5. We are concerned about the persistent fragile nature of many of the states in our continent ”“ the rise in post-election violence, deep-seated corruption, dysfunctional economies, all affecting economic, political and social development. We urge our political leaders to create frameworks for national multi-stakeholder dialogue as a means of responding to the growing discontent.
6. We are deeply disturbed by the growing tension between Muslims and Christians, resulting in unnecessary loss of lives and property. We offer ourselves to work in collaboration with leaders of other faith communities to lobby respective governments on greater civilian protection towards stabilizing our communities. We call for solidarity with Christians in the Sudan, Zimbabwe, Nigeria and Egypt.
7. We are concerned with the destructive impact that small arms in the hands of civilians has on the welfare of people in our communities and sustainable development. We join other stakeholders in a campaign against their proliferation.
Anybody who wonders why Africa makes so little material progress need look no further than this communique. Note first of all the reference to ‘tensions between Muslims and Christians’. Anyone would think reading this that both sides were to blame. There is no courage, no outspokenness here, about the broken Christians driven from their homes and their torched churches in the North of Nigeria. Then there is the vague reference to standing alongside Christians in Sudan and Zimbabwe. The renegade bishop Nolbert Kunonga can read that and sleep easily as there is no implied criticism of him, no explanation of why it is necessary to stand alongside Christians. It is vague, wishy-washy, and avoids all confrontation with the truth. It evades the reality of several painful situations. If this kind of mind-set is applied to economic or political decisions, you can imagine the consequences. Which is all too often the case today.
Addendum: you might object that the references to corruption and dysfunctional economies does in fact address reality. Well, perhaps. But asking the political leaders to create ‘multi-stakeholder dialogues’ (whatever that is) sounds to me far too trusting of the people who were often responsible for the problems in the first place.
#2: what would you have them say? They are a persecuted minority with little power.
Terry Tee: Note this from the resolutions…
I think that simply criticizing the Muslims would have no effect whatsoever, but by couching it like they have, they will be able to perhaps leverage some international support and action.
3 and 4 have a point. Its easy for us to advocate strong language when there is a huge ocean between us and the people with the AKMs….!
I thank James for drawing my attention to something that I should have spotted earlier. I also feel that my first post was, in retrospect, a little intemperate. Yet if I may be so bold, my history Ph.D was in an aspect of the holocaust. Since then I have been struck by how often we hear the same argument: that we dare not speak out lest we make things worse for the suffering people – or, alternatively, that it would make no difference if we did speak out. Well then, why the criticism of Pope Pius XII? History will not judge us kindly if it becomes clear that our generation saw a long withdrawing of Christianity from its borderlands with Islam, and uttered nary a peep. Or only a faint squawk. The real silence, of course, is not in church councils, but in mainstream media which shrinks back from naming fundamentalist Islamic terrorism for what it is. Still, if church councils were more forceful, it might just shame the media into more honesty.