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.