A debate with the Archbishop of Canterbury’s recent discussion of imperialists and violence.
By Mark D. Tooley
FrontPageMagazine.com | 12/5/2007
According to a recent Times of London headline, the Archbishop of Canterbury has declared the U.S. to be the ³worst imperialist.² Rowan Williams is the senior prelate of the Church of England and the spiritual head of 77 million Anglicans worldwide. He apparently thinks the 4 year U.S. presence in Iraq is far more insidious than any of Great Britain¹s 3 centuries of imperialism.
Williams¹ anti-U.S. interview was not with The Times, but with Emel, a British Islamic ³lifestyle² magazine, which fawned over the archbishop¹s anti-Americanism. ³He is quite extraordinary, even among bishops!² gushed Emel.
No doubt also to the delight of Emel, Rowan lambasted Christian Zionists, America¹s ³chosen nation² syndrome, and Israel¹s security fence against Palestinian terrorism. He expressed concern for Christian Palestinians and Christian Iraqis, but only as victims of U.S. and Israeli wrongheaded policies. That both are more immediately victimized by anti-Christian Islamists apparently was not worth noting, either by the archbishop, or by Emel. Williams preferred to shy away from critique of radical Islam¹s own proclivity towards war, though he did suggest that Islam¹s present political arrangements aren¹t always ³very impressive.²
When Emel asked Williams if America had lost the ³moral high ground² since 9/11, he simply answered. ³Yes.² For the U.S. to recover its moral authority, he suggested: ³A generous and intelligent programme of aid directed to the societies that have been ravaged; a check on the economic exploitation of defeated territories; a demilitarization of their presence.
All these things would help.²
By ³ravaged² (by the U.S.) societies, Williams must mean Afghanistan and the U.S. So deeply lost in prayerful contemplation and theological study, he apparently is unaware of the tens of billions that the U.S. is investing in trying to restore some semblance of infrastructure both countries. Both Iraq and Afghanistan in fact already had been ³ravaged² by years of war and kleptocratic, murderous regimes long before the U.S. led overthrows of Saddam Hussein and Mullah Omar. Do the U.S. and its British ally get ANY credit for removing those tyrants?
Apparently not from the archbishop. On the Iraq War, Williams wants to ³keep before the government and others the great question of how you can actually contribute to a responsible civil society in a context where you¹ve undermined most of the foundations on which that society can be built.² Evidently the archbishop did not describe for Emel the ³foundations² for a strong civil society that had been allowed to exist under Saddam but were undermined by the U.S.-led removal of the tyrant.
Williams dismissively described ³violence² as a ³quick discharge of frustration. It serves you. It does not serve the situation. Whenever people turn to violence what they do is temporarily release themselves from some sort of problem but they help no one else.² Disappointingly, the archbishop¹s perspective on ³violence,² like the Religious Left¹s throughout the West, is facile. He portrayed all ³violence² as equally sinister, when classical Christianity affirms the state¹s responsibility to employ force in defense of the good when other options fail. The archbishop preferred to portray the U.S.-led overthrow of Saddam as merely an emotional catharsis.
³A lot of the pressure around the invasion of Iraq was ŒWe¹ve got to do something! Then we¹ll feel better.¹ That¹s very dangerous.²
America as the world¹s only superpower disturbs the British archbishop. ³We have only one global hegemonic power at the moment,² he regretted to the Islamic magazine. ³It is not accumulating territory; it is trying to accumulate influence and control. That¹s not working.² He called this American predominance the ³worst of all worlds.² He preferred British imperialism. ³It is one thing to take over a territory and then pour energy and resources into administering it and normalizing it. Rightly or wrongly that¹s what the British Empire did in India for example. It is another thing to go in on the assumption that quick burst of violent action will somehow clear the decks and that you can move on and other people will put the things back together – Iraq for example.²
How odd that Williams complained that America is trying to ³move on² from Iraq after its selfish ³quick burst of violent action.² Are not critics of the U.S. presence, like Williams, demanding that the U.S. immediately ³move on,² while condemning the U.S. for seeking to stabilize the Iraq security situation before departure? It also should seem evident that the U.S. is pouring into Iraq ³energy and resources² on a scale unseen since the Marshall Plan for Europe 60 years ago. The U.S. expenditure on ³normalizing² Iraq may exceed in less than a decade what Britain spent on India across two centuries. And unlike Britain with its colonies, the U.S. is not taxing Iraqis for its vast exertion.
Emel reported that Williams was ³scathing² about Christian Zionists who support Israel, connecting them to ³the chosen nation myth of America, meaning that what happens in America is very much at the heart of God¹s purpose for humanity.² Seemingly the archbishop, who was not ³scathing² against the world¹s many dictators or Islamist terror groups, reserved his special fire for the supporters of U.S. and Israeli policies. Presiding over a secularized nation, the archbishop has probably forgotten that Christians traditionally believe that all nations are mystically instruments of providence. It would be heterodox for American Christians to think that their nation is not part of God¹s purpose, especially after its uniquely offering refuge to persecuted Christians, the first wave of which were victims of Williams¹ own nation and church.
Williams was distressed about the ³beleaguered Christian communities² in Iraq, as he should be. But he reported they are suffering because their ³neighbors² have ³turned against them, identifying them with the West.² Why not identify these ³neighbors² as radical Islamists? Or would that divert Williams from its primary objective of faulting the U.S. and winning the favor of an Islamic magazine? He also has special condemnation for Israel¹s security fence. ³Whatever justification given for the existence for the wall, the human cost is colossal.² The justification, of course, is defending Israelis from Palestinian suicide bombers. Why was Williams dismissive of that goal, while calling the inconveniences imposed upon Palestinians ³colossal?²
In contrast with his harsh critique of the U.S. and Israel, The Times of London called Williams¹ oblique criticisms of the Islamic world ³mild.² Indeed. The archbishop suggested Muslims might learn from asking questions of ³classical liberal democracy that might fit with an Islamic world view.² Very inspiring. Emel concluded there is ³much to absorb from his insight, and one wishes more Muslims could have greater access to him.²
So, the Church of England¹s chief prelate scored a media hit with a Muslim magazine. But is that the rightful purpose of a Christian bishop in a Western nation targeted by terrorists?
Mark D. Tooley directs the United Methodist committee at the Institute on Religion and Democracy.
You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. Responses are currently closed, but you can trackback from your own site.
