|
The World Council of Churches and National Counsel of Churches
through the lens of Athanasius
another site Blog.
For Moravians asking "what is the World Council and National Council
of Churches doing," this compiled index of articles and links is must
reading. Be warned your views of what you thought was a Christian
organization are most likely about to change! If you are only challenged
from these commentaries, to start watching these organizations closely you
will be well inspired.
The NCC / WCC have been under the microscope of those who
are concerned that these organizations that purport to represent the
ideas and values of Christian Churches are actually at odds with
Christians and the United States.
The commentaries below are copied by permission from the
another site Blog. and are a compiled list of postings that
have appeared over the last couple of years.
We have included responses to these postings when
available .
Read and Post thoughts
on the WCC & the NCC - Click Here
Index
Colin
Powell's Little Helper: The National Council of Churches Posted by
Athanasius @ 6/11/2003
WCC
Plans Conference on Evangelism; is this an Oxymoron? Posted by Athanasius
@ 6/20/2003
WCC looks
to the French; Posted by Athanasius @ 6/24/2003
News Flash
from the Geneva State Dept. Posted by Athanasius @ 7/28/2003
National
Council gets it right; Posted by Athanasius @ 8/23/2003
Tailoring the message to the audience? Posted by Athanasius @ 9/9/2003
More from
NCC, this time it's Korea @11/ 22/2003
Meanwhile, in
Geneva... Posted by Athanasius @ 12/12/2003
Oh, the shame of it! Posted by Athanasius @ 1/15/2004
WCC AWOL on
anti-Semitism at WSF Posted by Athanasius @ 2/3/2004
Hysteria
on the wall Posted by Athanasius @ 2/21/2004
03/23/2004: "WCC blusters on Iraq"
03/25/2004: "WCC: Don't touch terrorists"
The
mainlines foreign policy Athanasius on 4/15/04
04/15/2004: "Orthodox bishop gets WCC-ified"
04/19/2004:
"Let's get real"
05/18/2004:
"Two for one!"
07/01/2004:
"It's all the West's fault...whatever it is"
Colin Powell's Little Helper: The National Council of
Churches Posted by Athanasius @ 6/11/2003
What would the United Staes Government do without the NCC to tell it how
to conduct foreign policy? The same people who can't make up their
collective minds on a wide variety of theological and ethical issues–you
know, the stuff they're supposed to know something about–act as though
they are being led by God's own fiery pillar through the dark wilderness
of international affairs. Last week, in a whirlwind round of diplomacy,
NCC President Rev. Bob Edgar and his SecState, Dr. Antonios Kireopoulos (NCC
Associate General Secretary for International Affairs and Peace), visited
Jordan, Syria, and Lebanon to meet with religious and political leaders.
As might be expected, the meetings produced a couple of howlers. Dr.
Kireopoulos, commenting on a statement issued by Iraqi religious leaders
about US responsibilities in their country, said that ""If the United
States doesn’t quickly rebuild Iraq, any possible good will for ousting
Saddam Hussein will be exhausted." Leave aside the fact that most of the
destruction of Iraq's infrastructure and environment has been the result
of Saddamite tyranny over the last couple of decades. Don't miss that "any
possible good will" line. Can anyone think of any possible reason why
there might be any good will come the US' way after it deposed one of the
most murderous thugs to ever rule a nation-state? Try out this variation
on the theme and see how it sounds: "If Vietnam doesn't quickly rebuild
Cambodia, any possible good will for ousting Pol Pot will be exhausted."
Hard to imagine anyone saying something so absurd, but then Dr.
Kireopoulos wasn't at the NCC in the 70s.
Of the other, it's hard to believe it was said with a straight face.
According to the NCC's foreign minister, a noble statesman "offered his
country as the venue for a future interfaith conference to talk further
about peace and religious pluralism." The civic-minded politico? The
President of Syria, Bashar Assad, son of Hafez "Butcher of Hama" Assad,
whose government has engaged through its official press in vicious
Jew-baiting, oppressed non Alawite-Muslims, and served as host to over a
dozen of the Middle East's most violent terrorist groups. Next stop for
the NCC's foreign policy apparat: the "Building Better Economies Through
Free Markets" conference in Pyongyang, North Korea.
WCC Plans Conference on Evangelism; is this an
Oxymoron? Posted by Athanasius @ 6/20/2003
Last week the World Council of Churches sent out letters inviting
nominations to a "Conference on World Mission and Evangelism" in Athens in
2005. The conference title is "Come, Holy Spirit, Heal and Reconcile." The
theme is "Called in Christ to be reconciling and healing communities."
According to the invitation letter sent to member denominations by WCC
GenSec Konrad Raiser and CWME moderator Rev. Ruth Bottoms, the mission of
churches and Christians is "to form healing communities," and "to create
and multiply such safe spaces, hospitable to those who are stigmatized,
lost, searching for meaning or community, and to journey with victims of
violence and sin towards reconciliation and justice."
This all sounds good until one realizes that the WCC typically uses words
like "reconciliation," "justice," and "healing" in entirely worldly,
political senses. Back when it was first announced (in a press release
coincidentally dated September 11, 2001), Jacques Matthey, the coordinator
of the Mission and Evangelism team, noted that it was being held in the
context of the Decade to Overcome Violence. (By way of reminder, the World
Council is run by people who can't bring themselves to call Hamas a
terrorist organization, and who couldn't abide the overthrow of the
Butcher of Baghdad. So much for overcoming violence.) The chances that the
conference will actually deal with the work of bringing people to Christ,
especially when so many Western denominations are led by leaders who have
a reflexive bias against evangelism because of a bent toward pluralism if
not universalism, are slim at best. But we can hope.
WCC
looks to the French; Posted by Athanasius @ 6/24/2003
Earlier this month, World Council of Churches staff met with officials
from the French Foreign Ministry and French churches to discuss the French
and European Union role in bringing the Middle East "road map" to
fruition. (You've heard of the "road map." That's the piece of paper that
was going to bring peace to Israel and a state to the Palestinians until
Hamas, Islamic Jihad, and Arafat's Al Aqsa Martyrs Brigade tore it up and
threw it in the faces of its US, EU, UN, and Russian sponsors.) A couple
of items in the WCC news release caught my eye.
The first was a declaration by Peter Weiderud of the WCC that "We expect a
strong involvement of France and the European Union" because some of the
core issues "have international implications and should not just be left
to the two parties directly concerned." Translation: There are matters
that the children who actually live in the region are not fit to decide,
so us Europeans adults will do it for them. Secondary translation:
Somebody is going to have to force Israel into concessions; we nominate
you.
The second was this: "Any agreements reached on the return of refugees and
on settlements, which are based on the principles of international law,
would have implications in other refugee situations and cases of
occupation." Translation: getting a nation to commit demographic suicide,
not to mention allow thousands of actual and potential murderers to flood
through its borders, is hard work. Sounds like a job for the EU.
That the WCC is still talking in terms of the "return of refugees" (that
means one-way traffic, of course; the WCC has never expressed the
slightest degree of interest for supporting Jews who were expelled from
Arab countries over the last 50 years to return to their countries of
origin) at this late date simply demonstrates how out of touch with
reality, and utterly irrelevant, the WCC is with regard to one of its pet
projects, Israel-Palestinian peace. No Palestinians are moving back to
Israel, period. The "right of return" is as dead as Francisco Franco. But
then the WCC is merely echoing its favorite Palestinian terrorist, Yasser
Arafat, who also won't give up the pipe dream of refugee return, and who
is also irrelevant to any possible peace except as a wrecking agent.
News Flash from the Geneva State Dept. Posted by
Athanasius @ 7/28/2003
What would Middle East developments be without comment from the World
Council of Churches' professional kibitzers? This time it's WCC/CCIA
director Peter Weiderud offering insights into the so-called "road map" to
peace between Israel and the Palestinians
("Road Map" Commentary).
Weiderud refers to six "significant shortcomings" of the plan. They are:
*Lack of incorporation of "humanitarian law" into the plan
*Refusal to call for elimination of all Israeli settements
*Refusal to decide on Jerusalem's division in advance of negotiations
*No mention of security fence being built by Israel to keep out terrorists
*Ambiguity in monitoring mechanisms and participants
*Lack of call for acceptance of "the principles of the right of return"
Now, there's no question that the road map is imperfect, and there's been
criticism of it by Israelis and Palestinians alike. Weiderud's objections,
however, are almost entirely one-sided.
1) The settlement issue is taken by Weiderud to be simple and
straightforward: no Israeli settlements, period. But what is a settlement?
The Jewish neighborhood of Gilo in southern Jerusalem, built on land
bought from the Palestinian town of Beit Jala, has frequently been
referred to as a "settlement" in the media. Weiderud presumes to have the
answer, but it isn't that simple.
2) He complains that there "is no mention as to whether Jerusalem is going
to be shared in terms of citizenship and sovereignty." In other words, he
is against negotiation on a matter that even the Arafat-approved Oslo
Accords agreed should be subject to negotiation. He simply wants East
Jerusalem to be given to the Palestinians in advance.
3) Weiderud is really bothered by the security fence. Of course, the WCC
has been bothered by every single act of self-defense Israel has
undertaken in the last three years. The fence will kill no one,
assassinate no one, injure no one. It is designed to keep terrorists out,
rather than having Israeli Defence Force units go into West Bank towns to
stop them. It is based on the highly successful security fence around
Gaza, about which no one from the WCC has protested, to my knowledge.
Adjustments to the specific lines of the fence can certainly be made to
insure contiguity in Palestinian areas. But Weiderud seems to object to
the existence of the fence in any form.
4) As usual, the most preposterous objection is that there is no mention
in the road map of "the acceptance of the principles of the right of
return, a key element for the solution of this issue." In other words,
there is no suggestion in the map that Israel commit demographic suicide
and cease to be a Jewish state. The reason it isn't in the plan, of
course, is that no country would negotiate its own demise. The Palestinian
leadership also knows this, and their public statements on the issue have
the sound and feel of boilerplate to satisfy a public that can't give up
its pipe dream. The WCC, however, doesn't seem to have gotten the memo.
Folks like Peter Weiderud use the language of even-handed neutrality when
they talk about the Arab-Israeli conflict. Would that it were so.
National
Council gets it right; Posted by Athanasius @ 8/23/2003
Got to give credit where credit's due. In a
news release Wednesday, the
National Council of Churches recognized there were not one but two tragic
bombings in the Middle East this week. General Secretary Robert Edgar said
he was "deeply grieved" by the attacks in Jerusalem and Baghdad, which
"killed and injured innocent civilians and further stoked frustration and
fear in the wider population." There's was lots of standard NCC
boilerplate in the release as well, but it's good to know that some folks
in the ecumenical movement grieve for dead Israeli children. No word yet
from the Geneva State Department, natch. But God bless the folks at
Riverside Drive.
Tailoring the message to the audience? Posted by Athanasius @ 9/9/2003
I recently noted that the World Council of Churches Central Committee has
bestowed upon the United States the honor of being the focus for the
Decade to Overcome Violence in 2004. Mark Tooley of the Institute for
Religion and Democracy informs us that the French version of the statement
making the announcement was different from the English version. He writes:
"The focus on the United States is 'laden with meaning,' according to a
French-language WCC statement about the decision. 'The accent will be
placed on the United States, whose image has considerably deteriorated
because of globalization and the war,' the WCC explained. 'The ideals of
democracy and freedom, of economic success, have been compromised by
injustice, a too arrogant and unilateral approach to international
concerns.'
"These harsh words were not included in the English-language statement
from the WCC, which featured a milder quote from Clifton Kirkpatrick: 'If
ever there was a part of the world where work for peace is important, it
is the USA,' the Presbyterian leader explained. Kirkpatrick was the most
senior U.S. church official present at the Central Committee meeting."
Kinda makes you wonder what else the WCC is saying to its anti-American
(especially European) constituencies out of one side of its mouth, while
saying something else to its biggest financial backers in the US, doesn't
it?
The full article is
here.
More from NCC, this time it's Korea Saturday, November
22, 2003
There are several articles on the recent visit of an NCC delegation to
North and South Korea on the NCC Web site (found
here,
here, and
here).
Leave aside the one-sided policy presciptions that sound like the they
written by the North Korean Foreign Ministry. Leave aside the complete
neglect of the human rights situation--I don't imagine the North Koreans
would have permitted a visit to their gulag even if the delegation had
thought to ask, which I'm sure they didn't. Consider only what's called
the "humanitarian crisis," which Church World Service arranged to address
by bringing in 420 metric tons of wheat flour.
There's a surreal quality in the treatment of this crisis. There is
absolutely no suggestion that the famine which has caused the deaths of at
least 2 million North Koreans over the last several years had anything to
do with the catastrophic policies of the government (for instance, the
feed-the-military-first approach that denied adequate food to many
civilians). Victor Hsu of Church World Service said that "North Korea, due
to its terrain and economic ability, needs about 2 million m[etric] t[ons]
of grain from external sources, purchased or donated." Economic ability?
Try "gross economic incompetence." The famine is spoken of in terms
faintly suggestive of an act of nature, and the continuing food shortages
are blamed on aid donors who, in the NCC's view, haven't ponied up enough.
The U.S. comes in for specific condemnation for reducing its aid, without
any acknowledgement that such an action might have been precipatated by
North Korean government policy (namely, the repudiation of the no-nuclear
development agreement, not to mention the diversion of food from civilians
to military personnel). Hsu even veers off at one point to declare that
giving humanitarian aid makes sense because of the way it opens up North
Korea: "I have been a regular visitor to NK since the late 1980s and I can
attest to the changes a la glasnost in that society," changes which have
escaped the notice of virtually all other observers, including independent
agencies like Human Rights Watch Asia (see here) and the UN Commission for
Human Rights (see here).
Once again, it seems the NCC is singing from an old songbook: pat
totalitarian regimes of the left on the head, and blame all their problems
on the United States.
Meanwhile, in Geneva... Posted by Athanasius @
12/12/2003
The poobahs of the World Council put out more
information on their meeting with Iranian President Khatami. Speaking
on "Religious Dialogue and International Relations," Khatami said:
"The future of religion will depend on the abandoning of fanaticism, and
on (...) mutual comprehension and openness. No religion can hold claim to
absolute Truth (...). Dialogue is the foundation which allows for unity in
diversity."
Wonder if that means the Iranians will be abandoning their support of
Hezbollah, Hamas, or Islamic Jihad. I also wonder if he cleared that "no
religion can hold claim on absolute Truth" line with his fellow ayatollahs
in Tehran. I suspect it will be big news to Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, the
supreme leader at whose sufferance Khatami stays in office. I also wonder
what's the ellipses are hiding. For some reason, Khatami's address is only
available on the WCC Web site in
French. If it turns up in English, I'll fill in those blanks.
Khatami's address received a
response from Konrad Raiser, the Secretary-General who won't go home.
(He's been in the process of leaving his position for months.) His speech
is full of the usual poppycock, including these gems:
"We reject the tendency, not uncommon in many Western countries, to
perceive Muslims as a threat and to portray Islam and some Islamic nations
in negative terms."
Right on. What possible reason could we in the West have for portraying
Iran, Syria, Libya, or Saudi Arabia in negative terms?
"Islamism and Christian fundamentalism can be understood as responses and
as ways of resisting the influence of the secular spirit of modernity and
its global impact."
Obviously equivalent phenomena. Islamism (as opposed to Islam proper)
preaches death to Jews and Christians, and produces at least some
adherents who undertake the job. How many terrorists has Bob Jones
University produced lately?
"Many Muslims, in faithfulness to their tradition, cannot separate the
order of the state and of the legal system from the principles of the
religious community. While the protection ["dhimmitude"] of religious
minorities under tutelage has traditionally been made, full citizenship,
involving equality and participation, is demanded by the said minorities."
Protection? That's the word Muslims use for "dhimmitude," the practice of
treating non-Muslims as third-class citizens so that they'll know what it
means to be in submission to the will of Islam. Bat Ye'or, one of the
foremost scholars of Islam in the West, refers to dhimmitude as a form of
"slavery" (see Dhimmi.org for more
information).
Enough.
Oh,
the shame of it! Posted by Athanasius @ 1/15/2004
Let's start with a little WCC, shall we? This press release from the World
Council of Churches came out yesterday, and is about the Decade of
Violence focus on the US. Here are some selections:
"The concept of preemptive war in Iraq has shaken the relationship of
Europe to the United States," said the Rev. Dr Fernando Enns of the
Ecumenical Institute at the University of Heidelberg, Germany. "In Europe,
the media portrays the church in America as conservative, evangelical, and
connected to right-wing parties," he said. "This is puzzling to European
Christians."
Enns' grammatical imprecision makes it difficult to know what's puzzling
to Europeans: the media's portrayal of the Church in America, or the
Church in America, or the alleged connection between the Church and
"right-wing parties" (I thought there was only the one).
"Many Europeans perceive Americans as merely focused on individual,
private religious life," rather than being involved in public policy or
corporate dimensions of faith, Enns reported.
Given where he was standing at the time (the Interchurch Center in New
York, also known as the God Box, also known as the headquarters for
politically activist left-wing Christianity in America), this is a
peculiar comment, especially given the remark about American churches
being tied to right-wing politics. And for virtually any Western European
to talk about Americans not being involved in "corporate dimensions of
faith" is genuinely rich, since in most of Western Europe 95% of the
population are nominal members of state churches while only 5-10% actually
attend worship, which is the ultimate corporate expression of faith.
"It is important for us to know that there are different voices in the
American church," he said. "We find it a hopeful sign that many Christians
in the United States are mobilized against the death penalty, are
supportive of international climate treaties, and oppose the way prisoners
are currently being treated in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba," he added.
Ah, all is not lost. What he meant was that Europeans think that American
Christians have only one kind of politics, and it's the wrong kind. After
getting acquainted with Bob Edgar and the gang, there's hope for us yet.
"America seems to have two faces," said Tale Hunges, chair of Changemaker,
an ecumenical youth movement in Norway, who compared the United States to
the Greek mythological figure Janus, who had two faces--one focused on the
past, and one focused on the future.
"On the one hand, Norwegians see an American 'face' that we admire--the
'city on a hill,' a marvelous democracy, the saviour of Europe in World
War II," Hunges said. "The other face of America is one of an aggressive
superpower that has only magnified since September 11."
So the face Norwegians admire is the one that pulled their biscuits out of
the Nazi fire. The one they don't like is the one that pulled Iraqi
biscuits out of the Islamofascist fire. A bit of subtle racism at work
here, perhaps? Norwegians shouldn't be oppressed, but it's ok to oppress
Arabs since they aren't really fit for democracy anyway?
"In Norway, the opposition of the churches to the Iraq War was the main
reason that our government didn’t participate in the occupation,” Hunges
added.
Yeah, I'm sure the Norwegian government paid lots of attention to the
representatives of the 5% of the population who still take the church
seriously. I'm also sure that they would have send the whole Norwegian
army to Iraq if it hadn't been for the churches' opposition.
She expressed hope that the 2004 focus on overcoming violence in the
United States would "help activate and stimulate new grassroots
initiatives for peace” in the United States and abroad. "Then," she
concluded, "maybe President Bush will be the face of the past, and the
Decade to Overcome Violence will become the face of the future for the
United States."
I appreciate your concern for America's future, Ms. Hunges, but do us all
a favor and keep your political preferences to yourself.
"There is a new sense of hope and enthusiasm in Africa," said Professor
Tinyiko Samuele Maluleke of the University of South Africa in Pretoria.
Maluleke particularly noted the 10th anniversary of democracy in South
Africa and positive developments toward peace in the Sudan. However, he
suggested that there is a growing sense of concern throughout the African
continent for what he called "the cultural imperialism" of the United
States.
"In this case, we don't have the former kind of imperialism, but rather a
more subtle form of imperialism characterized by the intrusion of
MacDonalds, and Coca-Cola into all parts of Africa," Maluleke said. "And
the conservative Christian televangelists have become the model for many
church leaders on the continent," he said.
In Africa, they obviously drag people kicking and screaming into
McDonald's and force them to down burgers and Cokes. But then it never
occurs to people like Prof. Maluleke that maybe folks want to make their
own decision about what aspects of American culture they'd like to
participate in. And what this has to do with violence is anybody's guess.
Of course, it wouldn't be a gathering of liberal church folks without a
slap at "conservative Christian televangelists," which is code for "those
evil people who are bringing people to Christ."
All in all, sounds like a typical day in the world of irrelevant
conciliarism.
Meanwhile, in Geneva... Posted by Athanasius @ 12/12/2003 08:44:54 PM
PermalinkComment (0)
The poobahs of the World Council put out more information on their meeting
with Iranian President Khatami. Speaking on "Religious Dialogue and
International Relations," Khatami said:
"The future of religion will depend on the abandoning of fanaticism, and
on (...) mutual comprehension and openness. No religion can hold claim to
absolute Truth (...). Dialogue is the foundation which allows for unity in
diversity."
Wonder if that means the Iranians will be abandoning their support of
Hezbollah, Hamas, or Islamic Jihad. I also wonder if he cleared that "no
religion can hold claim on absolute Truth" line with his fellow ayatollahs
in Tehran. I suspect it will be big news to Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, the
supreme leader at whose sufferance Khatami stays in office. I also wonder
what's the ellipses are hiding. For some reason, Khatami's address is only
available on the WCC Web site in French. If it turns up in English, I'll
fill in those blanks.
Khatami's address received a response from Konrad Raiser, the
Secretary-General who won't go home. (He's been in the process of leaving
his position for months.) His speech is full of the usual poppycock,
including these gems:
"We reject the tendency, not uncommon in many Western countries, to
perceive Muslims as a threat and to portray Islam and some Islamic nations
in negative terms."
Right on. What possible reason could we in the West have for portraying
Iran, Syria, Libya, or Saudi Arabia in negative terms?
"Islamism and Christian fundamentalism can be understood as responses and
as ways of resisting the influence of the secular spirit of modernity and
its global impact."
Obviously equivalent phenomena. Islamism (as opposed to Islam proper)
preaches death to Jews and Christians, and produces at least some
adherents who undertake the job. How many terrorists has Bob Jones
University produced lately?
"Many Muslims, in faithfulness to their tradition, cannot separate the
order of the state and of the legal system from the principles of the
religious community. While the protection ["dhimmitude"] of religious
minorities under tutelage has traditionally been made, full citizenship,
involving equality and participation, is demanded by the said minorities."
Protection? That's the word Muslims use for "dhimmitude," the practice of
treating non-Muslims as third-class citizens so that they'll know what it
means to be in submission to the will of Islam. Bat Ye'or, one of the
foremost scholars of Islam in the West, refers to dhimmitude as a form of
"slavery" (see Dhimmi.org for more information).
Enough.
WCC AWOL on
anti-Semitism at WSF Posted by Athanasius @ 2/3/2004
Translation: the World Council of Churches seemingly had nothing to say
about the anti-Semitism and anti-Zionism that was pervasive at the recent
World Social Forum meeting in India. The WCC has a lot to say about
various facets of the meeting (you can find stories
here,
here,
here,
here,
here, AND
here), but apparently missed this entirely:
Last week, the fourth WSF made Bombay a platform for a more sophisticated
anti-Zionism as Jewish voices in solidarity with the Palestinian cause
were welcomed.
Some 60 WSF seminars addressed Israel's "crimes"--against Palestinian
villagers, women, children and the Arab world.
Behind the propaganda grandstanding was a series of well-orchestrated
initiatives aimed at recruiting activists, sponsors and public opinion.
The idea: to build a global anti-Israel campaign exploiting multifaced
angles:
*opposing "the Apartheid Wall" and promoting a March 20 demonstration for
a "one-state solution." Ilan Halevy, Israeli-born member of Fatah and PLO
representative to the Socialist International, recalled: "In the '60s we
wanted one state, but accepted the idea of two. It is time to go back to
one."
*Opposing the Jewish nature of the state. Anna Badran of Women in
Jerusalem said, "I do not accept Jewish religious claims or the Zionist
heritage. Give up the Jewish state and we can work it out."
*To create confusion in Israeli and Diaspora Jewish opinion. Rania Al-Masri,
a US-Lebanese lobbyist, paid tribute to "increasing numbers of Jews and
especially opinion-molders turning against Israel."
*An Israeli backpacker added: "I am a good Israeli. I accept the
Palestinian right to violent resistance." He was crushed by the response
of Faisal from Tullkarm: "I know better Israelis; they are dead."
*Participating activists talked about recruitment for the Palestinian
cause. An American student demanded that "the WSF send people to Palestine
to take up arms in their defense." But Rania protested that "without
Arabic or training, you will be an obstacle to the struggle. Yes, come to
be our PR agents at home."
Ahmed Shawki, a Palestinian teachers unionist had this advice: "We need
you in the belly of the beast to destroy US, Indian, European support for
Israel in every sector."
Regardless of what brought participants to Mumbai, an anti-Israel angle
was promoted: Environmentalists were told, "Israel is guilty of toxic
apartheid." Health workers were told by the Palestine Medical Relief
Association that they could connect with a new branch of Physicians and
Nurses in Solidarity with Palestine.
Teachers, with the backing of Quebec and Vancouver unionists, could
connect with international teachers conferences planned for Bethlehem and
Ramallah. And Indian and Canadian Committees to Support Education in
Palestine were officially launched. In the words of Lee Kegley of Canada:
"We came to the WSF to recruit through informal channels."
A Belgian teacher added to the enthusiasm: "We must adopt the scientific
technique of historical criticism to suborn the system and have teachers
train a new generation of partisans of Palestine."
Lawyers were encouraged to exploit the new International Criminal Court
and champion human rights on behalf of Palestinians who are victims of
crimes against humanity. And [Israeli Michael] Warschawski remarked that
the various "WSF solidarity movements have raised the bar to a new level
of international support where people were willing to go to Iraq and
Palestine to physically lend support to end the occupation."
But dissenting voices reminded him: "You and Israel are illegitimate. The
injustice must be solved with the end of the so-called Israel" (huge
applause).
(From the Jerusalem Post, by Shimon Samuels of the Simon Wiesenthal
Center, the only Jewish non-governmental organization accredited to the
WSF.)
I guess the WCC's anti-racism, anti-discrimination, anti-oppression,
anti-bigotry radars were all turned off that week.
Hysteria on the wall Posted by Athanasius @
2/21/2004
The World Council of Churches that Nobody Listens to Any More has
"demanded" that Israel tear down its anti-terrorist protection wall. In a
news release that misuses Scripture and turns the ever-present blind eye
to Palestinian terrorism, the WCC said:
The WCC Executive Committee, meeting in Geneva from 17-20 February,
2004 guided by the teachings and Gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ, who has
destroyed the barrier, the dividing wall of hostility and by his death and
resurrection has promised one new humanity on the foundation of faithful
witnesses for people of every race;
That's a reference to Ephesians 2:14-22, which has nothing to do with
physical walls, is referring to the Church rather than politics or
statecraft, and says nothing about "one humanity" but instead says that
Jew and Gentile believer alike are one in Christ.
having received an updated report on Israel’s construction of the wall
in the Occupied Palestinian Territories (OPT) and in and around East
Jerusalem, since April 2002, which is in departure of the Armistice Line
of 1949 ( Green Line) and is in contradiction to relevant provisions of
international law is;
The Armistice Line of 1949 was established between Israel and Jordan,
which then had sovereignty over the West Bank. Jordan broke the armistice
in 1967, and Israel captured the West Bank in self-defense.
Gravely concerned about the fundamental violations of human rights of
the Palestinian people, the confiscation and destruction of their land and
resources, the disruption of the lives of thousands of protected civilians
and the de facto annexation of large areas of territory and in particular
its devastating humanitarian consequences on the life and dignity of
innocent Palestinians,
There is no "de facto annexation," because the wall is movable, and
undoubtedly will be moved as a final resolution of borders comes closer.
While the WCC is rightly concerned about the "disruption" Palestinian
lives, I wonder if any of the Geneva beauracrats have ever gotten on a bus
wondering if it will be the last trip they ever take, or gone to a
restaurant wondering if it will be their last meal. Millions of
Israelis--Jews and Arabs--live with that "disruption" every single day.
Noting the alarming statements and reports from the Heads of Churches
of Jerusalem, WCC member churches and councils of churches, the Holy See,
Ecumenical Accompaniers, the Secretary General of the United Nations,
relevant United Nations agencies and independent human rights
organizations,
None of whom have shown the slightest hostility to Israel or its security
concerns in the past.
Strongly condemning all forms of violence and attacks perpetrated by
the State of Israel and its Defence Forces inside the OPT and by
Palestinian armed groups against innocent civilians inside the State of
Israel,
Palestinian armed groups--love that locution for the terrorists and
indiscriminate murderers of Hamas and Islamic Jihad. And apparently the
IDF has no right to seek to protect Israel anywhere but on its own
territory--"all forms of violence" would seem to rule out, for instance,
returning fire against armed gunmen if they stay on their side of the
Green Line.
Recognizing Israel’s right and duty to protect its people against
attacks and suicide bombers inside the State of Israel, without
contravening international law and jeopardising longer term prospects for
peace,
Israel is apparently the only nation on earth that must forfeit its right
to self-defense if the world's professional busybodies determine that such
actions will "jeopardise longer term prospects for peace.
Acknowledging the Palestinian people's right to resistance against the
Israeli occupation inside the Occupied Palestinian Territories, without
resorting to terror and creating indiscriminate fear among civilians,
So again, Israelis (at least in uniform) stupid enough to be found on the
wrong side of the Green Line may be shot on sight, while being forbidden
to fight back. The net effect of this nonsense is to encourage the PA and
its terrorist allies to turn the West Bank into an armed camp that will
serve as a launching pad for attacks against Israel, which by the WCC's
logic is unable to defend itself as long as the attacks come from the
other side of the Line.
Reaffirming its strong conviction that non-violent means of resistance
and peaceful negotiations are the only way to achieve a lasting, viable
solution to the Arab- Israeli conflict,
But you just got through saying that the Palestinians have the "right of
resistance," which anyone who can read knows is code language on the West
Bank for the use of deadly force.
Noting that the route of the wall and the scope of its construction
give no indication that it is either a temporary measure or dictated
solely by security needs,
I've said before that the route of the wall is a legitimate concern,
and I really wish it were not being used by those who stubbornly insist on
living where they are unwanted and constantly endangered. But the
temporary nature of the wall is demonstrated by the fact that those same
bulldozers that knock down Palestinian houses could knock down any section
of it in a few days.
Concerned that this act could prejudge future negotiations and make a
two-state solution physically impossible and become a major obstacle to a
just and sustainable peace between the Israeli and Palestinian peoples;
Huh? The entire purpose of the wall is security through separation. How
does it make a "two-state solution" physically impossible? In fact, it
makes it a necessity. If Israel were planning to actually annex the West
Bank, resulting in the notorious "one-state solution," why in heaven's
name would they put a wall up in the middle of what they intended their
country to be?
Acknowledges that Israel has serious and legitimate security concerns
and that the construction of a wall on its own territory would not have
been in contravention of international law,
Gee, thanks. No way to know for sure, of course, but I'd bet they'd
complain about that, too, because it would produce the hardship of
Palestinians being unable to work in Israel.
Strongly condemns the violations of human rights and humanitarian
consequences as a result of this act, in particular the restrictions on
access by Palestinians to the closed area between the wall and the Green
Line and the limited passage through the wall, violating right to liberty
of movement; The resulting obstacles to access to workplaces, farmland,
health services and schools, demolition of houses and uprooting of trees
for the construction of the wall violating the right to work, the right to
adequate standard of living including housing, the right to health care
and the right to education; the different requirements for Palestinians
and Israelis to obtain permits to be granted access to and remain in the
closed area violating the right to equality before the law,
And this gives away the game, because most of the "workplaces" that
Palestinians are prevented from getting to because of "limited passage
through the wall" are in Israel. Again, I agree that the wall should be
constructed in such a way as to minimize the restrictions on Palestinians
to access their own lands and services.
Rejects the creation of a new political boundary that defines enclaves
in which the Palestinians will be confined, extending Israeli civilian and
military presence inside Palestinian territory, undermining all
peacemaking efforts and most importantly the whole concept of a viable and
contiguous Palestinian State established side by side the State of Israel,
Actually, even where the wall is at its most intrusive, it does little to
break up Palestinian territories (the contiguity aspect). And again,
calling for the removal of all Israeli military presence on the West Bank
before a final settlement is asking Israel to open itself up for whatever
the various out-of-control groups want to do.
Calls on the Israeli Government and its defence forces and as well as
all Palestinian armed groups to give up their strategy of mutual killings
and terror, in order to achieve lasting peace,
IDF=Hamas. What next? US Army=al Qaeda. Oh, yeah. They've already done
that riff.
Welcomes the hearing of the International Court of Justice (ICJ) to
provide its advisory opinion on the legal consequences of the construction
of this wall and wishes to draw the attention of the Court as well as all
States of the immense human costs paid by the Palestinian people and its
long-term consequences on peace and reconciliation,
One wonders why an ICJ hearing is necessary, since the WCC has already
tried and convicted Israel.
Expresses its deep concern to the ICJ to consider if the construction
of the wall affects the Status Quo of the Holy Places in any way,
This one's rich. In the 30 years that Jordan controlled various holy
sites, and prevented Jewish access to many of them, and desecrated or
destroyed many of them, not a peep was heard out of the WCC. One might
also recall Jacob's Tomb, which was destroyed by Islamic fanatics less
than three years ago, again without a word of concern from Geneva.
Encourages Christians world wide to continue their prayers for justice,
peace and reconciliation in the Holy Land for the breakdown of the
dividing wall of the hostility between people.
Finally, something I thoroughly agree with.
03/23/2004: "WCC blusters on Iraq"
The World Council of Churches marked the first anniversary of the invasion
of Iraq with a statement. Rather than doing the simple thing and using the
one from Stalinist front group International
A.N.S.W.E.R.,
the
WCC put out one of its own:
One year after the pre-emptive, illegal attack on Iraq, the World Council
of Churches calls upon all to reflect its seen and unforeseen consequences
and reaffirms its previous conviction that the war on Iraq was immoral,
ill-advised and in breach of the principles of the UN Charter.
It's interesting that they emphasize the legalities. In 1991, the WCC
opposed the Gulf War despite its sanction by the UN Security Council. And
they really aren't terribly picky about all the UNSC resolutions Iraq
violated or ignored.
Beyond the physical pains that so many Iraqis feel it’s the trauma and
anxiety of the future that haunt the larger Iraqi population. Dr. Martin
Luther King, Jr. once said, "True peace is not merely the absence of
tension, it is the presence of justice."
This is true. The Iraqi population is terrified that Saddam Hussein might
be tried by the Axil of Weasel, which will take some of the billions he
got from the Oil-for-Food Program to grease the skids for his triumphant
return to Baghdad. Fortunately, now that the US has him, they aren't going
to let him go. We need to reassure the Iraqis of that.
There can be no true justice for the Iraqi people when there is the
absence of a permanent Iraqi government based on free, democratic
elections with the adherence to a constitution that would protect all
religious, ethnic and national groupings while maintaining the nation’s
sovereignty and territorial integrity. Human rights and the rule of law
must be at the forefront of all efforts to encourage the building of
representative, democratic institutions.
Huh? Where was the WCC when Saddam was butchering his people, running one
of the world's most horrific police states, and winning elections with
100% of the vote? I can tell you where–heads buried firmly in the sand. In
2000, 2001, and the first seven months of 2002, the WCC put out exactly
one news release or statement about Iraq, and that was about the effects
of sanctions (read: Oil-for-Food theft) on Iraqi children. Their concern
for "free, democratic elections," "adherence to a constitution," "human
rights" and the "rule of law" all got activated when Saddam was overthrown
and it looked like there was a possibility of a Western-style,
Western-friendly government being installed in Baghdad.
The World Council of Churches notes with dismay the impact of the military
and economic occupation of Iraq brought upon by the United States, Britain
and others. We continue to be very concerned about the long-term
political, social, cultural and religious consequences of the war and the
continued occupation.
Their translator must have overdone the wine at lunch. I'm not really sure
what they're getting at, but let's guess they're talking about the
consequences of the occupation. To wit: Iraq is in better economic shape
than it has been in years, free speech is running rampant, far fewer
Iraqis have died violently at the hands of al-Qaeda, Ansar al-Islam, and
their buddies than would have died violently at the hands of Saddam's
sadists, Shiites and Kurds now feel like they have a stake in the country,
the restoration of the lands of the Marsh Arabs will be starting soon if
it hasn't already...oh, wait a minute. Those aren't the consequences the
WCC had in mind. They're talking about the lack of security against the
terrorist actions of foreign fanatics. I know what will help: the US
military needs to leave. That'll do it!
The impact continues to exacerbate intense hatred towards the "western
world" strengthening extremist ideologies, which breeds further global
insecurity.
Yes sir, none of the Islamic fanatics had anything but love for us before
March 2003.
The World Council of Churches calls upon the occupying powers led by the
United States and Britain to quickly put an end to the occupation of Iraq,
and allow the United Nations to manage the affairs of Iraq while seeking
to build up and strengthen a system where true democracy, the rule of law,
good governance and respect for all will prevail for the Iraqi people.
That's right. We should turn Iraq over to the tender mercies of the people
who have made Kosovo a crime-ridden, welfare-dependent, corruption-riddled
basket case; who pulled out of Baghdad at the first sign of hostility; who
managed to turn the Oil-for-Food program into one of the world's biggest
porcine feeding troughs; who put Libya in charge of a human rights
commission; who put Baathist Iraq in charge of a disarmament commission,
who allowed the Palestinian refugee camps to become armed hotbeds of
terrorism, who...you get the picture.
The WCC hopes that we as a world would come to a new consciousness that
would enable us all to see ourselves more as belonging to a vulnerable and
interdependent global community in which we have a mandate to bear one
another’s burdens and share in the sufferings of others.
New consciousness? Those of us with the albatross of being members of
denominations that are part of the WCC would be happy with any
consciousness from Geneva.
Replies: 1 Comment
on Monday, March 29th, Chuck said
Correct me if I am wrong, but didn't the UN provide the stability and
incorruptable leadership in Haiti?? How did that turn out??? SEND IN THE
CLOWNS!!!
03/25/2004: "WCC: Don't touch terrorists"
I don't know why it took them so long, but the bureaucrats in Geneva
finally delivered themselves of their judgement against Israel for killing
Hamas terror master Sheik Yassin. From Peter Weiderud, director of the
Commission of the Churches on International Affairs,
here it is in full:
Through the targeted assassination of Sheikh Yassin, Israel has chosen to
violate international law once again. This action fosters hatred and will
likely lead to more bloodshed. It can neither ensure peace nor human
security.
Yes, well. Given the unconventional nature of the conflict (is Hamas a
criminal gang or an arm of a quasi-government, the PA, that carries out
"extra-judicial executions" of unarmed civilians?), cries of
"international law violations" are weirdly inapplicable. As for the second
part, Bret Stephens, writing in OpinionJournal, may have something
relevant to contribute:
The results, in terms of lives saved, were dramatic. In 2003, the number
of Israeli terrorist fatalities declined by more than 50% from the
previous year, to 213 from 451. The overall number of attacks also
declined, to 3,823 in 2003 from 5,301 in 2002, a drop of 30%. In the
spring of 2003, Israel stepped up its campaign of targeted assassinations,
including a failed attempt on Yassin's deputy, Abdel Aziz Rantisi. Wise
heads said Israel had done nothing except incite the Palestinians to
greater violence. Instead, Hamas and other Islamic terrorist groups agreed
unilaterally to a cease-fire.
In this context, it bears notice that between 2002 and 2003 the number of
Palestinian fatalities also declined significantly, from 1,000 to about
700. The reason here is obvious: As the leaders of Palestinian terror
groups were picked off and their operations were disrupted, they were
unable to carry out the kind of frequent, large-scale attacks that had
provoked Israel's large-scale reprisals. Terrorism is a top-down business,
not vice versa. Targeted assassinations not only got rid of the most
guilty but diminished the risk of open combat between Israeli soldiers and
Palestinian foot soldiers.
So the assumption that this or any other targeted killing of Palestinian
terrorists will necessarily lead to more bloodshed hardly represents a
certainty, yet the WCC (as well as most of the world's prominent
politicians) simply asserts it as if it is as sure as the next sunrise.
Now, back to our press release:
We are appalled that the State of Israel continues to resort to
extra-judicial executions. Every attack has resulted in the unlawful
killing of innocent bystanders, including children. These actions as well
as Israel’s public official threats to continue to assassinate
Palestinians with impunity are totally unacceptable by the WCC and will
always be condemned as unlawful.
"Extra-judicial executions." Isn't that a lovely phrase? It suggests that
Israel is not in the middle of a war, but has a crime problem. Normally
you don't have to try an enemy combatant before killing him.
As for the deaths of children, those are terrible, of course. What the WCC
doesn't take note of is that Palestinian terror leaders routinely surround
themselves with children when they appear in public, thinking that doing
so will ward off attack. What they also don't seem to understand is that
if Israel treated terrorism as a crime problem, and sought to arrest
someone like Yassin, those around him would fight, and the number of
casulties in such a street operation would be ten times worse.
We therefore call on Israel to put an immediate end to its policies of
targeted assassinations. The Council also calls on Palestinian armed
groups to immediately stop targeting Israeli civilians in indiscriminate
suicide bombings and other attacks. We reaffirm our strong conviction that
non-violent means of resistance and peaceful negotiations are the only way
to achieve peace and security for both the Palestinians and Israelis and a
lasting, viable solution to the Arab-Israeli conflict.
And, oh, yes, we almost forgot–it would be nice if the Palestinian "armed
groups" (the word "terrorist" just sticks in their throats) would stop
their little games and play nice as well. No outraged condemnation, no
total unacceptability, no weeping and gnashing of teeth. In fact, to my
recollection, I've never seen a full-throated,
pull-out-all-the-rhetorical-stops condemnation of Palestinian terrorism,
minus the weasel words. Until such time as the WCC can bring itself to do
that, Israel has no more reason to listen to Geneva than they have
listening to Hamas.
Replies: 2 Comments
on Friday, March 26th, Greg S said
Isn't teh WCC a death penalty opponent? Doesn't the phrase,
"Extra-judicial executions," suggest such a thing as judicial executions?
As if a fair jury trial and visit to the e-chair would have satisfied
them.
on Friday, March 26th, Greg S said
Oh, and this whole targeted killings vs innocent civilians thing reminds
me of one of my favorite movies, The Patriot.
When Benjamin Martin is negotiating with Gen. Cornwallis, the general
berates him for tagetting officers. Martin responds that as long as the
British officers continue direct their men in the killing of innocent
civilians, the practice will continue.
The mainlines foreign policy Athanasius on 4/15/04
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.
Replies: 1 Comment
on Friday, April 16th, Greg S said
Good stuff.
"In the spirit of the Marshall Plan..."
Which wouldn't have been possible without first fighting a war and
decimating Nazi Germany.
Perhaps if we had intimidated them first...
04/15/2004: "Orthodox bishop gets WCC-ified"
The current moderator of the World Council of Churches Central Committee,
His Holiness Aram I, Catholicos of Cilicia, neatly demonstrates how being
in such close contact with the WCC can infect even Orthodox prelates with
an inability to think theologically about political issues.
Interviewed by
the WCC Public Information Team, he was asked about 20th century
genocides:
How do you personally, as a Christian, make sense of those genocides?
Genocide is one of the most horrible expressions of violence and
terrorism. It is a crime against humanity. The international community,
and in fact all the religions of the world, cannot accept such crimes.
Hence, those who have perpetrated and may perpetrate such crimes must be
called to justice. The ecumenical movement, through the "Decade to
Overcome Violence", must wrestle with this question.
The word you seem incapable of speaking here, Holiness, is sin. Genocide
is the most extreme expression of the sinfulness of humanity, and normally
an Orthodox bishop would have no trouble saying that, as a Christian, he
sees genocide as sin writ enormous. Instead, he retreats into WCC-speak.
Sad.
Replies: 4 Comments
on Thursday, April 15th, Jonathan Duttweiler said
Just a note, Catholicos of Cilicia is *not* "Orthodox" in the sense of
Russian, Greek or other Eastern Orthodox Churches. Rather, he is Armenian,
one of the "Oriental" or non-Chalcedonian Orthodox groups. These groups
are distinguished in having rejected the Council of Chalcedon and the
Ecumenical Councils thereafter.
on Thursday, April 15th, Athanasius said
Thanks for the clarification. But hasn't there been a reconciliation
between the Orthodox and the non-Chalcedonians?
on Friday, April 16th, Tim said
"Genocide is one of the most horrible expressions of violence and
terrorism. It is a crime against humanity."
No, for the Christian, the individual does not belong to humanity. She
belongs to God, and then to the self.
Thus genocide is, first and foremost, a crime against the creator.
on Tuesday, April 20th, Jonathan David said
I know this is late, but no, Tim, there has *not* been a "reconciliation"
between Orthodoxy and non-Chalcedonians. While there have been talks,
nothing has come of them and nothing will until the Orientals agree to all
of the ecumenical councils from Chalcedon on.
04/19/2004:
"Let's get real"
Suggesting the World Council of Churches get real about anything is
probably a forlorn hope, but
this is an instance when they need to stop
beating themselves up over nothing. This is from a WCC press release in
which the International Affairs director wrings his hands over the 1994
genocide in Rwanda:
"A lot of efforts were made after the tragedy, but we did not do enough in
time," said Peter Weiderud about the role of the World Council of Churches
(WCC) and the ecumenical movement in the 1994 genocide in Rwanda.
Weiderud, director of the WCC Commission of the Churches on International
affairs (CCIA), was addressing a 16-18 April 2004 ecumenical workshop on
"Lasting peace in Africa" that gathered participants from all over Africa
in the Rwandan capital Kigali.
Attempting a realistic assessment of the WCC's role as well as that of the
local churches, he said that "although it is clear that the WCC could have
done more before and during the Rwandan genocide, that does not mean that
such actions could have prevented the genocide."
Peter, stop the self-flaggellation. There was nothing the WCC could have
done to stop or even mitigate the Rwandan genocide. I know you have this
almost superstitious belief in the power of words, but all the harsh
language in the world was not going to get the Hutus to stop, at least not
without a credible threat of force to back it up. Last time I checked, the
WCC didn't have any divisions. Bill Clinton, John Major, Francois
Mitterand–people like that could have stopped the mass murder. Heck, even
UN Sec-Gen Boutros Boutros-Ghali might have been able to stop it if he'd
cared. But Geneva, no. Time to get over your extraordinarily exaggerated
view of your influence in the world, Pete. Face it–no one really cares
what the WCC thinks about much of anything.
Replies: 2 Comments
on Monday, April 19th, gdb said
Athan,
You could be missing the point.
Does this make Mr. Weiderud feel better? Does it make those folks at WCC
feel better? If is accomplishes that then in their self-annointed view
that accomplishes something truly worthwhile. Who cares if it really
doesn't do anything at all?
on Monday, April 19th, Athanasius said
I'd have thought self-absolution would have made them feel better, but I
have no doubt that you're on the right track.
05/18/2004:
"Two for one!"
In a
Harmonic Convergence of the inane, Kofi Annan of the UN and Samuel
Kobia of the World Council of Churches got together Monday for some mutual
admiration and some, well, inanity:
"On behalf of WCC member churches, I expressed admiration to Annan for his
leadership role at a time when multilateralism is threatened and under
attack," Kobia said after the meeting. The UN secretary-general
acknowledged that both organizations' agendas are intertwined, and praised
the partnership between them.
I wonder what UN agenda Kobia was talking about: the one where they try to
force liberalized abortion on unwilling countries, or the one where they
use peacekeeping operations to as cover for sex trade expansion, or
perhaps the refugee camp administration program that allows such camps to
be turned into military equipment collection points for terrorists, or
mybe the one where Syria and Cuba become arbiters of human rights.
Regarding the Israel/Palestine conflict, Kobia shared the WCC assessment
of the Road Map and Geneva Accords. While the first "does not comprise any
original proposal that could help the two sides to overcome the bloody
cycle of occupation, terrorism and retribution," the latter "stimulates
the public opinions on both sides to overcome stereotypes and find a
common understanding of respect for the other". Annan pointed out the need
for cooperation between the WCC Ecumenical Accompaniment Programme in
Palestine/Israel (EAPPI) and the UN Relief and Works Agency for Palestine
Refugees in the Near East (UNRWA).
It is the latter agency that has allowed Palestinian terrorists to feel at
home in the camps under their administration. As for the Geneva Accords,
they were entered into by private parties and repudiated by both Israel
and the Palestinian Authority, essentially called upon Israel to surrender
to terror, and would guarantee the demise of the Jewish state through
granting the right of return. I can tell why Kobia is so enthusiastic
about them.
Annan encouraged a dialogue between civilizations, stressing that while
Islam is isolated in Western countries Christian communities are in a
difficult position in many Muslim countries.
In the West, Muslims are universally free to practice their religion
without fear, are assiduously protected by governments, and at worst are
exposed to the bigotry of a handful of nuts, all while in some places (for
instance,
Britain) Islamic fundamentalists openly recruit for jihad
against their host nations. In the Muslim world, Christians are routinely
denied the right to practice their religion, imprisoned, enslaved (in
Sudan), or murdered (in Pakistan, Indonesia, Iran, Egypt, etc.). I can see
why Annan thinks these are equivalent situations.
Kofi Annan and Samuel Kobia: separated at birth? You be the judge.
07/01/2004: "It's all the West's fault...whatever it is"
World Council of Churches General Secretary Samuel Kobia was in Germany
this week, railing against...well, the usual stuff:
Calling it "an affront to the ecumenical vision of a united humanity",
Kobia stated that "the process of globalization driven by the neo-liberal
economic paradigm has created a global inequality and inequity" in which
20% of the world's population owns 83% of the global resources. "Our
challenge today is to search for alternatives" to a world "of increasing
inequality and violence" and "to nurture an economy that works in the
service of life and does not contribute to its destruction," he stressed.
Kobia is an African, and I'm sure he deeply resents the way prosperity has
largely passed that troubled continent by. But instead of looking for
someone to blame, he ought to look inward, at the corrupt and repressive
regimes and crackpot socialist schemes that have kept Africa from
exploiting its people's talents and energies and its natural resources.
The "process of globalization driven by the neo-liberal economic paradigm"
that Kobia scorns is the process that has brought unparalleled prosperity
to East Asia, not to mention Western Europe after World War II (a
prosperity that is slowly slipping away from Europeans as they reject the
one that brung them, as it were). Perhaps if Africans (and Arabs, since
oil has been the ticket to paradise for most, but rather a continual
source of loot for elites) were to rise up against their own rulers, and
demand that they get in on the "process of globalization driven by the
neo-liberal economic paradigm," they might find it opening up a better
future for them.
The WCC general secretary also highlighted the need for "inter-religious
dialogue and co-operation" in the face of "growing xenophobia", including
"an evolving enemy-image that makes a caricature of our Muslim friends",
and the "blatant misuse of religion in the mobilization of war". It is
urgent, he said, "to nurture non-violent action for change and to work for
peace and reconciliation" against the backdrop of "justification for war
and even brutal torture" that harms the humanness of both the victims and
the perpetrators.
Gee, I wonder who he's talking about? "Growing xenophobia": could that
refer to the way Christians, Jews, Hindus, and other non-Muslims are
vilified in the Muslim press and street demonstrations from Cairo to
Jakarta? "Blatant misuse of religion in the mobilization of war": could
that refer to the head-choppers of Fallujah, the Islamist rantings of bin
Laden, or the racist sermons of the head of Saudi Arabia's most important
mosque? "Justification for war and even brutal torture": could that refer
to Saddam's wars against Iran or Kuwait, or his slaughter of his own
people with chemical weapons, or possibly to Zarqawi's treatment of Nick
Berg and Paul Johnson.
Probably not.
Replies: 3 Comments
on Thursday, July 1st, Nathan said
While I certainly agree that a good deal of the blame for Africa's poverty
belongs squarely on the shoulder of repressive tyrants & despots, I think
you miss the fact that if the rest of the world adopted that neo-liberal
economic program, we would all quickly run out of natural resources. The
level of consumption and pollution of the 1st World economies would be
completely unsustainable if it was brought to a global level. I'm no lefty
environmentalist, but simply adopting the economic strategy of the US will
hurt us all in the end. What would the US do if a rapidly growing African
economy threatened its supply of cheap oil? Certainly new & better
technologies can help, but its currently an unwarranted pipe-dream to
think technology alone will fix these kinds of problems.
on Friday, July 2nd, Greg S said
Assuming I understand your POV, I respecfully disagree.
You actually skirt the point because you use the term economic program and
strategy. What "free-marketers" refer to is just that - a free market.
This is more of a system than a strategy. It does not in any way mean that
developing countries must industrialize in the same way the west has.
Furthermore, a totally free market will factor in natural resourses in the
same way it does other resources (eg, capital and labor). Their costs will
rise as supply goes down. The reward will be there for the free market
inventors and investors who find new ways of doing things.
Major differences exist in the way that newly developed countries such as
Malaysia and Singapore when compared to the West. Each country must play
on it's strengths, develop it's own model and policy. Some will polute and
consume even more the the US (at least per capita), others barely do
either.
on Friday, July 2nd, Nathan said
True, developing countries do not have to industrialize in the same way
the West has, but the impetus is there. The West has set the standard of
modernity & progress and many people & nations will want to follow that
example. I agree this is not mandated, but it is reality especially given
the emphasis Western corporations are putting on the emerging markets in
SE Asia, Latin America and even Africa. These areas have great potential
to become consumerist societies.
And while totally free markets may factor in natural resources in an
economic sense, as long as those resources are cheaper than a more
efficient form of energy they will continue to be used with escalating
environmental damage which is very difficult to quantify monetarily. As
such, corporations do not necessarily have to shoulder the burdens of
clean up, hence the true cost of environmental exploitation is not borne
by the largest polluters/consumers. This is even true in America where
corporations are able to influence our allegedly transparent government.
How much more influence will a multi-national corporation have in an
emerging democracy or existing dictatorship in Africa? Also, I'd point out
that right now there is no such thing as a totally free market, nor should
there be. Regulation and protection in emerging economies is important to
allow fledgling industries to establish themselves and to prevent the
capital fluctuations that contributed to the SE Asian economic crisis a
few years back.
|
