04/15/2004: "The mainline's foreign policy"

National Council of Churches president Robert Edgar made a speech at the University of Missouri yesterday entitled "Toward a Peace-Centered Foreign Policy. It's too long to fisk, so I've selected passages that are representative of the whole to critique.

War-minded hawks in the Administration are even now trying to use the impact of the Iraq war to coerce and intimidate Syria, North Korea, Iran, and other states. The Administration’s policy of preemption–formed in the crucible of the September 11 bombings–shapes their agenda, and we need to understand what it prescribes for our dangerous world.

And the down side of this is what? For a secular state to try to make nice with people like Kim Jong Il and the mad mullahs is like expecting someone to try to be friends with a starving pit bull.

But the war was more than useless and destructive. It actually created new terrorist threats and acted as an effective recruitment tools al Qaeda. A year ago Egyptian President Mubarak feared the war would create “a hundred new bin Ladens.” Today it is estimated that tens of thousands of Iraqis have been mobilized to resist the US occupation, the Internet carries scenes of young men in the Middle East signing up for militias to go fight the US in Iraq. Terrorist bombers have found new targets in Madrid and elsewhere. It seems that by going to war with Iraq the only thing that we have actually pre-empted is our own ability to fight terrorism.

Though Edgar says earlier in the speech that "We all can be happy that the Iraqi people are free from [Saddam's] despotic rule," apparently that happy result isn't enough to mitigate the "uselessness" of the war. As for the rest, this is a common assertion on the left, and it's based on a fundamental misunderstanding of the Islamist phenomena. It is not simply our actions in the Middle East that the Islamists don't like, it's who we are. We're predominantly Christian and Jewish, democratic, and free. We respect and fully protect the rights of minorities. We are home to liberated women. We practice freedom of speech and of the press in a way that allows for public licentiousness. The point is that the terrorist ranks have been growing for over 20 years, and will continue to grow to the extent that they are not forcefully opposed. Weakness and accomodation on the part of the West will only embolden them in their view that the West is decadent and ripe for collapse. Just as they hit New York and Washington, they were bound to hit other Western cities as well. The attack on Madrid was inevitable–if not this year, then next, or the next.

The members of the National Council of Churches have articulated their faith foundation for involvement in seeking "a world bound together in intentional community, dedicated to the well-being of all people and all creation." The phrase comes from our 1999 policy statement "Pillars of Peace for the 21st Century." Referring to our "theological understanding that is global in nature," the statement points to the "transcending sovereignty and love of God for all creation," the "dignity and worth of each person as a child of God," and other biblical beliefs that call us to work for peace and justice for all the world’s people.

We can take a direct and firm step from that statement of belief to a foreign policy of peacemaking. Five simple but fundamental principles, proposed here, can give substance to such a policy. A peace-centered foreign policy must be:

Internationally engaged;
Rooted in multilateral cooperation;
Committed to collective security through arms control, deterrence, disarmament and international cooperation;
Dedicated to our best principles;
And, perhaps most importantly, proactive not reactive.

"Internationally engaged" is claptrap–Edgar isn't seriously suggesting that we're not now, is he? "Rooted in multilateral cooperation" is simply UN-worship; Edgar's continued faith in the UN rivals that of the Flat Earth Society in its willingness to ignore reality. The third item begs the question of terrorism–how exactly are we going to get al-Qaeda to agree to verifiable "disarmament," and why discuss "arms control" with people who shouldn't have them in the first place. "Deterrence," of course, is only effective if the other side is convinced you are willing to use force, which Edgar is against under all known circumstances. "Dedicated to our best principles" is just meaningless rhetoric. And I thought it was America's proactive approach in Iraq to which he was objecting.

Under "Internationally engaged, Edgar says, We must show ourselves willing to do the long-term work of developing fragile economic, political and social institutions; and patiently improving human rights. This requires persistent engagement over years, in some cases generations. Think for a moment of your own community and neighborhood, and the tremendous investment of time, sweat and resources needed to build up your local schools, houses of worship, and other institutions. We need to be engaged with a long-term helping hand to those who seek a better, freer life.

This is the same man who, a few minutes before, said "Let’s hand over authority in Iraq to the United Nations immediately...if they will have it." I guess he has less patience than he counseled folks at UM to have. He's right about this, certainly, but that just makes his hypocrisy as one of the leading voices of the cut-and-run crowd that much more galling. One also wonders if he even realizes that there really are people in Iraq who have no desire to lead their people to a "better, freer life" who must be forcefully opposed if Iraq is to be better and freer

Under "Multilateral cooperation," Edgar says, To address these threats, we need a strong United Nations and the active engagement of our democratic allies around the world. Ironically, at a time when the Bush Administration has either side-stepped the UN or tried to manipulate it, the United Nations has more clout and functions better than at any time in its history. Under the able leadership of Kofi Annan, the UN and its subsidiary bodies are playing positive roles around the globe.

The UN demonstrated its responsiveness and accountability following the September 11 attacks. Immediately afterwards, the Security Council joined us in pressuring the Taliban, and then passed resolutions to authorize international action against the Taliban and al Qaeda. The international community was mobilized to increase cooperation in fighting terrorism. In particular, the Security Council’s Counter-Terrorism Committee has been an important global "bully pulpit" to encourage all nations to crack down on terrorist financing, organizing and movement.

This has led to some dramatic breakthroughs in our global "war on terrorism," including some high-level al Qaeda arrests and crackdowns on al Qaeda operatives in Spain, Germany, Britain, Singapore and many other nations. Even countries that traditionally have been at arm’s length from us–such as Libya–have cooperated in the campaign against al Qaeda, which we need to remember is the major threat our nation faces today.

At this point I begin to wonder whether Edgar gets his news from anyone other than Kofi Annan's personal publicist. Heard of the Oil-for-Food scandal, Bob? Been to Bosnia lately, Bob? Know how long the UN tried to get anything positive out of Libya before the Iraq invasion, Bob? Know how little the UN has contributed to the "arrests and crackdowns" on al-Qaeda, Bob? Recall any of the furious manipulations of the Security Council by France and Russia over the last 10 years to prevent enforcement of SC resolutions, Bob? Bob? Earth to Bob, are you still with us?

Under "Pursuing collective security," Edgar says, Churches have a long history of activism on disarmament and arms control, even when the Cold War held the world in its tightest grip. In the 1950s mainline and Orthodox churches in the U.S. and the Soviet Union built relationships with each other that led them to increasingly bolder joint stances on the arms race. Today the world has changed greatly but is no less dangerous. It is time to commit ourselves anew to cooperation in disarmament and arms control.

Rather than disparaging international efforts to limit the spread of weapons of mass destruction, the U.S. should more vigorously engage with international agencies that seek to prevent the spread of nuclear, chemical and biological weapons, and the missiles that can transport them. But we can hardly put the genie back in the bottle. At least two dozen nations in the world today possess chemical or biological weapons, perhaps even forty nations. The United States has played a leading role in the proliferation of arms development to scores of countries. We must shift our export policies away from sowing instability in future trouble spots and instead work to curb the spread of arms.

As far as I know, the US has never sold chemical or biological, much less nuclear, weapons to any country, at least outside of NATO. Edgar doesn't want us "intimidating" North Korea or Iran, but we should "seek to prevent the spread" of WMD. Presumably he still believes in 90s-style bribery. Oh, and if I were you, Bob, I wouldn't go around bragging about what the NCC (and WCC) accomplished in putting forth "bolder joint stances on the arms race" with Soviet-controlled churches in the 1950s. Brings back bad fellow-traveler and/or hopeless naivete memories.

Under "Dedication to our best principles," Edgar says...oh, skip it. It's all about Guantanamo.

Under "Proactive not reactive," Edgar says, We should establish and invest the BILLIONS needed for a Peace Promotion and War Prevention Fund to engage in proactive peacemaking by addressing the root causes of war and conflict. In our interdependent world, we must match our investment in war fighting and defense spending–which dwarfs that of all other nations–with investments in peace building and conflict prevention. In the spirit of the Marshall Plan, a half century ago, a Peace Promotion and War Prevention Fund could be devoted to improving health conditions and educational opportunity for the world’s poorest citizens."

Whenever people like Edgar mention "root causes," check your wallet. Edgar is apparently unaware that many Middle Eastern countries–Saudi Arabia, for instance, the chief producer of terrorists for the last decade, or Iraq–have been awash in oil money for years. The keys to addressing the "root causes of war and conflict" are changes in culture–which no amount of money can accomplish–and political institutions, which must be transformed from being based in social control to being based in freedom. There's no amount of money that can be thrown at say, Syria, that will make it any less of a terror haven as long as Bashir Assad and his gang are in charge. Osama bin Laden was not a poor shop keeper in Riyadh before going into the terror business, and most of his followers are middle-class young men who happen to subscribe to a bloodthirsty religious doctrine.

And that should do it for now. Read the rest on your own if you wish. In any case, be sure to vote for Bob Edgar, Democrat for Congress, this Novem...oh, wait a minute. That was his last job.