Melbourne Unitarian Peace Memorial Church

Some people say you should look forward, not back. My view is that unless you look back and analyze what was, you cannot deal with what is or what will be. I applaud whoever said that if you fail to learn the lessons of history you will be forced to repeat them.

So in this dawning of 2007 facing forward to a brand new year, we need to look at the year that went, ask ourselves were we satisfied as a church that we did all we could to make the world a better place and then decide how we will deal with the year ahead.

We need to ask ourselves, will we in this church, a group of intelligent, thinking, rational people, determine to use our energy, our commitment and our wisdom to challenge those that would destroy our world, or will we sink into contemplation and inaction? Will we play and chatter and contemplate or will we read, assess, examine and act? Will we accept what we are told or will we ‘seek the truth’ Will we not only look forward, but act to ‘determine what should be’? This is the challenge for Unitarians in 2007.

In the past, this church pioneered some very important campaigns.

* Exposure of the Ustasha movement in Australia, a fascist group of Croations encouraged by the then Liberal Government.
* Building of the Victorian Peace Movement at the time of the Cold War.
* Opposition to the Vietnam War when it was not popular to be doing so.
* Campaigning against State Aid to private schools.
The church was a Beacon for social justice at a time when no other churches were active on these issues. It took courage and dedication to seek the truth and act upon it.

Unitarian history both in the UK and the US demonstrate the same kind of courage. As always, I draw on past Unitarians, famous for their commitment and ability to recognize the truth and act. A firm favourite, American Unitarian, Rev. Stephen Fritchman was much more than a person speaking from a pulpit in a comfortable church, he walked picket lines, because he believed that ‘wages are still, as in Paul’s day, a religious matter involving human rights and happiness.
He was fired as an Editor of a religious house paper because he was too anti fascist. Not in words but in action.

He stood up against the House of Un American Activities Committee before which he was called and told them ‘We in this church have no tradition of docile conformity to other men’s statements of loyalty and sound patriotism’… Fritchman said and I certainly agree ‘that the search for truth is itself a religious quest’.

Fritchman would be the first to examine what was, in order to reach what should be. Our own Minister, Rev. Victoria James also stood firm on principle in the face of sometimes insurmountable attack from the powerful, in order to reach ‘what should be.’

He said ‘It will only be when we topple the God of profit from his throne and learn to use the fruits of the earth for the uplifting of all the peoples of the world that any hope for the bettering of the conditions we currently bemoan will be realized. We must do this by planning and action.’

These were people of vision, but we need our own vision. So, before we look at what is to be, let US look at what was! 2006 was a year of horror for the vast majority of Australians who demonstrated their opposition to many of the Federal Government’s policies. We were sickened by the Wheat Board scandal which the government was clearly aware of and implicated in despite an investigative whitewash. We vigorously opposed the introduction of IR changes which burned the hard won conditions enjoyed by generations of Australians won by their forefathers in struggle.
We recognized that we are governed by men and women who supported an illegal war in our name , now exposed as without justification and based on lies and deceptions at the cost to the Americans alone of $500 billion., resulting in the calculated murder of millions of men, women and children. How many we will probably never know, but there are some respected individuals or organizations around the world who make the following claims. Clive Williams, Visiting Fellow at the Australian National University and Visiting Professor at the Australian Defence Force Acadamy, estimates 655.000 Iraqis died 2003, An article in the British Guardian Oct 12, 2006 reported
From a group of doctors in the Lancet, organ of the British Medical Assoc. confirmed by a team from Johns Hopkins Unversity in the USA that some 650,000 deaths have occurred since the invasion of 2003, this illegal war based on lies has killed one in forty Iraqis or 2.5% of the entire Iraqi population. The Editor of the Lancet concluded his appraisal in the following words.

“Our foreign policy based as it is on 19th century notions of the nation state is long past its sell by date. We need a new set of principles to govern our diplomacy and military strategy, based on national security, health and well being and not economic self interest and territorial ambition. The best we can hope for from our terrible misadventure in Iraq is that a new political and social movement will grow to overturn the politics of humiliation. We are one human family, let us act like it.”

The current Federal Government has introduced or pursued policies which are certainly not in our interests. They have refused to take any action on the degradation of our environment which has resulted in weather conditions that have devastated countries, destroyed cities leaving millions still living in abject poverty, unhoused, unfed and with no future. Has continued to ensure that the Aboriginal people die in large numbers at younger ages through ill health, despair, irrational laws and institutional violence. Has introduced legislation un- necessarily, without proper legal foundation, without logical reason, which took away from every Australian their political, civil and social rights. Deliberately decided to leave an Australian citizen in a foreign jail without charge or trial for five years at the mercy of captors who were known to practice torture.
Deported, rejected, imprisoned many innocent men women and children who were simply seeking asylum and a decent life in a fair country. Is this the kind of world we want for future generations?

2006 was a year where we changed from a country of a fair go, of decency and humanity to one of hatred and mistrust, fearful, resentful people looking at each other with suspicion promoting racial discrimination and introducing a blanket policy of ‘dob in a neighbour , dobbing has become a national pass time and replaced a fair go. 2006 was a year where a government bereft of decency, humanity, concern and without any principles or human values, talked about forcing others to adhere to their view of what human values should be. 2006 a year that we would like to forget, but can’t. There are still people in the media, however, who are prepared to take a stand and speak out in defence of truth and democracy, one of those is Tracee Hutchinson. Writer and broadcaster. In her column in the Age December 30th, Tracee spoke about the ‘year that was’, she called her column ‘Raise your Glass and Blot out the Year’. She said ‘’if you take a moment to really think about the year that is about to become history, there doesn’t seem to be much to feel terribly cheerful about’. She ticked off of the 2006 milestones.

Australian David Hicks spent his 5th year in illegal detention not yet accused of any crime waiting to be tried by an illegal court, established to suit George Bush’s supposed fight against terror. Sedition laws were enshrined to make sure that nobody said too much about anything in public. We gave a $300 million wheat wrapped gift pack to Sudam Hussein. We deported Australian citizens who fell through the immigration cracks and locked up others with mental illness in detention centres, Australian workers had to take to the streets to fight for their right to a fair go in their workplaces while CEO’s of big business picked up payouts that ordinary people wouldn’t earn in a lifetime. We talked a lot about values but seemed to lose our identity and we talked about mateship but all over the world we seemed to be losing friends.
We topped off this year of horror by topping Sadam Hussein in the most barbaric and disgraceful execution, after a trial that was a complete travesty of justice, with witnesses suppressed, judges removed or murdered. It was a kangaroo court which lacked any semblance of legal credibility….”.

So said Tracee Hutchinson, an Australian journalist who sought the truth. So in that horror year 2006, the year of ‘what was’, we need to ask why? What was the motive that drove governments to perpetrate such crimes against humanity? What is it that changed the face of the world? In my view it was the drive for global profits, and for power and control over the resources of countries around the world. Control by corporation not by elected government. Global control, corporate control imperialist control, based on greed for profit Not just ordinary profit, but obscene profiteering in trillions of dollars each and every one with blood on its surface. What is corporatism in this global world , it is rule by trans nationals who control and manipulate foreign governments through financial power. It is countries run by huge capitalist corporations rather than elected government. Globalization is a serious threat to democracy, to the independence of elected governments. Rule by corporations is now global isation is simply another name for imperialism.

Prior to the rise of American Imperialism, we had British colonialism. The British utilized very similar policies around the world. They were the predecessors to US imperialism. In the early decades of the 20th Century the British imperialists stole nearly 30 million sq kilometers colonizing approximately 400-500 million people, a quarter of the world’s population. Their colonies covered every continent and every ocean which gave rise to the saying that the sun never sets on the British Empire.

It is worth noting that as the British imperialists extended and consolidated their territorial rape, conditions at home for the British people marginally improved, these improvements were bought at the expense of the blood and pain of colonized peoples. Today it is the turn of the US imperialists and they have taken imperialism to new heights. As their drive for power and profit increases, the position of their working people worsens, poverty, lack of housing and health care, inadequate education, racism are all looming large in American society today. The war on Iraq daily exposes the arrogance and exploitative nature of imperialism. Who benefited from this war? Not the American people, but major corporations who have extracted billions of dollars as well as blood from the people of Iraq.

We need to ask ourselves do we believe it is acceptable for America or any other nation with enough power to invade and occupy another sovereign country and loot its wealth. If we don’t actively oppose this, we tacitly support it. Is it fair or accurate to be criticizing the United States for its actions, is it fair or accurate to call them an imperialist nation? This was asked by An organization called JUST INTERNATIONAL who asked themselves the following questions.
Which is the only country in the world to have dropped bombs on over twenty different countries since 1945? Which is the only country to have used nuclear weapons? Which country’s illegal bombing of Libya in 1986 was described by the United Nations Legal Committee as a class case of terrorism? Which country rejected an order by the International Court of Justice to terminate its unlawful use of force against Nicaragua in 1986 and then vetoed a UN Security Council resolution calling on all states to observe international law? Which country unilaterally withdrew from the Anti Ballistic Missile Treaty in December 2001? Which country prevented the United Nations from curbing the gun trade at a small arms conference in July 2001? Aside from Somali, which is the only country in the world to have refused to ratify the UN Covention on the rights of the child?
Which is the only western country which allows the death penalty to be applied to children?
Which is the only G7 country to have refused to sign the 1997 Mine Ban Treaty forbidding the use of landmines? Which was the only other country to join with Israel in opposing a 1987 General Assembly resolution condemning international terrorism? Which country refused to pay its debts to the UN yet reserves the right to veto UN resolutions? The answer to each of these questions is the United States of America.

Some, particularly our very welcome visitors from America claim that we unfairly ‘demonise’ the United States. Unlike us, they find criticism of their government difficult to deal with. Our criticism of the US Government does not reflect our feelings for the American people who are themselves beginning to demonstrate their rejection of US policies around the world. They, the American people have our respect, but to ignore the policies of any country or to pretend that they don’t exist would be to deny our right to seek the truth. It reminds me of a little story about Arthur Calwell who was once accused of being soft on communism. Callwell replied, if a communist says it is 12 oclock and I look at the clock and indeed it is, should I deny it?

Globalisation, Corporatism, Imperialism flow from the policies of The World Bank and the International Monetary Fund which are dominated by the West, These bodies control the financial, economic, social and political programmes of most countries. The reputation of these bodies has been very tarnished and rightly so. Their public statements about tackling corruption and transparency in their development programmes conflict with their actions.

The March 2004 issue of the New Internationalist features the IMF and is pretty damning of this body. It claims the IMF has been taken over by fundamentalists as extreme and narrow minded as an al Quaeda lieutenant or a US bible belt preacher’ Nobel Prize Winner and former World Bank Chief Economist Joseph Stiglitz says, in the article, ‘they are an instituton that seems to believe in market fundamentalism but yet exists because of market failures, an internal contradiction they have never come to terms with’. He claims that their real objectives are hidden. ‘look at the decision making structure, with the United States the only country with a veto.
‘These bodies look at the world with a particular perspective, a particular ideology that accords with their economic interests, their fundamental interest is ensuring that creditors got paid and that takes precedence over what is good for the country involved. The debt contract always takes precedence over the social contract.’

The British chapter of the World Development Movement sums it up well. ‘When democracy is undermined and governments are unable to act in the interests of their electorate, one of the only channels left is for citizens to demonstrate their objections. Civil unrest, demonstrations and strikes should indicate to governments, law makers and the international community that their policies are not working’.

The World Bank and the IMF were established in 1944 to begin a new global economic order at the end of World War 11. Voting power in both the IMF and the World Bank is based on economic power. The 30 countries of the OECD, eg the rich world, control almost two thirds of the vote. The US has stated that it will not allow its voting power in the IMF to drop below 15% which gives it a veto over all key decisions. 45% of the $25 billion that the World Bank lends each year is dispensed directly to western transnational corporations. Why have I spent so much time on these two bodies? because between them they control not only international finance but they decide our future. In our country, indeed in most countries. They decide what should be privatized, how our social services system should operate, what kind of health care we get, in other words, these two bodies outside our country, over whom we have no control whom we don’t elect, who are not answerable to the people, make decisions and policies that affect our lives.

I ask you to think carefully about the following words of Paul Hellyer, former Deputy Prime Minister of Canada because they are still significant and accurate. ‘Globalisation is about power and control. It is the re shaping of the world into one without borders, ruled by a dictatorship of the world’s most powerful central banks, commercial banks and multinational companies. It is an attempt to undo a century of social progress and to alter the distribution of income from inequitable to inhuman.’

So this morning, January 2007 the beginning of a new year, an important year with Federal elections in the offing, we must think about how this church can make a difference, how this church can help to create an informed public opinion,( because when people are armed with information this is true, there is nothing they cannot achieve.) How can we build a force for a better, fairer and more democratic Australia and these forces be?

Firstly, it should be the churches. Isn’t the demand for justice, freedom, a creative abundant life and ever widening fellowship for every human a fundamental tenet of all religions?
Secondly it should be those organizations trying to cope with the jobless the homeless and the hungry. Who would know better the impact of globalization/ imperialism, on ordinary working class families?
Thirdly it should be the Trade Union Movement, whose charter is to serve it’s members and their families and to take responsibility for all of those former members whose jobs have been lost in the drive for increased profit.
Fourthly, it should be members of the Australian Labor Party, a party whose very existence was created by the forefathers of those suffering exploitation today.
Fifthly it should be those minor parties who are committed to social justice and democracy.
Last but not least, all of those in the Legal profession who know from their experiences what the people are suffering and why?

Imagine what kind of a new society could be created if all of these forces would come together around an agreed programme for a new and democratic Australia? If unity could be reached with all of these organizations , there is nothing that can’t be achieved. This should be our commitment for 2007 to unite these forces for what the Editor of the Lancet called a new political and social movement united in action.