25th March: The struggle for peace and justice goes on

25th March 1965

On 25 March 1965, when I was far too young to be aware of it, Martin Luther King led thousands of non-violent demonstrators to the steps of the capitol in Montgomery, Alabama.

52 years on it seems as though the struggle for peace and justice is every bit as needed as it was then.

 

Images of peace and terror

This past week seems to have thrown up an incredible mix of good and evil: of terror, injustice, violence and greed combined with equally powerful images of peace and reconciliation.

westminster terrorist

martin mcguinness funeral

 

 

 

 

 

I am left with images of our emergency services fighting to save the life of a man who had just killed four innocent people; of politicians and leaders on both sides of the Northern Ireland conflict gathering to honour Martin McGuinness – a man who had once been a source of terror and violent, but who had become an equally powerful force for peace; of President Trump being forced to back down from his attempt to reverse a policy which has brought better health security and welfare to millions of the least privileged in American society; of EU leaders gathering in Rome to celebrate the anniversary of a union that has, at the very least, been a major contributor to over 60 years of peace in Europe.

All those images leave me marvelling at the crazy, mixed up world in which we live: where so much of Martin Luther King’s dream has been achieved, and yet so much more remains to be done.

 

Westminster-Abbey-Faith-Leaders-Vigil-01The image of five faith leaders standing together in a vigil to remember the victims of the Westminster attack stands alongside that of members of the Jewish community in Victoria, Texas, who handed over the keys of their synagogue to their Muslim brothers and sisters whose mosque was burned down on 28th January, just hours after Donald Trump announced his plan to ban immigrants from seven Muslim-majority countries (Time Magazine, 2.2.17[1]).

 

“I want in terms of values, to refer to something that seems to me to go deeper, to something that is really at the foundation of our own understanding of what our society is about… That speaks of – at this time of year as we look forward to Holy Week and Easter – of a God who stands with the suffering, and brings justice, and whose resurrection has given to believer and unbeliever the sense that where we do what is right; where we behave properly; where that generosity and extraordinary sense of duty that leads people to treat a terrorist is shown; where that bravery of someone like PC Keith Palmer is demonstrated, that there is a victory for what is right and good; over what is evil, despairing and bad.” – Archbishop Justin Welby, 22.3.17

 

Terror may continue to shout… but the quiet voice will still be heard

Terror may continue to shout – whether in the form of a radicalized religious fanatic, or through the voices and actions of those from all backgrounds who promote intolerance. But the quiet voice of those who struggle in non-violent ways for peace and justice will still be heard.

 

 

 

[1] http://time.com/4657876/texas-mosque-fire-jewish-christian-communities-help/

No terrorist sympathisers nor trigger-happy war mongers: reflections on Britain’s decision to extend air strikes to Syria

westminster

 

Reflecting on the events of the past few days, I feel both saddened and encouraged.  After 10½ hours of impassioned debate, our elected members of parliament agreed, in a free vote, to extend British air strikes from Iraq into Syria, joining the USA and France in striking out against the awful group who call themselves Islamic State.

I feel saddened, because it seems clear to me that there will, inevitably, be civilian casualties from these air strikes.  Those will include innocent children, whose lives already are marred and now have one more terror to add to those surrounding them.  I feel a sense of despair that this action cannot achieve what its proponents seek – the elimination of Isil – but will merely exacerbate their resolve to fight back.  In his concluding speech in parliament, Hilary Benn spoke of Isil:

“They hold us in contempt.  They hold our values in contempt.  They hold our belief in tolerance and decency in contempt.  They hold our democracy, the means by which we make our decision tonight in contempt.”  He pointed out their “belief that they are superior to every single one of us in the chamber tonight.” 

Powerful words, and no doubt true.  But it doesn’t take much imagination to hear almost identical words being spoken in a room of Isil leaders in Raqqa – about the leaders and people of the United Kingdom, United States, or France.

I long for an end to the terror and injustice being inflicted on the people of Syria. 

But I fear that this action will exacerbate rather than eliminate that suffering.

 

However, I do, at the same time, feel heartened by the way in which this decision has been made.  And I am grateful for the privilege, the immense and awesome privilege, of living in a land where such a decision has not been made lightly, behind closed doors, or by an unapproachable group of omnipotent tyrants.  I feel grateful that I was able to write to my MP (who, incidentally, opposed the motion.  Whether my letter in any way influenced his decision, I do not know, but I remain grateful for the freedom to write); others were able to stand outside parliament to express their views; I and others were able to blog and post our views on Facebook; to accept and respond to comments from both sides.

And in Westminster itself, no-one was taking the issue lightly.

 

Reading some of the words that were said, both in the House of Commons and the House of Lords, it seems abundantly clear to me that this was not a vitriolic debate between a bunch of trigger-happy war mongers and their opposing terrorist sympathisers.  Rather both sides seemed to approach their arguments from a deep desire to do what is right.  And yes, this was far from perfect, there were no doubt mixed motives on both sides, and there was, at times, enough vitriol both in and out of the chambers, but that was far from being the tone of the debate.

 

Arguments in favour of air strikes

So the arguments in favour of air strikes were mostly framed in a sense of justice, wanting to put an end to the terrorising regime of Isil; not wanting to abandon those who are suffering on the ground in Syria, to “walk by on the other side of the road” (although that is an interesting twist on the parable of the good Samaritan who stopped to bind up the wounds of the one who had been brutally attacked, not to beat the hell out of those who had attacked him); wanting to protect the freedoms and democracy that we hold so dear; and longing for a more peaceful world, free of terror.  Those are attitudes and beliefs with which I sympathise.

Arguments against air strikes

Likewise, those speaking against air strikes were longing for a more peaceful world, one that is free of terror and violence; they, too, want to protect the freedoms and democracies of our society; they want an end to the injustice and suffering of the ordinary people of Syria.  They are not ones who are burying their heads in the sand, or walking by on the other side of the road.  Rather, they were calling for alternative approaches which would get more to the root of the problem, without further escalating the violence.

 

A more comprehensive approach

So a free vote committed us to military action.  I believe, for most, if not all, those in Parliament, that vote was not taken lightly.

And now our planes are flying over Syria, dropping their weapons of destruction.  In his speech in the House of Lords, Archbishop Justin Welby, while believing that ‘just war’ criteria had been met, warned that the UK could “end up doing the right thing in such a wrong way that it becomes the wrong thing”. 

That is a warning we need to reflect on.  He called for a far more comprehensive approach.  While we cannot now undo the decision that has been made, surely we can put equal effort and resources into seeking the further non-violent actions that are needed to truly defeat terror.

Fighting terror with terror: a letter to my MP

Dear Mr Cunningham,

I am writing to you as I am increasingly concerned by the way the debate in Parliament on military action is going, and the direction in which Mr Cameron seems to be taking our country in his proposed response to the Paris terrorism attacks.

We have all been horrified by the indiscriminate brutality of the Paris attacks. Like the rest of the population, I would not want to see such atrocities take place in Britain, and I would want to stand in solidarity with our neighbours in France.eiffel tower

However, I cannot see how military action in Syria can do anything but escalate the crisis, and cause even further suffering for thousands of innocent people. I understand that the death toll in Syria after four years of civil war is now over 250,000, nearly half of them civilians, and over 12,000 children. The lessons of Iraq tell us clearly that, no matter how technologically advanced our weapons, the reality is that we cannot accurately target terrorist groups in these countries, and that the more the fighting escalates the higher the civilian death toll will rise. If we respond to the terrorist threats with airstrikes and bombs, innocent civilians and children will inevitably die. We cannot take that risk.

It is also difficult to see how military action could possibly do anything other than strengthen the cause of terrorists. Writing in the Guardian on 27.11.15, journalist Jürgen Todenhöfer pointed out that in 2001 there were perhaps a couple of hundred terrorists in the Hindu Kush; following George Bush’s war on terror, and the loss of as many as one million Iraqi lives, there are now an estimated 100,000 terrorists posing a threat to the international community. Isis was apparently created six months after the start of that invasion. If the West continues to drop bombs on Syria, killing civilians in the process, this will only provide welcome ammunition to Isis and result in the alienation and radicalisation of yet more disenfranchised people.

The lesson is clear: we cannot beat terror with terror.

I recognise that there are no easy solutions to the threats posed by terrorist groups, nor to the ongoing oppression of unjust regimes in Syria and elsewhere. However, there are alternatives to the escalation that would come with air strikes. I would suggest four key strategies in which we could positively engage: to stop Gulf states delivering weapons to terrorists in Syria and Iraq; to help Turkey seal its long border and prevent the flow of new fighters joining Isis; to support moves to give the Sunni population in these countries a voice; and to fully invest in social and economic development in Syria and its neighbours.

Wardah Khalid, Peace Fellow in Middle East policy at the Friends Committee on National Legislation in the States makes similar proposals:

‘Create a comprehensive, multilateral strategy with our allies, including the Arab League and the U.N., that includes such tools as a regional arms embargo to prevent weapons from going into the wrong hands, penalties for purchasing illicit oil that funds the Islamic State group and more money for diplomacy and humanitarian aid. A political solution to Syria and its President Bashar Assad must also be revisited, as the power vacuum there is what allowed radicals and their foreign backers to first take hold.’[1]

So I would ask you, for the sake of the many suffering children and adults in Syria, and for the sake of our own national security, to please vote against any military action in Syria.

Yours sincerely

 

[1] http://www.usnews.com/opinion/blogs/world-report/2015/02/18/stopping-the-islamic-state-group-without-the-bombs?src=usn_tw