Christian Peacemakers and the Failure of the Left

[tx_dem41]

"Imagine if Sunni insurgents decided to face down the greatest power on earth with a human chain of non-violent resistance. Or if Hamas threw human shields rather than human bombs at Israel.

This is the kind of movement that the four member of the Christian Peacemaker Teams currently held hostage in Iraq are trying to build, and it's precisely the model that the peace movement should have, but didn't, take as its strategy for challenging the Bush Administration and its imperial ambitions after the invasion. Instead, less than a dozen CPTers have stood virtually alone against 150,000 "coalition forces" and an equally violent and unscrupulous insurgency--a scandal whose reflection on the movement is every bit as devastating as Abu Ghraib and Guantanimo are for the US army.

It didn't have to be this way. The peace movement did not have to settle for the kind of "cheap activism" (as one of the hostages described his activities before coming to Iraq) that has come to see periodic protests in New York or Washington DC as a legitimate substitute for the hard work of facing off against the violence of empire and occupation on the ground. There was a moment after the invasion, before the insurgency took root, when the peace movement could have made a difference in Iraq. Instead of writing off Iraq as lost to Cheney and Rumsfeld, expending energy in tirades against American empire--when is the last time that an anti-imperialist movement ever succeeded in the West?--or worse, actively supporting violent insurgency at the very moment other peace activists have been held hostage (as have some of the most senior members of the movement), the movement could have marshaled its resources and helped Iraqis build a non-violent movement of resistance against both occupation and the violence and hatred it breeds.

<snip>

Sadly, CPT has too rarely been joined by other activists willing to make the same commitment. This isn't for lack of an understanding of the importance of such an enterprise. As a senior member of United For Peace and Justice remarked to me in the aftermath of the US invasion, "Imagine if thousands of college students flooded Iraq, witnessing what was going on, helping build a non-violent movement, and came home to tell Americans the truth about the occupation." Needless to say, UFPJ didn't put much energy into creating such a program (although it was and remains stretched in many directions just trying to manage the programs and actions it has organized, but my point is that the movement would have done well to make the kind of activities CPT has been involved in more of a priority).


<There's more to the article>


http://hnn.us/blogs/entries/18961.html

I believe the blog entry is valid constructive criticism of the anti-war movement's methodology. Although it sounds from the title like it was written by a RWer, please be patient and read.

Thanks.

[wtbymark]

1. To send non-violent protestors into a war zone

is insanity, murder, suicide - take your pick, I could've predicted the outcome of this one
uuummm, not recommended?

[tx_dem41]

2. They want to go there. They (and I'm not just taking CPT) are

committed to a cause (peace) to such an extent that they are willing to risk their lives. Can we say the same?

[bullimiami]

3. whats the deal with these people? are they just nonviolent war protesters

or are they also proselytizing?
preaching christianity and trying to convert muslims who have just been bombed, murdered and tortured by this very "christian" administration (which also includes the fundie fat tony) might not go over very well.

[tx_dem41]

4. Did you read the whole article?

The thrust of the article is not about CPT (and btw, they don't proselytize).

[Lydia Leftcoast]

6. I know someone involved with Witness for Peace, which is a

Christian group working in Colombia as go-betweens between the factions and "shields" for non-combatants, and they do NOT proselytize.

Believe it or not, liberal Christians do things like this because they think it's the right thing to do, not because they're looking to "save" Muslims.

[Democrats_win]

5. Article asks/suggests: What if we had built a peace movement in Iraq?

It's a good question. Imagine a Ghandi type resistance to what America did to that country. We now see that this would have been better than what the peace movement "focus group" really accomplised here.

I don't blame the peace movement for anything. After all Noam Chomsky often suggests that we do things here so they get the message that their imperialism isn't acceptable. The article suggests that the work of peace advocates has been successful in other countries. Over a period of time, this may be what sets things right in Iraq and erases the imperialist storm trooper image of torture that Bu$h/Cheney/Rice have created.

Still, there were peace advocates in Iraq remember? In some cases, Saddam used them. My impression and memory (which isn't real strong on this) says that they didn't really accomplish much either.