The National Leaders Conference (NLC) of the American Ethical Union (AEU) approved a resolution on Afghanistan, opposing President Obama’s plan to send increased troops (see below). This is a good time to clarify the role of public affairs resolutions within the Ethical Movement.
The Ethical Movement has always strongly endorsed freedom of conscience. Public affairs resolutions approved by the National Assembly, the Board of the AEU, or by individual societies are statements of positions of a significant majority of those voting. However, members are free to disagree. As members of a Movement committed to respecting the worth and dignity of each individual, we strive to respect those who speak and act in accordance with their consciences even though we disagree with them. As members of a Movement believing that each of us has a moral obligation to work to help create a more humane society, we recognize that those who disagree with the majority within our Movement have an ethical duty to speak and act in support of their beliefs. [Members have sometimes failed to live up to our ideals to respect the worth and dignity of those with whom we disagree when dealing with particularly controversial issues, such as the Vietnam War. But these ideals are still important. They provide a touchstone for how we believe we should behave, and guide us back to behavior that is more appropriate.]
The statement on Afghanistan is from the NLC rather than the AEU. This permitted the Leaders to make a statement quickly without waiting for a Board meeting and without working to build consensus among Ethical Movement members. The statement carries the prestige and influence of the Leaders of our Movement, but individual members are in no way bound by the resolution.
I personally support President Obama’s decisions on Afghanistan as appropriate, given the difficult situation he inherited. In considering my reasons for disagreeing with the NLC’s resolution, it strikes me that the differences are less about moral principles than about interpretation of the facts on the ground. Are the Taliban similar to the Viet Cong, i.e. a national liberation movement with broad popular support? Or are the Taliban closer to the people in the U.S. who bomb abortion clinics and murder abortion doctors, i.e. fundamentalist religious fanatics who wish to impose their views on others through the use of terror? (I don’t think many of us would support negotiations with the abortion clinic bombers.) I recognize that the truth in Afghanistan is a shade of gray between these extremes and there are differences in motivation among the Taliban supporters. But the two polar positions are useful to make the point that the moral response is dependant upon the facts on the ground, including particularly whether or not the Taliban has popular support, when people are free of terrorist threats.
It is not easy to find clear answers to such factual questions, given the difficulties of access and cultural differences. All we can do is read widely and try to determine which accounts appear most credible. We also should recognize that our experiences and views might bias our judgments. I must confess to a strong antipathy for religious fanatics. As many of you know, I worked for 20 years on economic development in Bangladesh. You may also know that Bangladesh and the Grameen Bank were the pioneers of the women’s micro credit movement. What you may not know is that the initial response of the fundamentalists in Bangladesh was to bomb micro credit cooperatives and girls schools in efforts to keep women in a subservient position. Fortunately, Bangladesh is a relatively democratic country where there is real competition for the vote. The fundamentalist parties have never won more than 10% of the vote. The fact that people could vote periodically to change governments also limited the terrorists’ appeal. While inter-country comparisons are dangerous, I am sure that my Bangladesh experiences have affected my views. I would love to have the United Nations develop an international army that is able to maintain peace. Unfortunately, as we saw in Bosnia and Rwanda, the UN is not yet in a position to protect civilians from terrorism and massacres. Until they have such capacity, I believe that the U.S. has a special responsibility for maintaining peace.
There are differences in views within our Society and within the Ethical Movement concerning the proper path in Afghanistan. I would urge each of us, on all sides of the issue, to work actively on behalf of our views, while maintaining respect for those with alternative opinions.
A Call for a Just and Enduring Peace in Afghanistan from the National Leaders Council of the American Ethical Union
December 2, 2009
The National Leaders Council of the American Ethical Union opposes President Obama’s plan to dramatically increase the number of troops involved in the conflict in Afghanistan as unreasonable and unjustified. Increased military operations will result in increased deaths of both civilians and armed forces. Further, means of force will not solve the ongoing crisis in Afghanistan. It is the wrong means aimed at the wrong enemy.The true enemy in Afghanistan, as in so many places, is ignorance coupled with economic deprivation, which often leads to desperation, fanaticism, and terrorism. When employed by the likes of Al-Qaida, this constitutes a real threat to open, democratic nations throughout the world. We recognize the legitimate right of nations so threatened to respond directly to the perpetrators of terrorism.
However, the only way to break the cycle and defeat terrorism is through a respectful relationship with the Afghan people, one aimed at providing the basic requirements for human flourishing—water, food, shelter, education, and a reason to choose life over death. The needs, wishes, and well-being of the Afghan people must be at the center of rebuilding Afghanistan. A negotiated solution is necessary, one that includes all groups involved in the conflict. A lasting peace in the region can only come from the participation of all parties that legitimately represent the interests of their constituents, including Pakistan where Al-Qaida has taken refuge.We therefore call upon The United Nations to take the lead in the reconstruction of Afghanistan through a collaborative process with the Afghan people and all other interested and affected regional parties, and we call upon the United States and its NATO allies to fully fund the initiative.
