Christian groups and individuals have virtually unanimously opposed Iraq’s invasion of Kuwait. But some have now begun to take issue with specific aspects of U.S. policy in the region.
A coalition of 15 national church organizations recently criticized the inclusion of food and medicine in the economic embargo of Iraq. It calls for distinguishing between the Iraqi regime and Iraqi citizens. In a letter to U.S. senators, the coalition stated that if people are allowed to starve, the U.S. as well as Hussein, “would stand accused of using civilians as pawns.”
Two Washington, D.C.-based Southern Baptist groups have issued separate appeals to Secretary of Defense Dick Cheney protesting a Defense Department policy prohibiting the mailing of Bibles and other devotional literature to military personnel in the Middle East. The purpose of the policy is to avoid offending Muslim sensitivities in Saudi Arabia, where the practice of any faith other than Islam is illegal.
Baptist Joint Committee on Public Affairs executive director James Dunn wrote, “The fact that our service personnel are in an area of the world not protected by the free exercise rights in our constitution does not mean that they have lost their religious freedom.” In a similar letter, Christian Life Commission (CLC) executive director Richard Land stated, “Surely our grateful hosts in the Persian Gulf would accede to a reasonable accommodation of fundamental religious freedom for U.S. service members.”
Others have expressed concerns that go more to the heart of the U.S. presence in the region. The 7.8 million-member National Baptist Convention U.S.A. adopted a resolution supporting President Bush’s dispatch of troops to the Persian Gulf. But the resolution adds that “the U.S. must be careful not to become allies with nations that may prove to be an embarrassment to our moral leadership upon being found guilty of violations of human rights in their own back yard.”
In a similar vein, Gabriel Habib, general secretary of the Cyprus-based Middle East Council of Churches, issued a statement calling for the rejection of “double standards and self-centered Western policies in the region.” Such statements imply that the U.S. is not so intent on seeing international justice done when its economic interests either are not at stake or would not suffer.
Robert Douglas of the Altadena, California-based Zwemer Institute, believes the crisis has been oversimplified. He observed that Iraq, Kuwait, and other Arab nations became nations “by the stroke of European pens.”
Douglas also noted that for generations some Arab leaders have dreamed of a united Arab nation. Among the entities that have stressed this is the Baath (Awakening) political party, which exists in several Arab nations and is currently the ruling party in Iraq. Without justifying Hussein’s actions, Douglas noted that Kuwait had been hurting Iraq economically by not staying within the oil-production quotas established by OPEC.
According to Douglas, the U.S. is at best a temporary ally of many Arabs. Noting suspicion of Western motives and influence throughout the region, Douglas said, “Every Arab country has a segment of its population ready to destabilize any ruler who seems to allow Western interests to take precedence over Arab/Islamic interests.”
Douglas suggested the current crisis will mean that American Christians working in the Middle East may have a tough time overcoming the negative effects of the message sent by U.S. military intervention in the region.
