"He that would make his own liberty secure, must guard even his enemy from oppression; for if he violates this duty, he establishes a precedent that will reach to himself."
- Thomas Paine, American writer (1737–1809)
Though this quotation was written in a style that would typically interest politicos and philosophers, it has a much deeper message for the rest of us.
First of all, it speaks of a duty, a duty to others than ourselves and those in our family. Duty is a subject only lightly covered in teaching children, as a general practice in the western world.
Paine says that we must protect our enemies from oppression, just as we would protect ourselves from it. To protect your enemies from oppression without saying anything is one thing, but to do so in a supportive and open way is quite another.
To support the welfare of another, openly, is a way of offering friendship. Only truly powerful countries can afford to offer support and friendship to their enemies.
If we take the US entry into Iraq as an example--setting aside the dubious reasons, which matter little today--it was to release Iraqis from the oppression of the Saddam regime. Iraqi supporters of the US invasion were and are still pleased that it happened.
The US had not reckoned on a religious civil war breaking out. All the original plans have been lost or abandoned, so that many Americans believe that the US should pull out of Iraq. That would result in mass slaughter, genocide on an unprecedented scale.
Does an obligation remain to protect Iraqis from oppression? To do that, the US must speak directly to Sunni and Shi'ite leaders in Iraq.
Does that sound impossible? Some would have us believe that. Yet the US has no trouble finding ways to bring the North Koreans to the table with the Chinese and Russians, as well as Japan and South Korea. What matters is will, not "can't."
Iraq's problems can no longer be solved with weapons. They can only be solved with words. The reason is that the religious civil war is being built and waged with words, words taught by Muslim leaders to their simple but devoted followers.
While this is going on, a defensive position can and must be maintained by the military.
Surely the country that claims to be the most powerful in the world today can develop strategies based on negotiations and diplomacy as well as it can based on sophisticated weaponry. It means that the US would have to recognize those with the power of words behind them to produce peaceful solutions, rather than violent ones.
It means that the US would have to make friends, not just allies. It would require treating everyone with respect, even if that respect has not been earned.
Making friends is hard, as we all know. If the US is as great as its political leadership believes, then it must have the strength of words as well as of weapons.
Make time for the words. Only words can produce peace.
Bill Allin
'Turning It Around: Causes and Cures for Today's Epidemic Social Problems,' striving to make sense of complex problems so that solutions seem easier to reach.
Learn more at http://billallin.com
rate
email
print
link to this page
Comments: 7
You seem to assume that others see the virtue in not massacring each other. I find little in history to support that assumption and a great deal in history, especially the history of the region, that suggests that the very essence of most lives there is tribal conflict.
We are speaking of an area of the world where a family would murder a daughter to retain "honor" and personal social capital is gained by violence.
I think you have to consider that whole cultures and micro-cultures do not function on a rational and reasonable level, that their rational is one of violence.
I can recall reading the words of a great general once spoken not far from that region and from a culture very similar....he said, "The strong do what they will, and the weak suffer what they must".
Ed, politicians do not run countries in the Middle East. Religious leaders (of various levels) do. So political friendships will mean nothing because the religious leaders consider the politicans to be either worthless or puppets.
Greg, you and I do not disagree. Your assessment is quite correct. We are aiming in the same direction, but shooting arrows in parallel. I choose at this time to avoid the time consuming labour of working with you to show that we agree far more than we disagree.
You are speaking with specific situations, whereas I am speaking over a much broader base. Very few people believe that any kind of murder is a good idea.
Murder is their ideal.
The question is not how you get people to negotiate; it is how can you change the basic constructs of their lives?
We had an interesting experience in Minnesota the last election cycle where The Green Party nominated a Native American, Ed McGaa, to run for the Paul Wellstone's Senate seat. He was an environmental activist who attracted much support because of his native culture.
What shocked The Green's into ousting him as a candidate was the value he placed in being a warrior. They thought the concept of a warrior was to fight for a cause; his concept of a warrior was to pilot an airplane and drop bombs on people.
Mr. McGaa is a Lakota, a people who have a strong tradition of war.
I think you and I agree on the notion of moving the world to a more peaceful realm, but I do not believe that peace is an intrinsic human state, quite the opposite; it takes civilization to tame our intrinsic violence.
.
You refer to subcultures, which by definition do not subscribe to the same value sets as the main cultures.
There are always indviduals within any culture that tend toward violence. They may collect into a subculture. They get coverage in the news.
I totally agree that peace is not the natural state for humans. That is why it must be taught actively and consciously to children. That is the main proposition for my book and the main thrust of the solutions it proposes.
I can't comment on your use of the word "civilization" because I have lost all concept of what it means.
Thanks again for your thoughtful comments.
This is for Gregg:
We are either all innocent or we are all guilty. I say we are all innocent.
For anyone reading this far, please do not respond to Greg's taunts. His comments on this an many other articles by other writers indicate that he is not mentally stable.