Firstly, I must say clearly what may have been understood by my
remarks in previous posts—I do not believe that the nation-state (and by
extension, the United Nations) has exclusive utility in today’s world as an international
instrument of justice or as a tool to establish freedom, though national governments as ever serve a
vital domestic role. I think just as
non-state evil actors (Al-Qaeda terrorist organizations, for instance), have
clearly become a force of disorder in worldwide in the 21st century, non-state good actors must
respond by being forces of order. Technologies
and individuals create networks all across the planet, and just as these have
been perverted for wrong, these can be mobilized in beneficial ways. A secular example, MSF (Medecins Sans
Frontiers/Doctors Without Borders) supersedes national lines to provide
physical care for displaced peoples and many others in dire need of medical
attention (earning them a Nobel Peace Prize a few years ago). There are many other formal NGOs and charities that serve
in similarly important capacities. So,
certainly, care for the needs of the afflicted is essential, and both countries
and individuals are components of this—neither should leave the responsibility solely
to the other, but endeavor insofar as possible to work in concert, or at least
not against one another.
Stopping the source of affliction? Well, that’s frequently far more difficult, as
everyone knows. Just exposing the
existence of the evil can itself be a tremendous tool. Information sharing about human trafficking,
sexual exploitation, murder, rape, and other horrors can give victims courage and
identify frequently shadowy perpetrators.
Frequently, simple exposure to
information about the freedoms others enjoy elsewhere can spur revolutions
among oppressed peoples. Many democratic
nation-states have laws on the books outlawing activities that occur within
their borders—they need citizens and networks to expose wrongdoers and put
pressure on the legal system to enforce the extant regulations. For instance, important non-state actors,
like banks, can be pressured by both the nation-states within which they
operate and by networks of individuals to cease providing a means for the
transfer of ill-gotten and ill-intended funds.
Unfortunately, particularly in non-democratic contexts, perpetrators
oftentimes are much better equipped than their exploited opponents. Sometimes (mostly in democratic societies,
even previously only nominal ones) passive resistance can work to bring about
change, other times people feel called to arms.
This is the point where the situation becomes morally fraught, with the
very real risk that employing violent means will become an end in itself, and the
former victims will end up as vicious and depraved as their old masters. Too, nation-states have had repeated problems
with supplying arms to the enemy of their enemy and then later having those
same weapons pointed back at them. The
same challenge would beset any private group who sought to do the same. It is rare—and we Americans are particularly
historically blessed in this regard—that wise leadership will establish limits
to the behavior and aims of their revolutionary combatants, and after achieving
the stated aims, not set themselves up in dictatorial positions.
Nation-states do have obligations among themselves,
agreements for mutual defense and economic relations that they must honor, and
various states go through periods of preeminence, but unless they are defending
their own borders or contractually engaged in the defense of an ally’s, and
thoroughly punishing infringement thereof, I don’t think the preeminent
democracy of the moment should be throwing troops into active combat elsewhere,
no matter the internal evils of a non-democratic regime. For one thing, contemporary democracies (which typically don’t
fight one another, preferring to settle their disagreements through
alternative, peaceful means) don’t all have the same historical qualifications
and experiences in different parts of the world. Sometimes, the more influential the democratic
nation-state, the more deliberately ignorant its leadership and population about
others’ cultures and individual aspirations and simultaneously arrogant about its
ability to bring order to chaotic countries; another “lesser” democracy and its
people may be better equipped to handle the challenge of reforming the
particular failed state because of a shared history, language, or culture. Wisdom leads to humility, and humility
recognizes others’ strengths and encourages them to lead when they are best
suited for the task at hand.
I don’t think acknowledging the aforementioned reality predisposes a shared
worldview, but I think that Christians have an essential role to play in the
struggle for peace and justice at home and abroad. I believe people have a responsibility before
God to promoting compassion and justice within and to their own nations. This is a natural placement—I was born an
American, as others were born French, Russian, Korean, Serbian or Chinese, and
it is within this context first that we act.
Insofar as we are able, we are by God’s
grace to see to the welfare of our families and of the “least of these” (widows,
orphans, the poor, the disabled, the helpless) within our immediate
surroundings, and also in our countries as a whole. For many of us, an exclusive concentration on
addressing these local needs would occupy all of our time and energy, but I
think that the very nature of modern communications means we are all called to
have a broader, intercultural perspective, to not be entirely focused on our
own small sphere (though that is considerable) but also to have a concept of
world needs. Some of us are more
multiculturally aware than others, but each has his or her own
strengths. The nature of the holy
catholic (universal) church as Christ’s body is simultaneously intimate and
global. And we should not forget that
God himself is the main actor in directing the affairs of nations—we need to be
always talking to him, and listening to his leading, praying for his terrible
swift mercy rather than relying exclusively on our own limited understanding of
world problems and events.
I cannot say that France has a better rationale than we do for
getting involved in Syria, but there may be some diplomatic justification
(defense of a large number of its nationals in the country, for instance) which
is more legitimate than our own. They
certainly have a closer historical relationship to the country than we do, and
their direct investment in the area may be greater (I haven’t checked the
numbers). I do think that given France’s
long connection with Iran—and supply of technology to that country for its
controversial nuclear program—that a French military reconfiguration of Syrian
affairs would send a stronger deterrent message to Iran’s extraterritorially
ambitious leadership than any US action.
But whatever either the French or the US governments eventually do, I don’t think individual Americans need stand idly by while the
chaos in Syria continues—we should look into means of mitigating the suffering
there, all the while making sure that any atrocities are documented and deplored,
and their instigators clearly identified for the time when they will inevitably
face justice. Everyone does, either in
this life or in the one to come.
No comments:
Post a Comment