An Ethical Approach to Enmity
An Ethical Approach to Enmity
By John M Swomley
[Dr. John Swomley is professor emeritus of social ethics at St. Paul School of Theology in Kansas City, Missouri. He is a frequent contributor to Christian Ethics Today.]
One of the great stories in the Bible is about war, enemy intelligence, and the peaceful resolution of conflict. In Second Kings, chapter 6, Syria and Israel were at war:
Once when the King of Syria was warring against Israel, he took counsel with his servants, saying, "At such and such a place shall be my camp." But the man of God sent word to the King of Israel, "Beware that you do not pass this place, for the Syrians are going down there." And the king of Israel sent to the place of which the man of God told him. Thus he used to warn him, so that he saved himself there more than once or twice.
And the mind of the king of Syria was greatly troubled because of this thing; and he called his servants and said to them, "Will you not show me who of us is for the king of Israel? And one of his servants said, "None, my lord, 0 king; but Elisha, the prophet who is in Israel, tells the king of Israel the words that you speak in your bed-chamber." And he said, "Go and see where he is, that I may send and seize him." It was told him, "Behold, he is in Dothan." So he sent there horses and chariots and a great army, and they came by night, and surrounded the city.
When the servant of the man of God rose early in the morning and went out, behold, an army with horses and chariots was round about the city. And the servant said, "Alas, my master! What shall we do?" He said, "Fear not, for those who are with us are more than those who are with them." Then Elisha prayed, and said, "0 Lord, I pray these, open his eyes that he may see." So the Lord opened the eyes of the young man and he saw; and behold, the mountain was full of horses and chariots of fire round about Elisha. And when the Syrians came down against him, Elisha prayed to the Lord, and said," Strike this people, I pray thee, with blindness." So he struck them with blindness in accordance with the prayer of Elisha. And Elisha said to them, "This is not the way, and this is not the city; follow me, and I will bring you to the man whom you seek." And he led them to Samaria.
[It is essential to remember that Samaria was the stronghold of Israel, where the King`s armies were massed.]
As soon as they entered Samaria, Elisha said, "0 Lord, open the eyes of these men, that they may see." So the Lord opened their eyes, and they saw; and lo, they were in the midst of Samaria. When the King of Israel saw them he said to Elisha, "My father, shall I slay them?" He answered, "You shall not slay them. Would you slay those whom you have taken captive with your sword and with your bow? Set bread and water before them, that they may eat and drink and go to their master." So he prepared for them a great feast, and when they had eaten and drunk, he sent them away, and they went to their master. And the Syrians came no more on raids into the land of Israel.
This idea, that enmity can be resolved by feeding your enemy, appears also in Proverbs 25:21-22: "If your enemy is hungry, give him bread to eat; and if he is thirsty, give him water to drink; for you will heap coals of fire upon his head." This is supposed by some to be an Egyptian proverb. When Jews repented they put on sackcloth and ashes or dead coals. When the Egyptians repented they put live coals on an earthen tray on their head and walked toward the person or those they had wronged.
So the Apostle Paul`s reference to this in Romans 12, is obviously influenced by Kings and Proverbs: "If your enemy is hungry, feed him; if he is thirsty, give him drink; for by so doing you will heap burning coals upon his head."
The ethical question raised by these passages is one of practicality. Would this advice, if followed today, be effective in resolving disputes between nations? Is it the right thing to do?
The United States government claims that it has at least four or five small nations as enemies, or "rogue states": North Korea, Cuba, Iran, Iraq, and Libya. North Korea has been a cold war enemy since the Korean War, which ended in 1953, or 45 years ago; Cuba, an enemy since 1961, or 37 years ago. During those years the United States has tried punishment, through embargoes and other sanctions, to force acceptance of our will by these nations. Those hostile actions have not worked, but have only intensified opposition to American policies.
An article in the June, 1998 Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists called sanctions "the most brutal form of war.. because they punish an entire population, targeting children, the future, most of all."
Cuba, which has the best medical system of any country in Latin America and Africa, with over 400 clinics and hospitals in rural Cuban provinces, cannot get medicines and hospital equipment. The Cuban Democracy Act, passed by Congress in 1992, severely limited the amount of medical supplies reaching Cuba, and the Helms-Burton Act was even more restrictive. These Acts and other hostility toward Cuba are primarily the result of large groups of Cubans in Florida and New Jersey who wield electoral influence in the United States and are dedicated to restoring capitalism and its form of democracy, to Cuba.
Cuba`s children, especially, have suffered. Milk is available only to very young children; there is a shortage of baby food. Food itself is rationed. There is a shortage of such items as toilet paper and women`s sanitary napkins, as well as medicines and anesthesia. Deaths have occurred because appropriate medicines have not been available.
The United States is the only country that has treated Cuba in this fashion. There are no diplomatic relations with Cuba. And at one time over 90% of trade relations between Cuba and U.S. subsidiaries has been in medical equipment, medicines, and food.
It is doubtful that our relations with Cuba could be worse. But suppose the United States were to reverse course and provide ample stocks of food, medical supplies, seeds, and agricultural equipment and other machinery, as well as computers and modern technology in various fields? Suppose also that the U.S. would provide scholarships for up to 5,000 high school graduates to study in American colleges and universities with only one string attached: upon graduation they must return to Cuba to teach Cubans at least five years. These and other programs would be offered to Cuba without asking anything in return.
Would it work? Is it comparable to the Biblical approach:
"If your enemy hungers, feed him"? Obviously there are no guarantees. But my best guess is that it would at least end the hostility, lead other nations in the world to have greater respect for America`s "global free trade" policy, and begin to build friendship with the Cuban people. And maybe it would h ave an impact there on human rights, freedom to dissent, and other attributes of democracy.
A similar but not necessarily identical policy could be pursued with North Korea. The 150-mile wall which the U.S. and South Korea built across the island to prevent any contact between North and South Korea would have to be breached. The U.S. maintains the fiction that it is in control of all United Nations forces in South Korea since 1950, though the only forces other than 37,000 U.S. troops, ate the South Korean army, navy, air force, and reserves. The U.S., which regularly has conducted "war games" over or around North Korea would obviously have to end this "cold war" treatment, as well as begin to trade with and permit other assistance to North Korea.
The only change in North Korean policy during the American cold war hostilities came as the result of a U.S. overture to that country involving the provision of oil and other support in return for North Korea`s freezing its nuclear power development.
South Korea`s new President, Kim Dee Jung, actually came to the United States in June, 1998 to tell the Clinton administration that its cold war policy was wrong. The New York Times of June 2 said he came "to win a more flexible stance in our two countries dealing with North Korea."
In effect, said the New York Times, "Mr. Kim made the same argument about North Korea that the Clinton administration has made about China, that "the best way" to change North Korea "is not to isolate it and punish it with sanctions but rather to build economic and diplomatic ties that draw it out into the international playing field."
A friendly U.S. policy would almost certainly bring its reward. The book of Proverbs, after proposing feeding the enemy, concludes that "the Lord will reward you." In 1993 I organized the American Committee on Korea to try to prevent war between the U.S. and North Korea, and have visited that country twice, talking with key government officials. They genuinely seek a new relationship with the United States.
From an ethical standpoint the real question is not "Will it work?" but, "Is it the right way a large wealthy country should deal with small, poor countries to end decades of punishment that has not worked?".
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
