BPFNA--The Purposeful Persistence of Peacemaking

The Purposeful Persistence of Peacemaking Isaiah 42:1-4 Abdullah Khan is a man who must not find it easy to make it through security at airports. His name is likely to appear on “Do Not Fly” lists of the TSA; he’s also likely to have his luggage checked repeatedly if he’s able to secure a ticket. There are many Abdullah Khan’s in the world, but the one that matters to Homeland Security was detained at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, after having been picked up in 2002 in his native Afghanistan for allegedly being associated with al-Qaeda. He was released six years later without sufficient evidence against him, but he is still watched, as is every other man who bears the same name. One who bears the same name—another Abdullah Khan—is known in quite a different way. He recently was a participant in the International Peacemakers Program at Hartford Seminary. This Abdullah Khan is from Pakistan, where he serves at the Institute of Policy Studies to train teachers in Islamic schools how to develop their perceptions about complex and controversial domestic and international issues. He has also worked as a consultant with Norwegian Church Aid devising curricula on human rights for Islamic schools and Christian seminaries. While working in Denmark, he was involved in counter-radicalization projects aimed at Muslim youth. In coming to Hartford Seminary for the year, he has come to enhance his abilities and to offer his experiences in interfaith peacemaking. He has the name and the geographical roots of an alleged terrorist, but as a Muslim, he has dedicated his life and career to peacemaking. 1 I thought about Abdullah and others like him this week when listening to the news following President Obama’s surreptitious trip to Afghanistan. What struck me was the air of futility about the purpose of the trip that was voiced by those reporting the story. This was a significant moment in the longest war that our country has ever fought. The trip was to finalize and sign the plan for peace—the removal of all Coalition forces by the end of 2014, with an additional ten-year commitment proposed by the U.S. military to aid the development of a sufficiently-trained Afghan army which will “patrol the peace” in subsequent years. Maybe it’s because we’ve already been at this for over a decade battling what amounts to be an Afghan civil war that makes many people skeptical, if not hopelessly jaded, about the prospects for a lasting peace. A few years ago, Admiral Mike Mullen, then chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, testified before Congress regarding the long-term prospects for Afghanistan: “We can succeed militarily, but it’s not going to work. That’s just a fact.”1 He cited many reasons for that—the resistance of the Taliban, the corruption in the Karzai government, the lack of a strong civil society, the need for rebuilding the Afghan economy and infrastructure, just to scratch the surface. But perhaps more than anything else is the fundamental distrust existing within that society—between the people and their government, between civilians and soldiers, between Afghanis and foreigners, between factions in the Muslim communities, and between Muslims and non-Muslims. Craig Mullaney, who wrote 1 http://topics.time.com/Afghanistan-War 2 about his deployments as a soldier in his book, The Unforgiving Minute, remarked about this fundamental lack of trust: The best thing we could have done for Afghanistan was to get out of our Humvees and drink more green chai. We should have focused less on finding the enemy, and more on finding our friends. 2 His point is well taken, especially when you take into account all the things that have undermined the trust between soldiers and civilians. And it represents the thoughts of many embroiled in the battles or setting military policy who are frustrated by the futility of the fight. After all these years, in order to stabilize and bring a lasting peace to Afghanistan, it will require much more than defeating an adversary like the Taliban. It will require rebuilding an entire society—in villages, households and individual lives—people who have been victimized and traumatized by violence—violence done mostly by those from outside of their lives. Because war destroys human lives, it invariably destroys human trust. Thus, building trust is the main objective of peacemaking—interpersonally, inter- religiously, inter-communally, and internationally. Bringing trust back into relationships, or into relationships for the first time, is the goal for peacemakers, who are the ones most equipped to bring hope to this land. I project it will take people like Abdullah, and his peers within Afghanistan and surrounding countries, and not the U.S. State Department or the Pentagon to change the culture and the course of history there from one of perpetual conflict and war toward a day of enduring peace. Peacemaking, for the most part, is an arduous task that takes time and usually doesn’t make the headlines. It’s occurring all 2 Craig M. Mullaney, The Unforgiving Minute: A Soldier’s Education, Penguin Press, 2009. 3 around the globe even as we speak, but we don’t hear about it because it’s not as dramatic and alarming as acts of aggression and war. Typically, peacemaking is done not by governments, but by NGOs of all types, including religious ones. For nearly my entire professional career I’ve been involved in international peacemaking at one level or another. What I’ve witnessed and participated in is peacemaking at a grassroots level where people are engaged in bold initiatives to rebuild trust and cross the psychological divide with their enemy in order to end their conflict and transform their relationship from one of hostility to one fostering hope. It takes time—sometimes decades—to have enough of the memory of harm replaced by positive exchanges in order to build trust between former enemies. That can’t be done through the barrel of a gun. That’s why I believe for however long we are present in Afghanistan, unless they enlist Afghani and other Muslim peacemakers to build trust back into that society, the resources our country invests will be wasted. I suppose, in some ways, the pursuit of peace has always required a dedicated and fearless spirit in people. Peacemakers are always taking risks in order to build trust. Friends of mine have put their lives on the line in order to intervene hoping to stop bloodshed or to meet with armed combatants. It takes courage, along with time, commitment, and a perseverance not to give up at setbacks and attacks from those who are not ready to give up the battle. In my own work with others over the years, I’ve sometimes turned to the words of Isaiah 42 to remind me how to conduct myself as a peacemaker—words that can equally guide Jews, Christians, and 4 Muslims as Scripture—a perspective that is helpful, particularly in times of frustration or despair. With that in mind, I’d like to reflect briefly on what it means and what it takes to be a peacemaker, particularly as a person of faith. Though Isaiah intended this as prophetic guidance for the people of Judah over 2500 years ago, these verses can easily translate into a peacemaker’s commission for our time: Here is my servant, whom I uphold, My chosen, in whom my soul delights; I have put my spirit upon him; [She] will bring forth justice to the nations. As I see it, that’s one of the key purposes of the peacemaker—to be a servant of justice to the nations, to rise above partisanship, to be fair to all sides of a conflict, and when necessary, an advocate for those who are bullied, oppressed, and vulnerable to domination by another. A peacemaker’s call rises above patriotism and nationalism and the parochial interests and concerns of one’s own homeland as he or she is a global citizen—obligated to seek justice for all, rooted in the belief of a benevolent and just Creator who is concerned about the dignity and welfare of everyone. Frankly, that moral duty usually puts peacemakers at odds with those who demonize their enemies and make heroes of their own, and are unwilling to accept criticism of their own actions. That’s particularly true in times of war, where those who seek peace are usually dismissed or even scorned by those ready to make war. Frequently, peacemakers are unfairly targeted as enemies of the powerful, even though they are merely seeking to advocate for equal justice and fairness for all. [She] will not cry or lift up [her] voice, Or make it heard in the street; 5 A bruised reed he will not break, And a dimly burning wick he will not quench. In the pursuit of justice, Isaiah’s servant does not bring attention to himself, or act on her own behalf, as if to dictate the terms for how others will reconcile. The approach of a peacemaker is not to storm into a setting and make demands, but instead, he or she keeps the focus on the parties in conflict, who need a mediator who creates a safe space to help adversaries listen to each other. Nelson Mandela once said: “If you want to make peace with your enemy, you have to work with your enemy. Then he becomes your partner.” With that in mind, a peacemaker knows that he or she is merely an instrument that facilitates the healing process and encourages transformation in the damaged relationship.

Load more