Add a Comment
Email This
Statistics
RE: Ideal Perspective...
I took a training course at work called "Crucial Conversations" (based on the book of the same name) about how to carry out critical conversations effectively. I think some of the principles I learned there are applicable here.
If you break down relationships in search of peace (whether interpersonally or internationally), a large factor is (perhaps obviously) whether or not those involved feel safe. When both parties feel safe, then they engage in healthy dialogue. They may not always agree, but they are at least in a place where they can communicate and come up with effective solutions. When people don't feel safe, they engage in either "silence or violence." These prevent healthy dialogue and, therefore, effective solutions.
There is a lot more to it, but I'll forgo the details for now and just say I think this is one of President Bush's biggest weaknesses: The ability to communicate with people (and nations) in a way that helps them feel safe.
RE: Ideal Perspective...
I am what some people might consider an a**hole. This is generally not a problem, I get along well with others of a similar bent and even non-similar bent. These relationships I foster are predicated upon the other person not killing me if they take offense if I express an opinion or thought.
Sorry for the emotional hot button but targeting children at a soccer field or getting ice cream might be culturally acceptable within certain contexts but I balk there.
We were attacked by a limited group of well connected people. Granted we should try but no matter how many sit down sessions we have, grievances will always exist. (We seem to outright disagree here.) I assume a grievance is inevitable and short of blood, the opposing culture is unwilling to forgive a grievance what's to do?
RE: Ideal Perspective...
Now I agree that in an ideal world that such a stature ought to work in principle. But it also assumes the your counter-party is operating from the same social-serving perspective as opposed to a self-serving perspective. But modern Africa alone shows how self-serving will reign supreme unless a social-serving entity with guns is willing to be temporarily self-serving.
But I digress. I think in terms of social behavior, the more successful approach is to be #2. And what I mean by that is to allow some other guy to be perceived as the world hegemon and attract the eye of greed, scorn and distaste. In my own well-traveled opinion, I think much of the hatred against America is actually spite and subconscious jealousy.
It's basically playing the Canada card. You're big, you're successful, but nobody cares about you because you're not the big man. So you build upon the "statistical improbability of attack" by layering yourself in the social obscurity of the "every-country".
While I still don't think such a solution is truly viable (who wants to strive to be #2 anyway) ... it would be more doable than becoming the great nation of communicable altruism.
RSS
Ideal Perspective...
From an ideal perspective, eh? Well, okay, but you asked for it...
From an ideal perspective, the best solution to ensuring the security of any nation is a radical commitment to peace, truth, and kindness. (yeah yeah, stop laughing already, it's true)
This means building relationships--not just between politicians--but between entire cultures, so that there is listening and understanding. In other words, asking everybody in the nation to learn everything they can about other peoples and nations, and asking them to think instead of surrendering to fear.
A commitment to peace of course means standing up for yourself (you don't just roll over), but it also means setting limits for yourself in how you respond to threats. It means going to enormous lengths to understand why anyone would want to do you harm in the first place, and listening to their criticisms--even if they have already attacked you. That listening might even mean adjusting your own way of life, or at least making very sure that your way of life isn't impacting theirs. And it means accepting different cultures--regardless of the injustices we see in them (i.e. helping them change by pursuasion, not by force or manipulation).
And that means fostering a culture of listening at home and abroad--but especially at home--going all out to heal internal divisons, abandon adversarial politics and worldviews, to erase economic and social inequalities--no matter how justified they might seem to be. It means checking your ego. In short, it means a hell of a long road, but it also means that when you've been on it for a while, nobody will want to attack you, and even if they do, the nation does not react out of fear, but has the courage and presence of mind to say: alright, you hurt us, now what seems to be the problem?--instead of bombing the crap out of them, which only perpetuates the "might is right" mentality. Only when peace is more important than our lives and ambitions will we ever truly attain it.
By the time something like a 9/11 happens, the nation has already failed countless times to understand the person who has become the enemy.
Well, that's what would work from an ideal perspective. Unfortunately it seems like fear/hate, ignorance, and greed (on various sides) usually stand in the way of ideal solutions.
View Full Discussion