Kofi Annan's good efforts prevail.  I'd prefer to have more to say on the subject, but Syria is a particularly difficult place to unravel.  Not that any conflict of that magnitude is going to be easy, but Syria's interconnectedness with the Israel/Palestine, Iran, Iraq and Lebanon make any efforts to unravel a part of the conflict seem to aggravate some other aspect of the region. That makes it all the more impressive that Kofi Annan was able to make headway, albeit frustatingly slow and fragile.

I'm going to spend the next few posts on the potential for war between Sudan and South Sudan.  This conflict is also quite complex, and involves quite a few exterior players, but there are several factors making it a compelling topic, including:

1)  The independence of South Sudan was less than a year ago, and based on recently forged, albeit flawed, agreements.  I feel that there is a fair basis to work with, and
2)  The United States is on the periphery of these events.  As a US citizen, it should be easier to have a perspective largely unclouded by national debate.

Tonight, I want to direct you to a posting released earlier today in The Huffington Post: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/don-golden/are-we-still-dedicated-to_b_1452039.html
Don Golden gives an excellent summary of where the conflict stand right now, and urges engagement in the process, particularly where he states:

"The events of this past month, and the relative silence by the media on the escalating violence in the region, is a frightening reminder that turning a blind eye to the people of South Sudan could unravel years of peace work. It is then all the more important that the United Nations, African Union, local government and the multitude of international NGOs in the region recommit to furthering peace if a return to violence is to be avoided. "

This particular segment calls for several players to act on behalf of maintaining peace:
1)  The media - he feels that inattention around the globe will allow the violence to escalate
2) The United Nations
3) The African Union
4) Local government
5) NGO's active in the region - Here it is important to note that Don Golden and his co-writer Francesco Paganini are executives with World Relief, a US-based Christian sponsored NGO.

Over the next week or so, I will examine the roles that each of the five players listed in the Post should play, and hopefully come to some conclusions as to the responsibility of everyone to keeping (or, perhaps more accurately, restoring) peace to South Sudan.

Thanks.  As always, feel free to comment.  I suspect the impetus to comment will become stronger as I dive in.

Peace Analytics - Getting the facts

I've spent about six weeks now unfolding a philosophical perspective that humanity will evolve, and we will eventually come to a condition of universal peace.  I've also carefully inserted the notion that it is within our collective power to hasten that eventuality.  Indeed, that being the premise, it becomes our collective duty to hasten universal peace..

Now how do we go about the business of peacemaking?  Shall we all find a stage and act as if we've won a beauty contest, and say that we pray for world peace?  If you have access to an audience, and feel inspired to do so, I encourage your sentiment, but I'm skeptical that you will accomplish much.

What is needed is a disciplined, organized approach.  Specifically, a group working for peace should have good statistical knowledge of the society they wish to act upon, and the obstacles to peace which are presented.  The group must develop a plan with acheivable and measurable objectives, and monitor progress, thereby developing a process which will drive improvements in the peaceful actions of that society.  When the objectives are met, they should be reviewed, the processes continously improved via statistical control.

If you've been reading along in my posts, this activity sounds like nothing I have said so far.  If you've been involved in peace movements in the past it probably sounds unfamiliar as well.  This isn't a call for building an enormous rally in a city park and chanting slogans.  In fact, it sounds like dreadfully dull, uninspired stuff.  Happily, while it sounds like a dreadful process, it will simply manifest as a set of actions which will be oriented toward acheivable goals and pointed toward an ever improving  peace dynamic.  It will have dull bits, because it entails some hard work and some statistical work, but it will be uplifting and inspiring work as goals are met.

This sounds so utterly foreign to traditional peace organizing because it is, in fact, business theory.  I had the pleasure of spending several years at a small but prominent business school, where I was introduced to the theories of W. Edwards Deming, a well-known statististicial and business innovator, who advocated a statistically driven continuous improvement method, which revolutionized several industries.  In the years since I completed my studies there, I have come to realize that his model can be almost universally applied to human endeavors.  Peacemaking, I believe, is especially well-suited to the model.  Apparently Dr. Deming also felt this way; shortly before his death, he formed the Deming Institiute, dedicated to innovations for commerce, prosperity and peace.

One of the hard things about approaching peace with anything like a statistical approach is that we commonly see peace, and peacemaking as a 'fuzzy' concept, where the difference between peace and a state of non-peace (which I hope you agree is far broader that the presence of war) is hard to define.  In fact, it will probably take several posts to get through definitions, and we might have some give and take over those definitions.  For now, I'll leave you one of the best data sources for conflicts around the world, the Uppsala Conflict Database Project (UCDP), which has information on virtually every conflict since 1946 in the world.  Please take a look at it at http://www.ucdp.uu.se/gpdatabase/search.php . By the way Uppsala is an elite Swedish University (and city), which devotes a great amount of it's resources to peace studies.

In my next post, I hope to give you an illustration of what I'm talking about, by using a hypothetical example of organizing a peace organization in a US congressional district.  Hopefully, my illustration will clarify the way I propose to organize the peace process.

Thanks for reading, and please don't hesitate to comment.

Immanuel Kant's Revolution

Immanuel Kant's Revolution

An essay by Bill McKenna   ©2012

First, let me apologize for my two week absence.  My schedule has been disrupted as I’ve found teaching work.  The bad news is that I’ve been forced to radically change my personal habit of being a ‘night owl’ to being a ‘morning person’.  I have been in the habit of writing late at night, so the change has not been kind to my output.  On the other hand, I feel that teaching is a major component of my purpose in life, so I am grateful for the opportunity, even at the entry level, to practice this art.  That’s enough of the personal, so let us resume the peace work.

Today we’re going to tackle Immanuel Kant finally, so settle down for a rather long read, with a rather important conclusion.  This will wrap up my first foray into philosophy; subsequent posts in the near future will return us to the 21^st century, and some practical thought.

Before I talk about Kant, I need to do some table setting.  I want to build a bridge between Augustine and Kant, and Anselm of Canterbury is a convenient bridge.  Anselm concerned himself with theoretical proofs of God.  I find his conclusions somewhat unremarkable, but his process was genius.  His proof was a series of interlocking arguments, the most important of which is the line of reasoning that if we agree on the quality of something that is good (used in the sense of morality in this case, not quality), then there must be a standard of goodness by which we judge, and therefore, it follows, there must be an absolute good.  If the universe contains an absolute good, it is an intentional universe, and if it is intentional, there must be a God who intended it.  Please do not judge Anselm by my quick synopsis.  His proof is far deeper than I need to take you.  If you wish to offer a critique of Anselm, you must study him further.

Anselm’s process is what is important here, as he makes a case for an absolute good.  To do so, he relies on an a posteriori construct, beginning from the point he is proving, and analyzing deductively.  Thus, we know God exists because there is an absolute good.  Later, Kant will critique Anselm on this line of thinking, but it is in his critique of Anselm’s elegant logic that Kant’s a priori arguments flourish.  So, even though we find Anselm and Kant at logical loggerheads (and a six hundred year gap), Kant will effectively use Anselm as a starting point.

Now we can discuss Kant.  Kant was a product of the European enlightenment, and was concerned that the great thinkers of his time, such as Sir Isaac Newton, might posit that all human understanding could eventually be induced by scientific thought and reason.  Nonetheless, Kant was an enlightenment master, and instead of opposing the whole concept of scientific thought, he claimed that where reason would not suffice to answer the great questions, philosophical thought was necessary.  In his Critique of Pure Reason (Kritik der reinen  Vernunft), Kant asserted that in cases where the critical method failed to provide an answer it was possible to accept a hypothesis from a practical point of view, relying on an a priori set of knowledge (a reversal of Anselm).  In this argument, Kant asserts that reason itself in built from a priori concepts, such as the innate knowledge of simple arithmetic to build the science of mathematics.  Hence, in matters of morality, one can build a moral philosophy based on the a priori presence of God.  If we cannot accept an a priori construct we cannot reason beyond the refutation of the concept.

Nearly every western metaphysical philosopher since Kant has relied on Kant’s theories as a base.  When I return to philosophical essays in the future, visiting Hegel or the Concord Transcendentalists, you will see the ghost of Immanuel Kant.

Kant’s moral philosophy is difficult to work with.  I remember lectures in college on Kant, and thinking, ‘please let me absorb enough of this to pass the exam.’  At the time, I thought it was because Kant was deadly boring, but now with a few years of maturity (now there’s a double euphemism), I realize that Kant is just difficult, and not boring at all.  In the hands of skilled debaters, the dispute of a priori knowledge of God between an atheistic perspective and a theological perspective would leave me, and many of my readers, far back in the intellectual wake.  Happily, I’m not leading you to that debate.

In 1795, based on his moral philosophy constructs, Kant wrote an essay titled “Perpetual Peace:  A Philosophical Sketch”.  He relies on the a priori concept, that some things ought to be done transcending human understanding, and that achieving universal peace is one of the most important.  His elegant reasoning then gives way to a practical plan for universal peace, containing six preliminary articles and three definitive articles¹:

Preliminary articles:

1. "No secret treaty of peace shall be held valid in which there is tacitly reserved matter for a future war"
2. "No independent states, large or small, shall come under the dominion of another state by inheritance, exchange, purchase, or donation"
3. "Standing armies shall in time be totally abolished"
4. "National debts shall not be contracted with a view to the external friction of states"
5. "No state shall by force interfere with the constitution or government of another state"
6. "No state shall, during war, permit such acts of hostility which would make mutual confidence in the subsequent peace impossible: such are the employment of assassins (percussores), poisoners (venefici), breach of capitulation, and incitement to treason (perduellio) in the opposing state"

Definitive articles:

1. "The civil constitution of every state should be republican"
2. "The law of nations shall be founded on a federation of free states"
3. "The law of world citizenship shall be limited to conditions of universal hospitality"

So, finally, there it is, in possibly actionable format.  If Augustine’s just war was the best accommodation we might have made prior to Kant (yes, I’ll allow for the possibility of other schema), here is a way forward.  Now we can move forward.  We can move beyond philosophy and start to look at a blueprint for peace.  My tongue is not in my cheek, and it is not hyperbole.  This is it.

Naturally, it isn’t all good news.  There’s a lot to do in these nine articles.  There are more than a few scenarios that are hard to fit into the framework.  Lastly, it is only philosophy, and can only help if it is acted upon.

Some of what Kant says, however is very good news.  Moreover, I want to add to that good news. 

Since Kant wrote his essay, humanity has endured terrible warfare.  Kant himself had to endure the Napoleonic Wars in Europe.  The twentieth century was especially bloody.  Yet through it all, we are starting to apply some of Kant’s tents.  The adoption has been slow and incomplete, but where and when employed, they work.  When you get to his three definitive articles, you see that the republican form of government is now the most common form of government.  It has tended to make nations more peaceful, and the democratic peace theory is an offshoot of the first article.  Sadly, the increased popularity of the republican form of government has revealed that many republics are nothing more than covers from authoritarian rule, but evolutionary improvement in suffrage appears to be moving humanity in the right direction.  The second article concerning a law of nations is also encouraging.  For all of its faults, the United Nations has successfully navigated difficult waters to achieve a degree of authority of the collected nations of the world.  You might correctly suppose that that will probably be the subject of future essays.  The final article, universal hospitality, is harder to see, but progress has been made there as well.  The Universal Declaration of Human Rights, adopted by the United Nations in 1948, has been perhaps the most important advance in this area.

Of course, we still have dictators, standing armies, covert operations, and all manner of pre-Kantian behavior in our world today.  If we didn’t, perhaps I’d be building model railroads instead of writing about this.  We are, however, moving in the right direction, and our slow march toward perpetual peace is unstoppable.  As a student of history, it is clear to me that humanity is evolving, not just in better civilization and governance, but in a profound individual way.  We are becoming a more highly developed species.

We have a lot of work to do, my fellow friends and peacemakers.  Now that you know where I’m coming from, let’s put our philosophers back in the closet for a while and let them collect dust again.  It’s time to talk about practical matters.

Peace.

¹  articles copied from Wikipedia article"Perpetual Peace"

Why have a social contract

Why have a social contract?

An essay by Bill McKenna   ©2012

Before I take a giant leap into the European enlightenment, let’s recap Augustine’s just war.  I could have been harsher in my treatment of the concept.  It could be seen as a compromise between the teachings of Christ and pragmatism.  I think that Augustine is better than that though.  He is making an argument that given moral sovereign authority to stop evil war wagers by the use of force which will prevent suffering is just.  The practical offshoot of applying such a system really is a problem.  Tying just war to papal infallibility in medieval Western Europe, and you get the crusades (edit - see comment section - papal infallibiliity was not a medieval dogma - example is still worth noting however).  The Reformation brought the Thirty Years’ War which was fought over the proper sovereignty within the Christian Church itself.  Every combatant in that struggle claimed to be defending faith against those who would destroy that faith.  Lastly, the concept relies on benevolent monarchs, presumably made sovereign through the grace of God.  The idea of an insurrection or capricious tyrants doing evil within their sovereign space is left unaddressed.

Just war philosophy was tremendously lacking, but it was also revolutionary.  I’ll give Augustine full credit in western civilization for the revolution, but someone more learned than I can speak to similar philosophies that arose in Indian and Chinese culture.  My point is, before Augustine and his like-minded eastern philosophers, warfare was unlimited except by strength of arms.  After Augustine, there is a moral value to peace.  It is an enormous step forward in civilization.  Now, I ask you, what would the next step be?

Let’s jump more than 1,000 years ahead to England in the 1600’s.  If you’ve learned Western Civ in high school or college you may remember Thomas Hobbes as the foil for John Locke.  I’ll briefly recap here.  Both Hobbes and Locke developed an Enlightenment period concept of a social contract, one of the founding concepts of political science.  Both philosophers argued that in order to live more fulfilling lives as individuals, it is necessary to create a social contract between a governing sovereign, and a governed people.  In other words, it is desirable to surrender some portion of one’s own autonomy to accept the governance of a recognized authority.

For Hobbes, in his book The Leviathan, man in a natural state is beset by self-interest, and everyone living in this state of nature is subject to the whims of the strongest.  The pre-governed natural world of Hobbes leads to lives that are “nasty, brutish, and short”.  The way to develop a social contract is to ordain an absolute authority.  The Hobbesian perspective of humanity in a natural state is that it is essentially driven by base, evil objective thought.

John Locke, a near contemporary of Hobbes also advocated a social contract, but his presumptions of human nature led him to an entirely different outcome.  In his Essay Concerning Human Understanding, Locke talked about ‘natural law’ which governs how we conduct our lives in the absence of absolute authority.  In his view the social contract emerges from our natural law, and we create government to codify and create private property.  The authority of the government belongs to the governed.  Locke, therefore sees the natural human state as good, so that government can be agreed upon by consent.

The Hobbes-Locke duality is a common subject for political scientists, and it plays an important role in my thesis about peace.  I will argue that civilization has evolved over time; if one goes back to my Greek or Roman examples from last month, we see remnants of the old ‘strongest empire model’ where large armed groups preyed on the smaller.  Over time, however, as sovereignty has moved from kings and emperors to representative government, we see that more emphasis is placed on the legal standing of individuals and their rights.  Clearly, with current examples such as the barbarous suppression in Syria, we have a long way to go before we emerge as a truly evolved civilization.  Nonetheless, if you can allow me my thesis as I develop it further, you will see that peace becomes inevitable, and we collectively have the ability to hasten its arrival.

My long-winded thesis development is starting to take shape now.  If you’ve been reading along I hope it’s holding together for you.  Please comment if you have any issue with it so far.  Immanuel Kant is up next, and then we can put our philosophers on the back burner for a while, and move from peace theories to some practical stuff for my peacemaking friends.

Peace to you all.  I need to get some sleep now, as I hope to attend the Sunrise Interfaith service at Hampton Beach, which will involve (I think) The New England Peace Pagoda, NH and MA Peace Action and the Friends Service Committee, hoping that my Buddhist and Quaker brethren can use some prayers from a good Episcopalian.  If freezing rain keeps me away, they may expect my spiritual support at least.