Complicity

Pope John Paul II’s affirmation of humanitarian intervention, mentioned by Drew Christiansen, S.J., (8/12), contrasts with the U.S. policy of acting only if it is in its strategic interest. East Timor showed the tragic gulf between the two.

The East Timorese voted overwhelmingly for independence in a United Nations-mandated referendum, believing as they courageously went to the polls that they were under the protection of the world community of nations and, certainly, its superpower, the United States.

Instead, they were sheep to the slaughter, as militia gangs wrought carnage that Americans watched on television news for weeks.

The United States not only failed to act, fearing to offend Indonesia (though the United Nations had never recognized the bloody annexation of East Timor), but blocked Australia, East Timor’s near neighbor, from acting.

When the combat-ready Australian troops were finally allowed in as peacekeepers, the game was over. East Timor was a land of corpses, rape victims and rubble.

As we preen ourselves on the moral high ground in the world arena, we ought to look in the mirror. In East Timor and elsewhere we have been complicit in the loss of thousands of innocent lives.

(Rev.) George P. Carlin

Wise Investments

The call for an end to the Cuban embargo by John W. Donohue S.J. (Of Many Things, 7/15) is well intended, but should not be considered uncritically. Indeed, there are two considerations, both legal and moral, that should give us pause: collaboration and ideological apartheid. Is it moral for American tourists to stay at hotels where Cubans are not allowed, even if invited by foreign friends or relatives? Is it right for a baseball team to play in Cuba when tickets are doled out to government supporters, and Cuban players are barred from baseball because of suspicions that they are politically disloyal or potential defectors? Is it right for an intellectual to speak at a university, when dissidents have been expelled from the faculty and are not allowed to attend? Should American investors be allowed to build a factory where the politically incorrect are denied jobs or higher paying positions? Ideological apartheid is as objectionable as racial apartheid. Though we do not make the owners of a sweatshop in Asia responsible for poverty in the countries where they invest, we should make them responsible for conditions and wages in their factories. So too we should simply require that American companies and travelers not collaborate with political apartheid through their commercial or investment activities. And this rule should not single out Cuba, but should be applied to all foreign investments, while keeping an eye on those countries where violations are most likely to occur. That way the United States would not be imposing its values on other countries, but on its own citizens and companies.

Pedro J. Saavedra

Cautious Hope

The article by Thomas P. Rausch, S.J., linking Catholic and Evangelical theologies (7/15), is well crafted toward ecumenical hope. Another article is needed, however, to see the stark differences that indeed have grave implications for U.S. domestic and foreign policy. Most Evangelicals value charity but do not consider justice a Gospel imperative. In Central America, to the joy of elitist rulers, Evangelicals preach that poverty and the death of children are the will of God. Systemic sin is unacknowledged; financial success is the reward of right-eousness; weaponry is admired; enemies are satanic. An option for the poor or the oppressed matters little when the end-time is at hand. Why does this scare me about our president?

Robert J. Brophy