Dialogue: Sharing resources more effective than missiles

The war on terrorism is merely a step along the road to meeting the much bigger challenge of global justice,
writes RICHARD RANDERSON*.

Since September 11, the images of global terror have shifted from New York and Washington DC to Afghanistan. The tragedy and grief that afflicted many Americans and others in the United States is now being visited on Afghani civilians, victims of collateral damage in the anti-terrorism campaign.

Along with the bombings are pictures of crowds attending national rallies: Islamic nations denounce the US, its leaders proclaim war on the great infidel. Americans gather with the Stars and Stripes fluttering in their hands. President George W. Bush says that even if it takes 10 years, we will prevail. Peace is nowhere in sight.

Add to that the anthrax attacks in the US and the hoax scares in New Zealand and there is a nagging sense that all the missiles in the world will not stop domestic guerrillas who can operate with impunity despite military shields.

Our security depends hugely on the goodwill of citizens. It depends even more on the goodwill of other nations. Where that goodwill is lacking, even state-of-the-art protection systems will not save us.

Alongside the images of terror are the pictures of two million Afghani refugees pushing on the Pakistan border. Whether the young boy with his leg blown off was the victim of the aerial attacks, or of a land-mine left over from previous conflicts, is immaterial. The injuries, illnesses, homelessness, starvation and despair of so many people - half the population of New Zealand - are an evil that requires at least as much emphasis and expenditure as the containment of terror.

In Iraq, Western economic sanctions have led to the deaths of 1.2 million people since the Gulf War.

A further dose of international reality was brought to us by John Pilger's television documentary New Rulers of the World. Pilger told again in graphic terms what we already know - that poor and desperate people in many countries produce commodities for the Western world at rock-bottom wages in sweat-shop conditions.

A pair of boxer shorts, for example, that sells for $30 in Britain produces 15c in wages for an Indonesian worker.

In many Third World countries, repayment of debt takes huge proportions of the national budget, denying the basics of food, clean water, education, homes and healthcare for the local people. Yet the global expenditure on ice cream could wipe out all Third World debt in a year.

In the face of such realities, is it credible to believe that an enduring global peace can be achieved by spending billions of dollars on military action against terrorism, while allocating only peanuts to provide food, health and security for vast millions of the world's population?

Contain terrorism we must, but failing to address the causes of unrest is a serious strategic mistake.

Violence is the ultimate response of those who are the victims of oppression and despair, and for whom there is no other way, no future.

Violence is never to be condoned, but it challenges us to reflect deeply on its causes.

We need to consider violence not merely at the global level, but also in New Zealand where too many go without the basics of living.

The initiative for building a lasting world peace should begin with the Western nations. It is they who are the beneficiaries of Third World poverty. It is we who have at our disposal the material means to make radical changes in the way the world lives.

A group of American bishops wrote: "The affluence of nations such as ours stands in stark contrast to other parts of the world racked by the crushing poverty which causes the death of 6000 children in the course of a morning."

We live as one global family in a fragile and vulnerable world community.

The choice is ours as to whether we relate to each other with inflammatory invective and airborne missiles, or work together to share the resources of the planet in a manner that guarantees security of living for all people.

We know there are enough resources for everyone. The question is whether we can think beyond the divisions of nation, race and culture to allow for a just sharing of those resources.

There is no question that we must be vigilant to guard against violence, terrorism and evil, but this should not be our ultimate goal.

Containing terror is no more than an interim task along the road to the much greater challenge of global justice.

We need world leaders who will wage peace as their long-term goal, speak words of international partnership rather than vanquishing enemies, and cancel debt so that the poorer nations might live more fully.

We need to change our own lifestyles so that the affluence of the few becomes the livelihood of all.

One positive piece of international news was the awarding of the Nobel Peace prize to the United Nations and its Secretary-General, Kofi Annan.

The UN might lack the economic and military power of some nations, but it is possessed of a greater power - the power to build a new world order based on eliminating global poverty and unrest.

Leadership of this kind will protect the world much more surely than missiles.

* Richard Randerson is dean of Holy Trinity Cathedral, Parnell.