Rejoicing... though kinda qualified
This morning I woke to the sound of British Foreign Secretary Jack Straw announcing that the Christian Peacemaker hostages had been freed by a multinational military operation.
What wonderful news to hear of the release of James, Harmeet, and Norman! And wonderful too that the "operation" was carried out without violence, though I'm not sure that this was done to honour the requests of the CPT team in the declaration I blogged on earlier or simply a fortunate circumstance attending the fact that the kidnappers were gone by the time the rescuers arrived. Indeed, the "rescue" of Private Jessica Lynch makes one inclined to doubt the official reports of "successful" operations until all the facts (including the stories of the captives) are in.
The real qualification, of course, is the fact that one of the hostages was brutally murdered, and we should remember Tom Fox even as we rejoice with the families of the freed ones. I'll remember Tom's witness as I give thanks this evening. I'll also remember with thanksgiving the many Muslims who lobbied for the release of the hostages.
7 comments:
The Iraqi embassy to Canada called the CPT teams stupid and ignorant dupes who are underming democracy in Iraq. What's your response?
For the Iraqui ambassador to be calling someone else a "dupe" is particularly rich, don't you think? It's pretty clear what the Christian Peacemakers' understanding of their task is in Iraq: to draw attention to human rights abuses by the occupation forces and, particularly, to help the families of detainees learn of the whereabouts of their loved ones. The accusation that the CPT are co-operating with the so-called "insurgents" is ridiculous. Next thing you know the Ambassador will be talking about WMDs.
There is more irony to be uncovered. CPT goes to Iraq to monitor human rights abuses by Coalition forces. And then they are kidnapped by Iraqis. And then the Coalition forces rescue them.
I don't think the Ambassador said that CPT was cooperating with what you call "insurgents". He said that CPT's activities aid the "insurgent" activity. There is a difference. Perhaps the CPT should think about that accusation carefully, rather than brushing it off.
In other words, a constant criticism of Coalition force may not be in the best interests of Iraqis right now.
Whether or not the initial invasion was just or unjust, legal or illegal, the fact is that it happened. Now, whether we like it or not, armed foreign troops are an important part of rebuilding Iraq. Withrawing would mean chaos. Hunting down criminals and terrorists is in the interest of Iraqis (in fact many of the "insurgents" come from other countries). I find that the constant anti-military attitude (and also anti-American rhetoric) which comes from the CPT doesn't help anybody. Mutual respect is not too much to ask, and would be a lot more effective. Similarly CPT should listen carefully and respectfully when an Iraqi official feels that they are being unhelpful. IF CPT treats all Iraqi officials like American lackeys, perhaps thats why they don't get along.
And I should clarify that I'm talking about a general attitude here, which may or may not be attributable to specific individuals. I'm not suggesting that CPT teams are out bombing mosques, and I'm not trying to argue that everything CPT does in Iraq is bad.
Should we not always criticise human rights abuses? Does the end of stopping the insurgency justify the means of torture and unlawful detention? That's what CPT is doing, primarily: acting as "the canary in the mine." (It's important to recognize also that CPT workers are "on the ground" as it were with ordinary Iraqis, not hobnobbing with elites. As a Christian, I would argue that the perspective of the former must take priority over that of the latter. But that's probably beside the point.) The ambassador's comments seem to echo other "official" comments I've heard: viz, that the CPT may be well-meaning but are actually "in the way." But that's precisely what prophets and peacemakers do: they "get in the way" in the name of justice. (They certainly "got in the way" when they exposed the prisoner abuse at Abu Ghraib.) And sometimes they pay the ultimate price, as did that other troublemaker 2,000 years ago.
CPT is acting as the canary in the mine? I suppose the kidnapping did show the world the dangers of terrorism.
When you begin talking about unlawful detention, I think you begin to tread on very thin ground. The Coalition forces are not barging in and grabbing quiet people from their kitchen tables. Usually, you have to waving an AK-47 around to be detained (if you think such detentions are unlawful, you are certainly part of a small minority).
As for torture by coalition forces, that is a topic as elusive as your WMDS. Abu Ghraib was a case of a few perverted individuals breaking military rules.
You mention that we should take the perspective of CPT rather than Iraqi ambassadors, because the CPT is on the ground. My whole point is that CPT (as a whole) is biased in an anti-militaristic and anti-american way. Taking their perspective is similar to taking an American soldier's perspective. They are both on the ground, but they both arrive there with their minds made up about what is happening.
You believe that the CPT teams are doing the Christian thing, fighting for justice. What about the young American soldiers who are Christians, and believe that they are bringing justice by getting rid of scoundrels? Isn't Christianity big enough for both kinds justice-fighters and peacemakers? Or do you have to be a pacifist to be a Christian?
Pronouncing judgement is too easy, especially sitting here in a cafe typing on a laptop. But Jesus is pretty unequivocal on the question of how to deal with your enemies: you love them, you pray for them, you turn the other cheek, you go the second mile, etc. I struggle with this myself as there are situations in which I feel the need for vengeance, not love. Violence is ever the easy thing, not the hard. But then my struggles are not the measure (thank God!). This certainly sounds like pacifism... but not passivism. Indeed, biblical scholars have recently been exploring the non-violent resistance of the Sermon on the Mount (for more on this, go to http://www.cres.org/star/~wink.htm). Jesus himself displays an anti-militarist and anti-imperialist bias, but while consistently refusing the revolutionary option.
Is CPT as an organization anti-American? I've never read anything to indicate that. Indeed, their recognition of the irony of being rescued by military forces in thanking the soldiers who risked their lives shows they are not simplistically "anti-American." They are, however, most certainly anti-occupation.
Post a Comment