Christian Pacifism, the Constitution, and War in Libya

The Libya situation is a classic rubber-hits-the-road situation for an evolving pacifist like myself.  On the one hand I believe strongly that the Gospel implores us to practice non-aggression, and practical experience shows that violence never begets less violence but only escalates it.  On the other hand you had peaceful protests from Libyans seeking to only secure democracy for themselves, but were met with violence from their government and it seems only right to send our military in to cripple their oppressive and aggressive government.  The world is, indeed, a complicated place.

But I can't support military action in Libya.  Not only do we have two wars of choice already being fought in the Middle East, not only is our military stretched thin, not only is our budget (and our military budget in particular) spinning out of control, not only does America tend to get bogged down in regime change messes, but I believe escalating the violence is the unethical response.

Here is a sampling of where my Christian pacifism comes from:

Matthew 5:9
Blessed are the peacemakers: for they shall be called the children of God.

Matthew 5:38-46
38 Ye have heard that it hath been said, An  eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth:

39 But I say unto you, That ye resist not evil: but whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also.

40 And if any man will sue thee at the law, and take away thy coat, let him have thy cloke also.

41 And whosoever shall compel thee to go a mile, go with him twain.

42 Give to him that asketh thee, and from him that would borrow of thee turn not thou away.

43 Ye have heard that it hath been said, Thou shalt love thy neighbor, and hate thine enemy.

44 But I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you;

45 That ye may be the children of your Father which is in heaven: for he maketh his sun to rise on the evil and on the good, and sendeth rain on the just and on the unjust.

46 For if ye love them which love you, what reward have ye? do not even the publicans the same? 

Doctrine and Covenants 98:16
Therefore, renounce war and proclaim peace, and seek diligently to turn the hearts of the children to their fathers, and the hearts of the fathers to the children

Doctrine and Covenant 98:33-34
33 And again, this is the law that I gave unto mine ancients, that they should not go out unto battle against any nation, kindred, tongue, or people, save I, the Lord, commanded them.

34 And if any nation, tongue, or people should proclaim war against them, they should first lift a standard of peace unto that people, nation, or tongue;

President Kimball, The False Gods We Worship
We are a warlike people, easily distracted from our assignment of preparing for the coming of the Lord. When enemies rise up, we commit vast resources to the fabrication of gods of stone and steel—ships, planes, missiles, fortifications—and depend on them for protection and deliverance. When threatened, we become antienemy instead of pro-kingdom of God; we train a man in the art of war and call him a patriot, thus, in the manner of Satan’s counterfeit of true patriotism, perverting the Savior’s teaching:

“Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you; That ye may be the children of your Father which is in heaven.”

If we are going to take these words seriously, it means making really, really hard decisions about non-aggression.  I'm certainly glad that I have only to make personal decisions and not be in a position to effect the lives of others, but this is an opportunity for us as Christians to unite behind the idea of peace, even when it is perhaps the hardest decision to make.  We then turn our safety and aspirations over to the Lord, and put complete trust in Him to protect us and guide us as He has promised to do.

Also, there is the little issue of the war being unconstitutional.  The Constitution gives only Congress the power to declare war, and gives the President power as the Commander in Chief to direct wars declared by Congress.  Congress did not authorize this military engagement with Libya.  As usual, Glenn Greenwald nails it here, and I pretty much fully agree with some ultra-conservatives here.

Theocracy

Let's imagine a worst-case scenario where the United States, through internal factors, disintegrates and splinters.  As a result, different states and regions band together to form new nations.  One natural fit would be for the people of the "Mormon Belt" to form an alliance and create a new nation, let's call it Deseret.

Now imagine a choice between creating a democracy, similar to the one established in the Constitution, and a theocracy where the prophet was the head of state, similar to the institutions created by Joseph Smith and Brigham Young.  Which would you choose?  I'm not sure that is such an easy choice for Mormons.

Now, how does this effect your views on the revolutions taking place in the Middle East?  There is considerable hand-wringing by conservatives, given voice by Fox News, and hilariously parodied by Glenn Beck, that the revolutions are distinctly bad because Islamists may take power.  After all, Palestinians elected Hamas and in Egypt the Muslim Brotherhood has some amount of popularity and political organization.  It is certainly not a perfect analogy, but how critical can we be of Muslims choosing to create a theocracy when we, as Mormons, would likely be inclined to do the same?

Democracy in Egypt and the Middle East

What you are hearing from Washington insiders regarding the uprising, or revolution, in Egypt is that Pres. Obama is in a very tough spot.  Republicans are surprisingly supportive of this view and are standing behind the president as he tries to figure out what to do.  It's tricky because we've been supporting, through billions of dollars in aid, Mubarak for decades, this despite the fact that he is an undemocratic autocrat who excludes his people from legitimate public debate and involvement.  But the US is okay with that because he has been friendly with Israel, he has been moderate in keeping fundamentalism at bay in Egypt, and the country has been stable under his rule.

This is the classic foreign policy realism point of view.  Realism is not concerned with right or wrong, moral or immoral, and the like.  Realism is concerned with who has power and how does that effect me?  The paramount concern for a foreign policy realist is one's own security and self-interest.  From the realist's point of view, Mubarak has been perfectly acceptable.  The idea of a revolution in Egypt, with the possibility of chaos or fundamentalism taking hold as a counter-weight to the possibility of real democracy taking hold, is a risk probably not worth taking.  So the establishment is treading very carefully, not really sure what to do about it.  Of course a stable democracy is the very best thing for America's self-interest, but the cost/benefit analysis is tricky.  This is why the Obama administration is making wishy-washy statements and being blamed for being one step behind the situation, and why Republicans are supportive.

And it's all wrong.

America's self-interest is second to the inherent right of all people to live under conditions of democracy, peace, and human rights.  This is called foreign policy idealism, that our foreign policy is led by our internal philosophies, and America was founded on the ideals of freedom, democracy, and human rights (well, we got there eventually, anyway).  These are, for the most part, peaceful demonstrations of people who are throwing off an oppressive dictator and they should have nothing but our full support, and should have had it from the beginning.  The same is true of the recent protests in Tunisia, Iran, Jordan, and Yemen.

"Stability in lieu of freedom," as a recent Wall Street Journal editorial stated, was the long-time realist approach to the Middle East, but that is changing now.  Even the realists are seeing some value in a democratic and free Egypt.  In this case, the realists are on the wrong side of history, flat-footed as they realize that the old conventional wisdom that democracy could not take root naturally in the Middle East was nothing more than haughty American exceptionalism at its worst.  The Bush Doctrine of spreading democracy through war has been trounced and we now realize, more than ever before, that peaceful democracy and Islam are not mutually exclusive.

I'm not saying that Pres. Obama's famous Cairo Speech prompted this organic revolution, but as has been noted, the president put himself in the best position possible to support it when he said these words: "America respects the right of all peaceful and law-abiding voices to be heard around the world, even if we disagree with them.  And we will welcome all elected, peaceful governments -- provided they govern with respect for all their people."

Pres. Obama has not always backed those words with concrete actions, and he has been slow to react correctly to the political upheaval in the Middle East and North Africa, but he at least staked out the correct amount of foreign policy idealism and gave America the flexibility to reject a stable Middle Eastern dictator when the people chose to overthrow him.

For too long America has supported dictators in the Middle East, even Saddam Hussein at one time, in the name of foreign policy realism, and it has left us weaker and more vulnerable, and morally bankrupt.  It is now time for America to support democracy and human-rights in the name of foreign policy idealism.  Next stop, by the way, must be Palestine.

A Faltering Africa

I read an article about the state of war in Africa and have been rolling it around in my head for the last few days.  Sometimes you read something about the world which just slaps you in the face, and this was one of those times for me.

I tend to be an optimist on both a micro and macro level.  Many would call this naivete or willful delusion, but I consider it asset.  I believe that things will work out okay for me personally during difficult times (my wife might say this causes me to be less proactive than I should be, and maybe she's right), and I believe that the world is actually doing okay.  Sure there are problems, big ugly problems, but there are also a lot of good people doing their best to solve those problems.

We live in a world that has less slavery than ever before, less racism and sexism, more tolerance and understanding.  Mass communication has allowed us to perceive and react to inhumanities worldwide where before they would go unnoticed.  For every war or earthquake there are aid groups like the Red Cross and Doctors Without Borders who rush in to help improve the situation.  And, of course, our church and many others donate hundreds of millions of dollars worth of supplies and volunteer time every year to help the disadvantaged.  For every instance of cruelty in the world I look for and see equal instances of charity.

But, man, Africa.

That article from Foreign Policy is sobering.  The county is teeming with armed groups whose only goals are crime, banditry, rape, and terror.  But not terror in the sense of terrorism with a political motivation, terror for terror's sake.  You cannot negotiate with them because they want no land, seek no political power, have no demands.  They only want to keep committing crime.  And because the people hate them, they can't muster up recruits, so they steal children from villagers and teach them to be killers before they reach puberty.

It's not that I didn't know things were bad in Africa, we've all heard about genocides, failed states, blood diamonds, military coups, oppressive totalitarians, famine, hunger, and disease.  But we also know about the temples, the fall of apartheid, and successful nations like Kenya.  When I served my mission in France there were many Africans who had immigrated and they were generally good, humble, God-fearing people.  They really don't deserve what is happening.

So the hard question is what to do about it.  There is always the no-action alternative where we do nothing because it's not our problem.  There is the military alternative where we go in and maintain the peace by force.  There is the foreign aid option where we try to pump money into African economies and the World Bank/IMF and hope the improved economic conditions can lift the countries out of chaos.

America spends about 25 times more on military matters than foreign aid.  We spend about 0.1% of GNP on foreign aid, well below other developed countries and below the NATO goal of 0.7% of GNP.  As a side note, the church has spent tens of millions of dollars in supplies, volunteer hours, and loans to Africa over the past 25 years.  Pres. Obama promised to increase America's foreign aid, but with a faltering economy has not had the political capital to increase that spending.

In a world where our foreign policy is most concerned about stopping terrorism and rogue nuclear weapons, we have to put an emphasis on Africa.  The lawlessness and despair in many African countries is a cauldron for the creation of terrorists and failed states.  America has to be dedicated to improving conditions in Africa just like we are dedicated to spreading democracy in the Middle East.  I am truly grateful to be a member of a church that has donated so much in humanitarian aid to Africa, but I realize that it is not enough.  Our nation has to increase our reach in Africa.

But we shouldn't just do it as a mechanism for self-protection, though that is a persuasive political argument.  If we want true success our motivation will be purely humanitarian, what Christians would call charity.  We should do it because it's right, because we are all God's children and as citizens of the most prosperous and powerful nation on earth we have the added responsibility to help those that are in need.  I can't think of any people in greater need right now than Africa.