How Do You Solve a Problem Like Mahmoud?

This week, the United Nations held its annual ‘general assembly’ meeting in New York City and was again the scene of controversy with speeches from some of the world’s most oppressive dictators. While I do not understand why we allow these tyrants on our soil or continue to fund such an ineffective and corrupt organization such as the UN (at the expense of $13.3 billion taxpayer dollars per year, or 25% of the UN’s annual budget), I struggle with what our response should be to the world’s dictator’s and those living under such oppression.

President’s Bush and Obama had dramatically different approaches to this problem. The previous administration chose isolation, strong economic sanctions (when the other members of the UN would allow them, which was rare), and finally, military action in dealing with totalitarian regimes. The current administration has decided to engage in negotiations and diplomacy, along with a heavy reliance upon the United Nations to solve complex world problems. While history has shown that the latter is usually not very effective (see Chamberlin and Hitler’s Germany, President Clinton and North Korea, the UN and Iraq … twice), it is clear that the world has gotten much more dangerous in the last 8 years.

While I do not feel war should be our first, second, or third response, we have to acknowledge that there are those who just want to watch the world burn. It has been this way throughout human history and it is naive to think we can change their minds by simply “talking” with them. We tried negotiations with Saddam Hussein. Countless UN resolutions (75 total since the first Iraq war) were passed in an attempt to hold him accountable. All of this proved to be ineffective (especially with the UN “Oil for Food” scandal) and a decision by America and its allies were made to remove Saddam’s regime by force.

The Iraq war has been incredibly controversial and we have paid a huge price in blood and treasure liberating millions of people. We are an impatient country tending to want results right away. The battle of hearts and minds will take a generation to be realized … time will tell if our nation building and love of the Iraqi people will translate into a long-term ally. President Bush gambled heavily that the key to long-term peace was not in winning over a government, but in winning over its people.

But is there another way to change hearts and minds without war or ineffective government diplomacy? One that involves the church? The United Nations has identified Darfur, Sudan as the worst humanitarian crisis in the world. Since 2003, almost 400,000 people have died due to civil war, poverty, and disease. More than 2.5 million men, woman, and children are refugees and have little hope at a future. Ginghamsburg church in Tipp City, Ohio has embarked on an amazing mission and to date, have been able to raise almost $4 million in relief to the people of Darfur. The church has overseen and managed the program themselves, focusing on safe/clean water, agriculture, and child protection/education. While the international community (i.e., UN) sits around and talks about the crisis, the people of Ginghamsburg church are changing hearts and minds half a world away … without spending billions and firing a shot. Find out more at – http://ginghamsburg.org/sudancrisis/.

So how should we handle tyrants and oppressive regimes? Is there a one size fits all solution or does each situation require a different and unique approach?