Video: BAE Systems Australia: at the forefront of war

My last post regarding the work of BAE Systems Inc. and BAE Systems Australia has attracted an enormous amount of views, making it my second most viewed post ever. It's great to know that people are paying attention to the militarisation of our world.

Check out this video made by some peace activists in Melbourne to get a better idea of what we are trying to communicate to BAE Systems Australia. Let them know what you think here.

BAE Systems: Censoring the voices of the people

The site of the latest BAE Systems protest - with many more to come

Why is it that a company like BAE Systems would not want a couple of Gandhi & Martin Luther King, Jr. quotes pasted around their Facebook page?

Why is it that a company like BAE Systems would censor any views which they disagree with, no matter how politely they are put? 

Why is it that a company like BAE Systems who claims to be fighting the 'war on terror' would, in the most undemocratic fashion, silence the voices of the people?

Maybe it's because BAE Systems are one of the largest, if not the largest arms producer in the world. They sell weapons to over 100 countries including Israel. They are a threat to national security. They are a threat to human security. They are a waste of, what essentially is tax payer's money.

You don't need to do much research to find out about the instances of bribery and corruption within their ranks. BAE Systems have been caught breaching arms control regulations which aim to prevent weapons falling into the wrong hands.

Don't let BAE Systems fool you. They are not a civilian transport organisation. They are primarily involved in the arms trade. 

They're not on a particular side of global conflicts. They are on every side of global conflicts. 

They are in it for the money. If the wars stop, their profits go down. It's in their interest for people to keep blowing each other up.

I plan on posting more about BAE Systems. Fortunately here they cannot censor what I say, although I'm sure they will try. I hope to have a video from a recent protest outside their offices in Melbourne posted shortly.

Maybe it is time for us to stand up against this organisation. Post your city below - there is probably a BAE Systems office near you. Organise a protest, a blockade, a letter handout. Do something. Change the world.

Leo Tolstoy: What To Do?

I thought I would upload some photographed quotes from Tolstoy's 'What To Do?' which is an incredibly challenging book. I recently finished reading it, and it has massively affected my outlook on the meaning and causes of poverty. I hope you enjoy!

Also, please post your thoughts.

The case for unilateral nuclear disarmament

What shapes the arms control stance of Barack Obama’s Administration? How would you assess the administration’s arms control policies?

Introduction

During Barak Obama’s term as President of the United States of America he has taken several steps towards the non-proliferation of nuclear weapons and nuclear arms control. However, the practical actions taken by the administration in support of this commitment have been less than admirable. To respond to the question I will argue the following points: (i) nuclear weapons are highly ineffective and unethical as deterrence mechanisms against the threats that the US and its allies currently face, (ii) arms control is not an ultimate end in itself and there must be a broader change in nuclear culture, (iii) although the Obama administration appears to be ideologically committed to ‘a world without nuclear weapons’, their spending priorities and desire to remain in a place of dominance suggests otherwise, and (iv) there are several steps that the Obama administration must take if they genuinely desire a world without nuclear weapons and the threat of nuclear weapons.

Part I – Morality & Utility

Before one can respond to the question of the merit a particular nuclear arms control policy should receive the value of nuclear weapons must be considered. If the value of nuclear weapons is considered to be very high in all contexts, then there is strong merit in abolishing nuclear weapons regulations. If the value of nuclear weapons is very low in all contexts, or the negative consequences of their use outweigh any good they could achieve, then it would follow that steps towards a future free from nuclear weapons is and the threat they present is desirable.

From an egalitarian perspective there are no justifications to act from the belief that nationality, religion, or other factors of this nature can make a person more or less valuable. While other perspectives such as racial or religious superiority are used in the political debate, I shall not entertain them here. Nuclear weapons by their nature do not discriminate between civilian and military targets. The collateral damage that is likely to occur from the use of nuclear weapons against an enemy target is so great that the weapons themselves already appear to have little moral standing. Arne Naess points out that responding to a nuclear strike with nuclear weapons would create a situation where ‘the chance of killing those really responsible for the disaster would be slim.’ He goes on to state that ‘millions of nonbelligerents and innumerable other beings would suffer, while people at the top of the power pyramids would likely escape.’[1] The sheer military ineffectiveness in addition to the likely excessive collateral damage of nuclear weapons compounds the immorality of the use and investment into these devices.

The ineffectiveness and immorality of nuclear weapons has been strengthened in the post-Cold War context. Drell and Goodby suggest in their article Nuclear Deterrence in a Changed World that nuclear weapons ‘have little or no effect in coercing states, insurgent groups, or terrorists to abstain from actions that threaten international peace and security.’[2] They argue that although the mutually assured destruction (MAD) strategy may have been a useful means of attaining security through parity during the Cold War, in the vastly different current global context, this strategy is futile. This is largely due to the decentralised structure of groups like Al Qaeda. Terrorist groups usually have no central military training base and do not identify themselves with uniforms which makes them a difficult target to identify. Using nuclear weapons against targets that are difficult to identify compounds the risk of error of judgement. These reasons would make a state significantly less likely to use nuclear weapons against a terrorist group. Understanding this, terrorists groups are significantly less likely to respond to the fear of being attacked.

Both the Bush and Obama administrations have expressed their awareness of the changed world context from the Cold War era, but neither administration has gone far enough on acting upon this understanding. In the 2002 National Security Strategy lead by the Bush administration it was noted that ‘traditional concepts of deterrence will not work against a terrorist enemy whose avowed tactics are wanton destruction and targeting of innocents; whose so-called soldiers seek martyrdom in death and whose most potent protection is statelessness.’[3] President Bush has reiterated this sentiment in a recent speech at Hankuk University, suggesting that his administration’s ‘inherited’ nuclear arsenal ‘is poorly suited to today’s threats, including nuclear terrorism.’[4] While both sides of politics in the United States have recognised that nuclear weapons are not an appropriate means for addressing contemporary conflict situations, the United States has still managed to retain what Obama describes as a ‘massive nuclear arsenal.’[5] Moreover, the Obama administration has not shied away from continuing to view nuclear weapons as a necessary part of the US’s national security. The administration is investing more money into modernising these weapons they seek to abolish.[6] In consideration of the futility and immorality of nuclear weapons, political courage must be employed to ensure that the US takes a genuine leadership role in the abolition of nuclear weapons.

Part II – Ends & Means

In the previous section I have justified the importance of the reduction and (eventual) abolition of nuclear weapons on normative and pragmatic grounds. In this section I will argue that arms control is a means (rather than an end). I will also argue that arms control is a necessary but not a sufficient condition of achieving a world without nuclear weapons.

There have been several bilateral and multilateral nuclear arms control treaties between Moscow and Washington. These include the Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty (START) and the New Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty (New START). The START verification regime limited the aggregate number of Intercontinental Ballistic Missiles (ICBMs) and Submarine Launched Ballistic Missiles (SLBMs) to 6000 for each party to the treaty. The START treaty also limited the number of strategic delivery vehicles to 1,600 for ‘deployed ICBMs and SLBMs and their associated launchers, and heavy bombers.’[7] The START treaty was signed in 1991 and the 2001 implementation deadline was reached. However, the treaty expired in 2009, so the Obama administration took the opportunity to pursue further bilateral nuclear weapons reductions through the 2010 New START treaty.[8] The main development in this treaty was the planned reduction of deployed ICBM, SLBM, and heavy bomber warheads to 1550 from 6000.[9]

These treaties are useful and important as a means to a reduction in the nuclear stockpiles of Russia and the US. They are a necessary aspect of the goal of abolishing nuclear weapons and moving towards a demilitarised world. However, the treaties alone are insufficient. Philosopher Arne Naess suggests that the threat of rapid nuclear rearmament ‘would probably replace the present threats’ if disarmament was achieved through international treaties and negotiations.[10] He suggests that ‘nuclear culture as a whole’ must change in order to abolish the threat that nuclear weapons present to all planetary life forms.[11]

Naess observes ‘that if one of a pair of mutually hostile nuclear powers unilaterally disarms, little motive remains for the other to use nuclear bombs.’[12] In order to reduce the threat of nuclear war Naess suggests step-by-step unilateral disarmament to move beyond nuclear deterrence. Unilateral disarmament, while it may seem extreme, manages to overcome the nuclear deterrence paradox where both sides ‘are thus confronted by the dilemma of steadily increasing military power and steadily decreasing national security.’[13]

While unilateral nuclear weapon disarmament and consequential nuclear weapon abolition would mean that a state has no nuclear deterrence mechanism in place, there are other potential benefits. For example, in the Nuclear Posture Review the United States committed to not using or threatening to use nuclear weapons ‘against non-nuclear weapon states that are party to the NPT (non-proliferation treaty) and in compliance with their nuclear non-proliferation obligations.’[14] There are 189 states who are signatories of the NPT. The only states that have not become signatories are India, Israel, and Pakistan. Although not every state has committed to this standard, and the US’ commitment is conditional, their pledge lends support to the idea that a state who has nuclear weapons becomes a greater target. Neighbouring states may be worried that a state is making or buying nuclear weapons with a plan to use them. This often creates further conflict even if the weapons are never used. Furthermore, if the weapons ever were used it would likely be met with global condemnation. Therefore, there is a strong case for unilateral disarmament as a means to change nuclear culture as a whole.

Part III – Ideology and Actions

Obama has stated his desire to ‘seek the peace and security of a world without nuclear weapons’, recognising that security may not be achieved through weapons of mass destruction.[15] While Obama acknowledged that this goal ‘will not be reached quickly’, he conveyed it as a serious goal with concrete steps that can be taken by the US.[16] In a speech given in Prague in 2009, he said that ‘we will reduce the role of nuclear weapons in our national security strategy, and urge others to do the same.’[17] Presented in this order, Obama’s ideals would be compatible with Naess’ suggestions of unilateral disarmament as a means to change nuclear culture as a whole.

However, the approach of the Obama administration has been closer to bilateral and multilateral disarmament as local disarmament has been used as a bargaining chip to convince others to reduce their nuclear stockpiles. This has been exemplified in the New START treaty where the Obama administration and Moscow mutually agreed to reduce their nuclear weapon stockpiles. While this type of disarmament should not be condemned, one may argue whether it will achieve its intended purpose. States may invest in the ‘technological race’ as a means to ‘rapid nuclear rearmament’, defeating the purpose of international arms control treaties.[18] This leads us once again to Naess’ suggestion that ‘nuclear cultures as a whole’ must change, not just treaties or policies.[19]

The signs of a positive nuclear weapons cultural shift are ominous. A recent report by the nonpartisan Stimson Centre estimates that ‘the US will spend between $352 and $392 billion on strategic nuclear offensive forces over the next 10 years.’[20] Hans Kristensen from the Federation of American Scientists described this as ‘somewhat of a schizophrenic nuclear policy.’[21] Since the Bush administration military spending in the US has continued to grow in constant terms, whilst staying stagnant as a percentage of gross domestic product (GDP).[22] These figures do not to represent a significant shift in priorities by the Obama administration as compared to the priorities of the Bush administration.

Part IV – A pragmatic solution

The Obama administration faces a deeply challenging political situation where progress on the issue of nuclear arms control is difficult at best. The political agenda is packed and there is a limit to what a president can achieve in their first term in office. A recent article in Reuters suggests that the Obama administration had some early achievements with New START. However, the author also points out that ‘the administration had difficulty winning ratification in the Senate.’[23] A great deal of the difficulty has come because support for nuclear arms reduction policy is not bipartisan. Presidential candidate Mitt Romney has expressed his disapproval of the New START policy, writing that it ‘could be his worst foreign policy mistake yet’, suggesting that ‘the security of the United States is at stake.’[24] This has been a critical factor in what has shaped Obama’s arms control policies.

Given the challenges that the Obama administration faces in realising its goal of a world without nuclear weapons, and perhaps the even more ambitious goal of a world free from the threat of nuclear weapons, it is understandable that progress has been slow. However, there are several key steps that the administration can make to achieving this goal.

First, the Obama administration should cease all investment in nuclear weapon technology except that which is specifically related to safety and weapon security. This will give greater credibility to treaties such as New START and create greater trust between hostile parties.

Second, the Obama administration should lead the way by unilaterally reducing their nuclear arsenal. This would achieve three things. First, it would demonstrate that the moral decisions of the US are not contingent upon the decisions of another nation. Second, it would demonstrate the type of leadership that is required for a change in nuclear weapon culture that could eliminate the threat of nuclear weapons. Third, it would demonstrate that even occupation would be better than a nuclear war.

Third, the Obama administration must stop using the fear, security, and deterrence rhetoric that has paved the way for the public consent of massive amounts of funding for nuclear weapon modernisation. This is also required for a significant change in nuclear weapons culture.

---

Conclusion

In conclusion, it is clear that nuclear weapons are in the first instance immoral, and in the second instance, ineffective in countering modern security threats. Reducing the number of nuclear weapons will not completely eliminate the threat of nuclear weapon use, a broader change in culture must take place for this to happen. Obama’s spending priorities have indicated that his interest in taking steps towards achieving world without nuclear weapons is not a priority for his administration in his first term in office. While this is partly due to the difficult political situation the administration finds itself in, there are several concrete steps that must be worked towards as indicated above. The Obama administration has a great deal of work to do in order to take seriously the threat of a global nuclear war.

Works Cited

Alexander, David. “After Early Successes, Obama Struggles to Implement Disarmament Vision.” Reuters. Washington, August 31, 2012. http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/08/31/us-usa-nuclear-arms-idUSBRE87U06B20120831.

Arms Control Association. “START I at a Glance”, 2009. http://www.armscontrol.org/factsheets/start1.

Cohen, Avner, and Steven Lee. Nuclear weapons and the future of humanity : the fundamental questions. Totowa, N.J.: Rowman & Allanheld, 1986.

Department Of State. The Office of Electronic Information, Bureau of Public Affairs. “Comparison of the START Treaty, Moscow Treaty, and New START Treaty”, February 11, 2011. http://www.state.gov/t/avc/rls/139901.htm.

Drell, Sidney, and James Goodby. “Nuclear Deterrence in a Changed World”, 2012. http://www.armscontrol.org/act/2012_06/Nuclear_Deterrence_in_a_Changed_World#Bio.

“Remarks By President Barack Obama In Prague As Delivered | The White House”, n.d. http://www.whitehouse.gov/the_press_office/Remarks-By-President-Barack-Obama-In-Prague-As-Delivered.

“Remarks by President Obama at Hankuk University | The White House”, n.d. http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2012/03/26/remarks-president-obama-hankuk-university.

Romney, Mitt. “Obama’s Worst Foreign-policy Mistake.” The Washington Post, July 6, 2010, sec. Opinions. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/07/05/AR2010070502657.html.

Rumbaugh, Russell, Nathan Cohn, and Henry L. Stimson Center. Resolving ambiguity costing nuclear weapons. Washington, DC: Henry L. Stimson Center, 2012. http://www.stimson.org/images/uploads/research-pdfs/RESOLVING_FP_4_no_crop_marks.pdf.

Sagan S.D. “Shared responsibilities for nuclear disarmament.” Daedalus Daedalus 138, no. 4 (2009): 157–168.

Stockholm International Peace Research Institute. “Military Expenditure of USA.” Yearbook, 2012. http://www.sipri.org/yearbook/2005/08.

United States. Dept. of Defense. “Nuclear posture review report”, 2010. http://purl.access.gpo.gov/GPO/LPS121566.

United States. President. The national security strategy of the United States of America. [Washington, D.C.]: White House, 2002. http://purl.access.gpo.gov/GPO/LPS90878.

Wiesner, Jerome B., and Herbert F. York. “National Security and the Nuclear-Test Ban.” Scientific American 211, no. 4 (October 1964): 27–35.

Footnotes

[1] Cohen and Lee, Nuclear weapons and the future of humanity, 426.

[2] Drell and Goodby, “Nuclear Deterrence in a Changed World.”

[3] United States. President, The national security strategy of the United States of America, 15.

[4] “Remarks by President Obama at Hankuk University | The White House.”

[5] Ibid.

[6] United States. Dept. of Defense, “Nuclear posture review report,” 7.

[7] Department Of State. The Office of Electronic Information, “New START.”

[8] Arms Control Association, “START I at a Glance.”

[9] Department Of State. The Office of Electronic Information, “New START.”

[10] Cohen and Lee, Nuclear weapons and the future of humanity, 426.

[11] Ibid.

[12] Ibid., 427.

[13] Wiesner and York, “National Security and the Nuclear-Test Ban,” 35.

[14] United States. Dept. of Defense, “Nuclear posture review report,” viii.

[15] “Remarks By President Barack Obama In Prague As Delivered | The White House.”

[16] Ibid.

[17] Ibid.

[18] Cohen and Lee, Nuclear weapons and the future of humanity, 426; Sagan S.D, “Shared responsibilities for nuclear disarmament,” 158.

[19] Cohen and Lee, Nuclear weapons and the future of humanity, 426.

[20] Rumbaugh, Cohn, and Henry L. Stimson Center, Resolving ambiguity costing nuclear weapons, 6.

[21] Alexander, “After Early Successes, Obama Struggles to Implement Disarmament Vision.”

[22] Stockholm International Peace Research Institute, “Military Expenditure of USA.”

[23] Alexander, “After Early Successes, Obama Struggles to Implement Disarmament Vision.”

[24] Romney, “Obama’s Worst Foreign-policy Mistake” Note: This was Romney’s response to the policy as was drafted in 2010. There are no signs that his views have changed considerably since then.

Conversations with Amy Fitzpatrick about Christianity, Anarchism, and Structural Violence

The fifth episode in the 'I Am Instrumental: Peace Podcasts' series is a conversation with a friend of mind, Amy Fitzpatrick. Amy is a speech pathologist who currently lives and works in Perth. Amy believes that 'there's a real strength in nonviolence.' Also in this podcast, hear Amy talk about her views on Christianity, anarchism and violence.

Amy was a facilitator at the Pace E Bene 'Nonviolent Leadership for Interfaith Peacebuilders' course. You can register your interest in participating in this course in 2013 here:http://www.nonviolentinterfaithleadership.org/

'I have a lot of respect for people who stand up for what they believe in without intimidating others'

'As I started to read the Gospels much more closely, I began to realise how important nonviolence was to Jesus'

'I would like to live as simply as I can'

"Conversations with Amy Fitzpatrick about Christianity, Anarchism, and Structural Violence" by iaminstrumental is licensed under a Creative Commons License

Conversations with Yasir Hussaini about Nonviolence, Islam, and Culture

The third episode in the 'I Am Instrumental: Peace Podcasts' series is a conversation with a good friend of mind, Yasir Hussaini. Yasir lives and studies in Adelaide, South Australia. Hear Yasir talk about his faith, world-view, and what it is like growing up as a Muslim in a western society.

Here are some of the highlights from the Podcast:

‘We promote nonviolence and peacebuilding.’

‘You can't generalise terrorists to us.’

‘Growing up, you get the stereotypes, and sometimes you get sick of it.’

Conversations with See about Nonviolence, Brahma Kumaris, and more!

The second episode in the 'I Am Instrumental: Peace Podcasts' series is a conversation with another good friend of mind, See Yeung Yao. See lives at the Brahma Kumaris centre in the Blue Mountains, New South Wales, Australia . Hear See talk about her faith, world-view, and diet.

Here are some of the highlights from the Podcast:

‘My Faith really teaches me about acceptance.’

‘I’ve come to understand that there is a reason for things that happen.’

‘I am a child of God, and everyone is a child of God.’

‘Right and wrong is very subjective, it depends on different perspectives’

Conversations with Carl O'Sullivan about Nonviolence, Christianity, Tolstoy, and more!

I am ecstatic to be releasing the first episode of the first I Am Instrumental podcast series entitled Peace Podcasts.


The first episode in the 'I Am Instrumental: Peace Podcasts' series is with a good friend of mind, Carl O'Sullivan. Carl works for Caritas Australia as the Program Officer for the Australian Indigenous Program. Hear Carl talk about the intersection of his faith and nonviolence, and how we can live nonviolently in a violent world.

America's foreign policy and Christian values

A protester questions whether Bush's policies reflect 'Christian values' http://goo.gl/tVFiF

Preface: There is no way to do justice to a topic like this in 2000 words. Absolutely no way. Maybe 200,000 words. I have chosen to write critically as this is a university assignment. However, I do still hold to my conclusion - that the exegesis of Christian values which Martin Luther King, Jr. and Jim Wallis support, is closer to the law of Christ as it is written in the Gospels. I would love to hear your feedback, as always!

Critically discuss the relationship between America's foreign policy and the concept of 'Christian values'.

The Judeo-Christian narrative has historically been at the heart of the American story. The United States of America has often considered themselves to be a ‘redeemer nation’, a ‘city on a hill’, a ‘righteous empire’, and the ‘last hope.’[1] All of these terms have deeply religious connotations. This narrative which the USA so strongly feels a part of has helped raise leaders who view the world in ‘moralistic, highly dualistic, and frequently apocalyptical ways.’[2] Leaders of the Christian tradition from across the political spectrum, from Martin Luther King, Jr. to George W. Bush have all incorporated a Judeo-Christian narrative into their respective political ideologies.[3] What is of concern in this paper is how leaders and believers who claim to follow the same religion and teachings can reach radically different conclusions on how to respond to issues of international justice, especially those that are specifically related to America’s foreign policy. In this essay I will explore a selection of the diverse political ideologies held by Christians in America and consider how, if at all, they relate to the Christian narrative.

In recent years, a vast amount of research has taken place in regard to the influence that a person’s religious identity has on their political ideology. A great deal of this research separates Christian groups into Catholic and Protestant, Progressive and Conservative, Fundamental and Liberal, and the list goes on. Unfortunately some of the literature is quite circular in its approach and does not fully recognise the dynamic nature of religious identity. For example, an ‘evangelical’ may gain this label because they are politically conservative, and furthermore, a political conservative who is a Christian will sometimes be described as an ‘evangelical’. Naturally, all that one can derive from this logic is that ‘a’ is equal to ‘a’, and we arrive at no greater truth. For the purposes of this essay I will use the terms as the literature on the subject uses them, but with full recognition that all that is observable about particular political religious identities are patterns and trends, rather than categorical absolutes.

Christianity in the USA does have particular patterns and trends among its believers and leaders; there is a deep connection between religious identity and political ideologies. Such a deep connection between religion and politics in a quasi-secular democracy gives America a unique standing amongst world democracies. Lienesch suggests that the ‘Conservative Christian’ American citizen feels it to be her duty to ‘save other nations from religious backwardness and political corruption.’[4] While the view that America has a special role ‘to carry its values to other lands’ is widely held amongst her citizens, it appears that this view is held most strongly amongst those of the Christian tradition.[5] However, amongst the diverse Christian groups in America, there is a massive gulf between thoughts on what a special role entails and in particular, whether a special relationship gives America the privilege to use force to propagate its agenda.

Pat Robertson is a massively influential televangelist who sought nomination from the Republican party for President. Pilgrim argues that this indicated a ‘revamped relationship between the Christian Right and mainstream politics.’[6] In a speech two years prior to his 1988 presidential bid, Robertson described conservatism as ‘greater than the sum of the many rights we protect and defend.’[7] In 1996, a Pew Centre report found that nearly 47% of Republican voters identified themselves as ‘born again or evangelical Christians.’ The report suggests that Republican voters were most likely to be enterprisers, moralists, or libertarians who were predominately white, pro-business, anti-government, anti-social welfare and militaristic. The only strong divide between them was that the libertarians (which made up the smaller group of the three) were more likely to be tolerant and ‘very low on religious faith.’[8] Robertson sought to defend the ‘moralist’ version of evangelical Christianity.

In terms of foreign policy, Robertson is a committed Zionist, believing that ‘the technological marvels of Israeli industry, the military prowess, the bounty of Israeli agriculture, the fruits and flowers and abundance of the land are a testimony to God's watchful care over this new nation and the genius of this people.’^[9] He gives uncritical support for Israel, linking the sovereignty of the state in with the Judeo-Christian narrative. Robertson, in a 2004 speech quoted the biblical prophet Ezekiel who wrote ‘for I will take you out of the nations; I will gather you from all countries and bring you back into your own land.’[10] However, it is not clear whether this is a geographical land or a spiritual land. Moreover, the prophet Ezekiel also writes that ‘since you did not hate bloodshed, bloodshed will pursue you’ and ‘you rely on your sword ... should you then possess the land?’[11] Whether or not believers of the Judeo-Christian narrative must support Israel as the chosen nation is debatable, however, it seems to be excruciatingly obvious that the narrative cannot be synthesised with support for oppressive and expansionist governments. Sacred texts which prophesy the beating of swords into ploughshares have been twisted into the most dangerous of political weapons.[12]

George W. Bush is slightly more nuanced than Pat Robertson in regards to issues like the Israel and Palestine conflict. In a 2002 speech Bush suggested that he may be in support of a two state solution to the conflict, however, the conditions under which he would support such a solution are unrealistic and unfair. In essence, a ‘Bush solution’ to the Israeli-Palestine conflict would permit Israel to act as a sovereign state with military power yet it would not afford Palestine the same privileges. In his speech on the conflict he reaffirmed his deeply held conviction that you are either ‘with us or against us’, reinforcing a highly dualistic view of the world which sees only good or evil, and no shades of grey.

Bush’s view of America as a ‘redeemer nation’ is far less nuanced than his support for Israel. In a 2004 electoral campaign speech, Bush passionately stated ‘I have a clear vision to win the war on terror, and to extend peace and freedom throughout the world’, pitting himself against torture, violence, and weapons of mass destruction.[13] However, the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute found that the America’s military spending accounted for 47 per cent of the world total in 2004.[14] It is clear from these figures that there is a strongly held view, particularly among ‘Christian conservatives’ who Bush claims to represent, that ideals can be spread in a less than ideal manner; that fire can put out fire.

Author, theologian, and CEO of Sojourners Jim Wallis provides a radically different understanding of the relationship between Christianity and politics in comparison to Pat Robertson and George W. Bush. In the synopsis for God’s Politics he questions: ‘in America why do moral values and a belief in God seem to make people pro-war, pro-rich and pro-republican?’[15] He maintains that ‘God is personal, but never private’, and wonders ‘where would America be if the Reverend Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. had kept his faith to himself?’[16] Like Robertson and Bush, Wallis believes that faith-based political views should not be excluded from the public square, however, Wallis qualifies this by suggesting that faith-based political views that are brought into the public square must be ‘better for the common good.’[17]

Unlike Robertson and Bush, Wallis believes that there should be a ‘clear timetable’ for a genuine two-state solution for Israel and Palestine. Recalling his visit to Israel and Palestine, he describes the Israeli settlements as ‘aggressive forays into Palestinian territory by people who believe that God has given them all the land.’[18] Wallis acknowledges that there has been violence from Palestinians against the Israeli settlements, describing some of the violence as ‘terrorism’ which ‘can never be morally justified.’ However, he also contends that the violence from the Israeli side of the conflict ‘must also be called terrorism’ as the Israelis react ‘in massive, disproportionate retaliation’ to Palestinian violence.[19]

Wallis publically moved against the narrow evangelical stereotype in a letter co-authored by over forty American evangelical Christians in 2002 which stated ‘Mr. President, the American evangelical community is not a monolithic bloc in full and firm support of present Israeli policy.’[20] This further confuses the relationship between the evangelical Christian community and conservative, right wing, and violent foreign policies. Throughout his work, Jim Wallis makes a strong case for active nonviolence which is part pragmatic and part theological. His pragmatism is akin to that of Stephen Zunes who through his extensive research on nonviolent movements found that ‘armed resistance often backfires by legitimating the state’s use of repressive tactics’, and that there is ‘an increasing realisation that the benefits of waging an armed insurrection may not be worth the costs’ by proponents of human rights and social change.[21] Theologically, Wallis’ views are similar to that of Martin Luther King, Jr.’s which will be explored in the next section.

Martin Luther King, Jr. was one of the most prominent Christian leaders of his time. King is best known for his involvement with the American civil rights movement. He embraced the biblical narrative throughout his campaigning claiming that ‘if we are wrong, God Almighty is wrong ... If we are wrong, Jesus of Nazareth was merely a utopian dreamer that never came down to Earth.’[22] While King was known for his nonviolent leadership in the domestic realm through the civil rights movement, often his leadership on foreign policy matters went unnoticed. King only became vocal about nonviolence in the international sphere later in his career, most notably after being challenged about his beliefs by Malcolm X in Message to Grassroots. In the 1963 speech Malcolm X exclaimed, ‘if violence is wrong in America, violence is wrong abroad.’[23] This led King to adopt an approach to nonviolence which would be consistent in the domestic and international sphere.

It was just a few years after Message to Grassroots when King publically expressed his opposition to the Vietnam War in a sermon at Riverside Church in New York City describing the war as ‘madness.’[24] He went on to say ‘we can no longer afford to worship the god of hate or bow before the alter of retaliation.’[25] Unfortunately King’s view on the Israel-Palestine conflict has been twisted and de-contextualised, as one writer described, the ‘quotes’ that are spread by Zionists are a ‘hoax.’ However it is clear that while he would ‘no doubt roundly condemn Palestinian violence against innocent civilians, he would also condemn the state of Israel.’[26] King’s view of Christian values and how they relate to foreign policy are radically different from the views of Robertson and Bush.

The problem is not whether America’s foreign policy aligns with ‘Christian values’, but rather, whose ‘Christian values’ the policies are aligned with. Unfortunately throughout recent history many leaders in the United States of America have seen the world in a similar way to George W. Bush and Pat Robertson: black and white; good and evil. It seems as though those Christian leaders with a black and white world view have had the louder voice and greater say over America’s foreign policy. This is peculiar in one sense, since there are a considerable number of people from diverse faith backgrounds, including evangelical Christianity, who actively disagreed with the war in Iraq, who protested against torture, and who desire nonviolent conflict transformation as an alternative to violence.[27] However, it is the case that the media will continually give greater attention to people on political and religious extremes, and ignore the countless people of faith and no faith who, in less attention-seeking ways, strive to create a more peaceful planet.

In conclusion, ‘Christian values’ provide a problem for American foreign policy, but they may also provide a solution. In 2006 Barack Obama described Jesus’ Sermon On The Mount as ‘so radical that it’s doubtful that our own Defence Department would survive its application.’[28] Perhaps it is this kind of applied literal interpretation of the Christian ethic that is needed for America’s foreign policy to truly reflect ‘Christian values’. There will inevitably be broad interpretations of the comprehensive doctrine of Christianity which will provide challenges for democracy. These challenges are worth confronting rather than ignoring.

Bibliography

Burke, Daniel. “Obama Uses Sermon on the Mount to Elevate Speeches.” Christianity Today, 2009. http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2009/aprilweb-only/116-51.0.html.

Bush, George W. “Defending the War.” Presidential Rhetoric, 2004. http://www.presidentialrhetoric.com/campaign/speeches/bush_july9.html.

———. “September 11 Anniversary Address.” Presidential Rhetoric, 2002. http://www.presidentialrhetoric.com/speeches/09.11.02.html.

“Fraud Fit for a King: Israel, Zionism, and the Misuse of MLK.” The Electronic Intifada, n.d. http://electronicintifada.net/content/fraud-fit-king-israel-zionism-and-misuse-mlk/4373.

Lienesch, Michael. Redeeming America : Piety and Politics in the New Christian Right. Chapel Hill [u.a.]: Univ. of North Carolina Press, 1996.

Martin Luther King, Jr. I’ve Been to the Mountaintop. August 27, 2011. American Rhetoric, 1968.

———. “Address to First Montgomery Improvement Association (MIA) Mass Meeting, at Holt Street Baptist Church.” A Call to Conscience: The Landmark Speeches of Martin Luther King, Jr., 1955. http://mlk-kpp01.stanford.edu/kingweb/publications/speeches/MIA_mass_meeting_at_holt_street.html.

———. “Beyond Vietnam -- A Time to Break Silence”, 1967. http://www.americanrhetoric.com/speeches/mlkatimetobreaksilence.htm.

Pew Research Center. Energized Democrats Backing Clinton. Washington: Pew Research Center, 1995. http://www.people-press.org/1995/11/14/about-the-typology/.

Pilgrim, David. “Pat Robertson and the Oval Office.” Journal of American Studies 22, no. 2 (1988): 258–262.

Robertson, Pat. “Conservatism Will Triumph.” The Official Site of Pat Robertson, 1986. http://www.patrobertson.com/speeches/ConservatismWillTriumph.asp.

———. “Pat Robertson Receives Zionist Award.” The Official Site of Pat Robertson, 1986. http://www.patrobertson.com/PressReleases/ZionistAward.asp.

———. “Why Evangelical Christians Support Israel.” The Official Site of Pat Robertson, 2004. http://www.patrobertson.com/Speeches/IsraelLauder.asp.

Stockholm International Peace Research Institute. “Military Expenditure.” Yearbook, 2005. http://www.sipri.org/yearbook/2005/08.

Sullivan, Julie. “From Protesting Abortion Clinics to Protesting the War.” Christianity Today, 2007. http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2007/marchweb-only/111-52.0.html.

Wallis, Jim. God’s Politics : Why the American Right Gets It Wrong and the Left Doesn’t Get It. Oxford: Lion, 2006.

X, Malcolm. “Message to Grassroots.” Teaching American History, 1963. http://teachingamericanhistory.org/library/index.asp?document=1145.

Zondervan Publishing House. The Holy Bible : New International Version Containing the Old Testament and the New Testament. Grand Rapids, Mich.: Zondervan, 2010.

Zunes, Stephen. “Nonviolent Action and Human Rights.” PS: Political Science and Politics 33, no. 2 (June 1, 2000): 181–187.

---

[1] Lienesch, Redeeming America, 196.

[2] Ibid., 195–196.

[3] See for examples: Martin Luther King, I’ve Been to the Mountaintop; Bush, “September 11 Anniversary Address.”

[4] Lienesch, Redeeming America, 195.

[5] Ibid., 196.

[6] Pilgrim, “Pat Robertson and the Oval Office,” 258.

[7] Robertson, “Conservatism Will Triumph.”

[8] Pew Research Center, Energized Democrats Backing Clinton.

[9] Robertson, “Why Evangelical Christians Support Israel”; Robertson, “Pat Robertson Receives Zionist Award.”

[10] Robertson, “Why Evangelical Christians Support Israel”; Translation quoted: Zondervan Publishing House, The Holy Bible, v.  Ez 36:24.

[11] Zondervan Publishing House, The Holy Bible, v. Ez 35:5; 33:26; see also Ez 22:13; Ez 22:6; and Ez 18.

[12] See ibid., v. Isaiah 2:4.

[13] Bush, “Defending the War.”

[14] Stockholm International Peace Research Institute, “Military Expenditure.”

[15] Wallis, God’s Politics, 386.

[16] Ibid., 31, 57.

[17] Ibid., 71.

[18] Ibid., 173.

[19] Ibid., 175.

[20] Ibid., 186.

[21] Zunes, “Nonviolent Action and Human Rights,” 183–184.

[22] Martin Luther King, “Address to First Montgomery Improvement Association (MIA) Mass Meeting, at Holt Street Baptist Church.”

[23] X, “Message to Grassroots.”

[24] Martin Luther King, “Beyond Vietnam -- A Time to Break Silence.”

[25] Ibid.

[26] “Fraud Fit for a King.”

[27] Sullivan, “From Protesting Abortion Clinics to Protesting the War.”

[28] Burke, “Obama Uses Sermon on the Mount to Elevate Speeches.”