template

U, UUs, and the UN

Never look down to test the ground before taking your next step: only the person who keeps an eye fixed on the far horizon will find the right road. — Dag Hammarskjöld, UN Secretary General, 1953-1961

Martin Buber was a Jewish theologian, mystic, writer, and social activist. He once addressed a United Nations conference in Rome, Italy, where he began his prepared talk with a story, a parable that went like this (this story is retold by John Buehrens in “The Goal of World Community With Peace, Liberty, and Justice For All,” found in Edward Frost’s With Purpose and Principle, p. 81): In the beginning of the modern world there were three ideals or principles that appeared to be linked together forever. These three principles, walking hand in hand, were liberty, equality, and what was then called fraternity. Nowadays we’d refer to fraternity as the spirit of kinship. Buber explained that at one point the three of them unlocked arms and went their separate ways. Liberty came to the United States, but was reshaped during the American Revolution and took on the character of freedom, as in the freedom to and the freedom from. Buber explained that freedom got a bit twisted around in the West and that freedom to and freedom from became permission to exploit our environment and other people, as in there were some people for whom these freedoms didn’t apply: They didn’t apply to Native Americans, who were here long before Europeans; these freedoms didn’t apply to African slaves; they didn’t apply to women. And so it was a perverted liberty, a twisted freedom.

Then there was equality, which made its way not to the West, but to the East. It went through several revolutions, and equality became what was known as, in revolutionary jargon, “the power of the people.” Equality was also perverted and became a from of conformity or group-think that was imposed on people. People were reading their little red books or singing Communist slogans and songs. This Eastern equality was a twisted relative of the freedom seen in the West.

Then there was the spirit of kinship, which spoke about bringing all people together, brothers and sisters, young and old, people of all genders. It really was, Buber said, the glue that held this triad of three principles together. Yet you can see what happened to liberty, and what happened to equality. So, kinship was frightened and went underground, it went to hide where it thought no one would ever look for it: Kinship hid with people who were powerless, people of the South, or what we now call the developing nations, the emerging nations, or the Third World.

Kinship also became associated with religion because it had the power to bring people together, kinship had a transcendent quality about it. But because of this religious quality, some dismissed it and didn’t give it much credence. Yet Buber noted, it is kinship that not only holds us together but gives liberty and equality an opportunity to work. Occasionally we see it rise to the top as in the work of Martin Luther King, Jr. or the work of Solidarity in Poland years ago. And yes, it gets knocked down from time to time and may go back into hiding. But we have seen kinship, tasted its joy, beauty, and power. We know what it feels like and it feels right. It’s something we can never forget, something we don’t want to forget.

As a progressive, free-thinking religious movement, Unitarian Universalism has embraced and engaged the spirit of kinship, realizing that the spirits of equality and liberty need to be balanced by the spirit of kinship. Two of the ways Unitarian Universalism has done this are quite unique. Many of you know that we have a General Assembly every year and at the General Assembly, just like other faith communities, we pass by a vote of the delegates, a number of resolutions. Only twice in the history of UUA General Assemblies have we gone beyond the straight-up majority vote and passed a consensus statement of the entire faith community of Unitarian Universalism. Once was in 1966 when we passed a consensus statement on Civil Rights (which, in Buber’s parable, was all about the spirit of kinship). The second one was in 1969 when we had a consensus statement about Unitarian Universalism’s commitment to the United Nations. Unitarian Universalism, since the inception of the UN, has been a strong supporter because we value an international outlook, we value and understand how equality and liberty need to be brought together in the spirit of kinship, but this has been far from smooth..

Yet I would be fooling myself and all of you to say that since 1945 when the United Nations began, it has had a smooth road: there has never been a smooth road for the UN. In the beginning they had to hammer out a charter which was not easy; in the beginning, all nations were not welcome. And now, with the Cold War ended, there are new opportunities for multilateralism, support and cooperation, all done in the spirit of kinship.

The United States finds itself in a very unusual position: It’s both a blessing and a curse that we are the lone superpower of the world. It’s a curse because it may come with more responsibility than we are prepared to bear, responsibility that comes with a lot of criticism. It’s also a blessing because of all of the opportunities that now exist—challenges and chances, risks for peace and justice that in our lifetime we never dreamed of seeing. What concerns me, as I know it does many of you, is that the United States—in spite of these never-before-seen opportunities for international cooperation—seems to have adopted a policy of trying to go it alone, which is the Western version of individualism spoken of by Buber, it’s a perversion of liberty.

The United States has boldly marked a position that has been more and more characterized by unilateralism, of going it alone, doing things our own way (often using the United Nations only for the appearance of international cooperation). Here are five startling examples, and these are just five of many, of how our nation has avoided international, multilateral cooperation:

· In 1979, there was a resolution called the Convention on the Elimination of Discrimination Against Women. It was ratified by more than 150 governments, but not the United States.

· In 1989, the Convention on the Rights of the Child was ratified by 187 governments except Somalia (which has no functioning government) and the United States.

· A lot of us are familiar with the 1997 Kyoto Treaty on the Environment, which was rejected by the United States.

· The 1998 Statute of the International Criminal Court, was rejected by the United States, along with—get this!—Iraq, Libya, and Yemen.

· The Ottawa Treaty to Ban Land Mines, was approved by 142 countries, including all of our European allies. In 1997 the extraordinary work done by this nation’s Jodie Williams on behalf of this treaty led to her receiving the Nobel Peace Prize. And yet the United States has rejected this treaty.

(from Alan Geyer, in The Christian Century, June 5-12, 2002)

Perhaps you feel the way I do when you hear these, it heightens the ironic and contradictory position our country is in, and it makes me disappointed and angry: The United States is in the unique position of being the lone superpower in the world, and with our leadership, cooperation and the spirit of kinship we know that remarkable advances for justice and peace could be made, but our unwillingness to lead on issues we know are right sends mixed (at best) and wrong (at worst) messages to the world.

An opportunity for leadership came following the events and tragedies of September 11 2001. In unprecedented fashion, here was a time when all the nations of the world needed to come together, to rise up and proclaim unity in the face of those tragedies. But the U.S. did not lead in the spirit of kinship, and after falling far short of it’s promises to Afghanistan and the world community, now there is the likelihood of war with Iraq. Once again, the question on many people’s minds is, Can the United States act multilaterally or will we act by ourselves, in spite of the world community’s questions and concerns? At this time it looks like the US will go to war with the cooperation of a few allies, but we will bear the bulk of responsibility. There are so many outstanding questions. I will ask only ten questions that have been on my mind, ones also shared by our UUA Washington Office and my colleague Bruce Southworth. Perhaps you too will feel that these questions have not been sufficiently answered.

· Is it morally acceptable to become an aggressor, and no doubt inflict further suffering and death on the Iraqi people, who are currently suffering great, great damage?

· Morally, practically, and diplomatically, is it wise to violate international law, the international law that we signed as being a member of the United Nations Charter?

· Is there sufficient justification to go to war against Iraq? Where is the evidence? I don’t know if you have read the pieces written by Scott Ritter, who was the chief negotiator for the UN arms inspections. He wasn’t invited by Congress to testify when hearings were held, probably because he has been opposed to the direction we’re headed, saying that as of August, which was the last time he was in Iraq, he did not find the evidence that the United States says it has against Iraq.

· What happens if Saddam Hussein is removed? Let’s remember our other interventions to install democratic governments: Iran in 1954, Chile in 1973, Afghanistan in the ‘80s, Nicaragua in the ‘80s, Grenada in ‘83, Iraq in ‘88, Panama in ‘89, Somalia in ‘89, Haiti in ‘94, and the list is much, much longer. All of them not only disasters, but sometimes the governments that were installed after we left were authoritative, fascist, dictatorial, oppressive regimes, the exact opposite of everything our nation stands for. All of this was done in our name.

· If attacked, would Saddam Hussein attack Israel as a last resort of vengeance? Will all of this talk lead to a preemptive strike by Saddam Hussein?

· And what about our economy? Oil, deficits, industry, confidence. It’s hurting now. What does the future hold?

· What about Al Qaeda and Osama bin Laden, who did attack the United States?

· Does it make any sense to send 250,000 to 500,000 to invade Iraq and for how long, and how many will die?

· Where will all this preemptive talk lead? Who gets to go next? China against Taiwan? India against Pakistan? Israel against one of its neighbors?

· Prior to the recent march in Washington, DC, the Police Chief of the DC police force said that they would begin making “preemptive” arrests. Will this be the justification, set by our government, for declaring war on our civil rights?

Interestingly enough, when one pollster asked a group of international diplomats who they would like to see in the role of international superpower, each one of them said the United States if we were willing to talk to the world community and share the decision making. It was as if they were saying, Yes, we want the US to take the lead if they will live up to their ideals and vision, if they will “walk their talk.” This is where the international community seems to get stuck when it comes to being our partner—they want us to live by our vision. Is this not what we want too?

Part of this vision is one that our government does support, and we support it through the UN. The UN’s member-nations gain so much from educational, cultural, and scientific programs and resources that are among the best in the world. But it’s the political piece that has always, since 1945, been so difficult, especially around the issue of the spirit of kinship.

It was Dag Hammarskjöld, who, as Secretary General of the United Nations, said that in order to be a strong nation, you need to focus not on where the next step will be, but stay fixed on the horizon—on the wider, grander view. This has been especially difficult for the US where it seems to be part of American tradition whether in politics, business or education, to always be focusing on what is directly in front of us, and not on the future, on our vision, on the long distance promise that we are trying to achieve and work for.

Again, it’s the spirit of kinship that made our nation great and continues to grow in our communities. That’s what we are after. That’s our vision. It is this vision that prompted the beginnings of the United Nations. Turn to reading #475 in the back of the hymnal where we have included a portion of the Charter of the United Nations. Please follow along as I will read. Again, note throughout it the spirit of kinship.

We the peoples of the United Nations,

Determined to save succeeding generations from the scourge of war,

To reaffirm faith in fundamental human rights, in the dignity and worth of the human person, in the equal rights of men and women, and of nations large and small,

To promote social progress and better standards of life in larger freedom,

And for these ends to practice tolerance and to live together in peace as good neighbors,

To unite our strength to maintain international peace and security,

To insure that armed force shall not be used, save in the common interest,

To employ international machinery in the promotion of the economic and social advancement of all people,

Have resolved to combine our efforts to accomplish these aims.

It is that same spirit of kinship, that we are all sisters and brothers under a larger umbrella in the cosmos, that led to Unitarian Universalism writing the sixth principle:

We affirm and promote the goal of world community peace, liberty, and justice for all.

Especially now, in this time when we are faced not only as a nation, but as a world of nations with unprecedented challenges, let us also see that we have unprecedented opportunities. And right now the only existing body of all the nations is the United Nations. In the polls I’ve read, over 60 percent of Americans are urging, want, hope that our government will try to work through that international body. Now that Congress has acted, the President and his administration need to hear our words encouraging them to use the United Nations, to listen to our allies, to work toward a spirit of kinship. [This morning in the back, our United Nations Committee, which has been participating in the service this morning, has put together a wonderful display about the United Nations, with lots of literature and opportunities for you to learn.]

It seems like the United Nations has fallen out of grace in many communities and in many people’s minds. Perhaps right now is a time to reeducate yourself, to become familiar with all of their programs and all the many things that they do for the world in the spirit of kinship. I invite you, I urge you to learn more and to speak out for our goal of world community with peace, liberty, and justice for all.

Go back to the Sermons Archive or the UUCA Home Page

Send Mail to the Church.