|
FREE INQUIRY magazine does not endorse political candidates nor political parties. We recognize the wide diversity of political viewpoints among secular humanists. We do, however, take positions concerning two vital issues: first, we support humanist ethical principles on grounds independent of religion; and second, we defend the separation of church and state.
By both these standards, we face an urgent crisis in the United States today, for the Religious Right has virtually captured the Bush administration. Increasingly, its moral ideology is that of Evangelical Christianity. This is seen directly by its impact on foreign policy, with strong overtone of self-righteous moral indignation U.S. foreign policy is guided by the sense that we face a battle between “good and evil.” This can be read in the speeches of Bush, Rumsfeld, Rice, Wolfowitz, and others. In its extreme form, the War on Terrorism smacks of a Holy Religious War against Islam.
As we go to press, the War on Terrorism has morphed into an impending war against Iraq. (War may have erupted by the time you read these words.) President Bush has repeatedly condemned Saddam Hussein as evil (surely he is no angel, but that is true of many world leaders). Bush has further demanded the disarming of Iraq and the replacement of its government with a puppet regime. We object to this war on moral grounds.
What especially bothers us is the crescendo of war drum beats advocating, however incoherently, a pre-emptive first strike. This marks a radical reversal in American foreign policy. Never before has the U.S. struck first in the absence of an immediate threat. One might conceivably justify pre-emptive war, but only when there is imminent danger of attack by a threatening adversary. Iraq currently does not fit into this category. Defeated in the Gulf War of 1991, its population impoverished, its economy in shambles, constantly bombarded by American and British aircraft, Iraq hardly poses a threat to the safety of the United States.
If the United States reserves the right to engage in pre-emptive warfare (even nuclear), what are we to say about the confrontation between India and Pakistan - would they or anyone else be justified in resorting to the same pretext? We believe in a world in which there are certain norms of established international conduct and in which one power (in this case a hyper-power such as the United States) does not arrogate to itself the right to dictate acceptable behaviour across the globe.
We thoroughly approve of the administration’s earlier decision (under the influence at that time of Colin Powell, who has since become more hawkish) that UN inspectors return to Iraq and that retaliatory measures be taken only if explicitly authorized by the UN Security Council. We do not see the need for war, for we believe that the best method of resolving international conflicts is by the negotiation of differences. We thus agree with efforts to disarm Iraq peacefully.
Obviously, current U.S. policies threaten to undermine the entire fabric of collective security so carefully developed by the world community after the Second World War. As a result of our policies, will the United Nations be rendered impotent like the League of Nations, unable to resolve international conflicts? If so, this could have tragic implications for the future of humankind.
|
|
