As much as some people would like it to be, the current situation in the Middle East (particularly Libya) is not a "Mr Gorbachev tear down this wall" moment. Rather, it is a situation balanced rather precariously on a knife edge, where any drastic measures taken in any direction is likely to topple the whole region into even greater chaos. Yes, it certainly does seem that Gaddafi has lost his few remaining marbles and needs to be shown the door, and yes it is true that the US would do well to avoid any further military foreign entanglements, but just as the US and UN couldn't sit idly by watching a madman murder his people we also couldn't race in on a charging stallion and perfectly fulfil the crusader/imperialist nightmare that Gaddafi even now claims the military intervention to be. Instead, a delicate middle ground needed to be found - one that accomplished the goals of civilian protection and eventual peaceful democratic revolution.
Obama, and the West in general, was and is caught in a catch-22. Intervention in the Middle East will invariably be seen as imperialist meddling - we have a very very long history of doing just that to blame, and certainly the actions of the previous administration did nothing to help the situation. Any action taken quickly, and without the support of key regional and global players like the Arab League and UN, will merely give greater power to anti-Western forces. I certainly can't condone the fact that Obama largely ignored the Iranian protest movement, but I'm also not sure how we could have acted better in that situation - too much outward support and the Iranian administration would have simply branded the protesters as American puppets. Even now Gaddafi seems to be claiming that the unrest is equal parts imperialist aggression and al-Qaeda terrorism. Therefore, the road we ended up taking (though we almost left it too late) was absolutely what we had to do - a stop to Qaddfi's murderous aggression tempered with caution, an international coalition, and, most importantly, a mandate from the Arab League.
The future is not so clear however. While I'm sure that much of the behind the scenes diplomatic wrangling is much more expansive and thorough that what the press reports, it does seem clear that there is widespread dissension and lack of agreement on how to proceed. Ultimately the goal must be to prevent civilian casualties and bring the conflict to a peaceful, speedy, and durable conclusion. Unfortunately those three conditions rarely seem to occur together.
The role of military action in Libya cannot be regime change. Rather, it needs to be motivated by the need to create a level playing field where those seeking a way forward from the oppression of Gaddafi can negotiate with him (or whatever credible representative of his regime that may step forward). One complicating factor is that it truly does seem that the country has deep seated East-West divisions. This should not be a surprise to anyone who has studied that area with its massive tribal divisions and largely artificial unity. One possible result of a stalemate and eventual negotiated settlement could well be a referendum whereby Libya is split in two - there is an excellent example of this in Sudan which would be a very good test case for such an action. In any case, it appears highly unlikely that the rebels will be able to capture all of the country (and certainly now that the no-fly zone has been imposed Gaddafi has no hope of conquering the remaining rebel strongholds) so stalemate appears inevitable.
Stalemate could mean two things: it could mean endless low intensity (yet massively damaging) conflict, or it could mean a ceasefire while the two sides come together for peaceful negotiations - hopefully facilitated by either the UN or Arab League. The goal of military action must be the latter- and as quickly as possible. As long as real ceasefire is achieved negotiation must be the next step. Military protection for the rebel forces cannot become military support for a drive on Tripoli - the pendulum needs to stop in the middle, not swing fully to the other side. Indeed negotiation needs to (and probably is) occurring NOW, both in an effort to get Gadaffi to step aside and in order to bring sensible heads from both sides together. Furthermore, some sort of facilitation should be taking place within the rebel held areas to try to bring together a meaningful rebel coalition who can present their varied demands in a sensible and unified fashion. Military intervention needs to be used to create a cold peace under which the hard negotiation that is the only way to real peace can occur.
While the West's caution and tact in dealing with Libya is to be commended, their handling of authoritarian allies in the region leave a lot to be desired. Western administrations need to begin to put much greater pressure on the regimes that rule Yemen, Saudi Arabia, and Bahrain in particular. Granted, it would be best not to see open revolution and civil war in those areas, but the bell is tolling for authoritarian governments throughout the region. While it is unfortunate that the putative democratically elected groups that would rule the aforementioned countries are unlikely to be terribly friendly with the US (or West in general) it would be far better to have democratically elected regimes that we didn't oppose and tacitly supported, rather than democratically elected governments that gained power over the dead bodies of our allies. Democracy is coming to the Middle East whether we like it or not. Americans would do well to remember that what is best for the world is not necessarily best for the US, and vice versa, especially in the short term. I would argue that what's best for the world will always be best for the US in the long run, but then, I'm a bleeding heart liberal that doesn't have to worry about a four year election cycle.
Tuesday, 22 March 2011
Friday, 11 March 2011
Black, White, and Grey All Over
The single biggest problem with the world today is our apparent collective obsession with black and white statements and viewpoints. Yes, I recognise the inherent contradiction in that statement. However, hypocritical as the statement may be, I still stand by it. The polar attitudes in American politics, the world view that separates countries into "first" and "third" world, the separation of virtually all situations into a zero-sum win-lose scenario, and the mere concept of good and evil all perpetrate the concept of black and white, as if we all exist in a state of constant dichotomy. In school and even for standardised tests we're taught to make declarative statements: "pick a side", "don't waffle", "just choose one or the other and make the strongest argument possible, even if you don't fully agree with it". Sure that sort of mentality will get you a lot of fans when you get older (and probably money and power) but it'll also send you to war believing that "if you're not with us you're against us".
The reality, of course, is very different. Yes I can be not with you while also not being against you. Anyone who truly believes in a world that is black and white, where every conflict is a zero-sum affair, and where everything is neatly sorted into "good" and "evil" piles would appear ridiculous (I hope). No one really believes that everything is at one end of a spectrum or the other with nothing in between, so why then do we seem to fall into that trap whenever we're threatened by something new, different, or foreign? It certainly does seem that new things are generally good or bad, different things are either cool or weird and foreign things are either virtuous or evil. Not all the time, and not to everyone, but it certainly seems that an inordinate amount of the time we tend to sort things into these dichotomous baskets.
One answer can be found in identity theory. Groups provide a social identity and a strong sense of belonging. When not threatened the group tolerates diversity up to a point without any issues. However, when a threat (real or imagined) emerges the group members readily give up their individuality in order to strengthen the group and thus increase their personal security. September 11th is a perfect example. Everyone said how wonderful it was that the country came together as a result of the tragedy. Yes, it was very positive to see people helping each other and paying greater attention to one another, but at the same time it was also troubling. Here was a country that was coming together largely because it now had a common enemy. I firmly believe that the reason that the current American political climate is so polar is because all the many issues that were just starting to rear their heads in early 2001 got swept under the carpet in a wave of patriotic fervour, only to re-emerge 6 or so years later with a massive vengeance. On Sept 11 things were black and white (American vs. Arab terrorist/Arab). Today, they're black and white again, but now it's Republican vs Democrat, red state vs blue state. The common enemy is still out there, but if Al Quaida is clever they'll just let us tear each other apart for a while, rather than giving us a third party to rally round against.
So that's one possible answer to this dichotomy, and one that I really like. However, I think that there's another reason for this issue, and one that goes a lot deeper than identity (if that's possible!). There is a pervasive laziness with how we raise children. I of course, am perfectly suited to talk on this subject being 23 and with no desire to even think about raising children any time in the near or even mid future. That said, I'll still stand by this crass and ungrateful statement. And here's why. We raise our children to know a world in black and white and not in shades of grey. When a toddler takes candy at the check out line that's "bad". Rarely is an explanation given for why it is "bad" and even less common is the word "bad" explained. Words like "bad" and "good" are really lazy words. I don't know how many times I reply "good" to the question "how are you?". Most of the time I'm not "good" - I'm happy, or sad, or excited, or tired. I don't even know if one can be "good". However, I say that I'm "good" in order to avoid having to explain myself. Similarly, we tell children that they're "good" or "bad" because we don't want to explain ourselves. I certainly don't really take any great pleasure in attempting to explain the complexities of the capitalist system to a kid that's just taken a Snickers, (and I'm sure that I'd want to even less after running around picking up after said kid all day and doing all the myriad other things parents are required to do) but if such an explanation means that a child grows up to understand the complexities of human motivation rather than seeing the influence of "evil" everywhere, isn't that worth something?
Unfortunately, when we rely on the simple vocabulary of bads and goods to get us through the child raising process, we're doing still more harm than simply leaving a child untutored in the ways of human motivation. "Good" becomes associated with reward, "bad" with punishment. This ingrains a great potential for conformity in a person - I want a reward, so I'll be "good". But what is "being good"? Is it thinking for oneself, questioning ones motives, reflecting on one's actions? Or is it following the mob, falling into a pattern of groupthink where the petty rewards for conformity are just as pitiful as Rome's bread and circuses? When someone says "your work is really good", what does that mean? Is there some objective definition of what "good" is? No. When someone says that what you've done is good, it means that they approve of it, that it fits in with their expectations. Sometimes it means more that that- perhaps it means that it is helpful to them, that they appreciate the effort you have expended. However, when we simply say that what someone has done is "good" we are trivialising what they have done. Either we simply like the work because it conforms to our ideas as to what is proper, or we really do have a gratitude for the work that fails to be expressed by our inadequate declaration of a works goodness. If we were to simply take a few additional seconds and expound upon why we find some work "good" we would create a far more positive experience and a much deeper relationship based on mutual appreciation and understanding. Similarly, when something someone does is "bad" it is either the result of them doing something contrary to our expectations or something that hurts us. If what they have done is merely contrary to our expectations, our callous dismissal of it as "bad" without further thought or discussion marginalises the person and potentially deprives us of a chance to discover a new and more effective process/product/idea/whatever it is. On the other hand, if what they have done hurts us for whatever reason and we simply dismiss it as "bad" we're loosing a chance to demonstrate why something is hurtful and that we value the offending person enough to want to enhance the relationship in the future. "Good" and "bad" are judgemental - what we really need to aim for is explanation. That's why Webster gave us adjectives after all. Unfortunately rather than use our adjectives we stick to our old lazy vocabulary in which "good" becomes conformity and "bad" becomes anything other than strict adherence to the prototypical group member.
Some of the ideas regarding the judgemental vocabulary of good and bad are taken from Marshall Rosenberg's book Speak Peace in a World of Conflict, priced very reasonably at $10.85 on Amazon.com. I cannot recommend this particular book highly enough. Any errors are my own.
The reality, of course, is very different. Yes I can be not with you while also not being against you. Anyone who truly believes in a world that is black and white, where every conflict is a zero-sum affair, and where everything is neatly sorted into "good" and "evil" piles would appear ridiculous (I hope). No one really believes that everything is at one end of a spectrum or the other with nothing in between, so why then do we seem to fall into that trap whenever we're threatened by something new, different, or foreign? It certainly does seem that new things are generally good or bad, different things are either cool or weird and foreign things are either virtuous or evil. Not all the time, and not to everyone, but it certainly seems that an inordinate amount of the time we tend to sort things into these dichotomous baskets.
One answer can be found in identity theory. Groups provide a social identity and a strong sense of belonging. When not threatened the group tolerates diversity up to a point without any issues. However, when a threat (real or imagined) emerges the group members readily give up their individuality in order to strengthen the group and thus increase their personal security. September 11th is a perfect example. Everyone said how wonderful it was that the country came together as a result of the tragedy. Yes, it was very positive to see people helping each other and paying greater attention to one another, but at the same time it was also troubling. Here was a country that was coming together largely because it now had a common enemy. I firmly believe that the reason that the current American political climate is so polar is because all the many issues that were just starting to rear their heads in early 2001 got swept under the carpet in a wave of patriotic fervour, only to re-emerge 6 or so years later with a massive vengeance. On Sept 11 things were black and white (American vs. Arab terrorist/Arab). Today, they're black and white again, but now it's Republican vs Democrat, red state vs blue state. The common enemy is still out there, but if Al Quaida is clever they'll just let us tear each other apart for a while, rather than giving us a third party to rally round against.
So that's one possible answer to this dichotomy, and one that I really like. However, I think that there's another reason for this issue, and one that goes a lot deeper than identity (if that's possible!). There is a pervasive laziness with how we raise children. I of course, am perfectly suited to talk on this subject being 23 and with no desire to even think about raising children any time in the near or even mid future. That said, I'll still stand by this crass and ungrateful statement. And here's why. We raise our children to know a world in black and white and not in shades of grey. When a toddler takes candy at the check out line that's "bad". Rarely is an explanation given for why it is "bad" and even less common is the word "bad" explained. Words like "bad" and "good" are really lazy words. I don't know how many times I reply "good" to the question "how are you?". Most of the time I'm not "good" - I'm happy, or sad, or excited, or tired. I don't even know if one can be "good". However, I say that I'm "good" in order to avoid having to explain myself. Similarly, we tell children that they're "good" or "bad" because we don't want to explain ourselves. I certainly don't really take any great pleasure in attempting to explain the complexities of the capitalist system to a kid that's just taken a Snickers, (and I'm sure that I'd want to even less after running around picking up after said kid all day and doing all the myriad other things parents are required to do) but if such an explanation means that a child grows up to understand the complexities of human motivation rather than seeing the influence of "evil" everywhere, isn't that worth something?
Unfortunately, when we rely on the simple vocabulary of bads and goods to get us through the child raising process, we're doing still more harm than simply leaving a child untutored in the ways of human motivation. "Good" becomes associated with reward, "bad" with punishment. This ingrains a great potential for conformity in a person - I want a reward, so I'll be "good". But what is "being good"? Is it thinking for oneself, questioning ones motives, reflecting on one's actions? Or is it following the mob, falling into a pattern of groupthink where the petty rewards for conformity are just as pitiful as Rome's bread and circuses? When someone says "your work is really good", what does that mean? Is there some objective definition of what "good" is? No. When someone says that what you've done is good, it means that they approve of it, that it fits in with their expectations. Sometimes it means more that that- perhaps it means that it is helpful to them, that they appreciate the effort you have expended. However, when we simply say that what someone has done is "good" we are trivialising what they have done. Either we simply like the work because it conforms to our ideas as to what is proper, or we really do have a gratitude for the work that fails to be expressed by our inadequate declaration of a works goodness. If we were to simply take a few additional seconds and expound upon why we find some work "good" we would create a far more positive experience and a much deeper relationship based on mutual appreciation and understanding. Similarly, when something someone does is "bad" it is either the result of them doing something contrary to our expectations or something that hurts us. If what they have done is merely contrary to our expectations, our callous dismissal of it as "bad" without further thought or discussion marginalises the person and potentially deprives us of a chance to discover a new and more effective process/product/idea/whatever it is. On the other hand, if what they have done hurts us for whatever reason and we simply dismiss it as "bad" we're loosing a chance to demonstrate why something is hurtful and that we value the offending person enough to want to enhance the relationship in the future. "Good" and "bad" are judgemental - what we really need to aim for is explanation. That's why Webster gave us adjectives after all. Unfortunately rather than use our adjectives we stick to our old lazy vocabulary in which "good" becomes conformity and "bad" becomes anything other than strict adherence to the prototypical group member.
Some of the ideas regarding the judgemental vocabulary of good and bad are taken from Marshall Rosenberg's book Speak Peace in a World of Conflict, priced very reasonably at $10.85 on Amazon.com. I cannot recommend this particular book highly enough. Any errors are my own.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)