Sunday August 31, 2008 saw the first arrests of peaceful protestors at the Republican National Convention held in St. Paul, MN. As plans began to be announced for scheduled protest marches and rallies against the on-going war on Iraq and “against the Republican agenda”, a few of us in the local peace community in the Twin Cities grew uncomfortable with the style and tenor of some of the protests.
 
Although we are as strongly apposed to the war as many other groups, some of us wished to have a more reflective and solemn protest against the loss of life and physical and psychological destruction of both soldiers and civilians this war has wrought. This war had been supported by both major political parties and is not just a “Republican” issue.

 
My friend Dr. David Harris, an active member of Veterans for Peace, shared these concerns and generated the idea of a silent march carrying symbolic tombstones with the photos and names of dead U.S. soldiers and Iraqi civilians killed in the war. Our mutual friend and peacemaker, Sami Rasouli, an Iraqi-American and founder of the Muslim Peacemaker Team provided photos he has taken during the war of some of the enormous numbers of Iraqi casualties that he has witnessed first-hand.
 
Dr. Harris’s idea was to march to the Xcel Center, the location for the RNC, carrying the tombstones with just a drum cadence and the reading of the names of the dead on both sides with the response from the marchers being “We remember you” in a similar fashion to the annual protest at The U.S. Army School of the Americas at Ft. Benning, GA. There, each November, the vigilers respond with “Presente!” when names of the victims of that notorious remnant of the Cold War are sung out.
 
Dr. Harris also felt the need to include an option in the march for those who felt called to supplement their protest with an act of nonviolent civil disobedience. Marchers were told that if they wished to risk arrest, they could nonviolently continue beyond the legal route of the march and attempt to carry their tombstones to the convention site itself. He was public and clear with both the marchers and the police about these intentions and the risks involved.
 
Prior to the start of the march, only four expressed an interest and willingness to commit to the civil disobedience portion of the march with one saying she would like to do so but wasn’t sure she’d have the physical stamina to be able to march to the point where the breach of the security line would occur. So, initially, three of us chose to branch off the route to an area scouted out in advance where it appeared there was an opening in the fence.
 
However, when we approached the opening, it turned out to be a swinging gate to allow vehicles to pass and the gates were quickly shut and secured as we slowly approached. As I entered the area, I noticed a gap under the fenced-off area where I though we might be able to squeeze under and so I told the other two to follow me. Given my physical size, it was somewhat a chore to squeeze under the wrought iron fencing but after I managed it, I waited for the other two. When we had cleared it, I noticed to my chagrin that we were “boxed in” by fencing all around us except for a rear building entrance on one side.
 
However, on closer inspection, I discovered that one section of the fence wasn’t properly secured and could possibly be lifted off its hinge pins and removed to the side. Joel and David gave me a hand in lifting the heavy 4’ x 10’ panel up and as I moved the section to the side, at least a half dozen law enforcement officers rushed to the site from inside the perimeter to prevent our access. I gently pushed the fence as they struggled to close the breach. I told the officers that we were committed to nonviolence and had no intention of injuring anyone – we just wanted “to go to the Xcel Center to deliver a letter and documents to President Bush”.
 
Earlier that morning, I wrote an open letter to the President, calling him to immediately end this war, quoting portions of International Law and treaties it had violated. Needless to say, the police were more concerned with their security perimeter than the desires of a few to peaceably confront the “Commander-in-Chief”. After it became clear that we would be unable to proceed further in a nonviolent manner, we decided to remain where we were. We were also pleasantly surprised to find that Josh, Dan, and Duncan had joined us. I knew Josh and Dan from the recent 500 mile “Witness Against War” walk from Chicago to St. Paul they had completed the day before. I was glad to have their gentle spirits with us! None of us had previously known Duncan but he was the one who had shown David the area where we might by-pass the fence prior to the walk.
 
As at least a dozen police officers in riot gear with long wooden batons quickly established themselves between us and the fence, I then noticed that three other friends and joined us on “the wrong side of the law”. Sister Betty Mckenzie, a nun who is 78 had crawled under the fence along with Mary Vaughan and Jeanne Hynes. All three women have been faithful peace activists and active members of AlliantACTION, a local group that has vigiled weekly for the past 12 years at the headquarters of a war profiteer, Alliant Techsystems.  So that completed our group of nine.
 
As the police regrouped and officers were deciding what to do with their caged prey, Mary decided to lead us in song. Down By The Riverside, Let It Be, Give Peace a Chance, and even a spirited solo by Duncan of James Brown’s classic, “I Feel Good” rang out. Many members of the media had crowded up against the outside of the fence wanting to get a photo or a quote from Betty or Jeanne who were closest to them. One of our group asked me to read aloud my letter to the President so the surrounding police could hear it. I obliged.
 
After what seemed to be 15-20 minutes, a police commander came to inform us that “You know you are under arrest?” Actually, other police must have been a little lax in their training as that was the first we were notified that we were “arrested”. We had a pleasant conversation with him, informing him of our commitment to nonviolence and our intent to deliver the letter and documents to the Convention site. He said that wasn’t going to happen and asked if we would “cooperate” with the arrest procedure. David, ever the diplomat, responded “of course” but then quickly added, “Actually, we might not cooperate but we are certainly nonviolent”.
 
In an act of supreme irony, David was the first to be shackled with a set of PINK handcuffs! I told him how proud Media Benjamin and her Code Pink group would be if they could see him now. (Media and Code Pink members had marched with us before we veered off-route.) I had to settle for black handcuffs and the officer cooperated with my request to not make them too tight because I suffer from carpal tunnel. He was very respectful and all of the officers responded to our peaceableness in a professional and respectful manner. A number of the officers responded positively to David’s ready identity as a military vet since he proudly had worn his Veterans For Peace t-shirt. I had chosen to wear my LA Catholic Worker shirt with a Dorothy Day quote: “The only solution is Love” on it. Jeanne wore her NO WAR t-shirt which included “Our God is Love; Our Gospel is Peace”.
 
The booking process began in the building we had come behind – St. Paul’s famous Landmark Center. We were searched and patted down and then photographed alongside our “Arresting Officer” with a white board declaring our names, birthdates, and case numbers. Our metal handcuffs were replaced with sturdy plastic flexi-cuffs and we were herded out to a waiting police van to be transported to the Ramsey County Jail for the rest of the booking process.
 
I later found out that Sister Betty has collapsed while being processed and was caught and helped into a wheelchair. I think the combination of the outside temperature, the march, and the excitement of crawling under the security fence had strained her frail physique. Mary informed us that she thought Betty was recovering fine. We later discovered that they kept Jeanne and Betty at the first location and completed their booking process there so they wouldn’t have to be transported elsewhere. Again, we were treated with respect and dignity despite the fact that the two previous days had seen what seemed to me as egregious excesses by the Ramsey County Sheriff’s Office against what they and the media defined as “anarchists”. They were probably ignorant that Dorothy Day herself and many of today’s principled servants of the poor, the Catholic Workers, identify themselves as anarchists.
 
After having our property put in plastic bags (belts, combs, watches, keys, pens and paper …) we were fingerprinted and booked. Duncan was placed in a separate cage because he didn’t have any identification on him and he was from out-of-state. It was indicated that he might be held until they could verify his identity through other means. After receiving a citation for “trespass: refusing to leave the premises of another”, the police put us back into a van with stainless benches and a divider that reminded me of a cattle truck. They drove us a block or two away from the jail and gave us directions about how to walk back to the State Capitol, our starting place. We were given our property back at that point so we were able to contact our families and friends to let them know we were OK and able to breathe free air again.
 
 The citation indicates that we will be contacted by mail for our court appearance and, I know from previous experience, that we can be fined and get up to 3 months jail time if convicted. But that is for the next leg of this journey for peace. We must end this war!

(There are some good photos of the peace witness on The Minnesota Independent website. http://www.minnesotaindependent.com/6394/the-anatomy-of-a-march-veterans-for-peace-event-ends-in-arrests)

Steve Clemens is a member of the Community of St. Martin, an ecumenical faith community in Minneapolis committed to nonviolence, social justice, and inclusiveness. He also serves on the boards of Pax Christi Twin Cities and The Iraqi/American Reconciliation Project.

This immoral and illegal war against the peoples of Iraq must stop now!

I am required by the Nuremberg Principles to not be complicit with this war of aggression that the UN Charter calls a grave war crime.

I have written and called my Members of Congress as well as the President. I have sat in my Senators’ offices. I have marched and demonstrated in countless nonviolent vigils and demonstrations against this war and the illegal weapons (cluster bombs and depleted uranium munitions) used against the people of Iraq. I have protested the sanctioned use of torture and other violations of human rights under the guise of prosecuting a “War on Terror” – while, ironically terrorizing others!  I have written Letters to the Editor. When I heard that President Bush planned to address the Republican National Convention in my home state, I felt I needed to nonviolently confront the President himself since this War and Occupation continues. (On an attachment you will find the letter I hope to deliver.)

If I am arrested for nonviolently attempting to deliver this letter and the International Law documents I carry to the President, I will choose to refuse to pay bail to seek my release. To charge someone for their right to nonviolently voice their opposition to criminal activity is a tax against my conscience. I will refuse to pay bail to a government that seeks to protect this War Criminal.

I march and protest today in solidarity with the civilians of Iraq and the millions of refugees who have had to endure this violent attack and occupation of their homeland. I ask my fellow U.S citizens to rise up nonviolently and refuse to allow this war to continue.

I try to faithfully follow the example and teaching of Jesus of Nazareth who calls me to “Love my enemies” and “Love my neighbor as myself”. I call all those who claim to follow the life and witness of Jesus to find creative ways to stop this war and work to heal its many wounds.

Steve Clemens is a member of the Community of St. Martin, an ecumenical faith community in Minneapolis committed to nonviolence, social justice, and inclusiveness. He also serves on the boards of Pax Christi Twin Cities and The Iraqi/American Reconciliation Project.

For the past twelve years, AlliantACTION has vigiled in front of Alliant Techsystems, Minnesota’s largest arms merchant. After being spun off from Honeywell who grew tired of the protests from the Honeywell Project, Alliant Techsystems, or ATK as it is known by their company logo and in the stock market, first located in an old Honeywell facility in Hopkins, MN. The weekly vigil by local activists started in 1996, focusing on ATK’s manufacture and sale of anti-personnel landmines. After a significant victory in court in 1997 when 79 people were acquitted of trespassing charges under a defense claiming International Law, the Wednesday morning vigil continued to grow in size.

When the weapons manufacturer moved its headquarters a mile or two down the road to Edina, the weekly vigil followed. After a few years there, we noticed a difference in the police presence. At first, the city of Edina assigned a police Sergeant as the primary liaison between the vigilers and the arms corporation. AlliantACTION didn’t request any law enforcement presence even though it felt that some international laws should be enforced against this company. Apparently local police don’t specialize in enforcing International Law.

Because members of the group occasionally attempted to carry their concerns directly to the front doors of the corporation – attempting to deliver documents highlighting the illegality of the weapons they made to corporate officers – they recognized that the local police might haul some of them off under charges of trespassing. The Edina Police Sergeant courteously explained to the group that his presence during our vigil was to be sure our First Amendment rights were honored as much as to “protect” the property of this manufacturer of cluster bombs and depleted uranium weapons. He even insisted on sitting through an entire trial after he was called to testify about the arrest of some of the group for trespass. He told some of the defendants, “Since I arrested you, the least I can do is remain in the courtroom to hear your testimony about why you did it.”  After hearing testimony from one defendant about ATK’s research and development of a gun that could “shoot around corners”, then hearing the defendant add that “we know that any such weapon made for our own soldiers will likely be found a few years later on our own streets and used against our own cops by criminals”, the Edina policeman wanted to know more about the research on this weapon uncovered by the defendants. 

The vigil group noticed a change after that Sergeant was replaced after a few years. Now, younger, more verbally abrasive officers were present on the Wednesday mornings. Members of the group suspected (and were later told) that these police were “hired” by ATK. It wasn’t until ATK recently moved again, this time to Eden Prairie, that the AlliantACTION group began to question this practice. The group’s new police liaison with Eden Prairie, Lt. Tracy Luke, informed the group that the two officers now present at each weekly vigil were off-duty Eden Prairie Police who were “hired” by Alliant Techsystems. The crucial difference was that AlliantACTION decided to change part of their vigil in to a walking picket that now crossed the driveway into ATK’s parking lot and office complex. So now, police hired by the company being picketed decide when to stop the flow of pickets in order to allow ATK workers up their driveway.

When questioned about the obvious conflict of interest present, Lt. Luke responded, “Well, you know, you can hire your own cops as well. It is $60. per hour”.  The private-duty cops are dressed in their Eden Prairie Police uniforms and arrive for this “private-duty” work in an Eden Prairie squad car. While they are charged by their own department to fairly uphold the law, wouldn’t their judgment be skewed in favor of who is paying for this job? What if AlliantACTION hired its “own cops”? Would it depend on the rank or seniority of the “dueling police officers” in judgment calls about when to give priority to the pedestrian “rights” of picketers over the “rights” of motorists?

Have you noticed the uniformed police officers at your local Target store or grocery store? How does one tell if a police officer is a “hired gun” for a corporation rather than a public safety officer for the community? If citizens are free to “hire our own cop” to ensure our First Amendment rights, should Black citizens hire their own officer of color if you are afraid of being stopped for “driving while Black”? If you are Latino, you might want to hire your own Hispanic-heritage-looking cop so you aren’t stopped and asked to see if you are in this country “illegally”. Maybe Native Americans can hire their own cops and ask them to help enforce some of the many Treaties that have been unenforced by the “majority” political powers. However, at $60. an hour, not too many of us can afford our own “law enforcement”.

Maybe, we could decide as a society to pay our public safety officers enough so they wouldn’t have to “moonlight” as shills for the corporate powers. It makes one wonder when, this September, we meet cops “protecting” who(?) during the Republican convention – who are they working for when “private-duty” cops wear the same uniform as public safety officers. Maybe they could wear armbands that disclose their “sponsor” for the day.

Steve Clemens is a member of the Community of St. Martin, an ecumenical faith community in Minneapolis committed to nonviolence, social justice, and inclusiveness. He also serves on the boards of Pax Christi Twin Cities and The Iraqi/American Reconciliation Project.

Review of James W. Douglass, JFK and the Unspeakable: Why He Died and Why It Matters. (Maryknoll, NY: Orbis Books. 2008)

I had just turned 13 the month before the startling news was broadcast into my 8th grade classroom: President John F. Kennedy was shot in Dallas and had been rushed to the hospital. It was followed by the bulletin that the President was dead. Lorenzo, my fellow classmate, an Italian Catholic, burst into tears. I sat quietly thinking: at least we got that Papist out of the White House! The anti-Catholic indoctrination I received from my church and parents never allowed me to see JFK as a person, only a symbol of a false religion to reject. Oh, and he was a Democrat as well!

Had I known the JFK that Jim Douglass reveals in his new book, I would have had more reasons to dismiss him: a President engaging in peacemaking activities with the Premier of the godless Communists, Nikita Khrushchev, passing letters back and forth that even members of his Cabinet were unaware! A US President secretly arranging for face-to-face consultations with Fidel Castro to resume normal diplomatic relations with a communist Cuba! The man who issued the secret National Security Action Memorandum 263 ordering the removal of 1,000 US Military advisors from Vietnam by the end of 1963 and ALL US Troops by the end of 1965. Under the guise of “peacemaking” President John F. Kennedy was urging “capitulation” to the Soviets in the Cold War – at least from my junior high school analysis.

Jim Douglass describes JFK’s “turning” – his movement toward peace rather than “victory” after the almost catastrophic “Cuban Missile Crisis” the year before in 1962. While the world was on the brink of nuclear devastation, I had practiced the “duck and cover” technique at school in the event the Ruskies dropped “the big one”. My own personal “turning” toward peace began five years later when I had to register for the military draft when I turned 18 in the fall of 1968. Fortunately I was no longer dependent on getting political perspective from US News and World Report (The Commies are killing our missionaries in Vietnam!) nor my theology from my evangelical/fundamentalist church (Jesus’ call to “Love your enemies” was trumped by St. Paul’s admonition to the Christians in Rome: “Let every soul obey the governing authorities”).

Having been issued a uniform and rifle for the compulsory ROTC class when I registered for my college freshman year, I had an epiphany on the rifle range when I realized that even though the targets were circular, they were, in reality, the bodies of the “Viet Cong”.  Under no reading of Jesus’ teaching could I justify pulling the trigger so I registered as a conscientious objector. I had begun my own turning. Little did I know that one year later, I would be marching on the local Wheaton, IL draft board arm-in-arm with a Catholic priest! Another year later would find me taking some courses with that priest at the nearby Catholic Maryknoll Seminary. Soon I would discover Jim Douglass’ The Non-Violent Cross after I had left behind my anti-Catholic upbringing and was open to hearing the “Gospel” through a new lens. My own turning toward peace.

Why would a legendary peace theologian get caught up in conspiracy theory? That was my first question when I received an invitation to attend a Pax Christi retreat 5 or 6 years ago led by Jim Douglass. I’d read virtually all his excellent books, followed his campaign against the Trident and the White Train delivering nuclear weapons to those submarines, and had met him at several conferences on peacemaking. When he and his wife Shelly moved to Birmingham to form a Catholic Worker House, I anticipated seeing more of him because I was only four or five hours away in southwest Georgia. However, soon after they arrived, our family moved to Minnesota. Now here was a chance to re-connect with this insightful theologian-activist. But his retreat topic was on the connections between the assassinations of the Kennedy brothers, Martin King and Malcolm X! He talked about how American deals with its prophets – in similar fashion to the way the Romans dealt with the notorious Galilean troublemaker during the administration of Pilate and Felix. At the time, Jim was only beginning the long research project that has led to this first of what promises to be a trilogy of books on the killings of prophets and peacemakers in the 60s in America.

Research indeed! JFK and the Unspeakable has close to 100 pages of small-print footnotes to document and explain his sources about the JFK most of us did not know. However, a small but powerful force within the government, namely the CIA, the FBI, the Joint Chiefs of the military, and even some of his own Cabinet and advisors, came to feel the need to remove him as a danger to an American strategy of global domination. Kennedy, recognizing that the use of nuclear weapons against the Soviets would leave an estimated 140 million dead, decided you could not “win” the Cold War. The others in that military-industrial-intelligence complex felt that with “only” a few million Americans killed if America struck with a first-strike, we could “win”. The window for such an advantage in the nuclear arsenal and delivery systems would narrow and begin to close after 1964, leading some to conclude that the obstacle that the President embodied would have to be removed before the end of 1963.

The “unspeakable” in the title comes from Trappist monk/peacemaker Thomas Merton’s book, Raids on the Unspeakable. It is a term he used to describe the confluence of evil within systems like governments, corporations, and other power centers. Walter Wink uses the term “the Domination System”. St. Paul referred to “the Principalities and Powers”. President Eisenhower coined the phrase “the Military Industrial Complex”. Catholic Worker Dorothy Day talked about “this filthy, rotten system. The “unspeakable” that conspired (breathed together) against JFK (and later his brother as well) was the manifestation of the national security state that insisted on total allegiance to both its ideology and methodology. Kennedy ran for office as a Cold Warrior. Only his glimpse into the abyss that was the Cuban Missile Crisis allowed him to see how close that system pushed toward a nuclear holocaust.

Kennedy was truly saved by his enemy – Nikita Khrushchev. The irony this book discloses that all three antagonists, Castro, Kennedy, and Khrushchev, all had struggled for peaceful co-existence in opposition to their own advisors. Each leader was trapped within national systems that had a vested interest in keeping the conflict going rather than risking a negotiated resolution.

Through extensive interviews and research, Douglass paints a compelling portrait of the supposed assassin/”patsy”, Lee Harvey Oswald. While the Warren Commission (conveniently controlled by ex-CIA Chief, Allen Dulles) failed to interview numerous witnesses that might challenge the “lone gunman” theory, Douglass sought out the stories that convincingly (to me) argued for at least one or more “Oswald” doubles. Douglass argues that the CIA hoped to pin blame for the assassination of the US President on both Cuba and the Soviets, urging the new President, Lyndon Johnson to “retaliate” with their desired preemptive nuclear strike.

It was the successful cover-up orchestrated by the Warren Commission Report that led to the subsequent assassinations of Malcolm X, Martin Luther King, followed by Kennedy’s brother, Bobby is the argument Douglass puts forth. JFK and the Unspeakable is the first of a trilogy of books attempting to unmask or at least begin to demystify this force of evil that has so captivated our national soul.

Besides attempting to portray John Kennedy’s courage in his “turning”, Douglass also wants to steel his readers who are committed to peacemaking to be realistic about the challenges we face. If the “unspeakable” is willing to kill a sitting President, what should we expect if we attempt to follow Jesus down that same road?  The Kennedy that Douglass portrays is less overtly religious than Martin King in his last days (“I only want to do God’s will.”). JFK “looked into the abyss” and chose his path of change or turning when he decided that the fate of the world’s children were at stake if these nukes were ever used again. Kennedy realized that even just the atmospheric testing of these weapons imperiled the health of all humanity with the radioactive fallout. 

But Kennedy’s religious tradition also spoke to him clearly – especially through the powerful words of the initiator of Vatican II, Pope John XXIII with his final masterpiece, Pacem in Terris. The impact of this work so moved Nikita Khrushchev that he is reported to have kept a medallion given to him by this beloved pontiff on his desk in the Kremlin as a way to irritate some of his own Politburo advisors.  Kennedy’s own commencement speech given at American University five months before his death certainly owed some of its power and insight to the recently deceased pope who died two weeks prior to that June 1963 address. In that speech which ironically was carried more widely over the radio to Soviet citizens (and ignored by most US media), Kennedy cautioned Americans not to demonize the other side. His words, “… not to see only a distorted and desperate view of the other side, not to see conflict as inevitable, accommodation as impossible, and communication as nothing more than an exchange of threats. No government or social system is so evil that its people must be considered as lacking in virtue.”, could (and should) be readily applied today to Ahmadinejad’s Iran.    

The book also raises a very disturbing portrait of how this National Security State imperils our democracy.  The idea of a group of secretive men (although there are probably some women in the mix today) deciding who can be or remain President exposes the figure-head nature of the power of that office.  The collusion of un-elected agents, military officers, wealthy business elites, “diplomats” and others plotting behind the scenes to replace the elected head-of-state is not just something that happens in Third World nations. Was what happened in November 1963 in Dallas really a coup-d’etat?

Back in the mid-70s, William Stringfellow raised questions about the compatibility between democracy and the apparatus of a National Security State. Stringfellow, drawing on the insights of Biblical prophets and the writings of Jewish theologian Abraham Joshua Heschel, called the allegiance demanded of citizens by this obsession with “security” during the Cold War by its Biblical name: idolatry. With the fall of the Berlin Wall and the collapse of the Soviet empire, cold warriors searched about for new adversaries so they could continue to justify our dependence on and subservience to the military industrial complex out of fear. Terrorism conveniently became the new whipping boy and the anticipated “peace dividend” disappeared.

While Douglass’ JFK story harkens back to the Cold War, the idolatry of the National Security State is as strong as ever – and its practitioners stand ready to remove or marginalize any who stand in its way. How else could one explain the almost universal condemnation of former-President Jimmy Carter’s sit-down with the leadership of Hamas and Syria this Spring? Or the annual rite of genuflecting before the power of AIPAC by both Democrats and Republicans – each vying to out-do the other in pandering to the Israeli state, ignoring and neglecting the cries for justice emanating from behind the 26’ tall “security barrier”, the new Berlin Wall that Carter has identified as apartheid? 

This book is sobering, disturbing –but ultimately hopeful as well. If even such a stout Cold Warrior as John Fitzgerald Kennedy could decide to “turn toward peace” –albeit at a terrible price – can we too break the shackles of fear and greed and begin that same turning ourselves? As Jim Douglass reminded a friend of mine: who is the real “hero”, the prime mover of this story? It is God – God working through JFK, Khrushchev, and others who had the courage to take risks for peace.  “After all,” Douglass reminded him, “the nuclear holocaust didn’t happen!”

We must open ourselves to recognize the common humanity we share, as “we all inhabit this small planet.  We all breathe the same air. We all cherish our children’s futures. And we are all mortal.” When we recognize and act on this, we join hands with the Creator and work together to build a world of peace. One place to start is exposing, unmasking, naming the truth behind this system. Exposing it to the light. It might put us in its target but only by escaping its clutches can we truly be free and healed of that primal urge to dominate.                                                       

Steve Clemens is a member of the Community of St. Martin, an ecumenical faith community in Minneapolis committed to nonviolence, social justice, and inclusiveness. He also serves on the boards of Pax Christi Twin Cities and The Iraqi/American Reconciliation Project.

Thomas Merton, in his book Peace in the Post-Christian Era, speaks of the crisis of the spirit and the “moral upheaval of the human race that has lost its religious and cultural roots.” In our desire to destroy evil, we search for a simple solution and suddenly become that which we are trying to destroy. We lose sight of truth and our deep moral obligation for life. We alienate ourselves from truth and the “springs of spiritual life and God.” It is our fear that causes us to lose perspective.

It is our faith that must encourage us not to become what we are hoping to destroy.

Father Pedro Arrupe was the superior general of the Jesuits from 1965 -1981. As a result of his missionary experience in Japan after the Hiroshima bombing, he became a strong advocate of social justice issues in the Society of Jesus. It was his conviction that the “pursuit of justice was integral to life in Jesus.” He believed that justice in the world “was as much on the level of societal structures as in personal relationships, and justice meant structural change in every aspect of human life.” His was a dream of promoting justice in the world, and justice meant challenging ourselves and the world in which we live.

Do we connect justice with the life of Jesus?

Are we willing to challenge ourselves or do we merely give lip service?

Cloud of Witnesses, Edited by Jim Wallis and Joyce Hollyday

Penny Lernoux was a tireless advocate of the poor in Latin America. She wrote several books, the most famous being Cry of the People, where she speaks of how “powerful people and institutions oppress the powerless.”  Before she died of cancer at the young age of 49, she spoke of learning of her powerlessness with her illness connecting it with the powerlessness of the poor.  At the same time it was a cleansing and healing experience for her because she felt the ultimate powerlessness of Christ.  She worked closely with the Maryknoll missionaries who helped invigorate her faith.  It was the missionaries who introduced her to the “sounds, smells, hopes and sufferings of the poor.” Penny stated that, “only by entering into the world of the poor, can you begin to understand what it is like to be powerless, to be like Christ.”

We are filled with so many riches today. What is our connection to the poor and powerless?

Cloud of Witnesses, edited by Jim Wallis and Joyce Hollyday

“You must love the Lord your God with all your heart, with all your soul, with all your strength, and with all your mind and your neighbor as yourself” (Luke 10:27).  Would this include Palestinians and Jews or Americans and Mexicans, or is it better to build a wall to keep everyone safe?  Would this include people we believe to be our enemies or are they too difficult to love?  Does this justify the billions spent on warfare to protect our interests and to keep us safe over spending money to end hunger? Does this mean becoming involved when there is an injustice to our neighbor whether next door or in Africa? Love of God and neighbor is a simple yet challenging statement; but, it the basis of our Christian beliefs and the basis of social justice.

It has become the political slur de jure:  any indication that one is willing to sit down and talk with an adversary is painted with the slanderous epithet used to describe British Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain acquiescing to the diabolical ambitions of Adolph Hitler – appeasement. Technically, “offering concessions in order to secure peace” is the definition but modern abuse of the term to slander another seems to involve even recognizing the humanity of the other.

When efforts at diplomacy are categorically dismissed as being “weak”, “un-Presidential” or might be construed as too “effeminate”, then the only “weapons” political leaders are left with are the deadly, military ones. Bombast and bluster become backed by bomb blasts and cluster bombs. Today’s political climate doesn’t even allow for the Manifest Destiny swagger of Teddy Roosevelt: “Speak softly but carry a big stick.” Somehow, even speaking softly to one’s adversary is suspect today. Don’t speak to your adversary – only speak at him.

Barack Obama is denounced by President Bush in a speech to the Israeli Parliament as an appeaser for offering to sit down and talk with President Ahmadinejad of Iran. Even Hillary Clinton has to rush out and threaten to “obliterate” Iran rather than to appear weak or effeminate on the campaign trail. Most Americans have finally come to reject Bush’s “shoot first” policy that has resulted in a quagmire in Iraq.  But now the demonization that once belonged to Saddam Hussein has now been transferred to the elected Iranian leader and the mainstream (read “corporate”) media and the American public uncritically follow suit. One wonders what the “media” in Iran reports about us.

Although the verbal demonization of the enemy (or “axis of evil”, “rogue state”, or other connotation of sub-humanity applied) is directed primarily at one as the epitome of evil, the militarized response is seldom as restricted.  But what’s a little “collateral damage”?

In his powerfully disturbing new book, JFK and the Unspeakable: Why He Died and Why it Matters (Orbis, 2008), Catholic theologian and peace activist Jim Douglass argues that President Kennedy was targeted for assassination by the military-industrial-intelligence complex because he was willing to explore dialog with Khrushchev and Castro rather than risking the extinction of humankind by unleashing our nuclear arsenal. Although we now have clear evidence that Castro had interest in negotiation (Douglass’ book is carefully footnoted), the killing of the President in 1963 has given us 45 years of on-going failed policy with Cuba. What might have happened if dialog was pursued instead of military and economic threat?

This isn’t a uniquely American problem. Douglass also records the assessment of Khrushchev’s son of his father’s need to keep the secret correspondence between the US President and the Soviet Premier from the prying eyes of the Politburo. Khrushchev ran into the same problem as Kennedy – elements within his own government who thought they had more to lose with peace than war.  The chief question arises: who profits from increasing world tensions rather than trying to sit down and resolve differences?

President Eisenhower warned three days before he left office about the undue influence in the corridors of power of “the military industrial complex”. While prescient in recognizing it’s power, he was less knowledgeable of the growing subversive power of the CIA as well as the rise of corporate media and the distortions of the 24 hour news cycle where certain sound bites are drum-beaten over and over into our collective consciousness without any real contextual analysis or historical context.

Psychologists tell us that we’re often unaware of our “shadow” self, the dark side that our adversary sees to which we are often blind. We need the adversary to mirror back to us the image we project. During the Cold War, Americans were quite aware of the (negative) role the Soviets or “red” China played. Now, as we better re-learn our own national history, we can see more clearly some of the brutal, oppressive governments we supported or created to combat the others’ “evil”.

The problem with appeasement is that concessions are needed on both sides of a conflict for there to be peace. When only one side or perspective dominates, the result may appear “peaceful” but it is the enforced “peace” of the Pax Romana or Pax Americana rather than a negotiated settlement. The model which is more helpful in this regard is that of conflict or dispute resolution that is growing as a substitute for older models in the criminal justice field. It is possible that the proper terms should be arbitration instead of appeasement, mediation rather than “missile diplomacy”, dispute resolution rather than “defense” [sic] appropriations, negotiation rather than the nuclear option.
Arbitration, mediation, or conflict resolution takes the first step in recognizing that there is a problem. The “problem” doesn’t have to be between “equals” (one side is often perceived as more powerful than the other) but for there to be a genuine solution, there must be “buy in” from both sides. Politicians who like to slander their opponents with epithets like appeasement aren’t often looking for solutions that result in peace but rather stirring the pot and keeping the conflict going. That is why it is so important to look beyond the conflict to see Who Profits?

The present political system in the U.S. is broken. Scoring points against the opposition has become more important than solving seemingly intractable problems. As long as “We, the people” allow or encourage these dysfunctional partisan attacks to dominate, we will continue the downward spiral of a superpower/empire in decline. While the decline of our “super” status will likely be a good thing for the rest of the world, there is still much good that can be shared with our fellow world citizens if we are willing to also learn and receive from others as equals rather than ones to dominate.

Someone needs to be talking to Iran rather than just threatening. There are genuine differences that must be addressed and hopefully resolved. Like alcoholics on the road to recovery, we need to take the first step and admit we have a problem. The problem with appeasement is the one-sided concession the public has given the politicians who would rather inflame and aggravate than do the hard work of genuine peacemaking. President Carter sitting down with Hamas is a much more helpful model than scapegoating Ahmadinejad.

If we want real peace, all those with a vested interest in the outcome must be invited to the table. The model of restorative justice suggests that all those who are impacted by harms done (or threatened) must be part of the decision-making. All those who might be impacted by potential agreements need to be included. The path to peace means a lot of difficult work. Maybe the real “appeaser” is the politician who panders to the public with sound bites but isn’t willing to invest the time and resources for genuine dialog which could lead to a peaceful resolution.

Steve Clemens is a member of the Community of St. Martin, an ecumenical faith community in Minneapolis committed to nonviolence, social justice, and inclusiveness. He also serves on the boards of Pax Christi Twin Cities and The Iraqi/American Reconciliation Project.

Brian Willson, a Vietnam war veteran, went through a transformation and journey towards non-violence as a result of his war experience. He struggled with the policies of war and he found hope in a violent world through non-violent practices.  He spent time in Nicaragua as a peacemaker to challenge war policies of the US government. He fasted as a means of non-violent protest. He sat in front of a munitions train outside a Naval Weapons Station to protest the delivery of weapons and was run over by a train when it failed to stop, losing his legs. He refused to be complacent and chose to follow his heart to stand up for his vision of truth in society.  He challenges us to listen to ourselves and follow our inner voices.  He chose not to allow anger and rage to guide his course in life, even with the people who were responsible for taking away his legs.

What is our inner voice telling us about violence in our society?