Is There Anything Left That Matters?


05/29/03
by Joan Chittister, OSB (Order of Saint Benedict)

This is what I don't understand: All of a sudden nothing seems to matter.

First, they said they wanted Bin Laden "dead or alive." But they didn't get him. So now they tell us that it doesn't matter. Our mission is greater than one man.

Then they said they wanted Saddam Hussein, "dead or alive." He's apparently alive but we haven't got him yet, either. However, President Bush told reporters recently, "It doesn't matter. Our mission is greater than one man."

Finally, they told us that we were invading Iraq to destroy their weapons of mass destruction. Now they say those weapons probably don't exist. Maybe never existed. Apparently that doesn't matter either.

Except that it does matter. I know we're not supposed to say that. I know it's called "unpatriotic." But it's also called honesty. And dishonesty matters.

It matters that the infrastructure of a foreign nation that couldn't defend itself against us has been destroyed on the grounds that it was a military threat to the world. It matters that it was destroyed by us under a new doctrine of "pre-emptive war" when there was apparently nothing worth pre-empting.

It surely matters to the families here whose sons went to war to make the world safe from weapons of mass destruction and will never come home.

It matters to families in the United States whose life support programs were ended, whose medical insurance ran out, whose food stamps were cut off, whose day care programs were eliminated so we could spend the money on sending an army to do what did not need to be done.

It matters to the Iraqi girl whose face was burned by a lamp that toppled over as a result of a U.S. bombing run. It matters to Ali, the Iraqi boy who lost his family - and both his arms - in a U.S. air attack.

It matters to the people in Baghdad whose water supply is now fetid, whose electricity is gone, whose streets are unsafe, whose 158 government ministries' buildings and all their records have been destroyed, whose cultural heritage and social system has been looted and whose cities teem with anti-American protests.

It matters that the people we say we "liberated" do not feel liberated in the midst of the lawlessness, destruction and wholesale social suffering that so-called liberation created.

It matters to the United Nations whose integrity was impugned, whose authority was denied, whose inspection teams are even now still being overlooked in the process of technical evaluation and disarmament.

It matters to the reputation of the United States in the eyes of the world, both now and for decades to come, perhaps.

And surely it matters to the integrity of this nation whether its intelligence gathering agencies have any real intelligence or not before we launch a military armada on its say-so.

And it should matter whether or not our government is either incompetent and didn't know what they were doing or were dishonest and refused to say.

The unspoken truth is that either as a people we were misled, or we were lied to, about the real reason for this war. Either we made a huge - and unforgivable - mistake, an arrogant or ignorant mistake, or we are swaggering around the world like a blind giant, flailing in all directions while the rest of the world watches in horror or in ridicule.

If Bill Clinton's sex life matters, surely a president's use of global force against some of the weakest people in the world matters.

If a president's word in a court of law about a private indiscretion matters, surely a president's word to the community of nations and the security of millions of people matters.

And if not, why not? If not, surely there is something as wrong with us as citizens, as thinkers, as Christians as there must be with some facet of the government. If wars that the public says are wrong yesterday - as over 70% of U.S. citizens did before the attack on Iraq - suddenly become "right" the minute the first bombs drop, what kind of national morality is that?

Of what are we really capable as a nation if the considered judgment of politicians and people around the world means nothing to us as a people?

What is the depth of the American soul if we can allow destruction to be done in our name and the name of "liberation" and never even demand an accounting of its costs, both personal and public, when it is over?

We like to take comfort in the notion that people make a distinction between our government and ourselves. We like to say that the people of the world love Americans, they simply mistrust our government. But excoriating a distant and anonymous "government" for wreaking rubble on a nation in pretense of good requires very little of either character or intelligence.

What may count most, however, is that we may well be the ones Proverbs warns when it reminds us: "Kings take pleasure in honest lips; they value the one who speaks the truth." The point is clear: If the people speak and the king doesn't listen, there is something wrong with the king. If the king acts precipitously and the people say nothing, something is wrong with the people. It may be time for us to realize that in a country that prides itself on being democratic, we are our government. And the rest of the world is figuring that out very quickly.

From where I stand, that matters.

A Benedictine Sister of Erie, Sister Joan is a best-selling author and well-known international lecturer. She is founder and executive director of Benetvision: A Resource and Research Center for Contemporary Spirituality, and past president of the Conference of American Benedictine Prioresses and the Leadership Conference of Women Religious. Sister Joan has been recognized by universities and national organizations for her work for justice, peace and equality for women in the Church and society. She is an active member of the International Peace Council.


Let's give the United Nations an Asian home


SCMP - Saturday, July 12, 2003
RICHARD GILBERT

In 1945, when the location for the United Nations head office was being decided, the initial choice was between a site in Europe and one in the United States. Europe lost by two votes, and today's UN headquarters in New York received its initial occupants in 1950.

The former League of Nations complex in Geneva serves as the alternate main office. Twice as many UN meetings are held there as in New York. It is time to think about a third UN main office. Hong Kong would be an ideal location, particularly if a waterside area of the Kai Tak site could be made available.

The UN needs a third main office to accommodate the organisation's growing importance and indispensability in an interdependent, globalising world. It needs a third main office to provide relief for the New York building, which is in urgent need of renovation.

It needs a third main office on the other side of the globe to accommodate the change in the geopolitical centre of gravity since the 1940s, with the growth in UN membership from 51 to 191 states.

Hong Kong is an ideal locale for the UN. It has excellent transport links and communications, superb human resources and just about every service an international organisation might require. It is the most international of Asian cities. Hong Kong is a part of the country that will have the greatest influence on human affairs during the 21st century, but not quite part of it.

Kai Tak is a perfect site. Its geography makes it secure but readily accessible. It is a breathtaking location that provides breathtaking views. A UN building could become the brightest jewel in Hong Kong's rich diadem of stunning development around Victoria Harbour.

The present UN headquarters is a disaster waiting to happen. It is New York's only building of any size that does not have a sprinkler system. A 1999 New York Times article noted, "Roofs leak. Asbestos insulation needs to be replaced. Plastic sheeting was installed to protect library desks and computers from dripping water. And some motors and water pumps that keep the building running are so antiquated that spare parts are no longer made."

Things are worse today than in 1999, but there is little prospect of funds becoming available for renovation or for the latest plan, which would involve construction of a new building at the edge of the present Manhattan site.

A significant part of the problem is the United States' growing lack of interest in hosting the UN. The then New York mayor, Rudolph Giuliani, was quoted in the same Times article as suggesting it would not be so terrible if the UN left town. This was said even though hosting the UN is known to bring economic activity to the city worth HK$25 billion or more each year.

At Hong Kong's request, China could breathe new life into the world's best hope for peace and progress by inviting the UN to establish itself on the Kai Tak site. Hong Kong could serve as a meeting place for the general assembly, the security council, and a myriad of committees and agencies while facilities were improved in New York.

Then, Hong Kong could become the Asia-Pacific's Geneva, the permanent site of numerous UN functions. The general assembly and security council might even decide to continue meeting in Hong Kong for at least a part of each year.

The UN does not have the money for new offices but the Hong Kong special administrative region's government does, and so may some of Hong Kong's substantial private interests. Hardly a better investment could be made in Hong Kong's economic prospects than putting up the $5-10 billion required to construct a complex that would define the city as a world centre of international activity.

Would the UN want to come to Hong Kong? As one of the world's few truly vibrant cities, Hong Kong could be hard to resist. It is an expensive city, particularly for accommodation, but hardly more than New York. Hong Kong's facilities are already extraordinary and would be more so with the construction of a well-designed UN complex. There could well be concerns about how opinions may be expressed in Hong Kong, but such concerns could be readily addressed.

The benefits of bringing the UN to Hong Kong would be great for the world and great for Hong Kong.

Richard Gilbert is an urban issues consultant based in Toronto, Canada, who has visited Hong Kong for business and pleasure several times since 1985. During the last two years he has written three reports on transport issues for the Hong Kong think-tank Civic Exchange.