Viennese Journal 3.0 - The Country Roads of Austria, Terrorism, and Quaker Service

We awoke early in the cottage in Lymington, England and headed for the airport in London called Gatewick. It reminds me of the name of Harry Potter's owl, Hedwig, for some reason.  We came into the airport in Vienna (Wien), and were picked up by a taxi driver. He spoke only German, but knew where we were going. In the car was playing some country music, and I mentioned I am country. He said his favorite song was "Country Roads" by John Denver, and we sang it on the way to the apartment. He also said he liked Johnny Cash, so I sang Folsom Prison Blues to him - much to the embarassment of Kerry.  (But she is used to that sort of embarassement from me).  We arrived at our apartment and found a spacious, cool, modern little place with a kitchen, living room, and bedroom.

The view out of our window is a typical Vienna street, but it looks beautiful in a new and exciting sort of way to my American southern eyes.

We walked to a grocery store where we could not understand any of the writing on the food, and the poor lady at the check out couldn't explain to me how to put my credit card in the machine. It was a pretty helpless and sad feeling not to be able to communicate with the people around me. It gave me greater empathy for my hispanic friends and clients who struggle with English in our country.

We ate a lovely dinner in a little Austrian restaurant on the way back from the grocery store.

Then it was back to the apartment to begin the first day of work at the United Nations commission. As I prepare for these first meetings, I have had several thoughts perculating in my mind. I have no clearness on them yet, but there is something forming. I would be interested in other folks thoughts about this random jumble of ideas:

There is a proposed resolution on controlling drug trafficking, especially as it contributes to and supports terrorism. (http://www.unodc.org/documents/commissions/CCPCJ_session21/ECN15_2012_L12_e_V12520661.pdf )

This resolution raises the issue of defining "terrorism." I am very cautious about the way the word "Terrorism" is used politically and internationally because, in my experience, the United States has embraced a broad and vague definition for "terrorism" that has justified the elimination of basic civil liberties. "Terrorism" has become a pretext to expand the powers of the State to conduct surveillance on individuals, search them, kidnap them, detain them, torture, and even kill them - with little or no due process. "Terrorism" has also justified the surveillance of non-violent legitemate groups (like Quaker protesters), as potential trouble makers - on the basis of their anti-war positions, or on the basis of religious connections to Islam. The definition of terrorism is troubling.

Then I try to imagine how I would go about defining terrorism, and find that my definition of terrorist would probably include most Nation-states that have a military.  In its most basic form, terrorism seems to be a group of people trying to advance their political, religious, or social agenda by means of violence against civilians.  Now, most of the casualties of modern wars - especially the wars conducted by the United States - have been civilians. And so, any military might fall within this definition of "terrorist" It is a tough thing to define.

Meanwhile, I am thinking about the other aspect of this resoltuion - drug trafficking. The failed "war on drugs" has really been a war on poor people. For the people in developing countries growing and producing drugs, the controlled substances offer a lucrative way of making a living. If they had a better alternative to making a living - they would probably choose it. Likewise, for people who are addicted to drugs and drive the demand for drugs in developing countries - they too are usually poor. Drug addiction for them is a health problem arising from a confluence of socio-economic failures that drive systemic addiction. On both sides of the supply and demand of the drug trafficking problem are poor folks who are not recieving the support and treatment they need to thrive in a sustainable living wage economy.

Finally I am thinking more broadly about the nature of "Quaker Adovcacy." What does it mean to advocate for Quaker values or to push issues traditionally advanced by Quakers? Quakers have been working on prison reform since their inception - in many ways Quakerism is a movement that began with mass incarceration of its members. Elizabeth Fry became the promenant Quaker prison reformer at the turn of the 19th century that launced decades of Quaker prison activism. Quakers have also long supported basic human rights, most notably the organization of the movement to abolish slavery in the United Kingdom and United States, and the underground railroad. This commitment continued into Jim Crow, desegregation and the civil rights movement. Quaker Bayard Rustin organized the march on Washington that launched the "Dream."

These Quakers were living out our historic testimonies to peace, social equality, and healthy community in their own time and place.  There is a tension between the conscience and leadings of the individual activist and the group history of testing these individual leadings and issuing statements as a group after healthy "Quaker process."

So as a Quaker advocate at an International body what is my role? Do I speak up about anything that strikes my own individual conscience? Do I stay within the areas of historic Quaker witness and press the issues that have been pressed by my forebearers? Is the question what would Quakers say about this or that - or is the question what would Jesus say about this or that? I feel a great responsibility to stay within the measure of my own Spirit and the measure of the spirit of my Quaker faith community.  But this measure can be hard to discern, especially for passionate and impulsive people like me. I pray for the wisdom and guidance to use well this chance to serve in this one small way.