Segundo Montes, S.J., Memorial Lecture
John Carroll University

Gerard F. Powers
Kroc Institute for International Peace Studies
University of Notre Dame
November 8, 2004

If you can be an alumnus of a school by blood, consider me a Blue Streak. My pedigree includes a father, a sister, a brother-in-law, a niece and four cousins who are distinguished alums of this wonderful university.

The fact that the sociology department and several other departments have sponsored this lecture for so many years is just one small indication of John Carroll’s commitment to educating students about the complex world in which we live – including those parts of the world that do not enjoy the wealth and opportunity we know so well – and about what the rich tradition of Catholic social teaching has to say about that world.

It is also a privilege to be here as a guest of the Catholic Commission. I got into this work 25 years ago because I discovered, in the process of writing a senior thesis, that the Church in Cleveland was a leader nationwide in civil rights, poverty programs, and Catholic social action. The Commission remains the flagship of diocesan social action offices in the country.

I’m a Clevelander. I just moved from the bishops’ conference in Washington DC to Notre Dame. It’s great to be at Notre Dame. The best thing about it is WTAM comes in a whole lot clearer than before. So my kids will be able to listen to the Indians beat the Yankees in the ALCS next year.

Finally, it is a privilege to be invited to be a part of honoring the memory of Fr. Segundo Montes, who was brutally murdered, along with five Jesuit brothers, their housekeeper and her daughter, on November 16, 1989. Fr. Segundo and his Jesuit colleagues at the University of Central America frequently said that, as Christian intellectuals, they could not live in a situation as desperate as that in El Salvador and not try to change it. They saw their task as being the critical conscience of the socially repressive national reality in their country. It cost them their lives.

The "reality" we live in today as Christians in the United States has four elements. First, we happen to live in a country that is a dominant force in the world – militarily, politically, economically and culturally – in a way that no country has been since, perhaps, the Roman Empire. Second, just as what we in the United States do effects the most remote corners of the world, 9/11 showed how what happens in those remote corners of the world, about which we know little and seem to care even less, can have a devastating impact on our lives. Third, while some say 9/11 changed everything, a third reality suggests otherwise. In a talk prior to 9/11, Cardinal Theodore McCarrick, who was then the chairman of the US Bishops’ International Policy Committee, described a world that is increasingly divided between zones of peace and prosperity and zones of conflict and deprivation. "Those in the zones of peace and prosperity," he noted, "tend to be our friends, partners, and objects of admiration and perhaps envy; those in the zones of conflict and deprivation are mostly distant objects of our pity or studied indifference." This world that Cardinal McCarrick described has not gone away since 9/11, and, in some respects, 9/11 has made it a worse. A fourth reality. If there was ever any doubt, 9/11 proved that, as with our recent election, you can’t understand the world without understanding religion.

As the largest religious body in the world’s most powerful nation, our Catholic reality is not just national, but global. Like the Jesuits in El Salvador, we must be the critical conscience for our nation as it seeks to use its tremendous influence not just to serve our national interests but to build a world that is marked by a growing sense of global solidarity. Solidarity is not just a sentimental concern for the suffering around the world. It is, as Pope John Paul tells us, "a firm and persevering determination" to seek the good of all; o overcome the injustice and violence that keeps the world from being more united as one human family. According to Fr. Bryan Hehir, “Solidarity is the conviction that we are born into a fabric of relationships, that our humanity ties us to others, that the Gospel consecrates those ties and that the prophets tell us that those ties are the test by which our very holiness will be judged."

I want to focus on three challenges of global solidarity for our nation and the Church in this country that have some parallels to the challenges faced by Fr. Segundo and his brother Jesuits in El Salvador two decades ago: (1) The muscular unilateralism of the United States since 9/11 severely is weakening prospects for strengthening bonds of global solidarity; (2) Rather than uniting the world against the terrorist threat, the "war on terrorism" risks reinforcing the divide between zones of peace and prosperity and zones of conflict and deprivation; and (3) Religion can be a source of division to be feared or it can be a force for peace, human liberation and greater global solidarity.

CHALLENGES OF SOLIDARITY IN TODAY’S WORLD

1. The muscular unilateralism of the United States since 9/11 severely weakens prospects for strengthening bonds of global solidarity.

Many experts describe the United States as the world’s sole Hyper Power. Some even say we are an Empire – and are debating whether that’s a good thing or a bad thing. Even if we do not think we are -- or don’t want to be -- an Empire, the fact is that much of the rest of the world experiences us as one.

Some have pointed out that the attacks of 9/11 and the U.S. interventions in Afghanistan and Iraq have given the United States a new sense of vulnerability, yet, paradoxically, have also affirmed U.S. global dominance According to this view, the combination of U.S. primacy and U.S. vulnerability has reinforced tendencies toward a muscular unilateralism in U.S. foreign policy. This muscular unilateralism has many hallmarks of the Reagan Doctrine, which had such a disastrous impact in Central America in the 1980s. Not surprisingly, some of the same people who shaped U.S. policies in Central America twenty years ago are shaping U.S. policies today.

Iraq, much more than Afghanistan, was the test case for muscular unilateralism. What is especially troubling is that the intervention in Iraq was justified under a new doctrine of preventive war. The Reagan Doctrine was based on an assumption that the goal should be to roll back communism, not just contain it. That required a loosening of traditional restraints on the use of force in order to permit the overthrow of communist regimes by supporting the Nicaraguan contras and other insurgencies. The preventive war doctrine seeks a similar loosening of traditional constraints on military intervention in order to permit the overthrow of potentially threatening terrorist networks or "rogue" regimes that might obtain or use weapons of mass destruction.

The more it has become clear that Iraq did not, in fact, possess weapons of mass destruction and did not have working ties to al Qaeda, the more the Bush administration has relied on this preventive war doctrine to justify Iraq. What is so troubling about the doctrine is that it marks a sharp departure from current legal and moral norms, which limit the use of force to defense against aggression or anticipatory defense against an imminent threat. Preventive war, according to the Bush administration, does not require an act of aggression or an imminent threat, it only requires, in the President’s words, a "growing danger" or the "potential" that a country might, at some point in the future, become an actual threat. It is not surprising that the Secretary General of the UN has declared this concept to be contrary to international law and that senior Vatican officials have called it immoral.

Preventive wars are illegal and immoral because they are wars of aggression that become wars of occupation. What if North Korea used it against the United States and South Korea? If India and Pakistan used it against each other? If Syria used it against Israel? The preventive war doctrine blurs vital distinctions between legitimate defense and aggression, it makes a turbulent and unstable world even moreso, and it contributes to a perception in other parts of the world that the United States seeks to dominate through embrace of a “might-makes-right” foreign policy. It is hard to think of a greater impediment to building global solidarity. This doctrine and its unilateral use in Iraq go a long way to explain why polls show that many people around the world fear the United States more than Saddam Hussein or bin Laden.

John Kiesling, a foreign service officer who resigned in protest over the Bush administration’s policies in Iraq, asked if emperor Caligula’s motto had become our own: "Let them hate us if they will, provided only that they fear us." That kind of thinking on the part of the ruling elites in El Salvador led to the murder of Segundo Montes. It is a formula that used to work for the New York Yankees, but it did not work for the Romans and it will not work for the United States. It will not work because it reinforces a cycle of fear that fuels a cycle of violence.

A more morally responsible U.S. approach to the world would require that the Bush administration allow its preventive war doctrine to die the quiet death it deserves. The United States must also abandon a "go-it-alone" attitude that is too quick to dismiss international law and international institutions and fails to appreciate that many of the world’s most intractable problems -- including global terrorism -- cannot be addressed by any one country, even the world’s Hyper power. A morally responsible foreign policy would begin by recognizing that our nation’s common good and the global common good are inextricably intertwined. The overarching objective must be a more united international community based on a doctrine of cooperative security, not bullying the world with a doctrine of preventive war.

2. Rather than unite the world in solidarity against global terrorism, the "war on terror" risks reinforcing the divide between zones of peace and prosperity and zones of conflict and deprivation.

One of the most important contributions of Segundo Montes and the Church in El Salvador were the efforts to counter the view of many leaders in El Salvador and the United States that the heart of the problem was finding ways to defeat militarily the communist insurgency. The need to address endemic poverty and injustice in Central America was seen as secondary. Because of his focus on the economic, social and political roots of the violence in El Salvador, Fr. Segundo was accused of ignoring the communist threat and even supporting the insurgency. Today, not a few politicians and opinion leaders deride and dismiss those who talk about the "roots of terrorism" in similar ways.

Certainly, given the magnitude of the threat posed by global terrorism, it would be irresponsible if a focus on the roots of terrorism kept us from doing what needs to be done to defend ourselves. But, just as in El Salvador, it is impossible to understand terrorism, much less combat it, if we don’t understand what sustains it. Obviously, poverty and injustice do not fully explain and they certainly do not justify in any way al Qaeda or the FMLN. But poverty and injustice provide fertile ground in which terrorists and insurgencies thrive.

In El Salvador, the government’s myopia about defending against the communist threat led it to see even the Church’s work with the poor as a threat to national security. Fr. Segundo rightly argued that "The war could have a military finish, but if the structural problems which are at the base of injustice are not resolved, peace will not be achieved." The "war on terrorism" poses similar problems. Its very name overemphasizes military solutions to terrorism. In both Afghanistan and Iraq, the discrepancy between pre-war claims about the good that would result from war and the actual post-war reality is startling. Afghanistan has had elections, but the much-touted Marshall Plan for Afghanistan was discarded on the road to Iraq. Iraq can rejoice in the demise of the Saddam regime, yet it has become a haven and cause celebre for terrorists in a way that it was not before the recent war. Nevertheless, we are still told that the US intervention will bring peace, freedom, and democracy -- not only to that nation but potentially to the wider Middle East. If moral analysis is realistic about the consequences of not acting in cases like Iraq, it is equally realistic about the consequences of doing so. Wars rarely bring the freedom, justice or lasting peace envisioned when they are begun.

If an excessive focus on military solutions to global terrorism will not be effective, seeing the world too much through the lens of the war on terrorism risks underestimating, misunderstanding or ignoring other threats to our own and the world’s security.

"A world where some live in comfort and plenty, while half of the human race lives on less than $2 a day, is neither just nor stable." That’s from the same National Security Strategy document that made the case for preventive war. The 22 million people, mostly in Africa, with HIV/AIDS, "is not just a health matter... it is a national security matter." That’s from Colin Powell.

The Bush administration deserves credit insofar as it has not been so myopic about the war on terror that it has failed to address the global health crisis, poverty in Africa, or the genocide in Sudan. But the war on terror and especially the Iraq war are keeping us from giving these problems the attention and funding that solidarity would demand. Moreover, just as the United States downplayed the significance of human rights abuses in El Salvador in the name of anti-communism, the war on terror has contributed to a downplaying of abuses and injustices in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, Chechnya, Pakistan, Afghanistan and elsewhere.

Acting out of a deeper sense of solidarity, our nation could do much more than it is doing to use its tremendous resources and influence to help bridge the huge gulf between the “haves” and the “have-nots” that Cardinal McCarrick described. The amount of money spent on five weeks of war in Iraq could fully fund the President's new initiatives on HIV/AIDS and development for the next five years. The United States cannot continue its passive approach to finding a just solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, and that crisis cannot wait until Iraq is taken care of. The misery and chaos in a host of failed states around the world; the lack of strong controls on the arms trade, of which the US is sadly the world's leader; inequitable trade agreements, such as that recently agreed with Central American countries; and a litany of other problems must be addressed.

3. Religion can be a source of division to be feared, or a force for peace, human liberation and greater global solidarity.

The work of Segundo Montes and the Church in Central America helped dispel what might be called the secularist-realist perspective on foreign policy which assumed that religion was and should be an increasingly waning force in world affairs. Whatever your perspective on the Central American wars, it was impossible to understand the situation without understanding the role of religion. The so-called "religious, ethnic, nationalist conflicts of the 1990s in places like Bosnia and especially al Qaeda’s jihad against the West have provided further evidence of religion’s importance.

To recognize that religion is a major factor in world affairs is only the first step. In El Salvador, religion was seen as so important that the Salvadoran government considered significant parts of the Church – especially those, like the Jesuits, who were tied to various forms of liberation theology – as a threat. Some in the U.S. government also saw liberation theology as a threat.

The alleged link between religion and communism is no longer the issue. What is at issue today is that 9/11 and the religious, ethnic, nationalist conflicts of the 1990s have reinforced the widely held belief in the West that religion is mostly pre-modern, irrational, and a source of conflict. The task, according to this view, is to remake the world in our image by taking religion out of the public square and marginalizing and privatizing it.

Obviously, there is evidence to support this view. Bin Laden is just the latest in a long line of Holy Warriors, with Christianity nurturing its fair share of religious zealots. Religion is obviously a factor in a lot of conflicts around the world, from Iraq and the Middle East to Northern Ireland and India-Pakistan.

This view falls short for a couple of reasons, however. First, we just escaped a century of “mega-death” that was bloodier than all the previous ones combined. Who were the architects of the slaughter of so many millions? Hitler, Stalin, Pol Pot; Mao, Slobodan Milosevic, Saddam Hussein. These men didn't kill anyone in the name of religion. In fact, they were mostly openly hostile toward religion.

A second problem with the secular-realist view is that it tends to overestimate the religious factor where it does exist. Bin Laden’s holy war against the West is the exception. In most cases where religion is a factor in conflict, the problem is that religion has become a convenient marker of chauvinistic forms of ethnic or national identity. The do-gooder rabbi who went to Northern Ireland to promote peace discovered this when confronted by street rioters who demanded to know if he was a Catholic rabbi or a Protestant rabbi. The link between religion and nationalism may be less terrifying but it is arguably a much greater source of injustice and violence than religious militants preaching holy war.

Harvard’s Samuel Huntington has propounded the very influential thesis that the world is faced with a "clash of civilizations." If we see the world through this paradigm, we risk framing the issue as bin Laden and his ilk would hope we would -- as a war of Islam against the West. That is why it is so important that President Bush continue to be clear that Islam is a religion of peace and that the war on terror is not a war on Islam. Unfortunately, the U.S. intervention in Iraq has increased the divide between Islam and the West and fed Islamic extremism, just as the Pope feared it would. It is also difficult to exaggerate how U.S. support for dictatorial regimes throughout the Middle East and its failure to pursue vigorously an equitable peace between Israelis and Palestinians have contributed to Arab and Muslim extremism. Finally, we cannot ignore the cultural impact of the United States. If the United States continues to be seen as an engine of Western secularization, individualism and materialism, bin Laden and his supporters will have little trouble recruiting sympathizers from the 99% of Saudis who see such efforts at secularization as further proof of America’s anti-Islamic neo-colonialism.

There is a final problem with the secular-realist thesis. If those who are shaping U.S. policy overestimate the negative role that religion plays in encouraging conflict and intolerance, it will be easy to underestimate the positive role that it plays in promoting freedom, human rights and peace. The solution to religious extremism lies not in less religion but more religion – more authentic religion. Last fall, the first ever worldwide poll on religious beliefs found that people care about religion far more than politics, that a clear majority associated violence within their own country with politics not religion, and that a majority says that their country would be better if it were more religious.

It is no accident that, over the past 25 years, almost half the Nobel Peace Price laureates have been religious leaders or lay people whose religious beliefs inspired their work. From Poland, East Germany and East Timor to Mozambique, the Philippines, and South Africa, religion has been a major force for non-violent social transformation. It should be no surprise that, in Latin America and Africa, many of the schools, hospitals, and social service programs and much of the human rights work is done by churches. For almost a week before they were murdered, the Salvadoran army’s radio station broadcast a drumbeat of calls for the "elimination" of the Jesuits at the UCA, Archbishop Rivera y Damas, Bishop Rosa Chavez, and other church leaders. Why would the powerful in El Salvador feel threatened by a few Church leaders and priest academics? Because they exemplified the Church in the service of truth about the injustice and repression that marked the daily lives of the poor.

Ultimately, the solution to Islamic extremism will be found within Islam itself, just as the most effective counter to Christian extremism has come from within Christianity itself. To paraphrase John Carr of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops: Osama bin Laden must not be the only face of religion we see when we think of conflict and injustice. His face must be blocked out by other faces -- that of Segundo Montes, Archbishop Romero, Sister Ita Ford, Sister Maura Clarke, Jean Donovan and Sister Dorothy Kazel, Lech Walesa, and Desmond Tutu. These are the faces of people of faith who have shown that authentic religion is not a source of hatred and violence but is a powerful force for justice, human liberation, and reconciliation.

Conclusion

The UN recently conducted a survey. The question was: Would you please give your honest opinion about solutions to the shortage of peace in the rest of the world? The survey was a huge failure.

In Africa, they didn’t know what "solutions" meant;
In Europe, they didn’t know what "shortage" meant;
In China, they didn’t know what "opinion" meant;
In the Middle East, they didn’t know what "peace" meant;
In the US, they didn’t know what "the rest of the world" meant.

I have focused my talk on some of the challenges of solidarity facing our nation because I believe it is the virtue of solidarity that compels us to know what the "rest of the world" means and to come to terms with our moral responsibility to do all we can – and their is an awful lot we can do as the world’s Hyper Power! – to make the world a more just, free and peaceful place.

As 9/11 made terribly clear, the world is a dangerous place, just as El Salvador was fifteen years ago. Shortly before his murder, a reporter asked Segundo Montes why he didn’t leave El Salvador in the face of death threats. His response: "God’s grace does not leave, so neither can we." What a clear statement of what true solidarity means! He understood that God does not promise us security, but the grace to live with our insecurity. He also understood that solidarity required that he stand with those who could never escape poverty, repression and hopelessness.

The legacy of the Jesuits of UCA and El Salvador is a legacy of true solidarity. Central America in the 1970s and 1980s was, in many ways, the exemplar of what it means for the Church to live out the virtue of solidarity. It would be hard to find another situation where so many from the Church in this country did so much to reach out directly to the suffering people in another place and to try to change the U.S. policies that were contributing to that suffering. The Cleveland Diocese was then, and remains now, a leading example of how to mobilize the Church in a zone of peace and prosperity to deepen its bonds of solidarity with those suffering in the zones of conflict and deprivation. The Diocese’s Global Solidarity Council and campaign on Colombia are just two current examples.

The United States is in the midst of a terribly important debate about the legacy of 9/11 and Iraq and about how our country will use its unprecedented power. The combination of U.S. primacy and U.S. vulnerability could lead to one kind of legacy: a continuation of a muscular unilateralism that includes preventive force, a myopic view which sees the world through the narrow prism of the war on terrorism, and an effort to remake the world in our image by exporting a certain kind of Western secularization, individualism and materialism.

A Christian vision, based in a commitment to solidarity, would try to shape another sort of legacy that is more in keeping with the best of American ideals. This legacy would take seriously threats to the common good posed by terrorism while rejecting doctrines of preventive war and working to solve the roots of terrorism. A Christian legacy would be clear that the legitimate goal of ensuring our security should not become an absolute, for that would be idolatry. A Christian legacy would not fall into the trap of seeing terrorism as the only threat to the global common good, but would work tirelessly to overcome the huge gulf between the “haves” and the “have-nots.” And a Christian legacy would recognize the powerful force that authentic religion can be for transforming the world.

This kind of legacy would ensure that US power and influence are not a burden, a cause for fear, or a rallying cry for terrorists, but are a catalyst for a global effort to build a much more peaceful and much more just world. Segundo Montes and his brother Jesuits would approve.

1 S. Brooks & W. Wohlforth, “American Primacy in Perspective,” Foreign Affairs (July/ August 2002).

Top of Page

Home > Faculty/Staff > Gerard F. Powers > The United States and Global Solidarity