 |
Joel
Tagert |
The war has not been
won; it has been lost. In the last five years, India
and Pakistan have both built nuclear weapons, and North
Korea now says it intends to. George Bush beats the
neighbor’s terrier with a baseball bat while ignoring
the tiger in his basement.
The sideline warriors yelling for war puff out chests
and clench fists when they comment on the ravages of Saddam’s
regime, but they cower and stutter when faced with the implacable
logic of nuclear proliferation. It is easy to insist
on the war’s necessity when conquest is easy; it is
another matter when it may mean destruction of all life
on Earth.
Over and over, I am confronted by angry white men who say,
“What about the hundreds of thousands of people that
Saddam killed? What about them? You want to
just sit around while Saddam murders his own people?”
Or, “What about the thousands of people who died in
the World Trade Center, huh? Don’t you care
about them?”
These knee-jerk reactions to peace-work expose a dangerous
myopia in the American mind. It insists first that
blame for any evil committed by American forces rests with
Saddam Hussein and not those committing the evil actions;
second, that there is some sort of link between Saddam and
Al Qaeda; third, that the only effective way to end violence
is with violence; and fourth, that nonviolent action amounts
to inaction. All are incorrect.
First, two wrongs do not make a right, and responsibility
for murder cannot be easily shifted. Just as the soldiers
who do the killing will have to live with the psychological
consequences of their actions, so too, does our country
bear responsibility for the wrongs it commits, no matter
what evil preceeds it. Those whose mothers, daughters, fathers,
and sons are killed by American military action will believe
this, even if we do not.
Second, there is no link between the government of Saddam
Hussein and Al Qaeda. Despite Bush’s insinuations,
a link simply does not exist. If anyone has evidence,
I say, produce it.
Third, violence cannot be eliminated by more violence.
Whatever the immediate result, there are wider ramifications,
including that it will be used to justify future violence,
by this government and others.
A close corollary of the what-about-Saddam’s-victims
argument is the use of WWII as rationale for military action.
It goes like this: “What about WWII? Would you
have just let Hitler run all over Europe, killing millions
of Jews?”
Those who make this argument should examine it more carefully.
If one says WWII was necessary to stop evil, it must follow
that another world war may be necessary. We might as well
give up hope, because the next world war will be the last
world war because all life on earth will be annihilated.
Violence perpetuates violence. This is the true message
of the deaths of innocents. However this war ends;
however WWII ended, the origin is certain: the war and violence
that reaches down through history.
Alternatives to violence do exist, and they are effective.
This brings me to my fourth point: nonviolent resistance
does not imply inaction. To the contrary: it demands
action beyond anything that war proponents have dreamt.
It demands unceasing creative and spiritual exertion; a
deep understanding of world politics and of the human condition;
and a profound faith in the power of unconditional love
to reform the human spirit.
Nonviolent resistance is powerful, but the main reason
many people are skeptical is because they know nothing about
it. How many of those calling for war have read Mahatma
Gandhi and Martin Luther King Jr.? Judging from the
blank looks I get when I mention their accomplishments,
not a one. But don’t we have a responsibility
to educate ourselves about nonviolence before advocating
violence?
Mahatma Gandhi freed India from oppressive British rule
through nonviolent means. He did this with the support of
hundreds of thousands of Indian people who educated themselves
about nonviolent resistance. He did not, as someone
ridiculously asserted in a letter on these pages, have the
“British law on his side.”
Martin Luther King Jr. had the Constitution on his side,
but it was only through years of intensive campaigns of
civil disobedience that the intent of the Constitution was
enacted in legislation. In the meantime, African-Americans
were brutally oppressed by local police forces, such as
Bull Connor’s in Birmingham, Alabama.
John F. Kennedy said, “Whenever we stand against
the flow of opinion on strongly contested issues, a man
does what he must, in spite of personal consequences, in
spite of obstacles, dangers, and pressures; and that is
the basis of all human morality.”
It does not surprise me that so many Americans support
the war. People’s instinct is to march behind
the powerful when afraid. This takes no courage;
it is often the coward’s path. What is truly difficult
is finding the truth for oneself, and finding the strength
to act on that truth, even if it means standing in the minority
and suffering personal consequences. If our government insists
on enforcing unjust laws and waging unjust wars, then we
have an ethical obligation to oppose its actions.
Headlines
|
