The Wall

A Debate on the Issues of Protecting National Boundaries
Amidst an era of Economic Globalization

The members of the Passionist Social Concern’s Commission offer this analysis and reflection during a time when our society is confronted with the crisis of Nationalism vs. Globalization on two fronts. In the Middle East the two state issue of Israel and Palestine has become increasingly challenged since the election of the Hamas government in Palestine. Here in the United States the immigration debate continues to generate policies and strong feelings regarding our border relationship with Mexico. Common to both these issues is the proposed solution of building walls to secure the borders.
For Israel the building of their wall is a security issue. The Ministry of Defense for Israel states:

The sole purpose of the Security Fence, as stated in the Israeli Government decision of July 23rd 2001, is to provide security. The Security Fence is a central component in Israel’s response to the horrific wave of terrorism emanating from the West Bank, resulting in suicide bombers who enter into Israel with the sole intention of killing innocent people. Sadly, this abhorrent phenomenon has become common practice since September 2000.
The “Security Fence” is a manifestation of Israel’s basic commitment to defend its citizens, and once completed,
it will improve the ability of the IDF to prevent the infiltration of terrorists and criminal elements into Israel for the purpose of carrying out terrorist attacks or the smuggling of arms and explosives.

For the United State the issue of building our own wall follows a different security concern focused on immigrants and crime. This amendment by Rep. Hunter of California states that the success of the San Diego portion of this proposed wall which is already completed is successful for accomplishing the following:
• Illegal alien apprehensions along the fenced region were reduced from over 202,000 in 1992 to approximately 9,000 in 2004. Further, it is estimated that the apprehensions vs. attempts ratio increased to over 90%;
• Following the establishment of the San Diego Border Fence, crime rates in San Diego have fallen dramatically. According to the FBI Crime Index, crime in San Diego County dropped 47.3% between 1989 to 2000;
• Vehicle drive-throughs in the region have fallen from between 6 to 10 per day before the construction of border infrastructure to only four drive-throughs in 2004, all of which were isolated in locations where secondary fencing is incomplete;
• The fence has forced drug smugglers, who once crossed the San Diego border without contest, to focus their efforts of access through America’s ports of entry, significantly increasing the likelihood of discovery and seizure of illegal narcotics entering the U.S.
While the proposals of building walls stem from particular realities that confront both the United States and Israel both of these proposed walls share a common social conflict. Both of them relate to the conflict that is created when you live in a world that is more and more economically global and integrated but remains politically independent and isolated. Where tight national boundaries and open markets allow developed nations to benefit greatly from this open field of resources and production over and sometimes against under-developed nations who do not have the equal means for extracting and producing goods. Thus we currently live in a global world where some nations are far better off than their own neighbors.
This inequality of nations has led to predictable flows of migration. For Israel where the political climate between this nation and its Arab neighbors are volatile this leads to violence and direct issues of national security. For the United States where the economic disparity with its southern neighbor is even greater as is its immigration flows this issue has led to economic and cultural insecurities.
This leads us to debate the issue of the protection of national boundaries amidst economic disparities. The question we leave with our two pseudo-debaters is this “Are the building of walls such as these a viable and appropriate solution?”

James: “Fences make good neighbors.”

Two walls primarily are under consideration here: the wall in Israel, and the wall along the southern border of the U.S.

Both walls have much in common: security and defense. However, the dangers that are threats to security and against which defense is sought differ somewhat from each other: in Israel, the danger is mainly attacks by suicide bombers from the Palestinian territory (the West Bank or the Gaza strip) against the civilian Jewish population; in the U.S. the danger is largely uncontrolled immigration that is destabilizing American society on the part of people, usually Mexicans, who are undocumented (illegal), and so unaccounted for by U.S. authorities (not on the books), placing demands on the American economy, and potentially containing a criminal, and even a terrorist, element. In addition, this flood of illegals establishes a huge flaunting of the (immigration) law of the land, resulting in a population of law-breakers that undercuts attempts at maintaining a law-abiding citizenry in this large nation. There is nothing worse than having people who, with impunity, violate the law. It leads to the break-down of civility and respect for the basic fabric of society.

The immigration law in question traces back to a 1952 Immigration and Nationality Act of Congress, significantly amended in 1965 abolishing natural origin provisions and establishing a new quota system. Efforts to stem illegal immigration led to the Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986 and the Immigration Act of 1990 tightening up on visas, whose 1995 cap was 675,000. It’s the violation of this act and its amendments that stands at the heart of the illegality of undocumented crossing the southern border. But, despite all these efforts at improving the law, it is a failure: witness the millions of undocumented living in this country at the present time.

The current House of Representatives passed H.R. 4437 recently (The Border Enforcement Bill) in reaction to the blatant disregard of the above legislation. Though it contains several provisions, for purposes of this article about the wall, only the following remarks will be made. The wall is proposed to run 700 miles, in five strategic places, costing $1.5 to $2 million dollars per mile. (A Senate version of this programs 370 miles of triple-barrier fencing plus a “virtual” wall fortified by elaborate electronic surveillance systems.)

All of this, especially the more ambitious House project, deserves support as commentary on such statements in the Preamble to the Constitution of the U.S. as:

We, the people of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish justice, insure domestic Tranquillity, provide for the common defence, …do ordain and establish this Constitution …

Obviously, self-defense is the first and major law of the land and the primary obligation of government. The wall is designed to carry out the provisions of this Preamble.

The Israeli wall runs 72 miles (from Salem in the north to Kafr Qasem in the south, and will cost $115 million. Part of it runs through the garden of the Passionist community in Bethany (on the west bank).

Portions of the Israeli wall are already in place and demonstrate its effectiveness against incursions of suicide bombers, which have notably decreased since the installation of major portions of the wall. Similarly, the one, small portion of a wall already built along our southern border, in the San Diego area, has proven very effective, for instance, in reducing the crime rate in the surrounding county by 47.3%.

It should be noted that this is not the first time such walls have been erected, for similar purposes. The Great Wall of China runs 1500 miles, from the Yellow Sea to the central Asian desert, initiated prior to 214 BC. It is over 25 feet high and up to 30 feet thick. So formidable was it that it exists today as a tourist site. It was so well maintained over the centuries since it served the interests of the Chinese rulers.

The Berlin Wall was 30 miles long, dividing East and West Berlin from 1961 to 1989, again quite effectively, though for questionable motives.

The DMZ (Demilitarized Zone) dividing North and South Korea winds 155 miles across the peninsula, from the Han River to the East coast. Though not a wall in the masonry sense of the term (consisting of barber wire atop fencing), it too has more than repaid the effort at constructing it.

Walls are worth the expenditures of money, time and effort to install them. The old saying goes; “Fences make good neighbors”. They establish identity, provide privacy, avoid disputes before they begin, protect assets. The money, for instance, expended on this project will, in the long run, be far less than the kind of expenditures that the Senate version of border defense, for instance, calls for, with its mandate for 4,000 additional border patrol agents, 6,000 National Guard troops, 2,500 port of entry inspectors, and 10,000 agents to enforce verification laws. And this doesn’t include the elaborate equipment the Senate bill proposes such as unmanned aircraft and cameras.

Building this wall makes eminent sense. It has historical precedent, proven effectiveness, economic feasibility and support of the American public, especially those living close to the southern border.

Paul: 11-9, 1989 Changed our Lives.

Our current political leaders remind us time and time again how 9-11 has changed our political realities and public policy both at home and abroad. This statement is true enough and I for one believe that as a nation we must refocus our priorities and policies to address the new world that has violently expressed itself on that day. What gets me upset however is that after making this recognition (and after accusing political opponents of having a cold war mentality) our political leaders seem to revert back to pre World War II nationalistic policies of border security, isolationism and national wars of aggression. Shall we perhaps build trenches around the U.S. and Israel and maybe a few castles as well.

The fact is that 9-11 was not an isolated event that gave birth to a new world order. 9-11 was a violent expression of a new global reality that gave way back on Nov. 9, 1989 when the Berlin Wall was brought down. Both the United States and Israel are nations who are economically dependent on the global world for resources and products. When the Berlin wall came down not only did is signify the end of the Cold War but it also gave birth to the world of economic and political globalization. For many of us progressives this was an astounding victory.

Unfortunately our political organization and rhetoric have not been able to fully digest what this means. Between 11-9 and 9-11 we have only utilized this new global world for our own self-interest by promoting the economic structures of globalization while isolating the political and social global structures. In doing this we enhance our consumption and investments by making sure that we had easy access to global resources and that political corruption kept wages and environmental cost down. We patted ourselves on the back for the great economic success we reaped in the 90’s without paying any attention to the social and cultural ramifications of our global economic system. And somehow we found ourselves surprised when 9-11 and the 1993 bombing in New York both took place in a very deliberate target known as the World Trade Center.

9-11 was an opportunity for us to truly make sense of our global world, but instead we dug in our heels, went on the defensive, and are now talking about building walls. Why is it that the issue of globalization is so uncomfortable to discuss that we choose to politically and socially ignore it while economically we silently accept our dependence to it. Any attempts to develop policies of national security must take this global reality into account or otherwise it is doomed to failure.

In 1994 both the United States and Israel signed economic trade agreements with their neighboring underdeveloped nation. The North Atlantic Free Trade Agreement created a regional economic integration that created a state of economic dependence between Mexico and its northern neighbors. Through this agreement North American companies enjoy free mobility in promoting their operations in Mexico thus enjoying the cheaper standards of living and lack of social and environmental regulations. Mexico of course enjoys the presence of North American industry in its own backyard. One hope was that the gap in the standard of living between these two nations would close, thus eliminating migration into the U.S. Unfortunately the gap between the two nations remains high and levels of migration have also grown. As a result the U.S. has promoted the border patrol wall and as we see this issue was underscored in the last Mexican election.

Similarly the Protocol on Economic Relations between Israel and Palestine also created a state on economic integration and dependence between these two communities. Palestine was and still is dependent on Israel for use of their ports and airports in order to engage in trade. Both sides enjoyed freedom of movement between goods and labor. Palestinian trade with other surrounding neighbors, specifically Egypt and Jordon, became severely limited. Unfortunately the Israeli Separation wall has created severe restrictions on Palestinian development and the humanitarian crisis that came into existence before Hamas was elected into power.

Through both agreements both Mexico and Palestine share an economic dependence with the U.S. and Israel. Yet both nations face social crisis stemming from economic inequality and ensuing social instability. To date so far our response continues to be defensive. We continue to be in denial of the need to address political and social ramifications to our economic integration and instead we choose to debate the effectiveness of building walls. What we need to do instead is to take a lesson from the European Union. We need to analyze the political and social ramifications of our neighboring economic integration and to develop regional policies that support the development of our neighbors and can address the existing economic inequalities.

Yes, walls may prove to effectively restrict migration into both Palestine and the U.S. This solution however is nothing more then a mere band-aid that will limit neighboring migration but will also usher in a new and more violent response from our neighbors. Shall we be surprised when a radical political shift takes place in Mexico and Palestine. Will we choose to gasp in astonishment when a disgruntled Mexico that politically leans more to the left allows its citizens to ransack or nationalize U.S. Corporate holdings in Mexico? Do we really choose to be shocked that a desperate Palestinian community chose a radical anti-Israeli political faction to lead its government. Do any of us really believe that these walls will offer us any real security? Perhaps it is important to learn an important historical lesson here. The Chinese built the great wall to keep away the Mongolian and later the Manchu threat of the north. That wall did not stop either of those groups from entering and conquering China and resulted in the Mongolian Dynasty of the 1200’s and the Manchu Dynasty of the 1600’s.

James: Walls not only protect our people but also our democracy and freedom.

There is a history to the defense of the wall as a protector of national boundaries. This history applies primarily to the wall between the U.S. and Mexico, but some of the observations appended to this defense apply also to the wall between the Israelis and Palestinians.

This history starts with the Monroe Doctrine, the foreign policy statement delivered to Congress in 1823 by President James Monroe, in which he stated that the U.S. enjoyed authority and responsibility, not only for its own continental territory, but also for the entirety of the western hemisphere. He declared this as a warning to any European nations with designs on this part of the world, remarking that their overtures would be regarded as “dangerous to peace and security”.

Monroe laid the groundwork for the security consciousness that thereafter entered the American psyche. He also implicitly articulated the appropriateness of boundaries between nations. This was primarily a political statement, not an economic one, and responds to Paul’s concern that globalization should include not only economic factors, but also political ones. There IS a political doctrine in place, with global implications, and the wall is an instrument of its implementation. The designs of other nations on the territorial integrity of this nation, with its protective mantle over this hemisphere, are to be opposed.

The political implication of this doctrine is that a strong democratic government, such as the U.S., is essential to the well-being of this part of the world. With this piece in place, then the atmosphere for similar democratic institutions throughout the rest of the hemisphere is in place. A strong U.S. democracy is good for every nation from Argentina to Canada.

A wall has become necessary to support this position. The current uncontrolled flow of undocumented people into this country threatens to weaken the basic foundation of a democracy: respect for law. For they are illegals, flaunters of the law, and so they undermine the very foundations of political democracy, here and throughout the hemisphere. The wall is the key to the globalization movement, not only economically, but also politically.

Once the wall is constructed, the U.S. can re-establish order in its own house, and then can proceed to export that same order to the rest of the hemisphere, and even to the world at large. And we can also pursue the economic problems behind so much of the current influx of undocumented peoples. The principle here is: Political stability must precede economic stability. The U.S. undoubtedly holds a preeminent place in this scenario. If political stability cannot prevail here, it cannot succeed anywhere.

A similar position underlies the defense of the wall between the Israelis and the Palestinians. Again, the political aspect of this structure looms large over other issues, even the economic ones. Israel stands out almost alone in the Middle East as a beacon and haven of democracy. If its democratic standing is impugned, hope for democratic government in that entire region comes crashing to the ground. Current incursions of hostile Palestinians into Israel can easily undermine its democratic process; lack of security for Israeli citizens can easily prod them to abandon democracy, and adopt a fascist or highly centralized style of government. The hegemony of a democratic Israel is even more important for that part of the world than it is for a democratic U.S. in this hemisphere. The wall guarantees this very worthwhile goal.

The Israelis have already shown that, once their own political security is established, they are ready to address the economic problems afflicting the Palestinians, many of whom, in the past, have found financial security under an Israeli umbrella. Again, it is the political security in this nation that must precede any effort at economic reconstruction.

In both cases, the U.S. and Israel, the wall becomes an indispensable means for achieving stability in two nations, whose subsequent strength and well-being can then redound to the betterment of nations surrounding them.

Paul: Walls offer us only an image of security.

For the progressive the issue with the proposed walls that are being built is not so much in their structural existence. The issue is that these walls are being proposed and built on a presumption that they offer us a solution to complex global problems. Terrorism and illegal immigration are complex issues that we must address now. These issues will not go away with the construction of walls. For us to truly address these issues it is essential that we come at the root causes of widespread immigration on the one hand and violent retribution on the other. As I said in my earlier argument these two issues exist because of our global economic and cultural realities. Globalization has brought economic disparity and cultural insecurity to our neighbors and the way they will react to this reality will not stop because of a wall.

As developed nations Israel and the United States must accept the following responsibility: regional economic integration (which we desire) has negative social and cultural ramifications to our underdeveloped neighbors. If both nations wish to pursue this course of economic integration then we must address these negative ramifications.

Just like NAFTA offers Mexico, Canada and the United States a common court for addressing issues of tariffs and trade regulations so should a North American Federation be developed to address social, cultural and political regional issues. Safeguards and regulations should be established to see to it that our underdeveloped neighbor have every opportunity for industrialization and development so that Mexico can indeed have a comparative advantage for trading with Canada and the U.S. Once this happens, then and only then will you see the issue of illegal immigration (at least from our southern neighbor) addressed.

Israel and Palestine have unsuccessfully attempted to create a two state solution for the past 50 years now. It is time to consider an alternative. Perhaps it is time for a new constitutional convention for a new unified state based on common social principles rather than ethnic or religious identity. Perhaps local political party’s can be given the local autonomy to develop regional cultural identities (so long they do not infringe on constitutional freedoms.)

While some fringe groups may continue to exist from both solutions they will be politically marginalized (like White Supremacist groups are in the U.S.). Yet consider the advantage of both possibilities. With the U.S. you will not only have addressed the issues of immigration but also have created a stronger North American economic unit that can relate better with its other southern neighbors and which can demonstrates to the world the advantage U.S. led globalization and thus create further opportunities for stable economic integration. With regards to Israel the advantage is even greater. Not only would this regional solution begin a new era of cooperation between two people but it will automatically defuse the greatest challenge to Mid-East peace and the war on terror which is the Palestinian issue.

Walls will not offer this solution. Instead walls keep relegating an issue to another generation which will have to address an even more aggravated and volatile reality. Putting all your hopes on Walls is following the course of the late great Byzantine Empire which perhaps had the greatest and most effective fortifications ever known. Those walls did hold out for many decades when their Ottoman neighbors surrounded them in the early 1400’s. Eventually however the great Ottoman bombard cannons took those walls down. Do we really want to go the way of the Byzantines?

The Wisdom of the Cross

There are a couple of ways to understand the roll of walls in history. One way is to see their necessity. With hurricane Katrina we saw how necessary the walls, or levies were to keep the water out of the streets and homes of the inhabitants of New Orleans. When these walls caved in, the people were flooded and forced to flee for their lives. With the walls in place, they lived in peace. The protection of the walls provided safety and prosperity for the people.
There are walls around the old city of Jerusalem built to protect it from its enemies. The psalmist mourns being a victim – “a wall already damaged” (Ps 62: 3). A strong wall would be oneself standing unshaken. Joshua, after marching his army around the city of Jericho seven times was able to bring down the walls and secure a safe place for his people (Joshua, 6: 1-21).
Amidst the walls in Jerusalem, there is the “Wailing Wall”. It is against this wall at its bottom that the Jews cry out to Yahweh mourning their sufferings and persecutions of the past. At the top of this same wall and supported by this wall is the temple mount area where the Mosque dedicated to Mohamed the prophet is situated. Here the Arabs and Palestinian people cry out to Allah in praise and help. The Wailing Wall could serve as a symbol of possible unity between two estranged peoples. This a common wall – a place of prayer, of coming together and approaching God.
The other way to look at walls is to see them as divisive or as setting boundaries that separate peoples who should be living together. The devil’s diabolic goal is to divide people, or even divide a person to take possession of that person and put up walls within the soul, so that he/she no longer knows him/herself. As mentioned before, the Berlin wall came down and united the people of Germany. Jesus periodically broke the barriers of sinner and saint, of male and female separation, and of Jew and Gentile. Finally when Jesus died, “. . .the veil of the Sanctuary was torn in two from top to bottom” (Mk: 15, 38). Does Mark want his community to understand that the holy of holies no longer separates God from his people? Does this symbolize the separation of God and humans being destroyed by death of Jesus, and humans now have direct access to God? Could the symbol be broader and speak to us today about walls?
Our purpose of this position paper is to help us reflect on the walls that divide and the walls that unite and support us in our changing world. Do the walls help promote or destroy the Kingdom of God among us?

Free of Fair Trade

Free or Fair Trade

Issue introduction:

This position guide addresses the issue of international trade. By now many of us have heard of the phenomenon of Globalization and we also know that primary motivators for our global society are economic factors. Of all the structures and mechanisms that exist to develop the global economy none are as powerful or as prominent as international trade.

International trade exists because no nation is self-sufficient economically. No nation has all the resources it needs to provide a high standard of living for its inhabitants. Prior to 1945 nations had erected high tariff barriers to trade and had set up import quotas to protect local businesses and workers. In addition there was the system of colonialism in which large parts of Asia and Africa were economically dominated by governments in Europe.

The devastation of World War II presented an enormous challenge to the world. Europe, Japan and many countries in Asia had to be rebuilt, and colonial territories were freed and aided to transform themselves. An international institution was structured to address these global challenges. Two superpowers with different visions of economic organization (Capitalism vs. Communism) and governance (Democracy vs. Totalitarianism) faced one another for dominance and control. Korea and Vietnam were the most visible battlegrounds. This struggle ended with the collapse of Communism as an economic system while the political tendency towards totalitarianism still remains in China and Russia.

The victor is capitalism. It is now directing the process of increasing international trade and the integration of cultures and values that goes under the heading of globalization. The major instrument of this is the World Trade Organization. The question before us today is what kind of capitalism will direct this process. Will it be a capitalism that believes only in a free and unregulated market, or will it be a capitalism that that will use government power to insure that all sectors of society participate in the growing economic pie that greater international trade produces?

This is what the current struggle of globalization is all about. Those who are debating the free trade issue are debating the economic ideology that governs global economic policies. In the academic arena this debate is very complex. After the passage of NAFTA in 1994 many non-academic interest groups have popularized the debate which has developed into the three separate camps of neo-liberalism, socialism, and third way. With the fall of communism the socialist model has fallen into almost complete economic disfavor and so the current globalization debate is centered around the dominant neo-liberal model and the emerging third way model.

Neo-liberalism is the economic model that identifies itself as a strict promoter of the free market system or laissez faire. It is suspicious of government regulation and considers such regulation to cause economic distress. It believes that a free and unregulated market is powerful enough to generate not only economic growth but also economic justice in the form of financial incentives for fair economic distribution. Generally neo-liberals believe in human rights and government protection of these rights but they are interpreted very narrowly as civil and political rights with an emphasis on the protection of property rights. Although this wing of capitalism has existed in some previous academic circles, economists from the University of Chicago constructed this current global model and it became public policy through the Reagan/Thatcher administrations of the early 1980’s.

The emerging third way model continues to promote a free market system but it does not have as much faith in the self-correcting nature of the market system and believes that good and balanced government regulations can address potential market volatility and private corruption. Whereas neo-liberalism begins with emphasizing the principles of the free market system, third way economists usually begin with a broader interpretation of human rights and sustainable development principles. They believe that a balanced relationship between private enterprise and public institutions can promote these values. Their policies usually include progressive taxation, social safety nets, education for all, access to medical resources and programs that promote greater economic distribution as well as access to both capital and labor. Economists have reinterpreted the former models of regulated capitalism such as keynesianism and kelsonianism in order to address the global challenges mentioned above. The global justice movement came about as a popular reaction to neo-liberal globalization and as a political reaction to the Reagan/Thatcher administrations. As a result progressive economists, organizations, and politicians led by the Clinton/Blair administrations began designing this third way economic model.

With regard to international trade neither group is against free bilateral or even regional trade. Even progressive organizations agree that in general a system of international trade that is free of barriers, tariffs, and subsidies can benefit the global economy and developing nations. The issue is whether or not international trade that currently follows the neo-liberal model is capable of creating a global economy that promotes security and benefits for the majority of the global community or if national and international regulations are needed to insure this.

The Christian response to the challenge of globalization has been varied. The Catholic lay association known as Focolare have developed an economic model known as the economy of communion that challenges the basic tenets of capitalism with core Catholic values. Chiara Lubich, the foundress of Focolare, presented her project as a system “Unlike the consumer economy, based on a culture of having, the economy of communion is the economy of giving.” Some Christian theologians, like Michael Novak, promote neo-liberal principles as morally compatible and indeed related to Christian values and tradition. On the other hand, the vast majority of Christian advocacy organizations believe in a regulated capitalist model that will promote distributive justice and the common good, have declared their principles in an Interfaith Statement on International Trade and Investments.[1]

This will be the point that our two debaters will consider in this position guide. We would like to again reintroduce our pseudo-debaters Paul Jefferson and James Hamilton whose names remind us of people in early Christian and early American history who showed us how, as Christians and Americans, we can disagree with certain issues but can still work together to promote the mission of the early church (as in the case of Paul and James) or of the United States of America (as in the case of Jefferson and Hamilton). Paul Jefferson will argue for trade agreements that push for social and environmental principles and regulations. James Hamilton will argue for the neo-liberal approach saying that such regulations will have a negative effect for global economic growth. In arguing their positions they will primarily see themselves not as advocates for one interest group or another but as good Christians acting on a basic principle that has always been part of the Christian tradition, “remember the poor.”



Issue Debate

Paul: We must address the growing economic divide facing our global world.

When the North America Free Trade Agreement was being proposed in the early 1990’s I championed it. Recently however, in 2005, I lobbied my congressperson to vote against the Central America Free Trade Agreement and the Free Trade Area of the Americas. What changed in me these past 10 years to cause this shift in me? Did I become an isolationist or a protectionist? No. I am still in favor of economic and social integration. I firmly believe that we can no longer exist economically or socially isolated from our world and much less from our neighbors. I still believe that a good free trade policy can generate good and distributive wealth between our neighbors and us. I am in favor of regional integration on an economic and social scale. But I am against the present model of free trade that is written to benefit a specific interest group, the transnational corporation and its competitive agenda.

In its wake it has exacerbated the already existing economic divide that I thought free trade agreements were going to address.

Free Trade Agreements like NAFTA or CAFTA measure success based on the gross domestic production of a nation’s economy. Based on this criterion it is fair to say that in the case of NAFTA all three member[2] found success. What is not taken into consideration is the overall social ramifications of this success. As an example in Mexico while manufacturing exports did increase, the average wage of Mexican manufacturing workers declined from $5 per day in 1994 to $4 per day in 2004. While US wages have remained stagnant the greatest effect to workers in this country has been the job loss resulting from manufacturers moving to Mexico. NAFTA proponents erroneously calculated job growth related to an expected trade surplus that never materialized. Instead the government created the Trade Adjustment Assisted program to deal with high job mobility to the south. According to this statistic 525,094 NAFTA related jobs loss was calculated between 1994-2002.[3]

At issue here is that international trade has become a mechanism of neo-liberal economic growth. Neo-liberal policies give every advantage to transnational corporations in order to maximize their productivity and competitiveness. These advantages come in two forms: freedom from regulations and public subsidies. Beyond this neo-liberalism has no concern with any other dimension of the social fabric. It simply assumes that if there is GDP and stock growth then everybody must be doing well, a version of the trickle down theory.

Neo-liberal economic policies became public policy for the U.S. in 1980 with the Reagan administration. Now let us consider some statistics between 1980 – 2004: According to the S&P 500 index the value of stocks went up 793% and the average pay for a CEO went up 743% from $1.4 million to $11.8 million. Yet according to the Bureau of Labor the hourly wage barely changed between those years, moving from $15.68 to $15.67.[4] The economy obviously went up but nobody felt like distributing this growth.

Neo-liberal international trade is creating instability and volatility insofar as it is widening the gap between the rich and the poor. When people become aware of amazing levels of affluence and realize that no matter how hard they work they seem to amass none of it they then turn to alternatives. Some of these alternatives will include the illegal drug trade and human trafficking where they feel that they can at least get their foot in the door even though they will more than likely die trying. Another alternative is being part of a movement that challenges the predominant economic system. If you have some access to resource and some forms of economic security these movements can be non-violent attempts to reform the system such as the global justice movement. If you do not have any economic security and you are in a state where you have nothing to lose then you have violent ideologies of terror that give you some avenue to tend to your frustration. We should reflect upon the fact that the greatest terrorist attack was aimed at the buildings known as the World Trade Center. Just trade policies are essential for our national and global security.


James: In order to distribute wealth you have to make sure you are generating wealth to begin with.

The success of international trade must be dependant on economic growth that is best measured through gross domestic production. All social issues are dependant on this singular measure. The principle is fairly simple; consider this analogy of two families. One family has access to $100 to spend. At that point they can all negotiate how to use it to gain certain access to goods or services that were previously unattainable. Now chances are that at this point the children will not have as much say in the matter as the parents. It may be that this $100 will not be spent on education or health care since a better use for it would be to invest it in a way that it could accrue greater wealth. Once this particular family achieves greater wealth and financial stability then it can begin to open the possibilities of how to utilize their money and they can allow for greater input from the rest of the family’s needs including education and health care. The other family, however, has no access to the initial $100. For that family nothing is on the table and the status quo that includes a lack of education and health services remains the same.

Any discussion regarding economic distribution must be made secondary to the primary issue of maintaining ongoing economic growth. Paul’s argument sounds as if the members of the 1st family (that received the $100) demanded equal access to that money. The children would spend it as they wanted and only perhaps minimal consideration was given to investing it. At that point there would be no way to assure that this family would receive and further financial wealth. To me this is nothing less than social irresponsibility.

Paul already concedes that based on economic growth NAFTA has been successful. I will elaborate on this primary success between 1993-2003[5]:

1. NAFTA members experienced economic growth.
a. United States: 38% growth
b. Canada: 30.9% growth
c. Mexico: 30% growth
2. All three members experienced dramatic export growth with NAFTA partners.
3. Productivity rose with all three NAFTA members.
a. United States: 28%
b. Canada: 23%
c. Mexico: 55%

Regarding the secondary concerns that NAFTA in particular and neo-liberal international trade in general has created greater poverty and inequality I would have to argue that actual poverty is less and that the image of inequality, is a social distortion based on economic growth. The evidence regarding wages does seem to indicate that there has been a general stagnation but keep in mind that free trade does alter production to focus on export related industries. With an export focus economy certain agricultural or service industries will lag behind and wages may fall accordingly. But the new export industries will promote higher wages and again the U.S. Trade Representative’s office tells us that these export industries in Mexico have brought up their wages. As for the issue about U.S. job loss, that can easily be countered with the fact that 18 million new jobs have been added in the past decade and that by 2004 unemployment in America was actually lower than it was before NAFTA. Add these facts along with the reality that Mexico’s democracy has developed from the one party pre-NAFTA system to the well functioning multi-party political system. The fact is that neo-liberal free trade does have an economic focus but the moral agenda of neo-liberalism is that with economic growth come democratic, environmental and social improvements. Economic growth must be made stable and secure so that these secondary improvements can be made.

The agenda that Paul and others in the global justice movement promote is noble and I have no doubt as to the integrity of their call for economic justice and equality. But the example of our own nation shows that with time consistent economic growth can produce social and environmental programs and improvements. Remember that our own neo-liberal engine for economic growth began after the Civil War during the second half of the 1800’s. At that time our industrial forbearers had to carve a stable industrial landscape with the development of railroads, steel mills, automobiles, and energy technology before any substantial social and environmental improvements could be made in the 1930’s. We need to give developing nations the same chance to develop themselves into a secure export industry economy before we can expect major social and environmental improvements.


Paul: Free and Fair is Feasible.

Even though I do not accept neo-liberalism let me also go on record as a supporter of the principles of capitalism. James is correct in defending a free market system as an economic engine for generating wealth. Where James and I differ is that he and other neo-liberals make an assumption regarding the generation of wealth and its just distribution. For myself the history of our national experiment with neo-liberalism in the late 1800’s offers a different lesson. Our nation experienced this great growing wealth and the impoverished of our nation again lacked the benefit of this growth. Our own Catholic Church reflected on this when Pius XI wrote the 1931 encyclical Quadragesimo Anno.

Towards the close of the nineteenth century, new economic methods and new developments of industry had in many nations led to a situation wherein the human community appeared more and more divided into two classes. The first, small in numbers, enjoyed practically all the comforts so plentifully supplied by modern invention. The second class, comprising the immense multitude of workingmen, was made up of those who, oppressed by dire poverty, struggled in vain to escape from the straits which encompassed them.[6]

With the advent of the Great Depression and the growth of communism many promoters of social justice turned to political leaders who would scrap neo-liberalism for a regulated capitalist economy with a human face. Thus it was that Franklin Roosevelt came unto the scene bringing government programs that would ensure economic distribution without eliminating market growth. The economic program that would oversee a distributive form of capitalism would not be neo-liberalism but Keynesianism.

The lesson of the 1930’s-1970 is that some form of regulated capitalism that can distribute access to labor and capital does not bring economic growth to an end. In other words economic policies can promote free trade while advocating for fair policies that assures market access to all members of the human community. That is the basis of the global justice movement whose economic model is to promote economic democracy by ensuring free markets while promoting labor employment along with access to capital.[7]

We do not have to wait for a global depression to occur or more devastating acts of terrorism for us to begin to actively promote free and fair trade programs. The global justice movement has created services that can help us as organized consumers to find avenues where we can promote fair trade for goods and services. Transfair USA is a non for profit organization that independently certifies and monitors a whole range of fair trade products including coffee, chocolate, fruit, sugar, tea and rice. The principal criteria of Fair Trade certification are:[8]
Fair prices for farmers and decent working and living conditions for workers
Direct trade with farmers, bypassing middlemen
Free association of workers and co-ops, with structures for democratic decision-making
Access to capital
Sustainable agricultural practices including restricted use of agrochemicals

One can go into the Transfair USA website to find these fair trade products in the local communities. Similarly institutions as a whole can engage in adopting and promoting fair trade policies. Equal Exchange, a for profit corporation that integrates the value of fair trade in its products, offers an interfaith program for religious communities to have their own fair trade products.[9]

Fair trade exists and it continues to generated profits that can benefit all stakeholders of production rather than an elite number of shareholders. International trade can promote fair trade policies that broaden the distribution of this wealth. The 8th Day Center for Justice offered 8 benchmarks for future fair trade negotiations. I list the basic aspects of these benchmarks, whose details can be found at the 8th Day Center website under their Free Trade Statement: [10]

1. Human Right (UN) Standards
2. Labor (ILO) Standards
3. Community Consultative Process
4. Respect for the local democratic process (No Investors - State Dispute Mechanism)
5. Equal Market Access Strategies
6. Policies that protect those who will be Marginalized
7. Economic Sustainability policies
8. Environmental Protections


James: My advice: go ahead and take microeconomic fair trade liberties but stay away from macroeconomic fair trade policies.

I have no problems with individual consumers and consumer groups developing fair trade policies like the ones you mentioned through Transfair USA or Equal Exchange. In fact I believe in this because it is decision like those that help promote the demand needed to truly alter the supply side of economic growth. On the other hand I am apprehensive towards any artificial regulations that you recommended for international trade negotiations. The 8 benchmarks you recommend are artificial regulations in that they are not indicative of the market’s consumer demand. For myself the greatest threat of the global economy is not the revolt of a marginal few who refuse to access the market system but a massively inflated economy that could end economic growth and can cause global depression.

In my opinion, if you allow trade negotiations to be fundamentally free from artificial regulations and you organize the consumer base to create a demand for what you call “fair trade” products then you have created an incentive for industrial engine that supplies the products to want to adopt fair trade production. This is the basic premise of the invisible hand of capitalism. The problem with artificial regulations to the market is that they do not accurately know if there is a demand for “fair trade” products that may be more costly then the average consumer is willing to pay for. You claim to accept capitalist market principles in the form of Keynesianism or the Third Way model (whatever that is),[11] if that is the case then remember these two basic principles, without economic growth you have no wealth to distribute and without an actual consumer demand then all you have is a bunch of worthless “fair trade” products which automatically kills your economic growth.

Free trade has created massive GDP growth in China and India since the 1990’s.[12] Now critics have argued that China and India have horrible labor and environmental conditions. The fact is that these nations already had horrible labor and environmental standards. That was not a result of international trade. What was a result of international trade was our awareness of horrible labor and environmental conditions. China and India are competing for foreign direct investment and a positive image on the world stage. These nations now have the incentives through the international trade machine to raise its labor and environmental standards in order to ensure that foreign multinationals will continue to invest in their nations. Notice the Chinese miracle:

Though the Chinese leaders still maintain that China is a communist state, they have, in fact, completely redefined the term. Tax rates have been slashed (and in some regions are actually lower than those of the United States), industries have been privatized, labor markets have been freed in relative terms, housing ownership is encouraged and growing, and joint ventures with Western companies are increasing rapidly.[13]

I’m not sure I would go out of the way to say that trade agreements like NAFTA or CAFTA are perfect. But they at least assure the potential for progress since they succeed in promoting economic growth. I am very cautious in adding too many artificial regulations that may cripple any real trade and GDP growth (because the average consumer is just not willing to pay $25 dollars for a pound of coffee vs. $5). Again I have no problem with organizing consumers to create a demand for “fair trade” products. I end this argument by quoting from an organization that I do not ascribe to but with whom I agree regarding free trade agreements:

Whatever criticisms one may make of Central America policies, all remain committed to electoral democracy, open markets, and peaceful political systems. An acceptance of partnership with them may help to rebuild the foundation of Latin America policy for the next president while rejection of them could damage the foundation beyond repair…And it is why Congress, accepting that neither CAFTA nor any trade agreement will ever be a perfect one, should approve it.[14]

This last reflection was from the Progressive Policy Institute, a progressive think tank for democrats that includes Third Way economic policies.
_____________________



Passionist Theology Reflection
“The Wisdom of the Cross”

As we see from these reflections, free trade has evolved into complex arrangements affecting the lives and well-being of many nations. It presently dominates the relationships between the northern and southern hemispheres, especially in our western hemisphere portion of the world.

Relationship is an apt way of identifying the core of free trade, or, indeed, of any trading procedure. These relationships are not just recent international concerns. They have been to the fore as long as peoples have been aware of other peoples, willing to barter and exchange one type of goods or products for another.

The brothers of Joseph were quick to take advantage of the caravan of Ishmaelites coming from Gilead, “their camels laden with gum, balm and resin.” (Gn 37:25), trading him to them, for “twenty pieces of silver,” an ominous harbinger of the deal Judas made with the chief priests to hand Jesus over to them (Mt 26: 14-15). In the Middle Ages the spice trade prospered between Europe and the Far East. The Portuguese Vasco De Gama touted India as a source of this valued commodity; Christopher Columbus held out promise to European businessmen of a rich spice resource in the New World.

In 1625 the Dutch West India Company utilized its trading skills to purchase what is now New York City from the Manhattan Indians – reputedly, for some brightly colored glass beads. Fur traders began to deal with Canadian and American Indians, in exchange for firearms and alcohol. After the war of 1812, the Yankee Clipper became a famous sailing vessel, known for its speed in expediting cargo across the waters, including slaves from Africa.

This bit of cursory history suggests that trading is endemic to humankind. It is not an artificial contrivance foisted on us humans. Rather it seems to be an outgrowth of what we are all about. Trade is built on “the work of human hands” (offertory prayer at mass). It depends on men and women’s ability to express ourselves with the raw materials at hand, to fashion attractive or useful products appealing to others, and capable of securing, in return, items of equal worth or value.

Trade is a relationship. Unlike conquest, trade implies a mutual respect and recognition of the value of someone else, at least in terms of the products he or she makes available. There is an element of mutuality, and, indeed, of equality, in trade. A sense of the dignity of another is an implication of trade.

However this theoretic equality of exchange suffers from the reality of an unequal world, where those who have greater access to power and resources dictate trade on a different level than others. In these cases the benefit of trade does not seems to spread out evenly to all. Certain statistics indicate that that while some benefit greatly from trade other do not benefit at all. For us this raises a grave concern with regard to the lack of dignity that is supposed to be inherent in trade.

God was quick to notice this propensity of ours. So He struck a deal. It became the greatest trading event of all time: the Incarnation. To revert to the offertory prayer at mass: “…may we come to share in the divinity of Christ, who humbled himself to share in our humanity.” We seem to have outfoxed God in this exchange.

This is undoubtedly why the Vespers Antiphon toward the beginning of the church year (January 1st) exclaims: “O marvelous exchange! (O admirable commercium!)… We have been made sharers in the divinity of Christ who humbled himself to share in our humanity.”

At the heart of this trade is relationship: between God and us. Not only does God recognize our worth, He respects what we have to offer, and wants to share it. Even more, He is willing to level the playing field between us, granting us a certain equality with Himself by exchanging gifts with us.

This sets a standard for us to emulate in our other trading practices, whether NAFTA, CAFTA, or any other agreements to emerge in the current developing globalization process. While no nation wants to suffer as a result of a trade agreement, hopefully it does not seek to make another nation suffer as a result of an exchange favorable to itself. International trade can be a force in building respect among nations, and in fostering an equality that expresses the dignity of each.
[1] http://www.coc.org/pdfs/coc/interfaith_english.pdf
[2] NAFTA members are Mexico, the United States, and Canada
[3] Public Citizen’s Global Trade Watch, Public Citizen’s NAFTA at ten series, http://www.citizen.org/trade/nafta.
[4] United for a Fair Economy, “The Growing Divide: Inequality and the Roots of Economic Insecurity” pg. 12
[5] United States Trade Representative’s office; “NAFTA: A Decade of Success”
[6] Pope Pius XI, Quadragesimo Anno, 1931, paragraph 3
[7] http://www.globaljusticemovement.org/thirdway.htm
[8] https://www.transfairusa.org/
[9] http://www.equalexchange.com/interfaith-program
[10] http://www.8thdaycenter.org/aboutus/statements.html
[11] Try to find the similarities between these three “third way” sites
http://www.thirdway.org/
http://www.cesj.org/thirdway/thirdway-intro.htm
http://www.ppionline.org/ppi_ka.cfm?knlgAreaID=128

[12] The CATO Institute offers studies on economic growth and social development in Asia: http://cato.org/economicliberty/

[13] http://www.freetrade.org/pubs/briefs/tpb-002.html
“Free Trade and Human Rights: The Moral Case for Engagement” by Robert A. Sirico
[14] Edward Gresser, The Progressive Case for CAFTA; July 2005

Debate Forum: Global Warming

Issue introduction:

This position guide is on global warming, courtesy, again, of the Passionist Social Concerns Commission. This topic lends itself, as have previous issues, to a pro and con position with a concluding theological reflection. As with our previous issues we hope this format will serve the ultimate purpose of promoting healthy dialogues and discussions regarding difficult but important social issues.

Apparently most people agree that global warming is a problem, but disagree as to how to formulate the problem. Is it a problem with a solution, or is it a problem that has no solution? If there is a solution, what might it be? If there is no solution, what course of action, if any, can we take before it?

Global Warming refers to the rising of Earth’s temperature resulting from an increase in heating of the earth’s atmosphere. The atmosphere is heated because of certain heat trapping (greenhouse) gasses that are thickening the layer of the Earth’s atmosphere. This process is known as the “greenhouse effect.” Two of the primary gasses that contribute to this problem are carbon dioxide and methane. According to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency:

What has changed in the last few hundred years is the additional release of carbon dioxide by human activities. Fossil fuels burned to run cars and trucks, heat homes and businesses, and power factories are responsible for about 98% of U.S. carbon dioxide emissions, 24% of methane emissions, and 18% of nitrous oxide emissions. Increased agriculture, deforestation, landfills, industrial production, and mining also contribute a significant share of emissions. In 1997, the United States emitted about one-fifth of total global greenhouse gases.[1]

The following recent events have given rise to the importance and concern regarding this topic:

1. During the summer the price of Gas has continued to rise up to $3 a gallon and continues to fluctuate anywhere from $2.50 to just under 4 dollars, a trend that concern all Americans as well as the Transportation and Energy Industry.
2. On August 8th, President Bush signed into law the new energy bill which is suppose to respond to the energy and gas crisis that looms ahead of this nation.
3. On August 29 Hurricane Katrina ravaged New Orleans and the Gulf Coast decimating at least 1,000 American lives and damaging our Gulf Coast oil rigs and infrastructure.
4. On September 24th Hurricane Rita damaged the Texas/Louisiana border, thankfully not nearly as damaging as Katrina, but still leaving a deep concern for Americans especially when it did reach a category 5 level.
5. On October 24th Hurricane Wilma, the third category 5 hurricane which broke many hurricane season records, damaged the southwest of Florida, after having hit the Mexico.
   

In an effort to illustrate the pro and con positions within this paper, we have developed two pseudo characters from our Christian and American tradition. We raise two apostolic debaters as well as two early American debaters to help us carry on the noble tradition of having healthy debates in order to come to find the wisdom that exist somewhere in the middle from which we can act. In raising up St. James and St. Paul as well as Alexander Hamilton and Thomas Jefferson we are not identifying these pseudo characters to the issues that these men debated as much as the spirit from which they held their positions. For us Christian Americans the character of Paul Jefferson should resonate with us as the progressive-liberal voice while the character of James Hamilton will reflect a traditionalist-conservative approach.

In raising the debates of both James vs. Paul and Hamilton vs. Jefferson it is also probably helpful for the readers to identify themselves with another historical character that was a part of both these debates. The person in the middle who was in charge of mediating both positions and acting on the consensus that came out of these debated. From our Christian heritage we have the person of St. Peter. From our American heritage we have George Washington. In our guides you will not see the pseudo-character of Peter Washington. That is the role we hope you the readers can fill.

Before launching out into a more extensive presentation of the pro and con positions, in terms of this foursome, we might introduce St. Paul of the Cross into the picture, again, not because he a position on global warming, but because he had strong convictions about the nascent religious community he wanted to get underway. Many of these were based in his early orientation toward the hermit-life, accompanied by a supportive setting of quiet and solitude. He was a nature-lover, and was concerned about the location of his residences, which he significantly called “retreats”, wanting them in healthy climates, away from the various pollutants common in that era.

His design for the new community incorporated these features, and did not meet with the immediate approval of the Vatican. In fact, he had something of a running battle with various commissions set up to study his new way of life. This became the issue. Some of the Cardinals on these commissions had a problem with a model of religious life that seemed to depart from the practice, as it existed, in codified form, at the time; Paul’s problem was with their solution, since it did not support the ecology of religious community as he conceptualized it. Eventually a kind of hybrid, so to speak, emerged, strong on ascetical practices, but weaker on some of the monastic ones. He had to compromise.

Perhaps the conclusion of the pro-con positions on global warming will end in a compromise that applies solutions to that part of it that is a problem, and modes of adjustment to the part of it that is a misfortune. But let us get on with a presentation of each.

Issue Debate

James: Is the Earth getting warmer? Seemingly. Is human pollution at fault? Hardly.

Whether it’s the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, the Union of Concerned Scientist or the National Academy of Sciences it seems that there may be a general scientific consensus on the issue that the earth’s temperature has risen 1 degree Fahrenheit in the last century. On the issue that human activity is partially responsible for this climate change the closest scientific consensus that exist is to accept that certain human activity like CO2 and methane emissions may be part of the problem, although how significant the contribution of human activity may be to global warming remains a point of contention. For the sake of argument let me concede the following points:

1. Our world did get warmer by 1 degree this past century.
2. Human activity bears some small responsibility for this climate change.

The reason I am willing to concede these points is because I want to move this debate into a forum I would like to call reality by focusing on two items. How significant is our own human contribution? And based on that what should be our responsible and doable response to this problem.

So let us put a perspective on human activity’s contribution to climate change. Fossil fuel emissions may play a role in the warming of the earth but there are other factors that need to be taken into consideration. There are natural greenhouse gas emission from plants and animals. The solar cycle’s natural fluctuations are also contributing to this phenomenon. Increased urban development and deforestation are also contributors to the issue of climate change.

The September 2005 report by the National Center for Policy Analysis indicates “the Earth currently is experiencing a warming trend, but there is scientific evidence that human activities have little to do with it. Instead, the warming seems to be part of a 1,500-year cycle (plus or minus 500 years) of moderate temperature swings.”[2] A similar report by the Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine states that “human use of coal, oil, and natural gas has not measurably warmed the atmosphere.”[3]

With human activity being a small and arguably insignificant contributor to the issue of climate change, what becomes our responsibility to the issue of global warming? It becomes a responsibility that we balance along with the entire agenda of protecting freedom, maintaining security, and furthering our economic growth. One of the historical realities to keep in mind when discussing environmental solutions is that the rich developed nations are able to address environmental problems better than poorer nations because they can afford to do this. According to Bjorn Lomborg, the author of The Skeptical Environmentalist, “In the United States, the most important environmental indicator, particularly air pollution, has more than halved since 1955, rivers and coastal waters are dramatically cleaner, and forest land is increasing… Some developing countries are already following suit. In Mexico and Chile, air pollution is going down.”[4] Global economic growth then is the indirect solution for promoting environmental issues.

For this reason I do not advocate having a global carbon tax system which will only function to curb the development potential of poor nations thus disabling them from economic growth that is a necessary first step to environmental spending. Also many of the proposed environmental technologies such as solar or wind power simply are not developed enough to be a real financial alternative energy source. I agree with promoting good voluntary codes for carbon emission but I would not want to hamstring a company with regulations that would affect its ability to maintain jobs and create economic growth, which in the case of energy and automotive industries could be used to develop better environmental technologies. As a good first step I would entertain the promotion of carbon sequestration technology.[5] Rather than regulate and bind business, this industry would give an environmental alternative to farmers and agribusiness.

Paul: Lets separate the wheat from the weed, or in this case the scientific community from the contrarians.

There is no unified consensus on the exact data regarding climate change. It is generally agreed that in this past century the temperature of the atmosphere has risen at least 1 degree Fahrenheit. The prediction for the next century, if everything stays the same, ranges from a 2.5 degree to a 10.4 degree Fahrenheit increase. Regarding the details of the data there is a broad range of differing opinions. However a general consensus on climate change does exist. There are national and international bodies for the scientific community to debate and develop these broad consensual decisions on the subject of climate change. The groups and individuals that my colleague likes to highlight are not part of that community.

So who are these climate skeptics like Willie Soon, Sallie Baliunas and S. Fred Singer, whose research people like James use to disqualify the scientific community? As a group they have recently been dubbed the popular nickname, the contrarians. Well let’s point out a common feature for the majority of the contrarian community. In May of 2005 Mother Jones magazine did the wonderful service of identifying of individuals and organizations that have been funded by ExxonMobil.[6] According to this study Exxon Mobil has spent a total of $8,678,450 on over 40 organizations that happen to adopt a contrarian approach to climate change. The three individuals that James and I have mentioned are all members of Exxon funded organizations. If you include the 8 million used to fund contrarian groups with the money that Exxon uses for political campaign contributions, consider what could be done with that money regarding the technological innovations needed to improve alternative energy sources, and the skilled employment needed to develop them.

Now imagine if Government developed an energy bill that would give corporations financial incentives to develop these new technologies such as wind turbines and better solar technology instead of rewarding them for maintaining the status quo in the midst of a looming energy crisis and drastic weather changes. Is my scenario any more unrealistic than yours? No, the difference is that my vision is sustainable for a future that needs to go beyond fossil fuel and yours is not.

Regarding the state of scientific consensus. As I mentioned there are national and international institutions where the scientific community does get together to develop these policy recommendations. This includes the National Academy of the Sciences in the United States, the International Joint Science Academies, The World Meteorological Organization and the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. At a congressional hearing in 2003 Professor John P. Holdren[7] made the following statement.

A very large majority of the scientists who have studied climate change are in agreement that: (a) global climate has been changing over the past several decades at a rate highly unusual in climate history; (b) the observed build-up of atmospheric carbon dioxide from fossil-fuel burning has almost certainly been responsible for a substantial part of the change in climate that has been observed; (c) continuation of anything resembling “business as usual” in civilization’s carbon dioxide emissions during the 21st century will lead to much larger changes in climate than those observed so far; and (d) while the consequences of changes of the sort likely to occur under “business as usual” cannot be predicted with high confidence at the current state of the science, the kinds of consequences that are plausible and even likely, given current understanding, entail large disruptions of a wide range of environmental conditions and processes and serious adverse impacts on human well-being.[8]

The scientific consensus presented here conveys a very different reality regarding human responsibility and the consequence of CO2 emissions. What the scientific community studied in theory through research and weather models is now becoming an observable reality for all to see in the form of the massive hurricanes, tsunamis and most troubling of all the recorded loss of the artic ice shelf and consequent rising sea levels.[9]

This scenario begs us to take a more proactive approach to global warming then what James suggested. I am fully in agreement with exploring carbon sequestration, along with these other innovations and regulations:[10]

• Exploring and developing safe renewable energy technologies
  o Wind Turbines
  o Solar Photovoltaic Panels
  o Bio-Fuels
• Increase energy efficiency standards and products
• Protect the forest
• Make more fuel efficient cars and utilities
• Reducing CO2 emissions via a national and global CO2 cap and trade program[11]

Obviously I would have to disagree with James that in recommending these initiatives I am sacrificing global or national economic growth. In fact my opinion and argument is that the opposite is true. To maintain energy economic growth via fossil fuels when the supply of fossil fuels are becoming scarce is unsustainable for future employment and even corporate economic growth. A study by the Center for Renewable Energy and Sustainable Technology shows the wind and solar photovoltaic job growth would exceed the coal industry by 40% assuming that the demand for energy stays the same.[12] It should come to no surprise that many energy companies like British Petroleum[13] and Chevron-Texaco[14] are moving towards Renewable Energies.

James: Good Plan, all it needs is a dose of reality

I cannot ascribe to Paul’s doomsday scenario. It is rash and perhaps even irresponsible to ascribe the recent hurricanes to global warming. This is especially true when the Director of the National Hurricane Center, Mr. Max Mayfield, stated before a congressional committee this past September, “The increase activity since 1995 is due to natural fluctuations/cycles of hurricane activity… and not enhanced substantially by global warming.” In this statement Mr. Mayfield is referring to the 20 year cycles of hurricanes whereby they are more powerful during one cycle and less so during the next. The issue of the artic ice shelf and the rising sea levels are certainly more dramatic. However that again is part of a larger cycle, a 1,500-year warming-cooling cycle of moderate temperature swings.

It is obvious that on this point we do not agree so lets move on. If we both want to realistically deal with the CO2 emissions, then I would have to say that your plan would be wonderful if we could just go back in time and redo the industrial revolution all over again. The fact is that we live in a current reality where our global society and industrial infrastructure is built on fossil fuel energy; this is not to say we cannot change it but it suggests that the change must be a gradual development that won’t wreck the current system and set us back. To establish severe public policies in place that would address all your suggestions is to hamstring the industrial structure. It would be like a moving vessel in need of a completely new engine. At first the vessel would need to slow down to a stop, then the old engine would have to be replaced by a new engine. That new engine would have to be built during the time the vessel is stopped and during that time the crew is just waiting (unemployed) on the deck until the process is complete. Do you really think in a democratic society people would stand for this, waiting in a state of unemployment for an unforeseeable amount of time?

For that reason I advocate for a public policy that put its eggs in just one or possibly two baskets in order to improve on a couple of dominant and non-crippling CO2 emissions. The recent energy bill started us on a trend to promote and increase energy efficiency standards and encourage renewable technologies while we continue to support the fossil fuel industry that we do have. Of course added to that are voluntary codes that I support and by your own admission they are working with Chevron and BP. Now maybe Exxon is not on the bandwagon but here is where the law of the market comes into play. If Chevron’s initiatives become successful then the market will reward it over Exxon and the invisible hand will push Exxon to adopt the needed changes. Now along with what exist, let’s work with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency on promoting carbon sequestration. There you have a doable climate change policy for the 21st century.

Paul: Have you heard of the Precautionary Principle?

If we eliminate radical environmentalist on one end and the contrarians on the other then we have the consensual group in the middle whose recommendation were neatly presented by Professor Holdren in my earlier argument. I am sorry that my colleague chooses not to accept this consensus but unfortunately its potential implications are too serious for us to dismiss with gradual and voluntary altercations to the business as usual system that is responsible for this crisis. It is true that the data and degree of climate change are still debatable, but the seriousness of this issue demands that we responsibly utilize the precautionary principle.

The precautionary principle is a tool of public policy utilized by nations and the international community. What this tool does is to advocate for precautionary public policy action in the face of credible threats and harm despite residual scientific uncertainty. In this country one of the most famous struggles that utilized the precautionary principle was with the issue of tobacco and lung cancer. In the seventies when groups advocated against the tobacco companies for the physical harm of lung cancer the scientific proof was not there to back up their claims. In fact, similar to ExxonMobil with regard to climate change, the tobacco industry backed up its own research to keep disqualifying the damning research that did link tobacco to cancer. Utilizing the precautionary principle the state governments began to regulate tobacco before waiting for the proof that finally came to be cleared in the 1990’s.

With regard to global warming the scientific community has meet to formulate the precautionary principle on this issue and that was developed in the Wingspread statement of 1998 which said,

When an activity raises threats of harm to human health or the environment, precautionary measures should be taken even if some cause and effect relationships are not fully established scientifically.[15]

I am not preaching on the end of the world but the evidence does suggest that an extreme climate shift will create unfavorable living conditions for the human community including the loss of freshwater, the increase of sea levels, and rising ocean temperatures which do impact the weather patterns.

Instead of focusing on this crisis James is suggesting that my policy suggestions are the potential crisis to be wary off, that is simply not the case. My suggestions do not demand a complete or even partial shutdown of the industrial infrastructure that James seems to be suggesting. All my suggestions are for good public policy that will give the extra nudge that would help the industry take the precautionary measure that they need to. While the energy bill that was recently past offers some meager incentive for what Chevron is doing with renewable energy it ended up giving Exxon a greater reward for more oil exploration. The energy bill should have done the opposite. For a nation that believes in free market it is curious that the current administration is promoting policies that are dictating a different course from where the market is heading. People and nations throughout the world are demanding greener commodities and we are not actively supplying them. Public policy should help our industries compete with the shifting markets but instead we are rewarding them for maintaining the technologies and resources of the past. The global public support for Kyoto should have said something to the administration about this shifting demand.

All of my above mentioned suggestions are doable with the industrial infrastructure we have today. Using your analogy of the vessel we can continue to drive the ship while with new engine is being designed today and integrated as we move forward. If you look at U.S. in competition with Europe, Japan and even China revamping their own engines in the face of global warming, peak oil[16], and the shifting demand our U.S. vessel may be able to stay ahead for the next few years but slowly the lack of the demand and supply for our old fossil fuel engine will slow us down and eventually stop. How do you think our crew will feel about that?
_____________________

Passionist Theology Reflection
“The Wisdom of the Cross”

We have seen the effects of hurricanes Katrina, Rita and Wilma. We have read about the people who have died, or who have left their homes and are now looking for another place to settle. We see and hear of their suffering. This moves us to discern our responsibility in caring for the globe. Although we may not be the ones who are burying the dead, or their relatives or evacuees who have had to leave their homes and get a life somewhere else, we still feel the pain and take a closer look at this reality of global warming. There is a profound sense that not only are people suffering but also the earth itself is “suffering.”

We Passionist are not the only ones who are aware of this suffering. Those who do not profess our faith in God share it also. Where does that leave us?

Regarding the two opinions we have heard in the debate in truth we cannot find in the Bible direct exhortations. For progressives the Bible unfortunately does not say, “Be sure to take care of nature by not polluting the land you use, and by not cutting down unnecessary trees. Keep clean the air you breathe and the water you drink. Use natural resources sparingly to keep yourselves warm and to move about.” Likewise conservatives cannot find the following quote in scripture, “There is little need to worry about my earth and its climate. I am in control of it and I love you so much that atmospheric events will cause you no trouble. Remember, I am with you always. You have nothing to fear. All will be well.” Such quotes would help our debate. The issue of global warming as we understand it did not affect our Christian founders. What we do have is the general message of our Scripture and Christian tradition and we must look towards the spiritual meaning of our tradition and what that says to the current issues we face.

One of the fundamental tenants of our faith is our belief in the Death and Resurrection of Christ and its accomplishment in reconciling humanity to the Creator, who “was pleased . . . through Christ to reconcile to himself all things, whether on earth or in heaven, making peace by the blood of his cross” (Col. 1, 19-20). St. Paul uses the words, “all things.” Does he mean air, water, dirt, plants, trees, and animals? If so, it looks like all this “stuff” is going to return to Christ in their clean and pristine state.

Creation was thus made new (Rev. 21, 5). Once subjected to the bondage of sin and decay, it has now received new life while “we wait for new heavens and a new earth in which righteousness dwells” (2nd Peter 3, 13). Again it seems like all this “stuff” is destined for a renewed state of its original beauty and newness. “Thus the Father has made known to us in all wisdom and insight, the mystery . . . which he set forth in Christ as a plan for the fullness of time, to unite all things in him, all things in heaven and things on earth” (Eph. 1, 9-10). Things will not only be in their original, unique, pristine state of beauty and newness, but they will also exist in mutual support and unity. This is community – sacred community in the mind of God from the beginning. It was the spirit of our tradition that drove our Passionist founder, St. Paul of the Cross, to implement environmental features to his ministry that we mentioned in the introduction.

We hope that these considerations help us to understand better the relationship between human activity and the whole of creation. We also hope that we see a little better our role as cooperators with God in taking care of God’s creation. When we turn our back on our Creator’s plan, disorder, which has inevitable repercussions on the rest of the created order, results. In terms of morality, when we are not at peace with God and God’s creation – God’s globe, then the earth itself cannot be at peace. “Therefore the land mourns and all who dwell in it languish, and also the beasts of the field and birds of the air and even the fish of sea are taken away” (Hosea 4, 3).

[1] U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, http://www.epa.gov/. The exact site was under global warming-climate http://yosemite.epa.gov/oar/globalwarming.nsf/content/climate.html
[2] S. Fred Singer and Dennis T. Avery, “The Physical Evidence of Earth’s Unstoppable 1,500-year Climate Cycle,” National Center for Policy Analysis – Executive Summery, 2005
[3] Arthur B. Robinson, Sallie L. Baliunas, Willie Soon, and Zachary W. Robinson, “Environmental Effects of Increased Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide,” Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine, 1998
[4] Bjorn Lomborg “The State of Nature,” an article found in the July/August 2005 edition of Foreign Policy magazine, in this article Bjorn Lomborg debates with Carl Pope over the environment.
[5] This technology would use natural carbon “sinks” which are areas rich with good soil or an abundance of trees that act as a natural storage facility for carbon. A carbon sink must have good soil that can store more carbon then it would release. Individual farmers could tend agricultural and a forestry area as a carbon sinks. This would a very practical solution for the United States since the majority of the U.S. landscape naturally is a carbon sink.
[6] Chris Mooney, “Some Like it Hot,” Mother Jones, May/June 2005. The chart can be found in the following website. http://www.motherjones.com/news/featurex/2005/05/exxon_chart.html
[7] John P. Holdren is a professor of environmental policy at the John F. Kennedy School of Government and Professor of Environmental Sciences and Public Policy at Harvard University.
[8] Comments by John P. Holdren on “the Shaky Science Behind the Climate Change Sense of the Congress Resolutionn” US Senate Republican Policy Committee June 2, 2003
[9] Daniel Glick, “Geo-signs: The Big Thaw” National Geographic, September 2004, pg. 12-34
[10] Union of Concerned Scientist “Common Sense on Climate Change,” http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warming/solutions/common-sense-on-climate-change-practical-solutions-to-global-warming.html
[11] According to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency “Cap and Trade Is a market based policy tool for protecting human health and the environment. A cap and trade program first sets an aggressive cap, or maximum limit, on emissions. Sources covered by the program then receive authorizations to emit in the form of emissions allowances, with the total amount of allowances limited by the cap. Each source can design its own compliance strategy to meet the overall reduction requirement, including sale or purchase of allowances, installation of pollution controls, implementation of efficienty measures, among other options. Individual control requirements are not specified under a cap and trade program, but each emissions source must surrender allowances equal to its actual emissions in order to comply.”
[12] Renewable Energy Policy Project, “The Work that goes into Renewable Energy,” Research Report, Nov. 2001
[13] http://www.bp.com/sectiongenericarticle.do?categoryId=9002323&contentId=3072081
[14] http://www.chevronenergy.com/renewable_energy/default.asp
[15] Wingspread Statement on the Precautionary Principle, http://www.gdrc.org/u-gov/precaution-3.html
[16] Peak Oil, the strong scientifically held belief that as a finite commodity oil has already reached its midpoint and that its supply can only get less and less until at some point it will reach zero.

Debate Forum: The Patriot Act

Issue introduction:

During the early half of June the House Judiciary Committee has been holding hearings regarding the reauthorization of certain clauses within the USA Patriot Act that are set to end by December 2005. On Friday, June 10th during the testimony of Amnesty International, the members of the committee began to argue passionately against each other regarding the delicate aspects of the Patriot Act issue. On the one hand, there is the issue of national security and the reality of terrorism; on the other hand, there is the issue of civil liberties and the reality of constitutional rights. Unfortunately, on that particular day, the issues went beyond control. The chairman of the committee, Rep. James Sensenbrenner, R-Wis., abruptly ended the meeting and walked out with the gavel and some of his fellow Republicans. As the microphones were being switched off an irritated Democrat from New York, Rep. Jerrold Nadler could be heard shouting, “We are not besmirching the honor of the United States, we are trying to uphold it!”

Moments like these demonstrate the heated and passionate debate centered around the controversial security legislation known as the Patriot Act. Adopted just six weeks after the September 11 attacks on October 26, 2001, the USA Patriot Act was passed by Congress and signed into law granting the Federal Government extraordinary law enforcement powers that would aid its ability to promote security during this War on Terror. While Congress did pass this legislation they also did agree to add a sunset clause on controversial aspects of the law in order to have a second congressional review on those sections. By February of 2005, through the newly appointed Attorney General Alberto Gonzales, the Bush administration declared its desire to have Congress make the entire Patriot Act permanent. With this in mind our legislative branch is locked in a heated debate on the controversial Patriot Act, a debate that is sure to continue until the provisions are either made permanent or are removed.

Any one who can appreciate the two fundamental positions of this debate can recognize and respect the complexity of this issue. National security is a fundamental responsibility of the Federal Government. We as citizens of this nation expect our elected representatives to provide a secure environment for us to be able to live in liberty. Yet the issue of civil liberty is also a fundamental responsibility of the Federal Government. It is through our civil liberties that we are able to maximize our ability to live as a free people, the dream and vision of our nation’s very foundation. We expect that our Government provide for our most basic civil liberties.
Recently the 9/11 commission thoroughly considered all aspects of the post 9/11 reality and made several recommendations to our government regarding the War on Terror. On this issue regarding the Patriot Act and our civil liberties the commission made the following contribution:
…while protecting our homeland, Americans should be mindful of threats to vital personal and civil liberties. This balancing is no easy task, but we must constantly strive to keep it right…Because of concerns regarding the shifting balance of power to the government, we think that a full and informed debate on the Patriot Act would be healthy.[1]

In the spirit of this statement we, the social concerns committee of the Passionist Community, will also contribute to this debate by considering the arguments from both sides of the civil liberties/national security issue. We will then also reflect from our own theological perspective to see how the wisdom of the cross contributes to these considerations. In the spirit of our own early Christian Tradition we will articulate the two positions through a respectful and fictitious argument between two apostolic founders of our Christian heritage. The character of Paul will articulate his impassioned defense for the freedom of individuals from the constraints of (in this case Civil) Law, a progressive liberal view. On the other hand the character of James will defend his position on the importance of promoting the security of the traditional community as a priority over individual liberties, a neo-conservative view.[2] With that let us move to the debate itself.

Issue Debate

Paul: Remember the words of an original patriot, “Life, without liberty, is not worth living.”

As I consider the notion of retaining the federal government powers to search and seize my property and possessions (Section 213 of the Patriot Act) as well as powers to attain in secret all my private and personal records including my financial, medical and library records (Section 215 of the Patriot Act), I cannot help but think of two founding members of this great experiment we call America. On the one hand, I am reminded of Patrick Henry who said “life, without liberty, is not worth living.” His life example was a testament to his own words. In his own times he could have very easily chosen to preserve his own life and personal security but at the cost of British regulations. These regulations included terms of what he could purchase, the limits of his right to property, and various forms of censorship. The oppression of personal basic liberties was not an option to this original American Patriot.

The other person that I am reminded of during this time is Benjamin Franklin who said “They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.” For me, this quote truly hits the heart of the matter. Now granted, I expect that our Federal Government provide us with the security to live our lives but my expectation is to have a basic national security so that I can live my life with the liberty to grow and develop as who I am within my local civil and faith community. I fully support our Governments desire to provide greater security for its people. For myself that is not the issue. The issue is that my Federal Government intends to provide security through my concession of some of my own civil liberties. I cannot imagine Mr. Franklin or Mr. Henry would find this tolerable.

The way I see it with Section 215 of the Patriot Act, my Federal Government could at any point retrieve my financial and library records. Now, in practicing and promoting my own faith tradition I certainly read from prominent members of my community. If I were to study something controversial only for the academic desire to critique it, my Government having no idea why I read that particular material, could decide to label me as a threat to their own security without any notification. Of course at that point I should expect to find it difficult to travel or perhaps even purchase items. But then through Section 213 without any knowledge or notification, my Federal Government could take any aspect of my own property because of something I read. Worst yet I may find myself arrested or detained for reasons that are not disclosed to me. This to me is a tremendous loss of liberty and quality of life.

James: the war on civil liberties is a myth; the War on Terror is real.

You rightly express an expectation for our Federal Government to provide us with basic security. This desire of yours is consistent not only with your own fellow citizens but also with the early tradition of this nation. Our own Constitution instructs us that “We, the people of the United States, in order to …insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense.” This makes up part of the oath that are own elected Commander in Chief swears to uphold as one of his responsibilities to the American public. And so it is because of this grave responsibility that the Patriot Act was written, because as you know, we were attacked as a nation on 9/11, and we rightfully demand that our political leadership protect us from this very real threat to our own security.

The Patriot Act is a necessary instrument for our Federal Government that allows it to fulfill its responsibility to protect us from the threat of terrorism. In truth, the provisions of the Patriot Act grant only incremental extensions of security arrangements that are already available in our legal/governmental system. As an example, let us seriously consider Section 213 that you raised as a concern. The issue of delayed notification, which allows law enforcement the ability to conduct search or seizure without notifying the person in question immediately, was an aspect of crime-fighting that existed before the Patriot Act. The Supreme Court had ruled in 1979 that there are cases, specifically involving drug cases, child pornography, or organized crime including terrorism, where law enforcement need not give immediate notification because of the nature of the crime. All that the Patriot Act provision does then is to allow further temporary delay when the required notification is given. Nevertheless this entire process continues to be supervised by the courts so that it continues to retain the rightful checks and balances necessary for the protection of civil liberties. And this is true for the other sections of the Patriot Act.

I don’t dismiss your concerns regarding the state of your own civil liberties. It certainly is a fundamental aspect of our national identity. All aspects of Governmental powers should be reviewed regarding any encroachment on that principle. But don’t view the Patriot Act as a law bent on taking away civil liberties. It is not. It’s a law to help our government wage this battle against the real threat of terrorism. Keep in mind that the Patriot Act is written to protect the First and Fourth amendment rights in order to provide the Government with its ability to provide national security while not compromising our precious civil liberties.

Paul: Unfortunately some of your myth is becoming reality.

I wish I could share in your optimism. The issue of promoting national security and preserving our democratic checks and balances as well as preserving our civil liberties is not as clean as you make them out to be. Certainly there is the reality of 9/11 to which we must be attentive, but there is the other reality of deportations, mass detentions, physical and mental torture, and racial profiling. A carefully written law that gives greater governmental power over the rights of the individual does not necessarily translate into a carefully executed law especially in times of high alert and lower tolerance.

After 9/11 the Justice Department rounded up on record 1200 immigrants without releasing any information regarding the detained, thanks to section 412 of the Patriot Act that allows indefinite detention on non-citizens based on “reasonable ground.” The vast majority of those rounded up were of Arab or Muslim origin. In 2002, pursuant to section 1001 of the Patriot Act, we learned from the Inspector General of the Justice Department that 762 of those who were rounded up were classified as “September 11 detainees” and that none of them were charged with terrorist related offenses. The Inspector General even qualified the conditions of the confined detainees as harsh and including “a pattern of physical and verbal abuse.” Also we have the present reality of U.S. Citizens such as Yaser Hamdi and Jose Padilla who continue to be held in U.S. custody since 2002 without a court hearing amidst the fact that the Supreme Court has ruled that they must be properly charged in a court of law. These forms of unconstitutional discrimination have already occurred and through the controversial sections of the Patriot Act have been allowed to continue by creating a legal state of limbo. Now the present reality is that this form of wide discrimination currently affects the Arab and Muslim population most of all but let us recall Martin Niemoller’s famous Holocaust quote and place it within this particular context, They came for the Arabs and I didn’t speak up, because I wasn’t Arab. Then they came for the Muslims and I didn’t speak up, because I wasn’t Muslim. “Then they came for me, and by that time there was no one left to speak up for me.”

I certainly hope that my concerns are exaggerated but at this point with Section 802 of the Patriot Act, which broadens the definition of “domestic terrorism” I believe I have every reason to be afraid. Through this section the U.S. Government may determine that certain actions “appear to be intended” to “influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion,” or “to intimidate or coerce a civilian population.” This definition is highly ambiguous. Any of us who participate at events to protect our First through Tenth amendment rights are subject to suspicion and may be indefinitely detained. No wonder the movement to end the Patriot Act has brought together some strange bedfellows from the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) and Amnesty International (AI) on one end to the National Rifle Association (NRA) and the American Conservative Union (ACU) on the other. I have to stand with these groups at this moment in calling for Congress to sunset these controversial provisions of the Patriot Act because I realize that for true democracy to survive it must constantly be nurtured. As President John Adams once said, “Remember, democracy never lasts long. It soon wastes, exhausts, and murders itself. There never was a democracy yet that did not commit suicide.”

James: have some faith in our democracy.

Paul, what you fail to see from your own argument is that the very contention between our judicial and executive branches of our Government in the controversial cases of Padilla and Hamdi demonstrate the ongoing viability of our democratic structure and how our Federal Government does provide the checks and balances you claim to be missing. What you want is to weaken our executive branch from accomplishing its constitutional responsibility through an over empowered judiciary. Different times bring different responsibilities and that calls us to find out how to redirect those responsibilities within our democratic system.

Since you seem to enjoy history why don’t you recall another time in the history of our nation when it had to deal with a major insurrection (albeit internal) that we now call the Civil War. In 1862, because of the nature of the conflict, President Lincoln issues a proclamation that suspended the Writ of Habeas Corpus; something he probably had to do to secure our nation’s ability to fight the confederate insurrection. We are not talking about a general tweaking of civil liberties but an overall suspension of the basic rights of the individual involved with the insurrection for a period of time. Certainly some folks were concerned at the state of their civil liberties at that time as you are today. But if your fear of an American autocratic regime branching forth through the weakening of one’s civil liberties was to take place then it should have happened at this time. The reality however, was that as the war was coming to an end the suspension was lifted and the war powers of the Executive branch were dissolved. The fact is that the Government is not interested in taking your civil liberties for the sake of a power trip either in Lincoln’s time or in ours. Both the 1862 proclamation and the current Patriot Act are merely trying to address the security threats of our time.

While I certainly recognize the difficulty that innocent people face in the midst of present or past security concerns, I will also recognize the security achievements that have been made possible through the Patriot Act:
· 5 terrorist cells have been broken up here in the United States;
· 375 individuals have been criminally charged in terrorism investigations;
· 515 individuals that are linked to the 9/11 investigation have been deported;
· 113 individuals are charged with terrorist financing-related crimes, with 57 convictions.

Again the Patriot Act itself must be understood as a law that helps us fight our war against terrorism. In summary, the basic essence of what the Patriot Act does I would say is that it:
· Enhances the tools that were already predisposed to our investigators;
· Facilitates information sharing and cooperation between agencies;
· Updates the law to reflect new technologies and new threats;
· Increases penalties for terrorist crimes.

To sunset any of these provisions is to again weaken our ability to protect ourselves from the very real threat of terrorism.
_____________________

Passionist Theology Reflection
“The Wisdom of the Cross”

This Position Guide is about the perennial issue of liberty and law. It has a history in both philosophy and theology. The Christian Scriptures' outlook on the topic appears in this particular Guide, in the persons of Paul and James.

Behind the theoretical moorings of this subject matter lie personality types. It seems God has made us all so that we tend to fall into one camp or the other: liberty, with the tendency to abuse it; and law, with the orientation toward overdoing it. The social forms of these personality types have acquired the vocabulary of "left" and "right". As the guide makes clear, there are assets and liabilities associated with each. From a religious point of view, especially a Christian one, and, indeed, a Passionist perspective, we can hardly do better than recall the ramifications of what we have come to call the Paschal Mystery. In recent times we have seen fit to apply this as an overarching reference to the center-piece of our faith: the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ.

Upon reflection, we can see the pertinence of the Paschal Mystery to the problems that the Patriot Act is trying to address. The death of Jesus on the Cross illustrates the law (of sin) at work on this supreme representative of the human race. This law must have its way: one man must die for the people, as the high priest said to continue the social order that is based on this corrupted law. Brutal, savage and cruel as it was, the Passion of Christ was something that had to play out (The Son of Man "must" suffer at the hands of men...) in the ongoing saga of the human race trying to dig itself out of the hole into which it had dug itself over long centuries. Such an imbalance had developed between God and ourselves, that nothing short of this heroic effort of Jesus on the cross was sufficient for righting the incorrigibility that had set in. A law was at work here, aiming at righting (a move toward social righteousness) what had gone horribly wrong.

However, even as we acknowledge this hard fact, we immediately come to see that over-working this approach to law can box us into some unsavory conceptions of God. And so we ponder the cross afresh, and catch a glimmer of another law at work --the law of love. In the last analysis, no amount of harshness and violence is going to exhaust the meaning of the law operating on Calvary. There is, thankfully, another dimension to the law: the love of God the Father for the human race, and for His Son; and the love of Jesus Christ for His heavenly Father. Here is law at its best, and it is this understanding of law that wins the day. The cross finds its meaning in such love, not in savagery.

The Paschal Mystery also opens up to us another phase of Jesus' ministry on our behalf: His resurrection from the dead. After death had made its claim on Him, in the name of the law of sin and love, a breakthrough was to follow, in the name of liberty and freedom. The resurrection represents the breaking of the bonds of death, and the law associated with it. Born to die, we, thanks to the risen Christ, are also born to live again. The resurrection has the last word in this scenario: the luminous and diaphonous Christ, breaking the shackles of death and rolling back the stone at the entrance of the tomb, rises like a shooting star out of the bonds of death, to live again. By His resurrection, Christ breaks, not only the self-enclosure of the tomb, but also of this world of ours, so that now a passage into a whole new mode of existence, in another world, becomes available. It is the quintessential triumph of liberty, where those imprisoned break out and escape into freedom. God has made us to be free. He is the God of the living, not of the dead.

The Paschal Mystery captures both these phases of our human existence: law
and liberty. Just as the death of Christ is meaningless apart from His resurrection, so is the resurrection irrelevant apart from the Passion. So it is with law and liberty. Dissimilar though they be (but no more so than death and life), they need one another to be understood. There is no law, in God's design, except the one issuing in freedom; and there is no freedom, by God's disposition of things, other than what works its way out of the law binding the human person: the law of finitude and perversity. Is it too pretentious to encase the discussion on The Patriot Act within the framework that the Paschal Mystery provides? Hopefully not.

[1] The 9/11 Commission Report, pg. 394
[2] This debate style is an adaptation of two traditions. The short argument, counter-argument style comes from our own Catholic Thomistic style of debating known as sic et non (yes and no). The style of using legendary names as the fictitious characters that are debating a contemporary issue comes from early American styled debating. After the Revolution and especially during the debate regarding the Constitution Americans debating over that issue through the Federalist and anti-Federalist camps used legendary Roman names such as Cato, Brutus, Mark Anthony, and others to articulate their different positions. For future debates Paul will represent a progressive liberal or a progressive internationalist view. James in the future debates will either represent a traditional conservative or a neo-conservative view. This will depend on which perspective best fits the debate.