Congressman Jesse L. Jackson, Jr. — Representing the People of the 2nd District of Illinois

Latest News

Washington DC Office
2419 Rayburn House Office
Building
Washington DC 20515-1302
Phone: (202) 225-0773
Fax: (202) 225-0899

Homewood Office
17926 South Halsted
Homewood, IL 60430-2013
Phone: (708) 798-6000
Fax: (708) 798-6160

Chicago Office
7121 S. Yates Blvd.
Chicago, IL 60649
Phone: (773) 734-9660
Fax: (773) 734-9661

International Issues

world globe As our nation considers involvement with our global neighbors, I believe that it is imperative that we consider the impact of any policy on the citizens of a nation, and matters of war and peace.

In the last century, more than 100 nations gained their independence, but are struggling with grinding poverty, illiteracy, disease, tribalism, nationalism, religious fervor, debt, and financial austerity. Yet our nation's and the world's basic response has been a sort of economic determinist, market-oriented, one-approach-fits-all solution that serves primarily the economic interests of multinational corporations and financial institutions rather than the multiple needs of the common people in these developing countries.

I consider that reality as I go about my job as a member of the Appropriations Committee's Subcommittee on Foreign Operations, Export Financing and Related Programs. My politics are guided by putting people first. People don't exist to serve the needs of or validate any particular party, economic ideology, political philosophy, or social system, regardless of its form, whether state controlled or market driven. Whether national or global, economic systems exist to serve the real interests and basic needs of all the people. All of them are means to an end. And while I have a political orientation, I consider many factors and try to listen to the various arguments before making a final public policy decision. In the end, however, I have two underlying questions in mind with regard to domestic, foreign policy, and national security questions: What are the underlying moral dimensions of this problem? And what will be the actual long-term human impact of this decision or policy?

There are also issues of war and peace that must be a part of any consideration of a sound foreign policy. We must not be rigidly married to any particular philosophy or orientation, because in the end there is no moral imperative, political principle, or other guiding light that can substitute for sound human judgment when faced with an actual situation. But it is important to weigh various criteria when considering the use of military force. In the final analysis we must ask: When is it right to go to war or use military force?

I'm not a purist or a pacifist. In the real world of nation-states, where violent forces and men and women determined to do great harm to our nation and the world operate, military might and violence are sometimes necessary - when confronted with limited choices - to protect lives, and our real national security interests. It is a serious and grave undertaking, however, when a democratic leader makes the judgment to use force or violence.

If considered necessary, the use of force and violence in war should never be seen as a positive good. War is the result of moral, economic, political, and human failure. In war, lives are lost and maimed, mental and physical suffering abounds, homes and families are destroyed and disrupted, the means of making a living are often crippled, and, ever more in modern warfare, serious or even permanent damage can be done to the environment, which threatens the very existence of us all.

But even nonviolent approaches can also have relative degrees of violence associated with them. For example, an international embargo conducted against a nation may be effective in making that country behave in a certain way, but it may also hurt the most vulnerable, such as children, by causing the loss of basic necessities like food and medicine - which is violent. Thus, politically, even a nonviolent approach may not be absent some violence. It may simply be the least violent means of achieving legitimate or just ends.

Democratic leaders must consider moral, rational, and practical questions before using force and violence. They must also recognize and acknowledge that people of goodwill, using the same criteria and answering the same questions, may come to different conclusions and make different judgments, and this must be respected. Again, in the end, no principle or guidelines can substitute for a leader's sound judgment.

In a democratic society, when a leader is confronted with the issues of war and peace or the use of violence, it is important to consider motive. The motive must be to advance the cause of a just peace, which is the only basis for building a lasting peace or permanent stability in a region or in the world.

As a member of Congress I strive not to be isolationist, imperialist, colonialist, or neocolonialist, or to support oppressive policies anywhere in the world. I also strive not to have a Messiah complex. To borrow from biblical language, I am not trying to be my brothers' and sisters' "keeper" or their savior. I simply want to be their brother and for them to be my sister. And in my role as congressman, my goal is to provide and fight for public and foreign policies that support democracy, human rights, and social and economic justice around the world. Such policies should result in providing the maximum opportunity possible for all individuals to achieve their highest degree of personal development, and every nation to improve and eventually thrive.