|
Beginning of article |
1 | 2 |
3
He sees a society ready to ban war
Voices: Peace idealist
WASHINGTON - US Rep. Dennis Kucinich is looking to make war archaic - and he says society has evolved to the point where it is primed to accept such a notion.
His is an idealistic vision, more demanding than others coming from the antiwar movement. But Mr. Kucinich - a longtime peace activist, four-term congressman, and now a Democratic candidate for president - insists the time is ripe for humanity to make that giant leap in conflict resolution.
"The evolution that has taken place has been an evolution of the human spirit and the human heart, where we do have greater sensitivities to the effect of our actions on other people," he says during an interview in his corner office here.
In his reception area hangs a colorful peace quilt - a gift from elementary school students in Fairfax, Va., to commemorate one of his most singular ideas yet: A US department of peace. The Ohio lawmaker proposed the cabinet-level agency in July 2001, saying, "too often we have overlooked the long-term solution of peace for the instant gratification of war."
That bill never made it out of committee, but the world has changed since then. Now that war with Iraq is coinciding with Kucinich's bid for the presidency, his long-held ideas are suddenly getting more exposure.
He describes a society in which a superpower like the US can use military might to defend itself, but not to be an aggressor. "The United States should not be about looking for wars to fight," Kucinich says. "That was not the intent of our founders, and it certainly wasn't the intent of most of our presidents, and it's not the intent of our citizens."
In the past century, wars have often brought calls for world peace, but aggression continues. About 100 million people perished in 20th-century wars, he notes, most of them civilian noncombatants. But Kucinich doesn't think that's a reason to stop trying, especially as people in different nations have become more aware of how connected they are.
"Now is the time we need to insist on our own humanity and pull back from the abyss. That's why the visibility of the peace movement at this time becomes so important, because government is proceeding without listening."
He is adamant that deaths of "hundreds of thousands of innocent Iraqis" during a US attack would destroy America's moral authority in the world, its leadership on democracy. The precedent for preemptive strike could then prove dangerous to others, he says.
"When we commit to an aggressive war, what does that mean with Russia and Chechnya, with China and Taiwan? What does that mean with Pakistan and India over Kashmir?"
This year Kucinich plans to reintroduce his department of peace legislation, which he says would help foster nonmilitary conflict resolution. He arrived at the idea in the late 1990s after seeing the impulse toward war in the House that led to the US/NATO bombing of Belgrade. The original bill called for, among other things, creating an academy, like the US military academies, that would train people to resolve conflicts worldwide using nonviolent methods.
In the meantime, if the US does attack Iraq, he says that will only help to spread his ideas. "War doesn't nullify the peace effort," he says, "it empowers it."
One Christian's quest for a way out
Voices: The moral conscience
It's not enough to just say "no" to war. That's what religious leader Jim Wallis tells the church groups he speaks to these days. Somewhere between bombing Iraq and doing nothing, he says, are morally acceptable alternatives that the faith community can get behind.
Finding those will test the character of Americans, who need to figure out how to address terrible situations that scare them - terrorism, cruel dictators - without becoming something terrible themselves, he suggests.
"George Bush says he wants two things: He wants regime change and the disarmament of Iraq. I want those same two things, but I don't want to bomb the children of Baghdad," says the cofounder of Sojourners, a Christian ministry that emphasizes peace and justice.
More churches are taking a stand against war for a simple reason, he says: "The unintended and unpredictable consequences of a war with Iraq are simply too dangerous, too great, too terrible."
On his list are high civilian casualties, the potential for negative reactions in the volatile Middle East, compounding the suffering already felt by the Iraqis, and endangering the lives of US servicemen and servicewomen.
"Would removing Saddam decrease the suffering of the people of Iraq? Yes, it would. But further destruction of the electrical grids and sanitation departments - the UN predicts half a million casualties from this war - no, that is just not tolerable."
Like many Christians, he recoils at casualty estimates, one of the criteria for evaluating whether a war is "just" in the Christian tradition. Some Christian denominations, such as the Quakers, prefer nonviolent solutions. Other faiths allow for war if certain criteria are met. Among them, war must be a last resort, protect against significant civilian casualties, and have proportionality - the harm it causes won't be greater than the problem it's solving.
To analyze the US approach, he draws on something the Archbishop of Canterbury, Rowan Williams, told him recently: "When all you have is hammers, everything looks like a nail." America, says Wallis, doesn't know other ways to conduct this new war on terrorism. "What we want to do is what we know how to do. We know how to win these wars and flatten small countries. So if we pound this nail of Iraq, we'll somehow feel more secure."
He and others in the religious community have come up with alternatives for getting rid of Hussein, other than by war. Among them are indicting him in an international tribunal, thus making it clear that he will not stay in power, and conducting more coercive, military-backed inspections.
Wallis continues to try to bring the message of his community to world leaders. He and others met with Britain's Prime Minister Tony Blair last month, and he is pursuing a meeting with Mr. Bush, with whom he has met previously to discuss poverty and faith-based issues.
"Some in the antiwar movement hate President Bush. I don't," Wallis says. "My fear is that he's walled himself off.... He doesn't have to agree with those who are raising questions, but he should listen."
Next: She taps a reservoir of hope that inspections can still work |
1 | 2 |
3
|
RSS feed
