Papua Gospel celebration
152 years ago the Gospel came to Papua through Dutch missionaries. They came from a small island to the Texas-sized island of New Guinea. If you look at the island on a map it looks like a large bird sitting on the ground facing west. The west half is Indonesia and the east half is the independent Papua New Guinea. The missionaries came to what is commonly called the Bird’s Head, to what is now the city of Manokwari. Mennonite Central Committee has had a presence there for most of the last fifty years, and I have spent a lot of time there.
Papuans fall into two religious categories, Christian and animist. The Christians, of course, retain many animist ways of understanding their world since many live in stone age conditions.
Each year Manokwari has a celebration of the coming of the Gospel. This requires two white men to row a boat ashore wearing 1855 outfits. For most of the last fifty years Mennonite Central Committee workers have been the only white men available, so they have participated regularly.
The Dutch missionaries row to the shore, debark, and walk to their designated spots. Speeches are made, then a tribal chief in native costume consisting mostly of Bird of Paradise feathers runs toward the Dutch missionaries with traditional weapons of war, a bow and arrows. The island was a cannibalistic culture where every stranger who entered a tribe’s domain was killed. This culture resulted in one sixth of the world’s ethnic diversity occurring on one island. Of the 6,000 languages on earth, 1,000 are on the island of New Guinea.
The tribal chief runs to the missionaries, kneels before them, and breaks his arrows. This demonstrates that the coming of the Gospel ended inter-tribal warfare on the island.
The Prince of Peace is our peace, and has brought peace all over the world. What if Christians made a simple pact not to kill each other? The world would be a very different place. At the name of Jesus, let every knee bow.
Sunday, April 01, 2007
Saturday, March 31, 2007
Peacemaking
Peacemaking
When is it time to leave Iraq?
Since the invasion of Iraq four years ago I have believed that it is improper to destroy a country’s ability to police itself then leave. That is no longer my view of the situation in Iraq. Despite the efforts of US and coalition forces, the country has devolved into civil war. It is a rare day when less than 100 civilians are killed and many more wounded. If that is not a civil war I would hate to see one.
Sunnis seem to be better armed and organized, but they are a small minority with a history of oppressing their more numerous neighbors. When the tables are turned that is a recipe for genocide. The United States is not in a position to prevent whatever happens. It can influence the course of events in the short term, but everyone has always known that the Americans will go home. The only question is when. That leaves American troops in the unenviable position of giving their mental health, body parts and lives for no ultimate purpose. This is unconscionable.
It is time to acknowledge that the Iraqis must make their own political settlement, and that Iran will have significant influence. When we brought down Saddam we guaranteed that ultimate result. We are witnessing the definition of the limits of American military power, and the end of America’s imperialist agenda. The new era has begun, and it is time for America’s political leaders to accept the change.
When is it time to leave Iraq?
Since the invasion of Iraq four years ago I have believed that it is improper to destroy a country’s ability to police itself then leave. That is no longer my view of the situation in Iraq. Despite the efforts of US and coalition forces, the country has devolved into civil war. It is a rare day when less than 100 civilians are killed and many more wounded. If that is not a civil war I would hate to see one.
Sunnis seem to be better armed and organized, but they are a small minority with a history of oppressing their more numerous neighbors. When the tables are turned that is a recipe for genocide. The United States is not in a position to prevent whatever happens. It can influence the course of events in the short term, but everyone has always known that the Americans will go home. The only question is when. That leaves American troops in the unenviable position of giving their mental health, body parts and lives for no ultimate purpose. This is unconscionable.
It is time to acknowledge that the Iraqis must make their own political settlement, and that Iran will have significant influence. When we brought down Saddam we guaranteed that ultimate result. We are witnessing the definition of the limits of American military power, and the end of America’s imperialist agenda. The new era has begun, and it is time for America’s political leaders to accept the change.
Thursday, November 09, 2006
regime change
The elections just concluded have changed the American political landscape. For someone involved in peacemaking the big news is that the elections are being seen by everyone, in retrospect, as a referendum on the Iraq war. Donald Rumsfeld has resigned, indicating that the administration understands the vote count in that way. The President is now a lame duck with a hostile legislative branch. That is quite a change in two days.
What does it all mean for issues of war and peace?
Being the opposition party allows one to complain and cast aspersions on the character of those one opposes. What happens when the opposition suddenly becomes the majority and has to govern? Speaker to be Pelosi ran against the war, but never did offer a plan for ending it. What is the right thing to do in a situation like this? The United States military destroyed Iraq's ability to police itself, let alone defend itself from attack. If we were to simply leave now the incipient civil war and the adventurism of neighboring countries would have free reign. Those areas of Iraq with strong ethnic majorities would seek to create their own states. All that prevents those things now is the US military presence.
The question remains whether the US should be the decisionmaker in this case. That area of the world has been a rough place for millennia. Empires have come and gone. Tribal warfare has continued through all that time. The US invasion is little more than a blip on a very long chart, and that chart only includes the idea of democracy in the last couple of years, scarcely noticeable on the chart. The US military is playing the role of a guest in the country now that there is a democratically elected government.
The basic question is whether there ought to be an Iraq. It is a recent invention, and one that was never accepted by all its citizens. If it is US policy to maintain the territorial integrity of Iraq, we will be there for a long time. If we are comfortable with the Balkanization of Iraq, we can leave. It will be interesting to see how America's new rulers choose between those two.
What does it all mean for issues of war and peace?
Being the opposition party allows one to complain and cast aspersions on the character of those one opposes. What happens when the opposition suddenly becomes the majority and has to govern? Speaker to be Pelosi ran against the war, but never did offer a plan for ending it. What is the right thing to do in a situation like this? The United States military destroyed Iraq's ability to police itself, let alone defend itself from attack. If we were to simply leave now the incipient civil war and the adventurism of neighboring countries would have free reign. Those areas of Iraq with strong ethnic majorities would seek to create their own states. All that prevents those things now is the US military presence.
The question remains whether the US should be the decisionmaker in this case. That area of the world has been a rough place for millennia. Empires have come and gone. Tribal warfare has continued through all that time. The US invasion is little more than a blip on a very long chart, and that chart only includes the idea of democracy in the last couple of years, scarcely noticeable on the chart. The US military is playing the role of a guest in the country now that there is a democratically elected government.
The basic question is whether there ought to be an Iraq. It is a recent invention, and one that was never accepted by all its citizens. If it is US policy to maintain the territorial integrity of Iraq, we will be there for a long time. If we are comfortable with the Balkanization of Iraq, we can leave. It will be interesting to see how America's new rulers choose between those two.
Sunday, December 11, 2005
Hostages and executions
Hostages and executions
Today we are waiting to see what happens to the four Christian Peacemaker Teams workers who were taken hostage in Iraq. Their captors said they would kill them yesterday if thousands of Iraqis were not release from prison. There has been no word since the deadline passed. An outpouring of support from Muslim clerics and many others around the world for these peace activists is wonderful to see. Their good work in Iraq and other places is well known. Still, we wait.
At the same time we are waiting to see whether Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger will allow the death sentence on Stanley “Tookie” Williams to be carried out. His is the last word. There has been an outpouring of support for clemency in this case. Questions linger about the propriety of this conviction for crimes Williams still denies committing, and his good anti-gang work from death row has caught the attention of many.
These cases are completely different in one way, but in others they are the same. An elected government is deciding whether to execute Williams, while a self-appointed militia is deciding the fate of the peacemakers in Iraq. Each has the power to execute, however that power was gained, and in both cases the choice is both arbitrary and political. The persons wielding the power of life and death will put a lot of thought into how their choice will affect themselves and those close to them. If the governor decides to let the sentence be carried out and riots erupt, how will that affect his political future? If he decides to commute the sentence and his conservative base deserts him, what happens then? In Iraq the hostage takers need to weigh how difficult it will be to survive if they carry out the execution. Will they be hunted down by all factions? Would they be better off bowing to the clear will of Sunni and Shia leaders and accepting that these peacemakers deserve to live?
The choice in either case is political, not about law. Is it any wonder that many in the world have trouble telling the difference between the actions of Islamist extremists and the American government? Both kill many innocent people in the name of their cause in an effort to serve their interests. Both execute wrongdoers. Both claim high moral values. Both claim to be in the right. Both believe the other to be in league with Satan.
Jesus suggested that we not try to take the splinter out of another’s eye until we have removed the log from our own. Scottish poet Robert Burns put it this way: “Oh wad some power the giftie gie us To see oursels as others see us! It wad frae monie a blunder free us, An' foolish notion.” The more energy we put into seeing ourselves as others see us, the better able we will be to make the changes in our own behavior that encourage others to make changes as well.
Today we are waiting to see what happens to the four Christian Peacemaker Teams workers who were taken hostage in Iraq. Their captors said they would kill them yesterday if thousands of Iraqis were not release from prison. There has been no word since the deadline passed. An outpouring of support from Muslim clerics and many others around the world for these peace activists is wonderful to see. Their good work in Iraq and other places is well known. Still, we wait.
At the same time we are waiting to see whether Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger will allow the death sentence on Stanley “Tookie” Williams to be carried out. His is the last word. There has been an outpouring of support for clemency in this case. Questions linger about the propriety of this conviction for crimes Williams still denies committing, and his good anti-gang work from death row has caught the attention of many.
These cases are completely different in one way, but in others they are the same. An elected government is deciding whether to execute Williams, while a self-appointed militia is deciding the fate of the peacemakers in Iraq. Each has the power to execute, however that power was gained, and in both cases the choice is both arbitrary and political. The persons wielding the power of life and death will put a lot of thought into how their choice will affect themselves and those close to them. If the governor decides to let the sentence be carried out and riots erupt, how will that affect his political future? If he decides to commute the sentence and his conservative base deserts him, what happens then? In Iraq the hostage takers need to weigh how difficult it will be to survive if they carry out the execution. Will they be hunted down by all factions? Would they be better off bowing to the clear will of Sunni and Shia leaders and accepting that these peacemakers deserve to live?
The choice in either case is political, not about law. Is it any wonder that many in the world have trouble telling the difference between the actions of Islamist extremists and the American government? Both kill many innocent people in the name of their cause in an effort to serve their interests. Both execute wrongdoers. Both claim high moral values. Both claim to be in the right. Both believe the other to be in league with Satan.
Jesus suggested that we not try to take the splinter out of another’s eye until we have removed the log from our own. Scottish poet Robert Burns put it this way: “Oh wad some power the giftie gie us To see oursels as others see us! It wad frae monie a blunder free us, An' foolish notion.” The more energy we put into seeing ourselves as others see us, the better able we will be to make the changes in our own behavior that encourage others to make changes as well.
Saturday, December 03, 2005
Redemption
Execution ends the chance for redemptionVictims cannot heal
By Duane Ruth-HeffelbowerNovember 29, 2005
The upcoming execution date for Stanley “Tookie” Williams, a founder of the Crips street gang, has generated a lot of commentary on the subject of killing people. Some think killing people is appropriate in certain circumstances, like war and the death penalty. Others think killing is never appropriate. Both sides bolster their arguments with clippings from their sacred texts, whatever those may be. The one thing killing does is prevent redemption in this life. So the question really is “will we permit redemption?”
Most of us have experienced redemption in daily life. We do something bad that hurts another person, confess to them, make amends and then set about rebuilding trust by behaving better. The world’s religions frame the theology of this process differently, but the behavior looks the same no matter how one understands what goes on internally or spiritually. It is a universal human process that benefits everyone involved. Should we allow something like this, or should we forever prevent it by killing the wrongdoer?
Judging only by the news reports, the families of William’s victims don’t think he has gone through the steps of redemption to their satisfaction. He has done some good and useful things that have endeared him to some, but has not confessed or made amends to them. Should we prevent him from doing those things by killing him?
Those who study victims to better learn how to meet their needs recognize that victims follow unique yet predictable patterns in their healing process. The timetable can be different and the steps rearranged, but those who heal well have some things in common. One of the most helpful things in the healing process is for the offender to go through the steps of redemption. The victim has to be ready and the offender has to be sincere, but when those things come together it is beautiful to watch. Pennsylvania has an official program to make this process possible for murderers and the families of their victims, and Californians are working to make it possible here.
Should we allow victims to seek healing in this way, or should we prevent it by killing the offender? That is really the question when we discuss the death penalty. Would it be better to work at offering victims and offenders another option?
Three of the world’s great religions honor a murderer, Moses. He fled to escape justice, and some would say he found redemption. How would the world be different if the Egyptians had caught him as he fled? The issue is complex, but death ends the discussion and closes off all other possibilities.
Also available at
http://fresno.edu/scholarsspeak/duane_ruth-heffelbower/11-29-2005.php
By Duane Ruth-HeffelbowerNovember 29, 2005
The upcoming execution date for Stanley “Tookie” Williams, a founder of the Crips street gang, has generated a lot of commentary on the subject of killing people. Some think killing people is appropriate in certain circumstances, like war and the death penalty. Others think killing is never appropriate. Both sides bolster their arguments with clippings from their sacred texts, whatever those may be. The one thing killing does is prevent redemption in this life. So the question really is “will we permit redemption?”
Most of us have experienced redemption in daily life. We do something bad that hurts another person, confess to them, make amends and then set about rebuilding trust by behaving better. The world’s religions frame the theology of this process differently, but the behavior looks the same no matter how one understands what goes on internally or spiritually. It is a universal human process that benefits everyone involved. Should we allow something like this, or should we forever prevent it by killing the wrongdoer?
Judging only by the news reports, the families of William’s victims don’t think he has gone through the steps of redemption to their satisfaction. He has done some good and useful things that have endeared him to some, but has not confessed or made amends to them. Should we prevent him from doing those things by killing him?
Those who study victims to better learn how to meet their needs recognize that victims follow unique yet predictable patterns in their healing process. The timetable can be different and the steps rearranged, but those who heal well have some things in common. One of the most helpful things in the healing process is for the offender to go through the steps of redemption. The victim has to be ready and the offender has to be sincere, but when those things come together it is beautiful to watch. Pennsylvania has an official program to make this process possible for murderers and the families of their victims, and Californians are working to make it possible here.
Should we allow victims to seek healing in this way, or should we prevent it by killing the offender? That is really the question when we discuss the death penalty. Would it be better to work at offering victims and offenders another option?
Three of the world’s great religions honor a murderer, Moses. He fled to escape justice, and some would say he found redemption. How would the world be different if the Egyptians had caught him as he fled? The issue is complex, but death ends the discussion and closes off all other possibilities.
Also available at
http://fresno.edu/scholarsspeak/duane_ruth-heffelbower/11-29-2005.php
Duane Ruth-Heffelbower
Duane Ruth-Heffelbower
There are several groups that send unarmed civilians into harm’s way to promote peace. Four members of one of those organizations, Christian Peacemaker Teams, have just been abducted in Iraq. Their captors threaten to kill them if a list of demands is not met. The organization is devoted to “getting in the way” between groups that are killing each other.
Not everyone knows that I was the recording secretary at the organizational meeting of Christian Peacemaker Teams over 20 years ago, having heard Ron Sider’s Mennonite World Conference speech at Strasbourg in 1984 that gave impetus to the creation of CPT. His premise was that Christians who oppose war should be willing to endure the same risks as soldiers if their witness is to be meaningful.
In those days the kidnapping and killing of Americans was unthinkable, and gave great power to accompaniment by CPT and other pacifist organizations. I also had the privilege of participating in the creation of the Nonviolent Peace Force, which is facing the same problem. The days when Americans could roam the world with impunity are gone, thanks in large part to the invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq. Killing Americans is no longer taboo, and has become a way to reach the world stage.
Those of us Americans who insert ourselves into difficult situations around the world need to know that we are wonderful targets of opportunity for those who want to speak to the world. Capturing and killing us is the currency necessary to be legitimate on the world stage. How does that change our behavior? What used to be righteous is now downright dangerous. When we decide to intervene in a situation we have to first decide whether the cause is one for which we want to die, and we have to be ready to accept an unpleasant death. This is a change.
I have been in the way of violent people a number of times, and each time my naïveté and status as an American have kept me safe. Those who wanted to kill me were deterred by the image of a carrier battle group steaming into their waters with thousands of Marines and hundreds of aircraft ready to make them pay for their arrogance. Americans have no idea how powerful they have been because of this self-censoring by opponents of America who feared our power. Killing an American was a dangerous, self-destructive act, until recently. I have walked fearlessly on five continents, largely due to the aura of power even a pacifist American exudes.
That time is past. Now Americans are a ticket to the world news business. If there is no American victim a story is downplayed. If you have an American hostage, all satellites beam your story around the world. Being American is no longer a shield, but has become a bull’s-eye for those who want to be heard. The premise upon which accompaniment organizations are based has changed. Now it is unsafe to stand by an American, rather than recent days when to stand by an American was to be safe. The world has changed, and our response must change. The day when an American could wander the globe with impunity are past. How does a Christian behave in this new world? How do organizations that bank on the former way of doing things shift?
There are several groups that send unarmed civilians into harm’s way to promote peace. Four members of one of those organizations, Christian Peacemaker Teams, have just been abducted in Iraq. Their captors threaten to kill them if a list of demands is not met. The organization is devoted to “getting in the way” between groups that are killing each other.
Not everyone knows that I was the recording secretary at the organizational meeting of Christian Peacemaker Teams over 20 years ago, having heard Ron Sider’s Mennonite World Conference speech at Strasbourg in 1984 that gave impetus to the creation of CPT. His premise was that Christians who oppose war should be willing to endure the same risks as soldiers if their witness is to be meaningful.
In those days the kidnapping and killing of Americans was unthinkable, and gave great power to accompaniment by CPT and other pacifist organizations. I also had the privilege of participating in the creation of the Nonviolent Peace Force, which is facing the same problem. The days when Americans could roam the world with impunity are gone, thanks in large part to the invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq. Killing Americans is no longer taboo, and has become a way to reach the world stage.
Those of us Americans who insert ourselves into difficult situations around the world need to know that we are wonderful targets of opportunity for those who want to speak to the world. Capturing and killing us is the currency necessary to be legitimate on the world stage. How does that change our behavior? What used to be righteous is now downright dangerous. When we decide to intervene in a situation we have to first decide whether the cause is one for which we want to die, and we have to be ready to accept an unpleasant death. This is a change.
I have been in the way of violent people a number of times, and each time my naïveté and status as an American have kept me safe. Those who wanted to kill me were deterred by the image of a carrier battle group steaming into their waters with thousands of Marines and hundreds of aircraft ready to make them pay for their arrogance. Americans have no idea how powerful they have been because of this self-censoring by opponents of America who feared our power. Killing an American was a dangerous, self-destructive act, until recently. I have walked fearlessly on five continents, largely due to the aura of power even a pacifist American exudes.
That time is past. Now Americans are a ticket to the world news business. If there is no American victim a story is downplayed. If you have an American hostage, all satellites beam your story around the world. Being American is no longer a shield, but has become a bull’s-eye for those who want to be heard. The premise upon which accompaniment organizations are based has changed. Now it is unsafe to stand by an American, rather than recent days when to stand by an American was to be safe. The world has changed, and our response must change. The day when an American could wander the globe with impunity are past. How does a Christian behave in this new world? How do organizations that bank on the former way of doing things shift?
Sunday, October 23, 2005
A belated thanks
A belated thanks –
In December 2003 I traveled from California to Peshawar, Pakistan. I carried onto the plane my usual travel rig of a carry-on roller and my Lands' End double-sided computer attaché. The PowerPoint presentation I had ready for the conference in Peshawar was in my computer. This rig has served me through many states and countries. It was a good thing I had only carry-on luggage since I missed flights in Dubai and Karachi. When the plane landed in Islamabad it was dark, and they rolled up front and rear staircases for debarking. I went down the back stairs in nearly complete darkness, holding my carry-on in one hand and the Lands' End attaché in the other. In the dark I missed the last step and both pieces of luggage went flying. My pants tore, my knee was a bloody mess, the scar lasting to this day, and people gathered up my luggage. This was awkward since a red-carpet welcome was planned by my hosts. I was a bit too red. After treatment by paramedics I arrived at my hotel and booted up the computer. It was fine. The knee was still a mess a week later as we traveled up the Khyber Pass into Afghanistan and took several weeks to heal. I continue to use the same computer and the same travel rig two years later. We leave again in two days. Thank you, Lands' End!
In December 2003 I traveled from California to Peshawar, Pakistan. I carried onto the plane my usual travel rig of a carry-on roller and my Lands' End double-sided computer attaché. The PowerPoint presentation I had ready for the conference in Peshawar was in my computer. This rig has served me through many states and countries. It was a good thing I had only carry-on luggage since I missed flights in Dubai and Karachi. When the plane landed in Islamabad it was dark, and they rolled up front and rear staircases for debarking. I went down the back stairs in nearly complete darkness, holding my carry-on in one hand and the Lands' End attaché in the other. In the dark I missed the last step and both pieces of luggage went flying. My pants tore, my knee was a bloody mess, the scar lasting to this day, and people gathered up my luggage. This was awkward since a red-carpet welcome was planned by my hosts. I was a bit too red. After treatment by paramedics I arrived at my hotel and booted up the computer. It was fine. The knee was still a mess a week later as we traveled up the Khyber Pass into Afghanistan and took several weeks to heal. I continue to use the same computer and the same travel rig two years later. We leave again in two days. Thank you, Lands' End!
Sunday, September 18, 2005
Finding your bunny
How to find your bunny
A few months back we acquired a rabbit. It is a show rabbit not meant to be eaten, and is pretty cute. Our granddaughter likes it a lot. We let it run around our yard, and its white fur with brown spots makes it look a lot like a living soccer ball as it bounces around. Unfortunately, a bored bunny can be a bad bunny, and last week it found a spot where it could escape the fence. So the rabbit is gone and the 7 year-old is distraught. It took us a week to get to the stage of putting up signs on light poles. Granddaughter and I went around taping them to the poles. As we were walking along a neighbor who had seen one of the first signs drove up and asked if we were looking for a rabbit. He had seen it in the yard across the street from him, two doors down from us. He had stopped pruning his trees and come looking for us to tell us. We searched and found nothing.
About dusk, rabbit active time, we went looking again and there she was in the next door front yard. The three of us surrounded the bush and she was reclaimed. Hooray! A neighbor whose name I still don’t know went out of his way to reunite us with our rabbit. That is really special these days, and makes me long for the days growing up in Kansas when I knew everyone in a two-block radius from my house.
The rabbit is back in her hutch scarfing pellets and Timothy hay. The hole under the gate is blocked, and all’s right with the world, at least right here. It takes me back to simpler times before central air conditioning, when we knew the people around us. If it weren’t for the lost rabbit, and the lost kitten before, I would have no idea who lived in the nearby houses. Maybe that should change.
A few months back we acquired a rabbit. It is a show rabbit not meant to be eaten, and is pretty cute. Our granddaughter likes it a lot. We let it run around our yard, and its white fur with brown spots makes it look a lot like a living soccer ball as it bounces around. Unfortunately, a bored bunny can be a bad bunny, and last week it found a spot where it could escape the fence. So the rabbit is gone and the 7 year-old is distraught. It took us a week to get to the stage of putting up signs on light poles. Granddaughter and I went around taping them to the poles. As we were walking along a neighbor who had seen one of the first signs drove up and asked if we were looking for a rabbit. He had seen it in the yard across the street from him, two doors down from us. He had stopped pruning his trees and come looking for us to tell us. We searched and found nothing.
About dusk, rabbit active time, we went looking again and there she was in the next door front yard. The three of us surrounded the bush and she was reclaimed. Hooray! A neighbor whose name I still don’t know went out of his way to reunite us with our rabbit. That is really special these days, and makes me long for the days growing up in Kansas when I knew everyone in a two-block radius from my house.
The rabbit is back in her hutch scarfing pellets and Timothy hay. The hole under the gate is blocked, and all’s right with the world, at least right here. It takes me back to simpler times before central air conditioning, when we knew the people around us. If it weren’t for the lost rabbit, and the lost kitten before, I would have no idea who lived in the nearby houses. Maybe that should change.
Sunday, September 11, 2005
far from perfect storm
A busy summer and forgotten password make for bigger than usual blank spots in a blog. This being September 11 thoughts automatically turn to the events of four years ago, but also turn unbidden to Hurricane Katrina and the events of the last couple of weeks. People don't make hurricanes, at least not directly, so we don't blame the storm for the trouble it causes. The 9-11-01 events were caused directly by people, so we do blame them and those who helped them for the trouble they caused. After that, the two events start to look more alike. In both events the news was all about the failure of the government at all levels to deal with an unprecedented catastrophe, and how that incompetence resulted in people dying. I certainly don't disagree. What I disagree with is the notion that any government should be prepared to deal with an unprecedented catastrophe.
When Joseph (the biblical one) interpreted Pharaoh's dream to say that 7 fat years would be followed by 7 lean years the government of Egypt took it seriously and heavily taxed the people so that enough grain would be available for 7 years of drought. The result was the government owning the whole country by the time the drought broke. This works well in a monarchy, but would not be well received in a democratic republic. If the government of New Orleans had taxed the people sufficiently to build defenses against a category 5 hurricane they would have been hooted and booted out of office. If the air transportation system had been designed to prevent the 9-11-01 attacks, no one would be flying and Amtrack would be flush.
It's all well and good to try assessing blame and rooting out failures after an unprecedented catastrophe, but we need to remember that it was unprecedented. No politician would have been able to sell the necessary cost of preventing it.
The response afterwards is a different story. There we can identify all sorts of failures that were the result of bad planning. Relying on cell phones for communication after a disaster that will surely wipe out the cell system is probably unwise. Banks in New Orleans are now trying to figure out how to contact customers who have no phone or forwarding address. The forms people fill out don't usually include an out-of-area contact since people don't expect their city to disappear. That will probably change. We learn from these things, and the next big hurricane to hit a major American city will probably see a better response.
We are always reacting to unprecedented events since, by definition, no one ever thought they would happen or couldn't muster the political will to prepare for them. The now discredited arms race with the Soviet Union was an example of building defenses against something that never came. People in the information age are a lot less willing to buy such a response if they don't believe the danger is imminent. Let's not demand a response from government or anyone if we aren't willing to pay the price of preparedness. I am probably a lot like you, I don't want to pay for a response that may never be needed. Just before criticizing the government's response, try to imagine having paid for the preparation necessary to respond better. Would you have been willing to pay?
Are you willing to pay to fortify all gulf coast and Atlantic seaboard cities against a category 5 hurricane? How about paying for preparing all California cities for an 8.3 earthquake like the one that destroyed San Francisco in 1906? Tornadoes are a terrible problem in the Midwest; shouldn’t we have hardened facilities able to resist them? Are you willing to pay for securing all transportation systems from a terrorist attack? Of course not. I, too, like to eat in addition to paying taxes.
It is time to learn what we can from these disasters, and to avoid using them as a platform for inappropriate attacks on those charged with preventing or responding to them when we did not provide the necessary resources. No government ever has the resources to respond promptly and unerringly to an unprecedented catastrophe. Let’s not pretend that they should.
When Joseph (the biblical one) interpreted Pharaoh's dream to say that 7 fat years would be followed by 7 lean years the government of Egypt took it seriously and heavily taxed the people so that enough grain would be available for 7 years of drought. The result was the government owning the whole country by the time the drought broke. This works well in a monarchy, but would not be well received in a democratic republic. If the government of New Orleans had taxed the people sufficiently to build defenses against a category 5 hurricane they would have been hooted and booted out of office. If the air transportation system had been designed to prevent the 9-11-01 attacks, no one would be flying and Amtrack would be flush.
It's all well and good to try assessing blame and rooting out failures after an unprecedented catastrophe, but we need to remember that it was unprecedented. No politician would have been able to sell the necessary cost of preventing it.
The response afterwards is a different story. There we can identify all sorts of failures that were the result of bad planning. Relying on cell phones for communication after a disaster that will surely wipe out the cell system is probably unwise. Banks in New Orleans are now trying to figure out how to contact customers who have no phone or forwarding address. The forms people fill out don't usually include an out-of-area contact since people don't expect their city to disappear. That will probably change. We learn from these things, and the next big hurricane to hit a major American city will probably see a better response.
We are always reacting to unprecedented events since, by definition, no one ever thought they would happen or couldn't muster the political will to prepare for them. The now discredited arms race with the Soviet Union was an example of building defenses against something that never came. People in the information age are a lot less willing to buy such a response if they don't believe the danger is imminent. Let's not demand a response from government or anyone if we aren't willing to pay the price of preparedness. I am probably a lot like you, I don't want to pay for a response that may never be needed. Just before criticizing the government's response, try to imagine having paid for the preparation necessary to respond better. Would you have been willing to pay?
Are you willing to pay to fortify all gulf coast and Atlantic seaboard cities against a category 5 hurricane? How about paying for preparing all California cities for an 8.3 earthquake like the one that destroyed San Francisco in 1906? Tornadoes are a terrible problem in the Midwest; shouldn’t we have hardened facilities able to resist them? Are you willing to pay for securing all transportation systems from a terrorist attack? Of course not. I, too, like to eat in addition to paying taxes.
It is time to learn what we can from these disasters, and to avoid using them as a platform for inappropriate attacks on those charged with preventing or responding to them when we did not provide the necessary resources. No government ever has the resources to respond promptly and unerringly to an unprecedented catastrophe. Let’s not pretend that they should.
Monday, May 30, 2005
the United States doesn't invade other countries
I was doing a workshop on conflict for 60 or so teachers at a Jr. College/trade school the other day. We were talking about how one can dispel fear in the other party that prevents them from being cooperative. After all, if I am afraid of you, it will be difficult for me to cooperate with you in any meaningful way. The example of North Korea and its quest for nuclear weapons came up. "So why do you suppose they want nukes?" I asked. The responses tended toward "they want to be big stuff in the world." "Has the United States ever invaded a country that had nuclear weapons?" I asked. Consternation blossomed in the room. Everyone knew the US has never invaded a country with nuclear weapons. "Do you think they might be afraid of us?" I asked. The general response was "No way, the United States never invades anyone. How can they not see that?"
These teachers haven't been paying much attention to all the little invasions that don't spend much time on the front page, not to mention the big ones that do. They seem to have missed Afghanistan and Iraq, not to mention Panama, Grenada and a host of others. Those who haven't kept track might want to pick up the book The Savage Wars of Peace: Small Wars and the Rise of American Power by Max Boot.
Yes, they might be afraid of us.
These teachers haven't been paying much attention to all the little invasions that don't spend much time on the front page, not to mention the big ones that do. They seem to have missed Afghanistan and Iraq, not to mention Panama, Grenada and a host of others. Those who haven't kept track might want to pick up the book The Savage Wars of Peace: Small Wars and the Rise of American Power by Max Boot.
Yes, they might be afraid of us.
Friday, May 20, 2005
Peacemaking
It's our granddaughter's 7th birthday. That makes one think. How dare she be so old? The life of human beings goes in cycles. One of the problems we have had lately is in messing up those cycles. First comes love, then comes marriage, then comes the couple with a baby carriage. How often does that happen these days?
Not to be a curmudgeon, but people who get the sequence out of order are making a mess of American society. Children who don't know their father, or know their father and that he is not the fellow sleeping with mom, are confused. If we want successful children, we have to show them successful parents. First comes love, then comes marriage, then comes the couple with a baby carriage.
As I work with young offenders and their families, the overriding issue is that the family forgot the poem: First comes love, then comes marriage, then comes the couple with a baby carriage.
Not to be a curmudgeon, but people who get the sequence out of order are making a mess of American society. Children who don't know their father, or know their father and that he is not the fellow sleeping with mom, are confused. If we want successful children, we have to show them successful parents. First comes love, then comes marriage, then comes the couple with a baby carriage.
As I work with young offenders and their families, the overriding issue is that the family forgot the poem: First comes love, then comes marriage, then comes the couple with a baby carriage.
Monday, February 14, 2005
Valentine's Day bombings
One of the beauties of travel is becoming familiar with new places and people. This age of bombings changes how it feels to know so many places. First thing this morning was the news of a bombing that killed the former prime minister of Lebanon, and an email from our friends in Beirut whose doors were blown open by the blast saying they were ok. Then the news of the three explosions in the Philippines. The bombing site in Manila looked familiar, and so it was. I was there not long ago. Likewise the site in Davao. I have not been to the bombing site in General Santos City because the workshop I was to lead there moved to Davao after threats from Abu Sayyaf, the group claiming responsibility for these latest bombings. The world is a much smaller place than we sometimes realize. The danger of relationships around the world is that the world news suddenly becomes local. Yesterday we had email with pictures from Jeff, our former Indonesia colleague, letting us know how it is going in Banda Aceh recreating water systems and latrines after the tsunami. We are tied together by our relationships in ways that make complacency impossible, and which tug at our hearts in ways the world news didn't 30 years ago. After a day like this one, ignorance is tempting.
Sunday, February 13, 2005
The latest in Iraq
When one invades a country, overthrows its rulers and then disbands its police force, obligations are created. As a pacifist I would like nothing better than to have the US immediately withdraw from Iraq, but to do so would be cowardly at best. What we destroyed must be replaced, and this specifically includes a police force. The elections are a step in the right direction, moving repsonsibility and authority to Iraq's citizens, but until a proper police force can be recruited and trained it would be irresponsible for the US to leave. Mennonites remember vividly what happened after the Russian revolution when bandit gangs controlled the country. For the US to visit that on Iraq would be terrible.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
