Exploring the Connections

Tax is a moral issue too, ethical investors reminded

by agency reporter
Ekklesia News, October 13, 2001

Investors who want to ensure their money supports ethical concerns should add tax behaviour to the criteria by which companies are judged, UK-based international development agency Christian Aid says.

"Along with traditional concerns such as involvement in tobacco, weapons and environmental issues, a company should also be assessed on its tax practices," says Dr David McNair, Christian Aid’s Principal Adviser on Economic Justice.

"Companies should contribute to the societies in which they work. Paying tax is a major way in which they can do so, helping fund schools, hospitals and other essential public services", he continued.

"To qualify as an ethical investment, Christian Aid believes a company must pay its taxes in a transparent way. This includes paying the taxes they owe in the countries where the work which generated the profits actually took place.

"Some unscrupulous multinational corporations use the secrecy offered by the world’s tax havens to avoid, or even evade, the tax they owe, which has a particularly damaging impact on the poorer countries where they operate.

"At present, we estimate that tax dodging by multinationals costs developing countries some $160 billion a year in lost tax revenue – one-and-a-half times the amount they receive from rich countries in aid. This harms millions of people living in poverty," said Dr McNair.

In a report published last week calling for tax to be regarded as a corporate responsibility issue, Christian Aid warns that companies which pursue aggressive tax strategies face a higher risk of reputational damage than those that do not. They also risk costly legal action being taken against them by tax authorities.The report argues that companies should consider implementing codes of conduct which rule out aggressive tax behaviour and include commitments such as:

• Income is held to be taxable in the country where it was generated. 
• Tax planning will seek to comply with the spirit as well as the letter of the law.
• Tax planning will be consistently disclosed to all tax authorities it affects.
• Information about transactions will be consistently disclosed to all the tax authorities involved.

Christian Aid works in some of the world's poorest communities in nearly 50 countries. It partners with local bodies and with people of all faiths and none.  

Remote-control warfare

Editors Desk
The Christian Century, May 18, 2010

Unmanned drones have become the weapon of choice in the Obama administration, which launched more drone attacks in nine months than the Bush administration did in three years. When it comes to attacking al-Qaeda, said CIA director Leon Panetta, drones are "the only game in town."

With drones, operators sitting in front of computer monitors in Virginia and Nevada can target enemies halfway around the world. When their shift is done, drone operators retire to their suburban homes.

The U.S. has several drone programs. One is controlled by the military and operates in countries where the U.S. is at war—Iraq and Afghanistan. A CIA-controlled program targets terrorists in places like Pakistan and Somalia. The Homeland Security Department also uses drones to patrol the border with Canada.

The CIA program is the most troubling, since it operates outside the normal rules of military engagement. It is essentially a sophisticated program of political assassination—a practice President Ford banned by executive order in 1976.

Though drone attacks have taken out terrorist leaders and disrupted the activities of al-Qaeda, they raise troubling questions to those committed to the just war principle that civilians should never be targeted. Though perhaps more accurate than an airplane bombardment, drone attacks still result in a high level of civilian casualties. Thirty-two percent of those killed in drone attacks since 2004 have been civilians, according to the New America Foundation. A report in the New York Times a year ago claimed that for every legitimate target killed by a drone, 50 civilians are killed.

According to the just war principles, it is better to risk the lives of one's own combatants than the lives of enemy noncombatants. But this moral calculus is completely tossed aside in the case of drone warfare, since drone operators don't risk their lives at all.

There are consequences in using drones, even if the weapons seem like a risk-free option. Drone attacks on civilians have given militants a recruitment tool. "Everyone of these dead noncombatants represents an alienated family, a new desire for revenge, and more recruits for a militant movement that has grown exponentially even as drone strikes have increased," co-wrote David Kilcullen and Andrew Exum, former advisers to General David Petraeus in Iraq and General Stanley McChrystal in Afghanistan, respectively.

Warfare has always been about the search for strategic and tactical advantages. Already there is a robotic arms race, with about 40 countries at some stage of testing or deploying unmanned weapons. Drone warfare no doubt strengthens militants' resolve to secure weapons of mass destruction to use against the U.S. The use of drones may well come back to bite us.

by the Century editors

Winning out over over distortion and violence

by Simon Barrow
Ekklesia News Service, April 1, 2010

Back in 2000 I was honoured to be part of a British and Irish churches' team supporting an interreligious peace delegation from Sri Lanka on a visit to build solidarity links here. One of the participants was Duleep de Chickera, now Anglican Bishop of Colombo. A remarkable man, his 2010 Easter message of hope has a resonance both within and beyond the particular tragedies of Sri Lanka.

Many thanks to Ekklesia associate Savitri Hensman for forwarding this.

Jesus experienced a violent death through a distortion of the truth. He was called a blasphemer, accused of sedition and then put to death on a cross. But this was not the last word; it never is. God raised Jesus from the dead to announce that truth and love will finally prevail over distortion and violence.

Consequently Easter is the festival that calls us to strive against the evil that humans impose on each other and to rise to that new sustainable life of freedom and generosity that God offers all.

But for this to become a reality we are called to name the distortions and violence that torment us. It is when we perceive these realities and allow them to judge us all that we will shift from arrogance and indifference to repentance and forgiveness. It is then that the healing and reconciliation we long for, will raise us to a new life of justice, interdependence and freedom.

Then, no child will be thrown into the river by a desperate mother and no mother will mourn the senseless killing of a son.

Then, the poor will not be driven to seek employment in distant lands and no journalist will seek refuge away from the land of his birth.

Then, none will languish in refugee camps and all will be free to move and build their houses anywhere.

Then, our children will be protected and cared for and our elders cherished and affirmed.

Then, our people will stand up for their rights and our politicians will seek to serve and not to be served.

Then, confrontation and theories of conspiracy will give way to dialogue and compromise.

Then, our elections will be fair, free and non-violent and none will be politically marginalised.

Then, no Sri Lankan will be second class and each will respect and celebrate the other .

Then, the truth will set us free and we will be a resurrected people moving from darkness to light and despair to hope.

Then, the risen Lord will make His face to shine upon us and give us His peace.

With Peace and Blessings to all.

The Rt Rev Duleep de Chickera
Bishop of Colombo

As a footnote, Duleep contributed to a small publication which documented a reciprocal visit by a British and Irish delegation to Sri Lanka. I wrote a foreword on behalf of the CTBI Churches' Commission on Mission. See: Elizabeth Harris (ed.), Sri Lanka: Making Peace Possible (Churches Together in Britain and Ireland, 2001).

Savi Hensman's latest articles on the situation in Sri Lanka can be found here (http://www.ekklesia.co.uk/node/11673) and here (http://www.ekklesia.co.uk/node/11026) on Ekklesia.

Stop Feeding the Vultures

by Greg Palast for In These Times
March 23, 2010

I get the idea that Eric Hermann doesn’t want to talk to me. When I came to his office suite, his hedge fund’s name plaque had been unbolted from the building’s wall, the suite number removed and all the employees locked in.

I’m not surprised. Hermann is a vulture, not the carrion-eating type, but the kind that prey on the financially wounded. “Vulture” is a hedge fund industry term for the financiers who buy up the right to collect old loans of the world’s poorest nations, and then use every trick in the book — from lawsuits to bribery to hiring Henry Kissinger’s lobby firm — to muscle destitute countries into turning over their meager foreign aid funds.

Vultures, whether of the feathered or speculator species, don’t like to talk to reporters.

On February 25, the day after BBC Television’s Newsnight ran my report from in front of Hermann’s locked office door, Britain’s Parliament voted to bar vulture funds from using Britain’s courts to grab the assets of poor nations.

And what about the United States? Why are our own politicians cowering behind legislative locked doors?

What we can do and why we should do it requires, first, a little more info on how vultures operate.

In Hermann’s case, his hedge fund bought, for next to nothing, the right to collect several million dollars owed by Liberia. (They grabbed the debt from a unit of what is now J.P. Morgan Chase; banks like Morgan Stanley like to hand off their dirty work.) In February 2002, Hermann’s fund then sued Liberia for the long-forgotten loan, for compounded interest and fees. Hermann filed suit the very week Liberia’s capital, Monrovia, was surrounded by warlords, with neither electricity nor water, and the government was controlled by an escaped convict from the United States, Charles Taylor, who is now imprisoned at The Hague.

To no one’s surprise, neither Taylor nor representatives of Liberia showed up in the New York court. Liberia thereby lost by default, and was ordered to pay Hermann and his partners all the millions they sought.

Fast forward to 2007 and peace in Liberia. Ellen Johnson Sirleaf is elected Africa’s first female president and donor nations, including the United States and Britain, agree to pay off Liberia’s old debts. By now, almost all that debt is held by vulture funds, but they all, including Hermann, agree to accept three cents on the dollar of their claims which, while seeming low, produced a very nice profit for these “investors.”

But when it came time to actually turn over the loan papers, Hermann and his partner, Michael Straus, admitted that they had passed off a hunk of their holdings to mysterious British Virgin Island funds called “Hamsah” and “Wall.”

With all the other creditors out of the way, Hamsah and Wall could, in effect, hold Liberia ransom for all its remaining and future assets. For example, Norway is helping Liberia drill oil—but that aid would now go to the two remaining vulture firms. They are demanding $28 million, more than 5 percent of the nation’s entire budget.

Hermann is not the only debt vulture, nor Liberia the only prey.¬† In 2007, BBC aired my investigation of a vulture who goes by the moniker “Goldfinger.” Goldfinger is U.S.-based speculator Michael Francis Sheehan. Our evidence suggests Sheehan bribed the president of Zambia to win his pound of flesh. Hearing the report, a furious Congressman John Conyers (D-Mich.) drove immediately to the White House and confronted George Bush.

Bush promised Conyers he’d act, but he didn’t. One can only wonder if Bush’s failure to put vultures out of business may have been influenced by the fact that the biggest vulture of them all, Paul Singer, who threatens Congo and Argentina, has also become the biggest contributor to the Republican Party in New York. Singer, notably, funded the Swift Boat attacks on John Kerry.

But it’s not just Republicans who feed the vultures. Former Rep. Eric Massa (D-N.Y.) held a fundraiser sponsored by Singer and other vultures. Massa, in turn, sponsored a bill to punish nations that resist payment to vulture funds. Lucky for indebted nations, Massa’s own predatory behavior has rendered useless his service to the hedge fund chiefs.

Congresswoman Maxine Waters (D-Calif.) has sponsored the “Stop VULTURE Funds Act” (H.R. 2932), which mirrors what Britain and other nations have done: put the financial corpse-chewers out of business. Congress should pass it now.
____________
Greg Palast is the author of the New York Times bestsellers The Best Democracy Money Can Buy (2003) and Armed Madhouse (2007), and co-author of Democracy and Regulations: How the Public Can Govern Essential Services (2003).

Eat or be eaten: courting disaster

by Diana Francis
openDemocracy, March 18, 2010

Two very different ways of viewing the world result in radically different ways of approaching conflict. When we come from the viewpoint of ‘eat or be eaten’, the whole of life is a contest for control; when we ground ourselves in the notion of interdependence we work to a very different agenda.

I want to broaden my analysis to what I see as two very different orientations to life, explored in my new book From Pacification to Peacebuilding, which have the most profound and far-reaching consequences: for human affairs in general and war and peace in particular. One is based on the ‘eat or be eaten’ principle, the other on interdependence. The first can be related to realpolitik and the militarist culture  that Bruce Kent describes; the second to conflict transformation.

The values that follow from the interdependence perspective are those of care and respect for the identity and needs of all. In the ‘eat or be eaten’, ‘us or them’ approach, the primary value is the success of oneself or one’s own group.  From these different values flow different models of power. On one side, power is a competitive matter, the capacity to get the better of others by whatever means are deemed to be necessary. Means and ends are separate things. Purpose justifies action.

On the interdependence side, power is a cooperative affair and is used for the common good. It would liberate men as well as women, and transform the relationship between them, if this approach to power were seen rather as humane, constructive and life-affirming. In this model, power comes largely from within people and is to be used to achieve certain goals, rather than to get the better of others. Means and ends, actions and outcomes are inseparable, both morally and practically, one thing being consequent on another.

This is at the heart of the argument against ‘just war’ theory.  Not only are the pretexts for war most often spurious and the real reasons unjust: wars are in themselves monstrous outcomes, which in turn lead to further violence, not peace. As Mary Kaldor rightly points out in her article Reconceptualising war, the aim of war is not always victory. In civil war particularly, it may be the continuation or extension of a sphere of control and an opportunity for enrichment, its motivation greed rather than grievance. Yet the goal is still hegemonic, aimed at the advancement of the actors’ own interests, with violent coercion as the means of achieving those ends.

From the point of view of eat or be eaten, conflict - whether or not it takes the form of violence - must be waged and won. From the perspective of interdependence, conflict itself is inevitable, but it can and should be dealt with constructively and cooperatively. When cooperation is not yet possible, nonviolent means should be employed to resist domination and address the power imbalances that get in the way of cooperative processes. The goal should be not victory or the maintenance of control, but consensual relationships and the good of all concerned. 

While war is the archetypical expression of the eat or be eaten approach, that same approach often borrows the clothes of peacebuilding. ‘Conflict resolution’ may be favoured where ‘their’ conflicts are concerned, or where, as Aman ki Asha puts it, ‘the stars are aligned’ and the interests of governments coincide with those of the people who long for peace.  There may even be financial support from outside governments for the peaceful resolution of conflict, when they have economic and political interests in a region that require the maintenance of stability. However, those same goverments may themselves choose war elsewhere, in pursuit of their own goals.

Yet more serious than the instrumentalising of conflict resolution, is the cooption of peacebuilding to a pacification agenda – where ‘pacification’ means reducing to submission and hence ‘peace’ or quiescence. Such an approach to peacemaking begins, as it did in Iraq and Afghanistan, with a war of aggression or ‘hard power’, with ‘peacebuilding’ (‘soft power’) to follow. In these circumstances both hard and soft power have the common goal of producing a state of stability, in which the hegemony of the invaders is assured. Such an approach compromises the integrity of peacebuilding efforts and making them suspect in the eyes of substantial segments of the population. It also ignores the possibility that, as illustrated in Vietnam and thus far in Afghanistan, local resistance will not be pacified. And it fails to recognise that violence, once ignited, is not easy to end. Iraq remains one of the most violent countries on earth. 

Destruction is quick, reconstruction slow and painstaking. Those who attempt to build peace after war must say to themselves every hour of the day, ‘ I wouldn’t have started from here’.  It is not only the economy and infrastructure that lie in ruins but the fabric of society and relationships. Furthermore, the kind of peacebuilding that follows a pacification agenda is top down and interventionist. Peace cannot be imposed from above or from outside, though it may benefit from positive leadership and external support. True peacebuilding needs to be grounded in the will and effort of local people.

At the global level, when it comes to the role of international institutions and regulation, the approach based on interdependence will be principled and democratic, not subject to considerations of self-interest or the power to over-ride or ignore due process. The eat or be eaten approach is conditional and instrumental, with the big powers often blocking, ignoring or subverting the wishes of the majority. Building peaceful and cooperative global relationships will require a transformation of attitudes and the radical reform of institutions, most importantly those of the UN.

From the point of view of interdependence, peace is envisioned as a global society characterised by just relationships and mutual care; one in which the needs of all are met and all are able to participate, on the basis of equality and without fear. Such a society must have the culture, habits and institutions necessary for dealing with conflicts as they arise, constructively and without violence, and male-female relations must be those of respect and equality. And the planet on which we all depend must be respected and preserved, its resources used with care, sustainably.

The peace envisioned by those who approach life as a win-lose contest is a state of stability that favours their hegemony and prosperity, with any benefits to others falling as crumbs from the high table. Military power will remain the means to counter any threat to this state of affairs. The autonomy of the powerful is prized above the freedom and well being of the many. The planet is a resource to commodify and control of resources must be maintained. 

I have painted what may seem like caricatures of two approaches to life. They are not in reality pure forms and the world is not divided into two kinds of people (though the construction of gender pushes men and women to different sides). Systems, like people, are complex and often contradictory. For instance, democratic and legal institutions, in themselves a cooperative endeavour, often operate in an adversarial manner. This tends to be taken for granted by all concerned, yet it reinforces the culture of contest and often stands in the way of the public good, distorting reason and preventing coherence and continuity.  And although they may borrow the language of peacebuilding, societies that are relatively democratic and peaceful in their internal affairs may be the least democratic and peaceful in their external relations.

In the UK, international relations are conducted by the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, whose title incorporates the concepts of ‘us’ (the state and its people), ‘them’ (the foreigners) and of ‘some of them’: those nations chosen to join the British club (most of them colonised by Britain in the past). It might influence our thinking for the good – and signal some change – if we were to re-designate this ministry as the Ministry for International Relations.

Is this transformative ambition, of moving from one primary orientation to another, just fanciful? I think not. Most people are able to contain their more aggressive and domineering tendencies in their day to day life, if social norms require them to do so. All human beings carry the genes for empathy, cooperation and altruism. Interdependence is fundamental to human experience of reality. As our world continues to shrink and the threats on our horizon mount, it is increasingly urgent for us to recognise that this interdependence is a global matter. For the sake of humanity, we can and must act on this principle. 

This leaves us with the problem of getting from here to there. How do we manage the current bullies as we build cooperation?  It is nonviolent action that sits at the interface between cooperation and domination and provides the key to transition. It is therefore crucial to consider how nonviolent action can maximise its power and be transformative. That will be the next focus of this debate.

Diana Francis's book, From Pacification to Peacebuilding: A Call to Global Transformation, may be bought here.

Diana Francis is a former president of the International Fellowship of Reconciliation and chair of the Committee for Conflict Transformation Support

      

NORTHERN IRELAND: Church leaders hail political agreement

by Ray McMenamin
Episcopal Life Online, February 8, 2010

[Episcopal News Service] Church leaders in Ireland have welcomed an agreement concluded between the two largest political parties in Northern Ireland, which will see the completion of a process of devolving power from the British government.

The Roman Catholic Primate of All Ireland Cardinal Sean Brady hailed news of the agreement reached on Feb. 5, saying, "My prayer is that everyone in our society will reflect on what has been agreed today with a spirit of generosity and concern for the good of the whole community." Brady also expressed his hopes for a resolution of issues concerning sectarian parades, which have in past led to violent confrontations.

"I want to express my particular hope that efforts to address the issue of parades will be met with generosity, sensitivity and a willingness to go beyond old ways of approaching each other on all sides," said the cardinal.

His (Anglican) Church of Ireland counterpart, Bishop Alan Harper, said, "I most warmly welcome the news that agreement has been reached on a way forward on the devolution of justice and policing powers to Northern Ireland, together with the other issues that have been taken into account in the recent protracted negotiations."

For many years in summer, Protestant groups such as the Orange Order have marched through streets in Northern Ireland to commemorate the victory of King William III, a Protestant, over King James II, a Catholic, at the Battle of the Boyne in 1690. Many Catholics consider the parades as offensive.

The two largest parties in the province of Northern Ireland -- the Democratic Unionist Party, that draws its support from the Protestant community, and the mainly Catholic-supported Sinn Fein party -- had been locked in a months-long standoff over the issue of police powers, and a process to bring them under local control. Until now, they have been under British control.

Under the terms of the Belfast Agreement signed on Good Friday, April 10, 1998, responsibility for a wide range of government departments was transferred to a Northern Ireland executive and assembly. The First Minister and deputy First Minister must come from the two political traditions in Northern Ireland which have been bitterly opposed to one another -- the mainly Roman Catholic nationalist community and the predominantly Protestant community which has favored union with Britain.

Various government departments were established and headed by ministers in the executive, and are responsible for areas such as finance, health, education, the environment and agriculture. The 1998 agreement provided for the devolution of authority over the policing and justice systems but specified that this would only take place "with the broad support of the political parties."

The Feb. 5 agreement will see authority over the Northern Ireland policing and justice systems devolved on April 12, more than 12 years after the original agreement was signed. A cross-community vote, requiring a majority of both nationalists and unionists, will take place to effect this on March 9.

Which Dr. King Will We Honor?

by Ryan Van Lenning, truthout | editorial, January 18, 2010

As we observe the life and example of Martin Luther King, Jr., the question arises, "Which Dr. King will we honor?"

Will we yet again observe a polished, scaled-down, and non-threatening version of Martin Luther King, Jr. - the mere shadow of the man and his dream? At least we will recognize the leadership of the man who called for racial equality and urged us to be of service to our neighbors - as we should. We will even recognize that "we have come a long way" and "there is still further work to do" - as we should. Yet the further work to be done is invoked almost as an absolution, affirming our commitment to the dream, but without further specification and without discussing our troubling, ongoing racial inequalities.

Gone will be the King who called for an end to militarism and far-flung imperial wars, the King who said, "I knew that America would never invest the necessary funds or energies in rehabilitation of its poor so long as adventures like Vietnam continued to draw men and skills and money like some demonic destructive suction tube. I was increasingly compelled to see the war as an enemy of the poor and to attack it as such," and who called his government "the greatest purveyor of violence in the world today."

The fact that our militarism has only grown significantly in the intervening decades makes it more comfortable to sweep these aspects of King's message under the national rug. With Obama mobilizing more soldiers and military contractors in Iraq and Afghanistan than Bush did, authorizing more drone attacks that have killed more innocent civilians than Bush did, expanding military bases in South America, and requesting and receiving the largest military budget ever in the history of not only this nation, but any nation in history, it is easier to simply close our collective lips about this King.

Gone also will be his call for radical, nonviolent dissent, his willingness to be jailed or beaten when necessary - when it came to challenging racial and economic injustice, but also when it came to challenging the militaristic agenda of our government and the enterprises that profited from it. Who today is urging Americans to "move beyond the prophesying of a smooth patriotism to the high grounds of a firm dissent" like King did in the context of the Vietnam War? Those who do dissent stand closer to King's legacy than those who purport to be his heirs merely by invoking his name or putting his image in their offices.

Gone also will be the King who criticized the evils of radical capitalism, materialism and the "glaring contrast of poverty and wealth" in this country - a gap that has only grown wider, with the wealth disparity greater now than in any year on record. (The wealthiest 10 percent control over 70 percent of the nation's wealth, the top 1 percent control 38 percent, and the bottom 40 percent own less than 1 percent.) King dared to say, "Now, this means that we are treading in difficult water, because it really means that we are saying that something is wrong with capitalism. There must be a better distribution of wealth and maybe America must move toward a democratic socialism."

Gone certainly will be the King who supported robust reparations. He said, "A society that has done something special against the Negro for hundreds of years must now do something special for him, to equip him to compete on a just and equal basis."

Finally, gone is the King the globalist, who believed that "our loyalties must transcend our race, our tribe, our class and our nation. This means we must develop a world perspective."

Talking heads, politicians and educators will once again invoke King as a stalwart warrior against segregation and for equality, and children will learn about his valiant struggle for the civil rights of African-Americans. His "I Have a Dream" speech will be played, while most of his other speeches will be ignored. This year will hold special significance because this nation's first African-American president has just finished his first year. Many have said that Obama is a fulfillment of King's dream, because our president achieved something that would have been unthinkable 40 years ago and he did it based on the content of his character, not on the basis of his skin color.

While there is truth in that - in that it was unthinkable 40 years ago, or even four years ago - King would no doubt judge character much more broadly, and would examine the types of values being upheld and policies being pursued. While it is impossible to know how King would have approached the Obama phenomenon, he would have likely noted that what he achieved was in some measure due to his true allegiances. In other words, that notwithstanding Obama's outstanding gifts, he is where he is in large part because he didn't pose any threat to the structural status quo that King continually critiqued. Perhaps King would gaze at fellow Nobel Peace Prize winner Obama's policies and deduce a course of action that falls far short of his dream.

When was the last time we inquired into the full extent of the King's full dream? Most Americans learn of the "I Have a Dream Speech" as a child, learn that we should all get along - then promptly forget the context of the speech. How many of us learn that the speech was originally part of the campaign called "March on Washington for Freedom and Jobs," and that King called the large demonstration "a campaign for jobs and income because we felt that the economic question was the most crucial that black people, and poor people generally, were confronting."

We don't get an opportunity to forget King's deeper dream, because we are never taught it. This is not unusual, as most radical democratic dreams and actors are erased from our nation's official memory.

Perhaps this year as we witness ever more defense spending and military engagements and the rich get richer, the poor get poorer and even the middle class drops out, we will listen a little more closely to this giant of a man who still has much to teach us: "A nation that continues year after year to spend more money on military defense than on programs of social uplift is approaching spiritual death."

I wonder, which Dr. King will we honor and learn from this year? Will it be the agreeable, safe King that calls for service and nominal equality - or will it be the radical, fierce King who calls for questioning the triple evils of capitalism, racism and militarism?

Or both?

We hold up the former King as our favorite national, all-purpose icon who poets, preachers and politicians of all stripes can support from a safe distance; the latter King was shot down on that Memphis balcony. Could it be that we collectively pull the assassin's trigger every time we honor the former over the latter?

Working for justice and peace in Colombia

by Mark Beach

Ekklesia News Service, Nov 26, 2009

For nearly four hours, church activists participating in the World Council of Churches' United Nations Advocacy Week meetings in New York delved deeply into the tragedies and injustices of the current bloody conflict in Colombia.

The facts and figures were compelling and the stories personal. Thousands have been killed. An increasing number of children are being maimed and killed by homemade landmines disguised as toys, and by unexploded ordnance.

Fathers and sons have been kidnapped and murdered by paramilitary groups and guerillas. Land has been lost, people have fled and women and children left abandoned. Colombia has the second highest rate of internally displaced people in the world.

And across the street from the UN Advocacy Week's meetings in the Church Centre, in the broad and influential hallways of the United Nations, the tragedy of Colombia is barely on the world body's radar screen. "Every time we meet with folks there we ask 'what about Colombia?'," Joseph Donnelly, Caritas Internationalis representative to the United Nations, said to the group. "They don't want to hear it, and they say 'not Colombia again'."

At the same time, Bishop Juan Alberto Cardona, the bishop of the Methodist Church in Colombia, told the group that while the churches in Colombia are wrestling with the conflict and seeking peace, there is a role for churches throughout the world that is not being fulfilled. For a group of passionate and dedicated church activists, this was a bitter taste of reality about how far they still have to go to dismantle injustice.

The WCC UN Advocacy Week, held in New York City, US, from 15 to 20 November, brought together church activists from around the world to explore several topics, including the situation of people displaced by climate change, indigenous concerns around the world and continuing violence in Colombia. It is also a time when the activists build contacts and visit officials at various UN missions in the city.

A vision of peace with justice

The passion for bringing peace with justice to Colombia was reflected in the half-dozen presentations from church leaders and activists, in and outside Colombia, to some 80 participants on the second full day of the advocacy meetings.

Jenny Neme, director of the Christian Centre for Justice, Peace and Nonviolent Action (JUSTAPAZ) and a member of the Mennonite Church in Colombia, told the group that more than a decade ago the churches in Colombia realized that "we have not been either the light or the salt that Colombia needs."

Since that time, the churches have established a vision of seeking peace with justice for Colombia by educating communities and churches at the local level about the situation, continuing theological reflection and, in a particularly poignant way, starting to document the suffering within the society, particularly among Christians.

The JUSTAPAZ group has now released a fourth 100-page report, documenting in sometimes graphic detail the suffering of the Colombian Protestant churches.

Donnelly talked about the small steps that have been made in persuading the UN to pay attention to Colombia. The International Criminal Court is looking increasingly toward Colombia, he said, although this may have more to do with the fact that obtaining convictions in their current work in the Great Lakes region of Africa is meeting with only limited success, rather than with anything else.

Still, when it comes to advocacy the church has to be steadfast and persistent, Donnelly said. Today there are nearly 5,000 accredited non-governmental organisations hovering around the UN, he added, each with their access badges to the UN grounds. Holding his UN badge up to the group, he said, "and even this does not guarantee you access."

But, unless the church is consistent and persistent, a few weeks after a visit, the church is forgotten. Donnelly recalled that in the early days of the UN, the church worked hand-in-hand with world leaders to create the Human Rights Charter, which celebrated its 60th anniversary in 2008.

Bishop Cardona said in an interview after his address that the worldwide church has a significant role to play. "First, the church can provide the prophetic voice," he said.

Second, "the church can announce the good news of equity in the gospel," he continued. "In Colombia the church permeates society and is responsible for the prophetic point of view."

"In the case of the World Council of Churches, the WCC can carry out advocacy at the highest level so we can find a negotiated solution to this situation," he said.

In one sense, this brings the churches' commitment to Colombia right back into the halls of the UN.

The Church Centre, where the advocacy meetings are being held and which houses the UN-related offices of the WCC, United Methodists, Presbyterians and others, sits across the street from the UN. Within a few blocks around the UN are other church agencies and offices such as those of Quakers and Mennonites.

Donnelly said that [when] the church can have access to the UN, it can have an impact, but that this takes time; and when you ask for a meeting, he advised, "come with facts."

"What we need is to be more steadfast, to be there constantly," he said.

-------------

(c) Mark Beach is director of communications at the World Council of Churches, based in Geneva.

Ugandan Anglicans continue to dither on anti-gay bill

by Staff Writers

Ekklesia, November 15, 2009

The Anglican Church in Uganda say that it “does not yet have an official position” on the Anti-Homosexuality Bill currently being proposed in the country's Parliament.

The bill would introduce the death penalty for certain homosexual acts between consenting adults and create new offences aimed at imprisoning those who fail to report any homosexuality of which they are aware.

In a statement last week, the Church of the Province of Uganda repeated its assertion that “homosexual behaviour is immoral and should not be promoted, supported or condoned in any way” but said that it did not have a stance on the bill itself.

However, the secretary of the Church, Mwesigye Kafundizeki, said that the death penalty clause should be removed from the bill, proposing “another punishment instead of death”. He appears to support the bill overall.

The Archbishop of Uganda, Henry Orombi, is well-known for his anti-gay views. He has backed allegations about “homosexual recruiting in our schools”, suggesting that young people were being bribed “to become gay”. He did not explain how a bribe could enable a person to alter his or her sexual orientation.

The allegations, regarded by many as absurd, have also been endorsed by the Ugandan Minister for Ethics, James Nsaba Buturo, himself an Anglican. He has described the legislation as “an opportunity for Uganda to provide leadership where it matters most”.

Supporters of the legislation are attempting to portray homosexuality as a Western import, but the bill's most vocal opponents are themselves African. They include Sexual Minorities Uganda, the gay Nigerian Christian activist Davis Mac-Iyalla and a number of Christians from South Africa.

Many of them suggest that homosexuality was accepted in Africa until the arrival of European colonisers and that it is thus not homosexuality, but homophobia, that was brought in from the West.

The proposed legislation has been condemned by a large number of NGOs, including Human Rights Watch, the Lesbian and Gay Christian Movement (LGCM) and Changing Attitude.

However, the Archbishop of York's office said on Friday (13 November) that he would not be commenting on the issue. The Archbishop of Canterbury, Rowan Williams, is under increasing pressure to condemn the bill, but has yet to make a statement.

Colin Coward of the Anglican group Changing Attitude has spoken of the “devastating silence” of many Anglicans, while LGCM has expressed “great sadness” that there has been so little comment from Anglican leaders in Britain.

LGCM's Sharon Ferguson said that she was “dismayed and shocked at this silence from the Archbishops”.

Microfinance is vital to human and social development, audit suggests

by Staff Writers

Ekklesia News Service, Oct 15, 2009

Oikocredit, a leading socially-committed private investor in microfinance, has just released the results of its social audit, looking at how to enhance human welfare through economic performance.

Drawing individuals and groups into providing vital loans for hard-pressed but enterprising communities in some of the poorest parts of the world is Oikocredit's specialist role.

The idea is to keep money working for change, rather than concentrating on one-off donations, to encourage participation and to enable grassroots economic development. 'Fair finance', in short.

Measuring both the financial performance and social progress of the world's economies is a major question, acknowledged by the organisation which has strong roots in the churches and in civil society.

The lively existing debate on the macro-economic indicators following the global crash, has been enhanced by the latest report of the Commission headed by Nobel Prize winner, Joseph Stiglitz.

On a micro level too, tools and indicators are now in the process of being developed and tested. Oikocredit's social audit aims to be at the cutting edge of these developments, and is "the first of its kind", it says - trying to find out whether its work in providing small-acale finance really does fulfil its social mission and maintain its values.

"For Oikocredit and its investors, it is essential to know that investments of some €370 million lead to positive changes in the lives of the working poor," a spokesperson explained.

In the past few years, Oikocredit has taken substantial steps to assess the social performance of its 500 partners. Since 2005, it has notably increased the number of tools used to monitor and assess social performance.

In addition to impact studies, Oikocredit carefully reviews its partners’ aims, their products and services, their interest rates and their gender and environment policies, the NGO says.

"The latest innovation in social performance measurement is to look not only at the performance of the microfinance institutions, but also to undertake a social audit of private financiers."

Oikocredit, by turning the examination on itself, is the first financier to collaborate with Cerise in the on-going development of the social audit tool.

Cerise is at the forefront of social performance monitoring, and serves as an exchange platform on practices in microfinance.

Cerise’s Social Performance Indicator tool, a social audit instrument for microfinance institutions, is recognised by professional networks and donors worldwide. It is currently being developed to analyse financiers’ internal systems and processes.

Oikocredit emphasises that collaboration in this development process reflects its commitment to a serious assessment of its policies, procedures, products and services in the light of human need and development.

In terms of major findings, the social audit report reveals that Oikocredit has succeeded in developing a strong social mission and vision, committed human resources, trained staff and innovation.

It also has a clear focus on rural development and it finances a wide range of institutions, from small village banks to medium and large established institutions.

The report suggests that it is succeeding in meeting the needs of partners that require financing in local currencies (some 45 per cent of the total capital outstanding).

But the audit also indicates a range of challenges for the organisation - including understanding its microfinance partners and helping them to know their 16.8 million clients better and to improve their products.

"The main challenge is now to operate the shift from collection and assessment of data to management. This implies a pro-active strategy to improve and promote social performance," says Oikocredit.

Using the outcome from this audit, Oikocredit is now able to update its social performance procedures and further develop its outreach strategy, products and services.

"Fulfilling our mission means both investors and clients can benefit from the social and financial empowerment of an Oikocredit loan," the NGO comments.

Oikocredit has been expanding its supporter base in the UK recently, with the involvement of churches and community groups. For more information about how to get involved and "make small sums of money go a long way in sustaining global development", go to: http://www.oikocredit.org/site/en/doc.phtml?p=investors-in-britain-ireland

[Click on the item "Find out about our clients" on the oikocredit page for some interesting data]