Terrorism and the War in Iraq: A Christian Word from Latin America by C. Rene Padilla and Lindy Scott (Buenos Aires: Ediciones Kairós, 2004), 186 pages, originally written in English, ISBN 9879-4036-81
Book Review by Sidney Rooy
Terrorism, say the authors, creates fear in those who are victimized, whether those acts are committed by governments, special interest groups, or individuals. In the eighteenth century, the term usually referred to governments while in the present it is more frequently applied to the two latter agents. Since governments use violent acts to keep their own or other peoples in subjection, the word is still properly used in the broad sense. Senator J. William Fulbright so uses the word when he decries the intervention of the United States in the internal affairs of Third World countries, albeit in the name of freedom and democracy. “We and some of our friends,” he says, “have initiated some of the worst aspects of modern terrorism” (p. 65). Senator Fulbright chaired the Senate Committee on International Relations for almost thirty years (1945–74).
The subtitle of the book under discussion emphasizes that the authors’ is not the final word of truth in the matter; it is “a” not “the” Christian word. Rather, it represents the testimony of a part of the Christian Church (from Latin America) given in the interest of the message of peace and justice that our Lord came to proclaim and to initiate. René Padilla, an Ecuadorian who has lived in Argentina since 1967 and studied in the United States and in England, is a theological, literary, and pastoral leader. Perhaps, along with José Míguez Bonino, he is the best known lecturer and writer among Latin American Protestants. Lindy Scott taught for fifteen years in Mexico, has written and edited a number of books, and continues an active role in Latin American religious affairs. Christians, the authors believe, owe it to one another to speak with clarity and conviction on the matters discussed in the book in order to further kingdom righteousness.
The book begins by citing the testimonies of many churches and Christian organizations in Latin America, all in opposition to the current war in Iraq. Protestant groups, the majority of which have historically been silent on such divisive political issues, have made themselves heard from the whole spectrum of denominations, from the Pentecostal to the historical. The concerns expressed in the many documents cited include the following: the sacrifice of so many innocent lives, including women and children; the hypocrisy of having been allied to Iraq in the 1980s when the worst atrocities were committed; the prospect of winning the war but losing the peace; the fomenting of more reactionary fanaticism which breeds more terrorism; the use of resources for destruction rather than for meeting basic human needs; the violation of international law; the unilateral rather than United Nations-approved action; and the furthering of hostilities with the Muslim peoples which impedes the communication of the gospel message of peace and reconciliation to God and our neighbor. No document was found from Latin American church groups which favored the war in Iraq.
Next, the authors ask whether or not the invasion of Iraq can be called a “just war.” They test the case by the seven historically accepted conditions for a “just war”: just cause, just intention, last resort, formal declaration, limited objectives, proportionate means, and non-combatant immunity. By way of example, let us see how they handle the first criteria, just cause. The Bush administration supplied three reasons for the war: relation to the Al Queda attacks on September 11, 2001, weapons of mass destruction, and that Saddam Hussein was a tyrant who committed genocide. The authors provide evidence that clearly shows the first two stated causes had no basis in fact. With respect to the third, the question remains: Why attack Saddam when there have been, and are, many other tyrants who have been worse, but nothing was done?
Rather, only eight months after the United Nations, and subsequently the United States, condemned the use of poison gas in 1984, the United States officially restored formal relations with Iraq and continued to supply intelligence and military support for the war against Iran. The other six just war conditions receive the same serious consideration.
The third chapter presents the interventions of the United States in Latin America as acts of governmental terrorism for the affected populations. Here “terrorism” is used in the broad, original sense of invoking military intervention in order to achieve economic and political ends. Senator Fulbright used the term in this way in the quote given above. Mexico, Panama, Cuba, and Puerto Rico serve as early examples, followed by Haiti, the Dominican Republic, and Nicaragua. After World War II, when the fear of communism dominated the decades from the sixties to the eighties, the United States provided arms, training, and support for military dictatorships in Guatemala, El Salvador, Honduras, Chile, Argentina, Uruguay, Panama, and other nations.
The authors plant the question as to why there were so many military interventions by the United States in Latin America. The answer involves history, economic theories, and the hearts of fallen human beings. The Monroe Doctrine, which established that there would be no intervention from outside the hemisphere in the Americas, resulted in reserving Latin America as an economic resource for the United States’ hemispheric prosperity. The authors recognize the corrupt structural system inherited from colonial times in Latin America and the gross inequality between the rich elite and the impoverished majority. A rich section of debating Michael Novak’s theories follows and merits careful attention. The tragic effects of the dominant economic system, which has impoverished the southern lands, subjected them to military dictatorships, and burdened them with large external debts, are clearly outlined.
The underlying ideologies (and idolatries) that support militarism as a means to homeland security and prosperity are materialism and ethnocentric patriotism. Chapter four treats both from a biblical point of view and then applies them to the present situation. The over-simplification of the gospel message and the divorce between belief and social ethics are seriously questioned. Though we US Americans pride ourselves on how much we do for the poor of the world, the statistics show that we are eighteenth (last on the list!) in the industrialized world with respect to proportionate giving for poverty. Consumerism, as illustrated by the advertising propaganda to which we are constantly exposed, turns the gospel on its head. The well-known warning of General-turned-President Ike Eisenhower against the military-industrial complex has become a reality. Even more serious, many citizens consider the United States to be God’s emissary and identify its military decisions with his will.
The book closes with a plea for responsible Christian reflection and action. Three conditions are set forth: a revolution of values, a new spirituality, and a restructuring of the Church. The prophetic vision of peace is set forth: there is no peace without justice. Justice requires a bias towards the needs of the poor. To achieve the righteousness-justice of the Kingdom of God, we need a consciousness-raising among both rich and poor, a cross-fertilization between all sectors of the Church and the world, and a personal and social transformation. Religiosity is not enough since prayer and praxis must be joined to work together.
Though neither the writing style nor the political perspectives presented in the analysis are flawless, my evaluation Terrorism and the War in Iraq is strongly positive because the book sensitively insists on questions the Church needs to face but would rather avoid. Some of these questions include the following: When the Scriptures tell us that peace is the fruit of justice, what does that mean concretely? Can peace, shalom, be best achieved through violence and war? Do the historical conditions for just war still hold value today, or are they to be disregarded? If they are to be considered valid, who can best decide when they are satisfied, single nations or the united judgment of many nations? Why does free-market liberalism not produce a better life for all citizens instead of steadily increasing the disparity between the rich and the poor, both in Third World countries and in the United States? What can be done to increase our awareness of the tragic effects of our foreign policies on poorer countries? How can we overcome the unbiblical divorce between soul saving and concern for the whole welfare of persons (shalom)? Are we guilty of “ethnocentric patriotism,” that is, identifying our military and economic practice with God’s program for the world?
Many more questions could be added. Along with materialism (i.e., consumerism) and ethnocentric patriotism, one could add individualism (me-ism) as our national ideology. This obsession rings true for us as persons as well as for our country among the community of nations. Several decades ago, acclaimed sociologist Peter Berger affirmed that individualism was rapidly becoming a dominant characteristic of US American society. Who can deny that the self-chosen isolationism of our land causes resentment and anxiety among other nations? We refuse to accept the measured judgment of the world community, whether in matters such as going to war in Iraq, military intervention in Latin America, the Kyoto accord to reduce global warming, the international court, nuclear reduction treaties, the economic embargo of Cuba, and whether or not Cuba should be part of the Organization of American States. All of these examples communicate to the rest of the world that we do not need its experience, maturity, wisdom, or companionship in the search for true peace in our world.
As a resident of Latin America for nearly four decades, I can empathize with its peoples’ general feeling of anti-Americanism. The sentiment is not directed against the people of the United States but against the country’s political, military, and economic programs which reflect a concern for its own national interests at the cost of much suffering by and resentment from the majority of Latin American people. Latin Americans find it difficult to understand why the people of the United States, whom censuses report are mostly “Christian,” permit such aggression; they wonder why their northern neighbors reject others’ convictions and judgments about which are the most just and compassionate actions to pursue.
Let me give an example from personal experience. First, during Argentina’s so-called “dirty war” (1976–83), the United States supplied the military dictatorship with its arms, the training of elite anti-subversion agents (including torture methods) in Panama and Camp Benning, the large economic loans of the World Bank to finance its oppression, and strategic cooperation of the CIA. The military government was anti-democratic: all media was censured, personal rights of habeas corpus were suspended, inhumane torture methods were used to the extent of causing death, children born of pregnant women were adopted by military personal when the mother died under torture, between twenty and thirty thousand people disappeared after being taken from their homes in the dead of night, and some were put to sleep with drugs and then dropped from planes in the ocean. No wonder a young man on a city bus shouted at us one day, “Yankee, go home!” We understood. How thankful we were when President Jimmy Carter cancelled all arms to the military dictatorships in 1979. For that and for his treaty with Panama, both of which were widely hailed as constructive in Latin America, Carter still is criticized by some here at home.
This example could be multiplied many times over. For this reason, this book is most appropriate for serious consideration. Neither Padilla nor Scott pretends to be an expert on Middle East politics or on Islam, and weaknesses in the book’s analysis of the situation in Iraq perhaps owe to this limitation. However, they write humbly and perceptively on what they do know: just war theory and Latin America’s experience of the United State’s foreign policy. Both authors offer a welcome and profound analysis of a subject begging for US Christians’ serious consideration.
Sidney Rooy, Florida
Comments
On his book-review of Terrorism and the War in Iraq: a Christian Word from Latin America, Sidney Rooy mentions the concerns expressed by Protestant groups in opposition to the war (“Integral Mission Newsletter”– Iss.1, Vol. 1). I feel that all of the concerns mentioned are legitimate reasons for any decent human being to oppose the on-going massacre and endless violence in Iraq, but I further believe there is one more very important concern to be mentioned as a strong reason to oppose this war, or any act of such violence; that is, the severe damage done by the perpetrator to himself. I am not simply thinking of how expensive the war effort has been for the United States and his allies in terms of money, or even about the death of their soldiers, lamentable as those losses are. My added concern is the perpetrator’s loss of humanity, the increment of cruelty, ruthlessness and insensitivity among the rulers, among the soldiers involved in the conflict, and even among the voters and other people who remain impassive and indifferent towards their governments’ detrimental policies. I want to express a concern for that growing callousness, which makes the next act of cruelty, the next abuse of power, the widespread indifference towards poverty and weakness, more likely in our suffering world.
Jaime H. Padilla,
Quito, Ecuador
Posted by: Jaime H. Padilla | March 13, 2006 12:39 PM
Keep up the great work on your blog. Best wishes WaltDe
Posted by: WaltDe | August 31, 2006 07:29 PM