Who Gets Credit For South Sudan’s Independence?

BBC Image from Juba, South Sudan

So I was ecstatic last weekend when the Republic of South Sudan became the world’s newest country.  As a student of international relations, this development was exciting in that it achieved a long advocated end of splitting the massive country of Sudan into northern and southern halves after decades of civil war had destroyed the lives of millions.  This is no small achievement.  As a teacher, I’m excited to share the story of Sudan with my history and geography students when we study Africa this school year.  Despite the challenges still facing the infant country, this is an incredible story of conflict, hope, and fulfilled dreams.  I work hard to get my students to see the bigger world as an ever-changing place and this is a great example of how things are always changing.  Finally, as human being I’m excited to see a people long oppressed finally be given the opportunity to chart their own course.  Yes, there are a lot of reasons to be excited about South Sudan.

However, I cannot help but feel a little frustrated in the midst of the rejoicing when I consider who will be getting the credit for this momentous occasion.  Surely the South Sudanese will look to their armed forces and regale them as heroes, and the world will look to those countries that worked to bring the two sides to the bargaining table and negotiate a successful treaty.  Both were surely key in bringing about the final resolution.

BBC has also addressed an article to another key aspect of the independence movement:  the publicity campaign.  Ten to fifteen years ago, few people in the developed world were even aware of Sudan’s protracted struggle, but then high-profile movie projects like Hotel Rwanda and Tears of the Sun spotlighted the ethnic conflicts of Africa, and A-list actors like George Clooney became advocates for South Sudan’s independence.  We sat up.  We took notice.  International pressure on the regime in Khartoum began to mount as lobbying efforts swung into action on Capitol Hill and in European capitals.  South Sudan, among the world’s poorest regions had come by a massive public relations boon.  And while the glitz and glamor of Hollywood has brought the conflict into the global conversation, I really do believe that George Clooney has stolen the show from an ensemble cast of NGOs that have worked tirelessly in Sudan since the 1970s when most people could have cared less for Sudan.  I applaud the efforts of all who have contributed to the independence of South Sudan, from the Sudanese themselves to George Clooney, but I especially want to recognize the following:

Invisible Children:  For those who have seen the powerful documentary, they will know that this film was not about Sudan, but child soldiers in Uganda.  However, the filmmakers were originally en route to Sudan to film the civil war there when they stumbled across the tragic abuse of children in Uganda.  The result was an award-winning, much talked about film that brought Africa’s many simmering conflicts (including Darfur, western Sudan) into the public eye through the stories of Ugandan children.

World Vision International:  A Christian relief organization, World Vision has been active in Sudan since 1972!  Since that time, WV has had an active presence in the South with faithful workers risking their lives to bring clean water, medical supplies, and other services to a region even in the midst of a 20-year civil war.  Sounds like amazing grounds for a movie (maybe George Clooney would consider playing a Christian missionary?).

Voice of the Martyrs:  One of the most unique advocacy groups in the world, and the one that opened up my eyes to Sudan when I was in junior high and high school in the late 1990s.  VOM focuses are serving the needs of Christian individuals and communities around the world who suffer persecution for their beliefs on a daily basis.  The world pays lip service to the idea of religious freedom, but VOM works in some pretty hostile places to ensure that those who are persecuted for their Christian faith can still receive medical care, spiritual nourishment, and necessities of life.  Their work in South Sudan has included rescuing Christian children taken in slavery, providing medical care to civilians caught in the crossfire of the conflict, and bringing humanitarian aid to the poor.

These organizations, and others like them, have been going about this work faithfully for decades with little public acknowledgment (to be fair they are given a generic mention in the BBC article above), and will continue to work there even after the public once again allows its conscience to slumber where Africa is concerned.  I believe they deserve a lot of credit for their work.

 

Short Biography on Winston Churchill, Great Summer Reading!

In light of recent scandals in Washington D.C., I think it is as good a time as any to be reminded of what makes a truly great leader.  I think Winston Churchill foots the bill as being a truly great leader.  Not only was he fearless in the face of opposition, but he was a man of strong character and conviction.

There’s been thousands of pages written about the man, and unfortunately for the reader with little time (like me), those thousands of pages often appear in single biographical works.  However, Stephen Mansfield has written an excellent little biography on this great man entitled Never Give In:  The Extraordinary Character of Winston Churchill.  I’ve written a review of the book here.  If you need some good summer reading, this is a great place to start!

Something I wrote

I wrote a short article on the Battle of Thermopylae that was published for Suite 101, an online magazine and writer’s forum. Check it out here!

 

1932 Revisited

What happens when populist demagogues run for president during times of economic recession?  If history teaches us anything, the demagogue uses lots of rhetoric on teh campaign trail, stays vague on the details of their economic plan, gets elected, then promptly makes the problem worse.  And I’m not talking about Barack Obama.  I’m talking about Franklin Delano Roosevelt.

In 1932, America was almost three years into the Great Depression with six more still to come.  Along came a governor from New York with a message of hope for the masses and a tune they could dance to:  “Change We Can Belie…” I mean “Happy Days Are Here Again.”  While the voters danced their way to the ballot box, Roosevelt danced his way into the White House with an easy victory over the loathed Republican Herbert Hoover.  While Americans were concerned with their evaporating jobs and savings, they preferred to listen to the “New Deal” rhetoric of Roosevelt, rather than the insensitive economics of Hoover. 

In The American President, Kathryn Moore notes that Roosevelt “remained vague on what form that help [Roosevelt's economic plan] would take,” until after he was elected.  Upon election though, Roosevelt lost no time in putting his plan into action.  The New Deal began with increased government bailouts…. I mean…  oversight of the banking industry; dramatic increases of government funded social programs; an increase in size of the bueracracy; and two Supreme Court decisions striking down elements of the New Deal as being an overstretch of executive power.

Despite all that Roosevelt did, or didn’t do, 1937-1938 were some of the worst years of the Depression as unemployment continued to rise and the stock market fell again in a depression within the Depression.  It was only when war in Europe became inevitable that America began the long climb out.  Statistically speaking, Roosevelt’s policies didn’t do much to end the Great Depression, though they may have helped in preventing future crashes.  Truth be told, the cornerstone of the Roosevelt economy, the New Deal, did not end the slide.  World War II took care of that.

Fast forward 60 years.  America is in a similar situation.  In its second year of economic recession (that continues to worsen), a fresh face appears on the political scene with fresh ideas (or fresh rhetoric at least) promising change.  It’s too soon to say if voters will respond to Barack Obama’s message and hand him the mandate for change, but it is instructive to note that most of Obama’s economic ideas come out of the Roosevelt playbook:  Increase government social net programs; establish new government programs; extend the bureaucracy; raise taxes.  Little is said about policy on the campaign trail though, and Obama has been attacked for his vagueness. 

Does this mean Obama is a shoo-in for the White House?  No.  What it does mean is that Obama’s change isn’t new, and the last time it was attempted, met with only limited success.  While the other guy had some notable achievements, it is important to note that war brought us to our feet, not the Roosevelt’s plan for change.  In fact, the New Deal, though hailed as a triumph of modern liberalism, was no economic miracle, nor has it proven to be sustainable as the Social Security crisis has clearly demonstrated.

And lest we think Obama…. I mean….  FDR was completely different from “the other guy” he ran against:  Herbert Hoover created some of the highest tax hikes in American history to try to stem the tide of depression.  Roosevelt followed suit.

Political Progression Through Democratic Demise

“What we may be witnessing is not just the end of the Cold War, or the passing of a particular period of post-war history, but the end of history as such… That is, the end point of mankind’s ideological evolution and the universalisation of Western liberal democracy as the final form of human government.”

Francis Fukuyama penned those fateful words shortly after the end of the Cold War.  In the global euphoria that swept the Western world at the crash of the Berlin Wall it seemed that totalitarian strains of governance, such an integral part of the old world, were passing away in the face of the irrepressible forward march of progressive democracy.  However, recent trends in nationalist movements and conflicts (Kosovo, Kurdistan, Tibet, etc.) combined with increasing probabilities of resource wars are making it increasingly apparent that “history” has not ended, and that the evolution of man’s political development still has several strides yet to take.  Given, the spirit of our world in its lip service to democratic values and pragmatic allegiance to authoritarian big government, that evolution seems to be most troubling.

 Globally, we live in an age of rights.  Human rights, religious rights, economic rights, the list goes on and on.  Every major international organization, treaty, and protocol is based in this language.  So first let it be established that our rhetoric follows that of liberal democractic values.

However, the danger comes in that when we turn our eyes to history we see that such rhetoric has often been employed in democratic societies by those who would use the mandate of the people to screen their more personal and authoritarian designs.  From Alcibiades, that noted betrayer of Athens, to the Hitlers and Huesseins of this world, the language of freedom has been coupled with the policy of oppression.  Russia, enjoying its rise as a acknowledged democratic power has accomplished its economic turnaround due to government takeovers, bribes, and intimidation.  In the interest of all things security related, the United States continues to strengthen its internal security apparatus.  France, to ensure a more liberal society, bans religious garb.  Throughout the Western world, those countries enjoying the longest traditions of freedom, are doing the most to undermine it, even as the global economic and political field becomes more integrated.

I am not proposing that we are falling headlong into a single entity of global governance.  Rather, the suggestion is that the progression of political society may be progressing, and even entering its final stage as Fukuyama suggested; however, that final stage is not to be characterized in a triumph of democratic goodwill as Fukuyama so eloquently, if not naively, suggests.  Instead, the final progression of human government is to a political society of hypocritical rhetoric and action where oppression is undertaken for the sake of freedom from fear and want.  Such a progression will certainly create an “end of history” as it can only collapse back into a Hobbesian state of nature.

Clyde Cook: 1935-2008

Last week, my alma mater, Biola University, lost one of its great advocates and leaders.  Clyde Cook, president from 1982-2007, passed away on April 11th at his home.  Having attended Biola when this man was president and seeing this dedicated servant lead with such humility and compassion I can say with the writer of Hebrews that this is a saint “of whom the world was not worthy.”

His passing was not marked in major newspapers, or periodicals.  And while thousands attend his memorial service, it will go unnoticed outside of Southern California.  However, this man is an example of what is best in humanity.  Raised on the missions field in Asia and imprisoned in camps with his family by the Japanese afer the fall of Hong Kong in 1942, Dr. Cook saw injustice at early age.  And yet, it is a testimony to the faith of his parents that he grew to manhood with an eye to serve and to continue to share the love of Christ with the world.  Having been recruited by 13 major schools as a star basketball athlete, he willing sacrificed the glory of the national athletic stage for the greater glory of the cross, attending miniscule Biola College in the 1950s and thus beginning a relationship with that institution that would span half a century.

I first met Dr. Cook as a prospective student visiting Biola in 2003.  Taking a campus tour, the group I was in ran into Dr. Cook outside the library as he was closing a meeting.  Though he had pressing engagements for the day, he stopped to chat with us about the school.  That interaction, was a determining factor in my attending Biola.  If the president of the school could take such an interest in students, I reasoned, certainly that same attention will be given by all those under him.  I wasn’t disappointed.

Dr. Cook led Biola as its president for 25 years.  In a world where the average term of a college president is less than 10 years, this is exemplary.  Dr. Cook oversaw Biola’s transition from college to university; and as the institution transformed itself into a leader in Christian thought and education Dr. Cook was there to keep it rooted in its foundation of biblical truth and scholarship.

Despite all his successes and incredible achievements, what remains is the man’s love of humanity.  He never tired of interacting with the students he led.  It was not uncommon to see him eating in the cafeteria with his wife Anna Belle, in the stands for basketball games and chapel, or walking the campus to see that all was in order.  And on the night before my graduation in a culmination chapel for the seniors I had an opportunity to thank him for his excellent leadership.  To my absolute surprise, after accepting my thanks he asked me, “Tim, what do you plan to do after you graduate?”  Somehow, with thousands of other names and tasks to keep in order, he had made the time to remember the name of one student and to inquire into his future plans.

That moment captures the spirit of that great man.  Everything he did was to see that students like myself where ready to go out into the world and to impact it for Christ.  He never forgot to remind us of our mission, and he didn’t forget the names of the people whom he was leading towards the accomplishment of that mission.

Dr. Cook, was a model of Christian charity and humility.  He was living proof that man is indeed made in the image of God, and sanctified by the work of Christ.   The man’s life and legacy will be a testimony to the love of Christ for years to come.

New Problem, Same Stupidity

This past week’s events in the Gaza Strip should have foreign policy planners in Washington patting themselves on the back.  Wasn’t this what Bush’s foreign policy crew wanted from day one when Hamas won a landslide popular election to head the Palestinian Authority?  Within moments of the declared victory, America withdrew all material support to the Palestinian Territories controlled by Hamas while actively seeking to undermine Hamas’ government by continuing to deal diplomatically with Mahmoud Abbas. 

Israel, for its part, now had a free hand in forcefully dealing with Hamas as it knew it would have little more than statements of disapproval from Washington.  The result is one of the most overlooked humanitarian crises in the last 50 years.  Hundreds of thousands are without basic material needs being met.  Unemployment, poverty, and all the social ills that go along with it are now rampant in the Palestinian Territories, particularly in the Gaza Strip.  That particular region now fits the description of a failed state pure and simple, the historic breeding ground of all sorts of extremism.

The pitiful thing is that the situation can only do more to harm the common people’s perception of America and the democracy it claims to represent.  From the days of the Cold War, status quo stability has been the hallmark of American policy in the Middle East.  This has led to words of freedom mixed with actions of tyranny as America couldn’t bring herself to believe her own rhetoric on the merits of democracy; choosing rather to support repressive regimes throughout the Middle East in an effort to offset Soviet aggression.  Now the enemy is not communism, but Islamic fundamentalism and America’s foreign policy has fallen back upon its old habits.

The blow-back has taken full form in the emergence of Islamic fundamentalist groups like Hamas who now feel their existence and practices as being justified by an overbearing and hypocritical American policy. 

Out of embarrassment over the desertion of roughly half of the Gaza Strip population over the last week Israel is now attempting a long overdue restoration of power, and America would do well to mimic such a gesture.  Direct humanitarian aid must be given to the Gaza Strip.  Basic concern for ones fellow human beings demands such action and it will be to America’s lasting shame if she does not now intervene in this escalating crisis.  You can love your enemies in the political world too, and now is the time to show it.

The Long Road to Democracy, Part 2

I recently visited an American school in Morocco, and while the school followed the standards and models of any school in Western democratic nation, it was apparent that the democratic values which such schools supposedly promulgate were having little impact on students.

A concept seemingly as simple as voting was unheard of among younger students at this institution, while older students would refer to the heads of democratic states not as presidents or prime ministers, but as kings.  Some may argue semantics, but that merely brushes the surface.  What is more likely indicated is an entrenched political philosophy in which individual choice and representation are, at minimum, marginal values.  And if such is the state of introducing democracy via an American-stlye school, one can only imagine the lack of headway that is being made in Moroccan state schools.

This is not to say Morocco is incapable of sustaining democracy, but it certainly cannot be so in the short term.  The process of democratization, assuming the desire for such within the populace, will certainly be generational and can only come about from within the culture, not from without.

And if successful, can the results be replicated in other Muslim countries?  The future of such an outcome bodes ill.  Perhaps alone among the Muslim nations, Morocco has a history of religious tolerance and, to a degree, social openess.  In the early days of Morocco, the nation was considered a place of safety for exiled Sufi mystics and Kharijite sympathizers.  During and after the Spanish Inquisition, many Jews and exiled Christians soughts, and were granted refuge, within the border of Morocco.  As unlikely as it may seem, Morocco was the first to recognize the United Sates as a nation upon its independence in 1776.

While Morocco has a history of such tolerance and openness, a necessary ingredient in any democratic society, the same cannot be said of the more monolithic Muslim societies elsewhere in the Middle East and North Africa.  If it will be take generations to install a stable, self-promulgating democracy in Morocco, it will take even longer in the rest of the Muslim world.

The Long Road to Democracy, Part 1

In March of 2006, congressional leaders visited the North African kingdom of Morocco and made glowing reports about the moderation of that Islamic society.  Great hope continues to be placed in Morocco as an example of Islamic liberalism by politicians and academics alike.  To what extent does Morocco present itself as an example of successful democratization?  And if such democratization were to occur, could the process be replicated in the Muslim world?

On both questions, the chances of a positive outcome are slim and perhaps non-existent.

Morocco, while implementing some local elections, remains an established monarchy as it has for over a thousand years.  Eighteen months after the congressional visit and little has, or is likely, to change.  While some may argue that America was born from a monarchical government, it is important to remember that English monarchical history had been undergoing centuries of decentralization prior to American independence, and was more democratic than monarchical by 1776.

Additionally, some indicators demonstrate a level of unfamiliarity among some Moroccan youth with democratic values and customs.  In a culture of familial loyalty, voting is not an opportunity to voice your personal conscience, but rather a chance to demonstrate group loyalty.  This tendency towards such affiliations has been the cause of much ethnic and tribal conflict within fledgling democracies across Africa and the Middle East.

The Palestinian Tragedy

Yesterday’s collapse of the Palestinian unity government was another sad footnote in the Palestinian people’s struggle for a future.  Though having lived in the Levant for hundreds of years, Palestinian Arabs have become the proverbial whipping boy in the Middle East.

When Israel was first formed as a state in 1948 surrounding Arab countries immediately invaded the fledgling state, ensuring the violent nature of the Palestinian existence to the present day.  Israeli’s and Palestinians alike, while not having shared the most ideal past before 1948, certainly had no reason to trust one another after that fateful year.

Though they trumpeted the Palestinian cause as their own, Arab countries like Syria, Jordan, and Egypt rapidly made it clear that this was rhetoric only as they took control of Palestinian territory, losing it in dramatic fashion in 1967.  In the meantime, the Palestinian people suffered through horrible conditions in refugee camps that have since grown into their own cities in the Palestinian territories and Lebanon.  Now certainly you cannot blame the Arab countries entirely  for the Palestinian situation, a good deal of the blam must certainly fall to the heavy handed Israeli policies.  However, history is ignored if we fail to consider the past and current status of Palestinian refugees as second class citizens throughout countries in the Middle East, subject to periodic reprisals due to the actions of the radical few.

Thanks to the current radicalism of Hamas, and the past radicalism of the PLO, the situation of Palestinian refugees living in squalid conditions in the Territories and the refugee camps remains unseen as these people are generalized and perceived as gun-toting crazies who have brought any amount of suffering on themselves.

The fact of the matter is that many of these people are undeserving innocent bystanders, caught like a fly in the intricate, sticky web of diplomacy and alliances that is the Middle East.  The tragedy of it all is that this bondage has been ongoing for the last 60 years.  Caught between a vindictive Israeli government, apathetic Arab neighbors, and their own self-serving rulers, hope dims for the Palestinian people.