Peace, Justice and Resistance
to War
Maulana Karenga
In spite of the Bush administration's unilateral decision to
wage war against Iraq, we must continue to resist and oppose it.
For the war against Iraq is a war against the Iraqi people without
justification and thus unjust, immoral and illegal. This position
evolves from the ancient and ongoing tradition of our ancestors
which teaches us to respect life, love justice, cherish freedom,
treasure peace and constantly struggle to bring good in the world
and not let any good be lost. It is the ethical tradition of the Husia and
the Odu Ifa, of Harriet Tubman, Frederick Douglass, Sojourner
Truth, Henry McNeal Turner, Fannie Lou Hamer, Malcolm X, Ella Baker
and Martin Luther King. It is a tradition which rejects the policy
of peace for the powerful and war for the vulnerable, dominance
and security for the rich and right race and oppression and insecurity
for all others in the world.
We stand in solidarity with the peoples of the world who reject
and resist this unjust war and struggle for freedom for the oppressed,
justice for the injured and wronged, power for all people over
their destiny and daily lives, and peace for the world. And for
us, peace is the practice of justice which ends oppression and
hostilities and provides security and well-being for all. In taking
this stand, we also reject the willful misreading of the meaning
of the tragic events of 9/11 and the manipulation of the resultant
fear and sense of insecurity in order to wage a self-defined preemptive
and limitless war of aggression, curtail and violate human and
civil rights and establish a racial and cultural imperium in the
world.
Although Bush claims to be waging a just war, his real reasons
are transparent and tragically self-serving and reveal a post 9/11
imperial offensive with colonialist conversations about "civilizing
missions," "crusades" and "dark and evil nations." Our ethical
tradition requires several conditions for a just war which his
self-declared war against the Iraqi people does not meet. These
criteria are: a just cause; collective considered judgment; just
means; consequences of common good and; last resort. There is no
just cause in an unprovoked preemptive war of aggression which
is a crime against peace and the people against whom it is directed.
Moreover, the current war launched by the Bush administration is
not a war of self-defense, but of self-aggrandizement, a war of
vigilante aggression, outlaw resource seizure and imperial expansion
in a brutal attempt to remake the Middle East and the world in
its own image and interests.
The collective considered judgment of the world is that the
war is immoral, illegal and unjust. The UN has rejected it as illegal
and illegitimate despite attempts by the U.S. to bribe, bully and
threaten other states into compliance. Moreover, in spite of attempts
by the Bush administration and its media allies to divert and discourage
debate, and Congress' servile and early concession, except for
a courageous few, a strong anti-war movement has emerged, reinforcing
resistance around the world.
The principle of just means requires a conscientious effort
to reduce the deaths, damage and devastation of war, especially
harm to innocent civilians. This demands discriminate and proportionate
use of force, a condition not met by the Bush administration's
plans for the largest and most devastating bombing raids on Iraq
since those of WWII. Boasting of the use of catastrophic weapons
which will "shock and awe," they insure massive civilian deaths
and injuries and the extreme devastation of the civilian infrastructure
and the environment.
There are no consequences of common good for such an unprovoked,
unjustifiable and unjust war. It is grossly wrong and does not
benefit the world or the American people to kill thousands and
thousands of innocent Iraqi civilians; to conquer and occupy their
country; to seize their oil, water and other resources; to contaminate
and degrade the environment of Iraq and neighboring regions; to
violate international law and weaken international institutions;
to destabilize the region and the world; to cause unnecessary casualties
among U.S. and Iraqi soldiers; to provoke retaliatory attacks against
the U.S. and its people; and to divert needed resources for social
well-being in this country.
The principle of last resort grows out of a predisposition for
peace and a presumption against war. By definition a preemptive
war is not a last resort, but the first even prior resort.
For to preempt is to act prior to - prior to discussion, negotiation
and the pursuit of alternatives to war. Bush's fundamentalist faith-informed
approach to issues of peace and security for the U.S. and the world
reeks of messianic and chosen-race notions of U.S. power and place
in the world and the role of war in maintaining them. But there
is no security without peace, no peace without justice, no justice
without freedom and no freedom without the power of people everywhere
over their destiny and daily lives whether in the U.S., Afghanistan,
Iraq or Palestine.
| Dr. Maulana Karenga is professor in the Department of
Black Studies at California State University, Long Beach;
chair of The Organization Us and the National Association
of Kawaida Organizations (NAKO). |
|
