Whatever I read, it seems that two realities strike me wrong. For all who make Al Qaeda or its multiple step-children the villain, it is hard for me to see that we, on the other side of the mirror, do not look the same to them! They hate us and we hate them! And somehow or other, our side takes words of congratulations for being strong in its ideals in the face of adversity, as though the other side are not also congratulating themselves for being faithful to Islam!
It is similar to the frustrations resulting from conflicting ideologies. The cultural divide between the West and Islam seems insurmountable, in spite of the historical alliances centuries ago in Spain and in other parts of Europe. Political ideologies seriously divide so many, including myself. It is very difficult, if not impossible, for me to identify with the right-wing, conservatives leaders of our nation. The agendas promoted by them are as foreign to me as it would be for me to convert to Islam.
I do endorse the rule of law as a sine qua non for our society, a nation, or a world to exist. One of the great developments in our evolution is the rule of law endorsed by most nations. We may not always agree on what laws are to be enforced, but there is a basic agreement that we cannot exist collectively without some order sanctioned by higher authority with the powers to enforce the laws.
However, the next step becomes very confusing to me. I admit that non-violence as the basic strategy in dealing with conflict makes the most sense. I see no long-term benefits from the use of violence, especially evidenced in warfare. Whatever gains achieved in the short-run are generally lost in the unexpected consequences of exercise of armed conflict.
I am disturbed whenever our nation extends themselves word of congratulations for doing something that is clearly destructive to others. It is hard for me not to think of what those peoples who feel the power of our destructive forces are thinking. Admittedly, it is all confusing when the problems are very specific, e.g., what to do in Libya when government forces intend to hurt their own citizens. But, in my way of thinking, our problems in the Middle East are caused by actions taken historically by distorted world leaders who determined that they "knew" what was right for their lands. The Middle East is a mess and the West essentially created the mess by artificially segmenting peoples into artificial grouping and never providing the support to build stable nations that would deal with tribal differences. We will only perpetuate similar disasters by using military power to address the problems.
At the moment, if asked, I would conclude the following:
1. Laws have to be obeyed. If broken, police action should be taken to enforce the laws and courts (world, national, state, etc.) should decide what consequences should be administered.
2. Military action should be taken only when a nation's existence is threatened. Diplomacy should be the general thrust of all nations interested in promoting positive values throughout the world. This becomes tricky when specifics are identified, e.g., Iran. Somehow, we have tended to stop our diplomacy when events are not consistent with our views. And, then, we introduce sanctions. In short, we give up hope for positive change unless the other nation capitulates. Again, imagine the opposite situation. Can you imagine the United States responding positively to a nation threatening to "isolate" us? Why would one think any nation would? We have given poor examples of how to use power. Not only do we develop an atomic bomb and use it, we then proceeded to develop more and more to the point of being ridiculous, while demanding other nations to avoid having such weapons. Again, if the shoe was on the other foot, would we agree to "limit" our options because another nation determined that this was the right action?
To keep the world from annihilation, it is important to take time to consider how to reinvent international and national agendas so that we can focus on our mutual survival. Overcoming economic inequalities, whether within a nation, or among nations should be a goal of all nations. Focusing on the humanity of each person should be in the foreground of all discussions. How can one gender discredit the other gender without distorting the humanity of the other? How can we promote policies that inherently designed to deprive some of basic needs? Why can't sharing become the norm?
No comments:
Post a Comment