Reverend Jesse Jackson Reflects on Working Toward Peace

The promotion and preservation of human rights can and should be the driving force for world affairs in this post-Cold War era. If it is, the world can be transformed. A new sense of hope can be transmitted throughout the nations. Such is the glory and power of human rights-measured by one yardstick for all human beings.
The elevation of human rights to this exalted position requires great strength and fortitude by those in power. It requires politicians to think and act in fundamentally different ways. This is the highest possible moral standard and moral plane on which to conduct the affairs of state. It is a place where few have chosen to go: Jesus, Dr. King, Nelson Mandela, and Gandhi are names that come to mind; these are difficult footsteps in which to follow. This is not a part-time job. This is not for the faint of heart.
I wish to propose some guiding principles for evaluating the integrity of this new and strengthened commitment to human rights. These principles should serve as the yardstick by which the earnestness of world leaders is measured. Is all this talk of human rights something more than hype or spin? We'll know if the behavior of the rich and powerful nations of the world are informed by these ideas:
1) The principle of human rights must be applied with consistency around the world. This principle transcends geography; it transcends ethnicity, culture, race, language, and religion. A commitment to human rights demands inclusion. No one should be left behind. There are not some among us who are more human than others; God does not prefer the life of an American or a European to the life of an African or a Malaysian.
The first real test of the developed world's newfound commitment to human rights will come in places like Sierra Leone, which stood by the United States and its allies in World War I and World War II. They were a democracy. Yet when they were overthrown, there was no rush to protect its more than one million exiled and 750,000 killed.
The problems that prompted action in Kosovo are, sadly, dwarfed by the size of problems facing this African nation. A $1.5 billion aid package for Kosovo was announced at the 1999 G8 summit; where is the aid package for Sierra Leone? My own country, which appropriated $13 billion to cover costs associated with the war in Yugoslavia, is sending the rather meager sum of $15 million to the West African organization that worked to end the war in Sierra Leone.
A tale of two continents? Perhaps. But not for long, because nations that are serious about their commitment to human rights simply cannot abide by disparities such as this. This gap in commitment must be breached.
I wish to challenge not only governments on this score, but also the international media to bridge its own very real gap in coverage. Pictures and sounds of people in distress can move the world to action, but if no one sees or hears or reads about a story like Sierra Leone, action is deferred. The responsibility is not one of governments alone.
We also can't just say it's racism. When people saw dogs biting blacks in Birmingham, Alabama, people the world over-both white and black-said, "We choose humans." When they saw the massacres
in Soweto and Sharpsville, they chose the massacred over the killers. When the people saw, they responded.
2) A commitment to the principle of human rights requires clear and unambiguous respect for international law and support for the international organizations that administer it. When it comes to an organization like the United Nations, we cannot pick and choose when we wish to work within its framework without greatly weakening its effectiveness.
We circumvented the UN at the onset of the war against Yugoslavia, only to welcome the intervention of the UN-sponsored war crimes tribunal at the war's midpoint. We worked outside the umbrella of the UN in order to avoid a negative response from Russia and China, only to cede tremendous authority to Russia and China
in the process that led to a cessation of bombing.
We learned the value of working within the UN framework during the Persian Gulf War, as the UN marshaled world opinion against the behavior of Iraq's leader, Saddam Hussein. Let us now relearn that very important lesson in light of our new sense of international priorities. Let us embrace and empower the UN.
3) The principle of human rights must be applied outside the military context. Indeed, since military action presumes the failure of all other diplomatic measures, the military option is limited when it comes to advancing a human rights agenda around the globe. But if we're serious about human rights, then the major military and economic powers must figure out ways to intervene that fall short of war. We have missiles, morals, and minds: our minds and morals are assets that should be put to work.
Eradication of disease, expansion of health care facilities, building new networks of food distribution-these must become the tools of nations truly committed not only to the preservation, but also the expansion, of human rights around the globe. Surely, this is what is meant by the verse in Isaiah about "beating swords into plowshares." Sharp young minds must be turned away from the instruments of
war and turned toward the instruments of peace. They must be taught to build bridges, not blow them up; to grow food, to replenish the land.
And when it comes to trade, nations devoted to the principle of human rights cannot abide by a trading regime that represents a race to the bottom. Trade cannot be exploitative; in exploitation lie the seeds of future violence, revolution, and armed conflict. Rather, trade must be conceived and implemented as a strategy to raise the incomes and prospects of buyer and seller alike. Affirmative steps must be taken to ensure that environmental and labor concerns are addressed, that economic justice is done. This is the mandate of a renewed commitment to human rights.
4) A commitment to human rights requires a preference for negotiation to military action. Yes, there are monsters out there and there will be occasions when war is both inevitable and just. But there will be many more occasions when relations between and among nations are more complex, more nuanced-with good and bad motives attributed to all sides. On these more frequent occasions, we must not fear to negotiate, to talk over our differences, to try to resolve them short of armed conflict. A willingness to negotiate requires real mental and spiritual strength, it requires real confidence, but it often holds out the best chance to achieve the desired change.
When I've returned from Syria or Cuba or Yugoslavia having successfully completed missions that seemed impossible in prospect, I am often asked, what did you do that was so different from what others have done? The answer is: I tried.
Love your enemy, the Bible tells us. Well, there are four good
reasons why loving your enemy makes sense in foreign affairs: 1) your enemy is a human being and deserves some fundamental level of respect and dignity, 2) love, in spite of your anger, will cause you
to reach out when you might otherwise have shut the door, 3) a sense of empathy, mindful of the hopes and fears of your enemy, greatly enhances the probability of conversion, and 4) you might just
find some insight into how your own behavior contributed to the standoff.
Look at just how ineffectual we have been where all negotiation has been cut off: Hussein, Castro, Qaddafi, and Khomeini, while he was alive. The failure to negotiate has become a lifetime ticket to power for these individuals.
Peace is more difficult than war. War is one-sided; it can be waged unilaterally. Peace requires two sides; it requires that all players come to the table. Peace involves reconciliation; it requires building bridges of trust. This is the harder job. But the goal is worth it.
The great warriors for peace-Gandhi, Dr. King, and Jesus-died in the cause of reconciliation. The fruits of peace may be deferred, but they will be realized, and they will be all the sweeter.
5) A commitment to human rights requires that we always keep a mirror close at hand, so that we might judge ourselves by the same high standards we demand of others. As an American, I want to keep that mirror handy, so that I might reflect on facts such as these: the largest number of jailed young people in the world; the disproportionate share of blacks who are jailed; the widest gap in income and wealth in the world; our number of first-class jails and second-class schools. I want
to look at that mirror and see what others might see.
Vanity asks the question, Is it popular? Politics asks the question, Will it work, is it feasible? Morality and conscience ask the question, Is it right? This is a haunting question of hope that will not go away-Is it right?-whether in South Africa, Moscow, Belgrade, Delhi, or Paris-Is it right?
If the question, "Is it right?" begins to be asked with greater frequency by governmental leaders around the world, we will have achieved something very significant. So let the word go forth: in
Kashmir, in Taiwan, in Sierra Leone, in Tibet, in East Timor-wherever human rights are under attack, there is a lot of talk going on that represents a ray of hope.
Perhaps we have finally learned the lesson of 2 Samuel, where David laments the deaths of Saul and Jonathan with the cry, "How the mighty have fallen." Let us avoid the arrogance that comes with power. Instead, let us act, as Jesus acted when confronted by the lost sheep in the Book of Luke-focusing our attention on those who
have gone astray.
Let us say to the leaders of our day: We are with you in the elevation of human rights. That which is morally right cannot be repressed.

 

Biography

Resources for Teachers and Students