The dream

Fifty years ago on 28 August 1963 Martin Luther King delivered his Dream speech. It was a momentous speech which stirred the moral conscientiousness of millions. This is what he said:

I say to you today, my friends, that in spite of the difficulties and frustrations of the moment, I still have a dream. It is a dream deeply rooted in the American dream.

I have a dream that one day this nation will rise up and live out the true meaning of its creed – we hold these truths to be self-evident: that all men are created equal.

I have a dream that one day on the red hills of Georgia the sons of former slaves and the sons of former slave-owners will be able to sit down together at a table of brotherhood.

I have a dream that one day even the state of Mississippi, a desert state, sweltering with the heat of injustice and oppression, will be transformed into an oasis of freedom and justice.

I have dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the colour of their skin but by the content of their character.

I have a dream today!

I have a dream that one day, down in Alabama, with its vicious racists, with its governor having his lips dripping with the words of interposition and nullification; one day right there in Alabama little black boys and little black girls will be able to join hands with little white boys and white girls as sisters and brothers.

I have a dream toady!

I have a dream that one day every valley shall be exalted, every hill and mountain shall be made low, the rough places will be made plain, and the crooked places will be made straight, and the glory of the Lord shall be revealed, and all flesh shall see it together.

This is our hope. This is the faith that I will go back to the South with. With this faith we will be able to hew out of the mountains of despair a stone of hope.

With this faith we will be able to transform the jangling discords of our nation into a beautiful symphony of brotherhood. With this faith we will be able to work together, to pray together, to struggle together, to go to jail together, to stand up for freedom together, knowing that we will be free one day.

This will be the day, this will be the day when all of God’s children will be able to sing with a new meaning: “My country, ‘tis of thee, sweet land of liberty, of thee I sing. Land where my fathers died, land of the pilgrim’s pride, from every mountainside, let freedom ring.” And if America is to be a great nation, this must become true.

And so let freedom ring from the prodigious hilltops of New Hampshire. Let freedom ring from the mighty mountains of New York. Let freedom ring from the heightening Alleghenies of Pennsylvania!

Let freedom ring from the snow-capped Rockies of Colorado.

Let freedom ring from the curvaceous peaks of California.

But not only that.

Let freedom ring from the Stone Mountain of Georgia.

Let freedom ring from Lookout Mountain of Tennessee.

Let freedom ring from every hill and every molehill of Mississippi, from every mountainside, let freedom ring!

And when this happens, when we allow freedom to ring, when we let it ring from every village and every hamlet, from every state and every city, we will be able to speed up that day when all of God’s children, black men and white men, Jews and Gentiles, Protestants and Catholics, will be able to join hands and sing in the words of the old Negro spiritual: “Free at last! Free at last! Thank God Almighty, we are free at last!”

Rev Dr Martin Luther King Junior, a 34 year old Baptist pastor and civil rights leader, was joined by 250,000 of his fellow Americans and delivered his speech in front of the Lincoln Memorial in Washington DC, USA, to commemorate the centenary of President Abraham Lincoln’s ‘Emancipation Proclamation’ to free African-Americans, which made the removal of slavery an explicit goal. His aim was to argue that the freedoms promised by President Abraham Lincoln to the newly-emancipated African-Americans never really materialised and encourage all Americans to re-commit themselves to the Emancipation Proclamation’s original promise. This was at a time when although African Americans had been given legal citizenship they remained second-class citizens. Many continued to face legal, political, social and economic discrimination and segregation, from businesses and government in places like buses, libraries, swimming pools, lunch counters and hotels. They faced extreme poverty and in some places they were prevented from voting through intimidation and violence.

The speech came amid increasingly intense battles to end segregation in the South – where civil rights activists’ commitment to the principles of nonviolence advocated by Martin Luther King were severely put to the test. The March on Washington was organized by hundreds of union and labour and religious organizations, who worked to fundraise for the march calling for ‘jobs and freedom’. The March was supported by the presence of Hollywood celebrities. It was strongly opposed, however, by the US government.

It is estimated that around 75% of the 250,000 participants were black while the rest were white. Most White Americans had never seen such a large demonstration organised by Black Americans with a message of tolerance, peace and determination.

The march was one of the largest political rallies for human rights, civil rights and economic rights in the history of the United States and was critical in assisting the passing of the Civil Rights Act 1964 and the Voting Rights Act 1965, which outlawed discrimination in every part of American life, including the ballot box.

The speech proved to be an important tipping point for American civil rights. It has gone on to resound throughout the world – in Africa, Asia, Australia, Europe and South America, as an appeal for racial justice and equality. Fifty years later, it has a relevant message for us today.

Kateri Tekakwitha becomes first Native American saint

Native Americans celebrate their new saint

Yesterday, Pope Benedict XVI canonized seven new saints including Kateri Tekakwitha, who became the first Native American saint. I have compiled here, from various sources, a biography of St. Kateri Tekakwitha, known as the "Lily of the Mohawks".

Biography

Kateri Tekakwitha was a young Mohawk woman who lived in the 17th century. The story of her conversion to Christianity, her courage in the face of suffering and her extraordinary holiness is an inspiration to all Christians.

Kateri was born in 1656 of an Algonquin mother and a Mohawk Chief in the Mohawk fortified village of Canaouaga or Ossernenon (modern day Auriesville) in upstate New York. When she was only 4 years old her parents and brother died of smallpox. Kateri survived the disease, but it left her face badly scarred and her eyesight impaired. Because of her poor vision, Kateri was named "Tekakwitha", which means "she who bumps into things". Kateri was taken in by her uncle who was bitterly opposed to Christianity. Her mother was Christian and had given Tekakwitha a Rosary.

When she was 8 years old, Kateri's foster family, in accordance with Iroquois custom, paired her with a young boy who they expected she would marry. However, Kateri wanted to dedicate her life to God. Her uncle distrusted the settlers because of the way they treated the Indians and who were responsible for introducing smallpox and other deadly diseases into the Indian community.

When Kateri was ten, in 1666, a war party composed of French soldiers and hostile Indians from Canada destroyed her village. After their defeat, the Mohawks were forced into a peace treaty that required them to accept Jesuit missionaries in their villages.

They moved north and rebuilt their village at what they called Caughnawaga near present-day Fonda, New York. In 1667, when Kateri was 11 years old, she met the Jesuits Jacques Fremin, Jacques Bruyas, and Jean Pierron, who had come to the village. Her uncle was against any contact with them because he did not want her to convert to Christianity. One of his older daughters had already left Caughnawaga to go to Kahnawake, the Catholic mission village near Montreal.

In the spring of 1675 at age eighteen, while resting in bed after sustaining a foot injury, Kateri met the Jesuit Father Jacques de Lamberville and started studying the catechism with him. Judging her ready for true conversion, Lamberville baptized Tekakwitha at the age of 20, on Easter Sunday, April 18, 1676. Her uncle gave his consent for her to become a Christian provided that she did not try to leave the Indian village.

For joining the Catholic Church, Kateri was ridiculed and scorned by villagers. She was subjected to unfair accusations and her life was threatened. Nearly two years after her baptism, she escaped to the Mission of St. Francis Xavier, a settlement of Christian Indians in Canada. The village in Canada was also named Caughnawaga (Kahnawake). Here she was known for her gentleness, kindness, and good humour. On Christmas Day 1677 Kateri made her first holy communion and on the Feast of the Annunciation in 1679 made a vow of perpetual virginity. She also offered herself to the Blessed Mother Mary to accept her as a daughter.

During her time in Canada, Kateri taught prayers to children and worked with the elderly and sick. She would often go to Mass both at dawn and sunset. She was known for her great devotion to the Blessed Sacrament and to the Cross of Christ.

During the last years of her life, Kateri endured great suffering from a serious illness. She died on April 17th, 1680, shortly before her 24th birthday, and was buried in Kahnawake, Quebec, Canada.

Kateri's final words were: "Jesus — Mary — I love you"

Eyewitnesses reported that within a few minutes of her death, the scars from smallpox completely vanished and her face shone with a radiant beauty.

Before her death, Kateri promised her friends that she would continue to love and pray for them in heaven. Both Native Americans and settlers immediately began praying for her heavenly intercession. Several people, including a priest who attended Kateri during her last illness, reported that Kateri had appeared to them and many healing miracles were attributed to her.

Reputed miracles

One recorded miracle was experienced by Joseph Kellogg, a Protestant child was captured by Natives in a raid, but eventually brought back to his home. Twelve months after he was kidnapped he caught smallpox and failed to be cured by the ordinary means used by the Jesuits. The Jesuits possessed relics from Tekakwitha’s grave, but did not want to use them on a non-Catholic. One Jesuit told him that if he would confess and truly embody a Roman Catholic, help would come to him and so Joseph did as asked. The Jesuit gave him rotten wood from Catherine’s coffin, which is said to have made him heal. Other alleged miracles attributed to Tekakwitha: Father Rémy recovered his hearing and a nun in Montreal was cured by using items formerly belonging to Kateri.

On December 19, 2011, Pope Benedict XVI approved the second miracle needed for Blessed Kateri's canonization. The authorized miracle dates from 2006, when a young boy in Washington state survived a severe flesh-eating bacterium. Doctors had been unable to stop the progress of the disease by surgery and advised his parents he was likely to die. The boy received the sacrament of Anointing of the Sick from a Catholic priest. As the boy is half Lummi Indian, the parents said they prayed through Tekakwitha for divine intercession, as did their family and friends, and an extended network contacted through their son's classmates. A Catholic nun, Sister Kateri Mitchell visited the boy's bedside and placed a relic of Tekakwitha, a bone fragment, against his body and prayed together with his parents. The next day, the infection stopped its progression.

Book review: The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy by John J. Mearsheimer and Stephen M. Walt

This book by John J. Mearsheimer - Professor of Political Science at the University of Chicago - and Stephen M. Walt - Professor of International Relations at the Kennedy School of Government at Harvard University - is excellent for anyone interested in reading about the powerful and highly influential Israel Lobby in the United States. Despite the fierce criticism any critical discussion of Israel tends to attract, I think the authors have done a creditable job researching the subject and presenting their views as objectively as possible. They state from the beginning that they do not question Israel’s right to exist, but argue that the Lobby’s influence has grown over time and is now largely responsible for the unconditional nature of America’s support for Israel. Indeed, there is no other country that receives the huge amount of aid – financial, military and diplomatic – that Israel gets from America. Yet the policies pursued by the Lobby and supported by successive American governments have not always had a positive influence on US foreign policy (or Israel for that matter).

After detailing the various forms of aid the United States gives to Israel, the authors question whether Israel today is more of a liability to America rather than a strategic asset. Certainly Israel was an asset during the Cold War, but that no longer seems to be the case with the collapse of the Soviet Union. Disproportionate support for Israel is "undermining relations with other US allies, casting doubt on America’s wisdom and moral vision, helping inspire a generation of anti-American extremists, and complicating US efforts to deal with a volatile region." Israel also looks first and foremost to its own interests, and it has done things contrary to American interests. The various moral arguments supporters employ to justify America’s special relationship with Israel are examined and undermined.

A spot light is shone on the different components that make up the Lobby. It is not a single unified movement with a central leadership but a "loose coalition of individuals and organisations that actively work to shape US foreign policy in a pro-Israel direction." The majority of the Lobby’s constituents are Jewish, but there are also some important non-Jewish individuals and groups such as the Christian Zionists. The Lobby generally promotes a very hawkish Israeli position – more extreme than most Jewish Americans – yet this has become more pronounced over time.

What makes the Lobby so effective? There are various reasons say the authors: it is well financed and resourced; American Jews are politically very active and give generously to political parties; dissent is mainly a private affair; and the Lobby has the support of the neoconservatives and Christian Zionists. But the main reason, according to the authors, is that there is no effective opposition to it. Arab Americans are neither as wealthy, well organised, numerous or politically active as Jewish Americans.

The peculiarities of the American political system are what make the Lobby such an influential force. Since elections in America are expensive affairs, the Lobby’s main way of influencing politics is by way of donations. The Lobby, in particular AIPAC, screens candidates based on their views of Israel. Then it donates money to candidates that are pro-Israel. Candidates who aren’t pro-Israel can expect funds channelled to their opponents. The Lobby has also had success in turning round politicians who have been critical of Israel into steadfast supporters. An example is Hillary Clinton. Sometimes a bit of threatening behaviour is used by AIPAC toward politicians who fail to follow its lead. Such is AIPAC’s hold on Congress today that to be invited to speak at its annual Policy Conference has become a coveted affair among prominent politicians.

A chapter is devoted to how the Lobby influences the media and think tanks, policies academia and uses the charge of anti-Semitism to silence critics of Israel. There are individual chapters on the role of the Lobby behind various modern day phenomena such as the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, the invasion of Iraq, the Second Lebanon War, Israel’s tense relationship with Syria and the Iranian nuclear programme. In all these cases the Lobby has played a prominent role – more prominent than I had hitherto thought. America’s increasingly confrontational approach to Iran is partly as a result of pressure from the lobby, which views a nuclear armed Iran as a mortal threat to Israel’s existence; the authors say this is despite the fact that Iran did try to reach out to the US and normalise relations, notably in 1997 and 2003, and helped America topple the Taliban in 2001.

The book ends with the authors suggesting ways in which the US could have a more balanced foreign policy less influenced by the Israel Lobby. These include: maintaining a regional balance of power (‘offshore balancing’) by supporting local allies instead of unilateral transformation, ending the Israeli-Palestinian conflict by supporting a two-state solution, treating Israel as a normal state, and a more open discussion about US interests and Israel. These are good suggestions, but it is difficult to see most of them happening any time soon.

On the whole this a very interesting book, which I enjoyed reading. I agree with Mearsheimer and Walt that US foreign policy is tilted heavily in favour of Israel and the Lobby has a large part to play in this. Given America’s dependence on oil from Arab states, its strong support for Israel can only be adequately explained by such a powerful force, small though it is. The book is not a diatribe, but a sensible and intelligent piece of work. It’s clear the authors have researched their subject thoroughly; their arguments are backed up well and presented logically. It will not please the diehard Israeli supporters, but for others this is a valuable addition to the discussion about the power of the Israel Lobby and its influence on US foreign policy. I certainly learnt a lot from reading it and I recommend it to others.

Anti-Wall Street protests spread across America

What's changed in America since the Great Recession of 2008? Not much really. The bankers are still taking home big bonuses like they always have done, while with corporate profits have reached record levels. It's business as usual on Wall Street. However, real unemployment is now about nearly the same level as the Great Depression. With the US economy slowing down, it seems there's more pain in store for middle and lower class Americans.

It is therefore no surprise to learn about protests against Wall Street and corporate greed. The 'Occupy Wall Street' protests, which have received little attention so far in the mainstream US media, is gathering momentum across across the country. The Times of India reports:

The Occupy Wall Street protests entered their third week here with protesters dressed up as "corporate zombies" marching through Wall Street, the city's financial hub.

People used social networking sites Facebook and Twitter to spread their message and garner support for their cause.

Support groups like 'Occupy Boston', 'Occupy Philadelphia', 'Occupy Chicago' were also created online.

In a radio interview, New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg said the protests should not target Wall Street officials, "who make USD 40,000 or USD 50,000 a year and are struggling to make ends meet. That is the bottom line. Those are the people who work on Wall Street or in the finance sector."

In Manhattan, hundreds of people responded to calls from organisers and came dressed up as zombies, walking around the financial institutions clutching fake money.

They held up signs that read 'Down with the World Bank', 'How to fix the deficit: End the war, tax the rich,' 'End corporate personhood,' and 'Say no to corporate America.'

People have camped out on the streets, sleeping on sidewalks. Some supporters of the protests have distributed blankets, sleeping bags and food items to demonstrators.

In Chicago, people gathered outside the Federal Reserve Bank while protesters camped out near City Hall in Los Angeles.

Similar marches against corporate America, greed on the Wall Street and government bailouts to financial giants during the economic crisis were held in downtown Boston.

The protests, which began with a handful of people camping in front of the New York Stock Exchange on September 17, got a philip and nationwide attention after over 700 protestors were arrested over the weekend by the police as they tried cross the Brooklyn Bridge.

Similar rallies are being planned in places like St Louis, Kansas City, Hawaii, Tennessee, Minneapolis and Baltimore, according to 'Occupy Together', the unofficial hub for all events springing up across the country in solidarity with the Occupy Wall Street movement.

The American elite love to praise protesters in other countries, especially those where they want to see regime change, but they have been silent on these protests at home. If the economic situation doesn't improve in America - and I don't see that happening for some time - these protests are likely to continue and spread. The Arab Spring seems to have arrived in America!

9/11 overshadowed by controversy

Nine years on an angry America, still reeling in the wake of the greatest economic downturn since the Great Depression, mourned the victims of the 9/11 attacks that killed nearly 3,000 people. This year the anniversary was overshadowed by two controversies: the ‘Ground Zero Mosque’, and Pastor Terry Jones’ threat to burn copies of the Koran. Fortunately Pastor Jones did not go ahead with his stunt and everybody breathed a sigh of relief. Emotions had been running very high in the Muslim world. There had been protests in a number of countries, and President Yudhoyono of Indonesia warned that the act could threaten “peace and international security.” General Petraeus warned the event would endanger the lives of American servicemen and women.

I heard on BBC Radio 4 how Muslims in America were increasingly feeling under siege. I can understand why they feel uncomfortable right now with the acrimonious debate about the Ground Zero Mosque still raging, but I question whether they are really ‘under siege’. Even after the 9/11 attacks American Muslims did not face any major acts of retribution. I think that will be the case this time too. Whatever their feelings of victimization, they are a far cry from the real discrimination many Christian minorities face in many Muslim majority countries.

James Corum, Dean of the Baltic Defence College in Estonia, writes in The Telegraph:

In many Islamic countries, Christian minorities – including the descendants of the earliest Christian communities in the Middle East – suffer under laws that make them second-class citizens. Not only do they have fewer legal rights, but the exercise of their faith is cruelly regulated by governments in the name of Sharia. In America, we criticise the plan to build a mosque near the 9/11 murder site even while agreeing that American law provides the clear right of Muslims to do such a thing. But in many Muslim nations no Christian can build or even repair a church without approval (usually not forthcoming) from a hostile government ministry.

Much worse, murder, kidnappings, forced conversions and attacks against Christians by radical Muslims are common in the Islamic world, especially in the Middle East and in Pakistan. Every year, hundreds of Christians are murdered by religious fanatics. Even when a Muslim government disapproves of such violence, officials and police often stand aside and allow the attacks rather than confront a politically powerful radical Islam.

In short, Christians are today living in one of the great eras of persecution. That persecution comes from a minority of Muslims – but an influential minority. Christians should use this day to educate the Western public about the suffering of fellow Christians, and to confront peacefully the rulers and populations of Muslim nations with their failure to maintain rights supposedly guaranteed by the UN Charter.

The suffering of Christian minorities in many Muslim majority countries is largely ignored by the mainstream media. Western leaders are even aware of the issue but stay silent on the matter lest they complicate relations with Muslim countries. The consequences of Pastor Jones' actions if he had gone ahead with them would have been extremely severe for Christians living in Muslim majority contexts. The Koran is regarded by Muslims as the literal word of God transmitted from heaven, so to destroy it is the ultimate sacrilege. I’m sure Christ would not have approved of deliberately offending and provoking others to the point of violence. But He probably would approve of Christians standing up for the basic human rights of their brothers and sisters in Christ.

It is surprising that the eccentric pastor of a very small Pentecostal church in Florida, known for previous public-seeking misadventures, managed to attract so much attention. Fuelled by the internet, 24 hour news and media sensationalism the story grew bigger and bigger until it became the main news of the day. Pastor Jones certainly didn’t speak for the vast majority of Christians or America. The event was condemned by all mainstream Christian churches, President Obama, Hillary Clinton as well as many ordinary Americans. Yet the media handed this man a megaphone to speak to the world. I’m sure there are some sections of the media that are secretly delighted a ‘Christian pastor’ could have made such a huge error of judgement. They have milked this story for it was worth.

Unfortunately I feel many Muslims throughout the world still feel Pastor Jones represents Christians and the west. This is what some of the more extreme elements within Islam want Muslims to believe. A sense of victimization and hurt only aids their agenda. For this the media must take some of the blame.

The Iraq War, oil and the Nobel Peace Prize

Yesterday, a service was held in St Paul’s Cathedral, London, to mark the end of combat operations in Iraq, which was attended by the Queen, Prime Minister Gordon Brown, his wife Sarah, and former Prime Minister Tony Blair, as well other members of the military and government. The event was an opportunity to honour the dead British servicemen and reflect on a highly controversial war, with questions on whether it was worth it resurfacing once again. The cost of the war, in both human and financial terms, was huge. It is arguable whether the war has made Iraq and the rest of the world a safer place, which was allegedly the aim of the intervention.

The father of one dead British soldier, Lance-Corporal Shaun Brierley, refused to shake hands with former Prime Minister Tony Blair. Later Peter Brierley said, "I believe Tony Blair is a war criminal. I can't bear to be in the same room as him. I can't believe he has been allowed to come to this reception. I believe he has got the blood of my son and all of the other men and women who died out there on his hand.” Tony Blair, who took this country to war, investing his allegiance with former President George W Bush, a failed oil man with a “tendency to concoct favourable facts” (Dilip Hiro), believed the world had changed irrevocably after 9/11 and pre-emptive action was necessary to make it a safer place.

The main reason given for the war was to find weapons of mass destruction (WMD) which Saddam Hussein was allegedly concealing from the rest of the world. We all know that was hype now. Other reasons for the war were to “liberate” Iraqis from a genocidal dictator; to bring democracy to the country and the wider Middle East; and punish Saddam Hussein who, together with Al Qaeda, was responsible for 9/11. Many people succumbed to the anti-Iraq hype, but many others protested against it, believing that force was not the best solution. Despite the protests, Bush and Blair went ahead with their invasion.

As the dust settles, it becomes increasingly obvious that oil was the main reason behind the war. Even life-long Republican and former chairman of the US Federal Reserve, Alan Greenspan, said so. The US was becoming increasingly dependent on Irqai oil after the Clinton administration introduced the Iran and Libya Sanctions Act (ILSA) in 1996, which banned trade with Iran; and realising his growing clout, Saddam Hussein threatened to postpone plans to raise Iraq’s output if the US held up Iraq’s contracts for food, medicine and economic infrastructure before the UN Sanctions Committee. This pushed up oil prices and forced Clinton to take the unprecedented step of releasing 1 million barrels per day for thirty days from the US Strategic Petroleum Reserve during peacetime.

After George W Bush took office in January 2001, at the first meeting of National Security Council (NSC) at the White House, the number one item on the agenda was Iraq, and the next NSC meeting was devoted exclusively to Iraq. Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld advocated “going after Saddam,” and said, “Imagine what Iraq will look like without Saddam and with a regime that’s aligned with US interests. It would change everything in the region and beyond. It would demonstrate what US policy is all about.” Among the documents later sent to NSC members, was one prepared by the Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA), which had mapped Iraq’s oil fields and exploration areas, and listed American companies likely to be interested in participating in Iraq’s oil industry.

According to a BBC Newsnight report, the Pentagon planners, influenced by neoconservatives, devised a super secret plan, which involved the sale of all Iraqi oil fields to private companies with a view to increasing output well above the normal OPEC quota for Iraq in order to destroy OPEC. Ahmed Chalabi, an Iraqi exile and a front runner to replace Saddam, told The Washington Post in 2002, "American companies will have a big shot at Iraqi oil." In public, however, the justification for the war was Iraq’s WMD and Saddam’s alleged connections with Al Qaeda.

The plan to exploit Iraq’s plentiful oil resources, however, didn’t go as smoothly as planned. The Bush administration realized it would violate the Geneva Convention on War, which bars an occupying power from altering the fundamental structure of the occupied territory’s economy, by denationalizing Iraq’s oil industry; and the highly revered Shiite leader Grand Ayatollah Sistani, as well as other Shiite clerics, held that minerals belong to the “community,” meaning the state. The subsequent insurgency reduced Iraq’s oil output due to frequent attacks on oil pipelines and facilities, and Bush had to approach the US Congress for $2.1 billion to safeguard Iraq’s oil infrastructure. The new Iraqi constitution, endorsed by referendum in October 2005, finally dimmed the prospect of oil privatisation, stating that hydrocarbons are “national Iraqi property.” An auction for Iraq's new oil contracts was held last June, but many major Western companies withdrew their bids at the last minute because of controversial legislation setting terms for foreign investment in the country's oil sector, and for distributing its revenues.

The Archbishop of Canterbury, Dr Rowan Williams, who has always been critical about the war, delivered a stinging attack from the pulpit yesterday, even mentioning the evil hand of Satan: "The invisible enemy may be hiding in the temptation to look for shortcuts in the search for justice – letting ends justify means, letting others rather than oneself carry the cost, denying the difficulties or the failures so as to present a good public face." He said it is better if world leaders be patient and be guided by truth: "St Paul tells us to wrap ourselves around with the truth, to be defended by justice and to be impatient only for peace. These are not remote ideals for a religious minority. They are essential advice for those caught up in the anxious, fast-changing world of modern military operations, with the intense, even harsh, scrutiny they get from observers and commentators worldwide." For a man who has often been criticised for his indecisiveness, these were firm words indeed and I admire his courage for such a firm stand.

I was very surprised yesterday that President Barack Obama, who has not been in office for even a year, was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize. Despite his rhetoric about nuclear non-proliferation the prize seemed premature as he has achieved so little. But the Nobel Peace Prize is more than a prize - it is also a statement, and this one is a damning indictment of the policies of the previous Bush administration, which involved the use of unilateral, pre-emptive action with little regard for diplomacy, human rights and ground reality. It remains to be seen if Obama can live to the expectations of the Nobel Peace Prize committee. So far he has made a number of corrective changes to US foreign policy, many of which are welcome, but I think even he will struggle to completely change US foreign policy.