Does
our foreign policy reflect the tenet that a nation's governance rests on the
foundation of its society? In a democracy, the consent of the governed results
from the choices made by voters based on their values and participation.
Authoritarian regimes rule because they control and usually intimidate their
subjects, overlaid on a variety of social dysfunctions. In the West, we highly
value democracy as an end in itself, and promote its adoption in other nations.
'Benevolent dictatorships' usually aren't. Egomaniacal dictators tend to
destabilize international relations.
Unfortunately,
competition between major nations played out by surrogates in smaller third
world nations overlays international relations. This history goes back at least
as far as the 18th century, most likely far further. European colonialism and
imperialism created a large number of theaters as the major European powers
sought to advance their economic interests. US-USSR competition in the 20th
century through many administrations of both parties did not hesitate to
provide military support to factions within various countries to achieve
political advantage. The Bay of Pigs fiasco and support to Afghanistan
insurgents in the 1980's immediately leap to mind. Contrast these with the
Marshall Plan and the Peace Corps.
Herein
lies an object lesson. Support to the Taliban and Al Qaida in the 1980's
morphed into existential threats to Western civilization in the current decade.
By this I mean that even if radical terrorist groups cannot destroy our
governmental institutions, our response to their threat can so change our
social fabric that we lose the very values we prize. Threats from groups we
supported thirty years ago! The adage that 'the enemy of my enemy is my friend'
is sometimes used to rationalize strange bedfellows. But they never were our
friends; at most they were co-belligerents. Despite the ultimate collapse of
the USSR political structure, the world does not appear to be a safer or better
place.
The
kingdom of God is not built this way. Apart from the futility of military
effort and short-lived fruits of victory, what God seeks can only be achieved
through His prescribed methods. Jesus was very direct: "Those who live by
the sword shall perish by the sword."(Matthew 26:52) "Go ye into all
the world and preach the Gospel." (Matthew 28:19) Jesus here (and
elsewhere) articulated that His kingdom only comes into being through being
built into peoples' lives. What does this mean?
The
Gospel begins with the good news that Jesus died on the cross to save us from
our sins. This includes both the penalty for and the power of our own,
personally chosen and executed sins. God's purpose is integral to His action.
He enters into an intimate, personal relationship with each believer infused
with love. As this relationship develops, Jesus works in His beloved's life to
free him or her from sin and bless them with all of the fruits that flow from
the Holy Spirit. He also cares and provides for them in many practical ways, as
He promised in Matthew 6:33. He also blesses the believer with the fellowship
of kindred souls, giving the command that they wash each other’s feet. (John
13:14) This is a snapshot of the kingdom of God.
The
loss of a Spiritual foundation for foreign policy presents a fundamental
problem to the West. During the 19th century, the London Missionary Society
sent missionaries all over the world. The foreign policy of the British Empire,
despite being motivated by mercantilism, provided the infrastructure for this
incredible enterprise. As just one example, slavery was abolished in the
British Empire in 1833, well before the US civil war, based on explicitly
Christian mores. Politically correct policy in our day dares not invoke any
Christian, or even spiritual, foundation.
No comments:
Post a Comment