"Fear leads to anger,
anger leads to hate,
hate leads to suffering."
This post was going to be about fear. I was planning to talk about the things people are afraid of and why, and whether fear can spur people to innovate and achieve or simply paralyses them into inaction. But then i started to think about the levels of fear. Individuals have fears, and groups of people also have fears. Even entire nations can be said to have fears, for example, "France fears German aggression". So then I thought..is there a level above that? Can it be said that humanity as a whole has collective fears? I think it can. As far as I can discern, those fears include the following:
1. Fear of obliteration
2. Fear of negative change
3. Fear of hopelessness
The first two are pretty self explanatory. Humanity fears its own destruction. Nuclear war, virulent diseases, asteroids or environmental catastrophe are manifestations of this fear. Humanity also fears negative change, for example, Nazis taking over the world, regression of living standards or a less extensive form of any of the other factors I mentioned. The third factor is a bit more ambiguous. I believe that humanity as a whole cannot survive without hope. Every person hopes for certain things, and without this hope, there is no motivation. People hope to be happier, people hope to have a better future, people hope to make a difference and people hope to find meaning in life. Even though it is difficult to imagine a situation that would rob humanity of these hoped, I believe people unconciously fear that hopelessness will someday envelop the world.
Fear in humans is an evolved response. People dislike feeling fear, and just like lust is designed by evolution to encourage reproduction and hunger is designed to encourage energy intake, fear is designed to make people take preventative measures. This was something I had planned to discuss in this post, specifically relating to the way that people address their fears. Having taken this post in another direction, the question that now presents itself is this. Do larger entities also take preventative action, concious or otherwise, to decrease the likelihood of their fears being realized?
The answer to that previous question is certainly yes if one looks at the national entities of the world. States and governments are organized largely to deal with the macro-level fears of their people. Because governments rely on the support of at least a portion of their populace, they have an incentive to act in ways that decrease the collective fear of their constituants. They gather information, design a plan, and employ the resources at their disposal to the best of their ability in order to fulfill that plan.
The really striking thing, once you think about it, is how little organization exists to deal with the problems that extend beyond the macro level. These are the problems that are manifestations of global fears. Any action taken against them at this point is from the national level, and not surprisingly, has proven ineffective. It is rather like what would occur if 200 families, all with conflicting interests, all tried to solve community-level problems such as infrastructure and resource distribution without any kind of centralized authority. Global problems are going to require global planning and global solutions. In my next post, I will discuss the specific problems I see and the things that I believe need to happen before humanity can address them. Until then...
Friday, May 30, 2008
Towards a Canada of Light (Jan. 10, 2007)
What a strange book. It was the title and the cover that caught my eye at first, and from the moment I laid eyes on it I knew it was a book I had to read. The cover illustration is one of the coolest pictures I've ever seen and it is now my MSN pic. The book itself suprised me though. I had expected it to be a book of policy, one that would offer specific policy prescriptions for Canada. Little did I know it was written by an english professor. More than a political manifesto it is a vision, a vision of what Canada is and what being Canadian means. This, I think, is what made me like it. The elements of policy reccomendations that do find their way into it are generally not ones that I agree with and I think that the book's biggest failing is its attempt to portray the corporatist, fiscally responsible Canada as incompatible with a Canada of vision, imagination and dreams. Powe speaks of the "suffocating" and "oppressive" aspects of a policy driven by the bottom line. This, I think, is fallacy. Just as Canada finds both a middle ground between the US and Europe while at the same time being distinct from either, I believe that there exists the potential for Canada to be a country of "responsible dreamers" where a culture of diversity and imagination and "interconnected solitudes" can exist, and be made better by responsible fiscal and monetary policy. Fiscal responsibility cannot be an end in itself, but must contribute to, and not obstruct, the development of A Canada of Light.
Having said that, the parts of the book that are less political really struck a chord deep inside. So much of the book is beautifully written, a rare description of things that I have felt and seen and grappled with but have never quite been able to verbalize. This is going to be a seminal post, one that says so much about the deepest feelings I have about my country and what it is and what it has the potential to be. It will be strange to use someone else's words to illuminate such a deeply personal part of myself. But he does a better job of it than I ever could, so rather than seeing this as a collection of quotes from his book, see this as my perspectives written in someone else's hand.
"My eyes followed the spin of the fields, newly laid out for sowing, the oak woods with hard bronze survivor leaves, and a world of great size beyond, of fair clouds and then of abstraction, a tremendous Canada of Light"
"Canada, this name, this place: what I was feeling, intimately, as if she were a part of me, not a mere country where I happened to be born and that often felt like my home"
"One way to push back this force that threatens to close off you capacity for reverie, to imagine, to sing out with sheer pleasure, to redirect yourself towards the stars, and to love intensely what comes to you, is to make your language soar into blockades and barriers, bringing them down"
"A Canada of Light, a promise, a flash, an opportunity for reverie, a turning leaf, an open door, a rendevous of many cultures, a sometimes quieter street or pathway in the wailing world, an outpost..the least likely place to incite mass ethnic hatred, a glimpse, a turning away, a provocation to thinki beyond single vision, a drama of inwardness, a site for talk and comtemplation, a celebration of solitudes, a generous spirit wrestling with the demon of closure and the shadow of uniformity, where the vision of the country remains, fortunately, always ahead of its politicians"
"Gather depth and expanse, and paitiently come together in the night to know beauty. Deepen solitudes, and love the unsolved. Salute each other across the truest eternal borderline, which is not national, but human"
"In Canada it is still possible to be alone. In America, there is a relentlessly public experience, the solidarity of the commercial, for everyone, with little quiet left for anyone"
"I'm drawn to my country's paradoxes and promises, its incompleteness and anomalies, the inward verve and subtle pulse of the magnetic north. Here discontinuities and abiding frictions are neccesary for our growth. Here I find a puzzle of great beauty. Canada works well in practice, but just doesnt work out in theory"
"We have formed a consensus to not allow ourselves to be defined by a single unifying idea"
"In this wide, spacious country with its areas of privacy and repose, solitude and reverie can lift us and inspire us: here we may think, observe, comment, reflect, interpret and release ourselves from traditional forms so that we may dream"
"We wait, in a rendezvous of societies and people, and in this waiting we are often perplexed, tempted by the swirls of anger and vengeful hatred, yet drawn to the energies of the barely spoken, and to traces in the northern air, to the lingering but not entirely comprehended memories of what it took to make this ours, the liberties of a new world."
"In this global electric city, we are haunted by a sense of presence, the trace of something close, almost there. Is that presence supernatural, immanent, or is it our human world amplified, echoed, calling, yearning, crying out?"
"It may be that this counter-nation, our eclectic mosaic culture, this condition of being seemingly disparate and seperate, all our obsessions with who we are, is our great strength, our promising path, our myth, our original form of harmony"
(Note: I don't know if I agree with this next one but it touches on an issue that I've always wondered about and have attempted, without much success , to figure out in the past. Is there an advantage to being less open about your thoughts and feelings? I have a lot of inner conflict about this quote.)
"Private identity must be cloaked if it is to maintain solitude, and thus make time for the cultivation of the inner person"
"Canada's lack of definition is it's strength"
"What sort of inwardness have you cultivated? Where does your soul reach? What air do you breathe? What are you made of, and who do you love?"
(My favorite one right here I think)
"The imagination seals us in rainbow covenants with the world. It takes the world, its rawness, back into ourselves, so that we may know more and find more, sychronicities, infinite correspondences and so we may keep grappling with enigmas"
"Canada is the via media, the middle way, between the United States and Europe.. We must discover that route again, and trace it, and follow, allowing its meander, attending to where it's whispering path may lead"
(Another favorite. Reminds me of Bob Seger and my #7 song of all time)
"There are fires other than those that consume us"
(Ok this is getting redundant. I love this one too)
"A secret country where solitudes and peace still largely exist, where we can ask questions about injustices and inequity, about whether there is a vocation in being Canadian, hoping against hope, expecting the impossible. Yet there is no map for this secret country because, to echo a line of Thomas Merton's, it is within ourselves"
"Canada is a place whose mythology and culture speak of an incognito difference: to communicate, then commune, with the world, rather than to conquer or subdue it"
"Why are we here? To be new, and to make a difference"
This is the Canada that I love. There is something to be said for a vision that can be embraced both by myself and also by people who have the opposite political views.
Having said that, the parts of the book that are less political really struck a chord deep inside. So much of the book is beautifully written, a rare description of things that I have felt and seen and grappled with but have never quite been able to verbalize. This is going to be a seminal post, one that says so much about the deepest feelings I have about my country and what it is and what it has the potential to be. It will be strange to use someone else's words to illuminate such a deeply personal part of myself. But he does a better job of it than I ever could, so rather than seeing this as a collection of quotes from his book, see this as my perspectives written in someone else's hand.
"My eyes followed the spin of the fields, newly laid out for sowing, the oak woods with hard bronze survivor leaves, and a world of great size beyond, of fair clouds and then of abstraction, a tremendous Canada of Light"
"Canada, this name, this place: what I was feeling, intimately, as if she were a part of me, not a mere country where I happened to be born and that often felt like my home"
"One way to push back this force that threatens to close off you capacity for reverie, to imagine, to sing out with sheer pleasure, to redirect yourself towards the stars, and to love intensely what comes to you, is to make your language soar into blockades and barriers, bringing them down"
"A Canada of Light, a promise, a flash, an opportunity for reverie, a turning leaf, an open door, a rendevous of many cultures, a sometimes quieter street or pathway in the wailing world, an outpost..the least likely place to incite mass ethnic hatred, a glimpse, a turning away, a provocation to thinki beyond single vision, a drama of inwardness, a site for talk and comtemplation, a celebration of solitudes, a generous spirit wrestling with the demon of closure and the shadow of uniformity, where the vision of the country remains, fortunately, always ahead of its politicians"
"Gather depth and expanse, and paitiently come together in the night to know beauty. Deepen solitudes, and love the unsolved. Salute each other across the truest eternal borderline, which is not national, but human"
"In Canada it is still possible to be alone. In America, there is a relentlessly public experience, the solidarity of the commercial, for everyone, with little quiet left for anyone"
"I'm drawn to my country's paradoxes and promises, its incompleteness and anomalies, the inward verve and subtle pulse of the magnetic north. Here discontinuities and abiding frictions are neccesary for our growth. Here I find a puzzle of great beauty. Canada works well in practice, but just doesnt work out in theory"
"We have formed a consensus to not allow ourselves to be defined by a single unifying idea"
"In this wide, spacious country with its areas of privacy and repose, solitude and reverie can lift us and inspire us: here we may think, observe, comment, reflect, interpret and release ourselves from traditional forms so that we may dream"
"We wait, in a rendezvous of societies and people, and in this waiting we are often perplexed, tempted by the swirls of anger and vengeful hatred, yet drawn to the energies of the barely spoken, and to traces in the northern air, to the lingering but not entirely comprehended memories of what it took to make this ours, the liberties of a new world."
"In this global electric city, we are haunted by a sense of presence, the trace of something close, almost there. Is that presence supernatural, immanent, or is it our human world amplified, echoed, calling, yearning, crying out?"
"It may be that this counter-nation, our eclectic mosaic culture, this condition of being seemingly disparate and seperate, all our obsessions with who we are, is our great strength, our promising path, our myth, our original form of harmony"
(Note: I don't know if I agree with this next one but it touches on an issue that I've always wondered about and have attempted, without much success , to figure out in the past. Is there an advantage to being less open about your thoughts and feelings? I have a lot of inner conflict about this quote.)
"Private identity must be cloaked if it is to maintain solitude, and thus make time for the cultivation of the inner person"
"Canada's lack of definition is it's strength"
"What sort of inwardness have you cultivated? Where does your soul reach? What air do you breathe? What are you made of, and who do you love?"
(My favorite one right here I think)
"The imagination seals us in rainbow covenants with the world. It takes the world, its rawness, back into ourselves, so that we may know more and find more, sychronicities, infinite correspondences and so we may keep grappling with enigmas"
"Canada is the via media, the middle way, between the United States and Europe.. We must discover that route again, and trace it, and follow, allowing its meander, attending to where it's whispering path may lead"
(Another favorite. Reminds me of Bob Seger and my #7 song of all time)
"There are fires other than those that consume us"
(Ok this is getting redundant. I love this one too)
"A secret country where solitudes and peace still largely exist, where we can ask questions about injustices and inequity, about whether there is a vocation in being Canadian, hoping against hope, expecting the impossible. Yet there is no map for this secret country because, to echo a line of Thomas Merton's, it is within ourselves"
"Canada is a place whose mythology and culture speak of an incognito difference: to communicate, then commune, with the world, rather than to conquer or subdue it"
"Why are we here? To be new, and to make a difference"
This is the Canada that I love. There is something to be said for a vision that can be embraced both by myself and also by people who have the opposite political views.
The Altar of Freedom (Aug. 11, 2006)
Abraham Lincoln coined the phrase in my title during the US civil war. He understood that freedom is not something that comes easily, but something that must be won. He also understood that that freedom is the cornerstone of western society. Freedom of thought, speech, religion, association and assembly are at core of western civilization and are non-negotiable liberties. Political freedom too, provides for a more dynamic society than does autocracy, and I think that political freedom has been indirectly responsible for much of the success of the west in the past two centuries. Our freedoms must be maintained if our society is to survive and prosper in the future.
Having said that, I want to outline some of the opinions I hold about international relations and tie them back to the central themes of this post, and the two that have come before it. I will start with a term that I am going to use, because I feel like it will need clarification as the post develops. I am going to use the phrases democracy and liberal democracy interchangeably for the purposes of this post, and use them as terms to represent the governmental structure common in the west, characterized by some form of elected representation determined by a large portion of the adult population, usually but not always a constitution, guarantees of the previously mentioned personal liberties and other protections, such as separation of powers and prevention of majority tyranny. I also want to clarify that when I talk about sacrifice, I mean necessary sacrifice. I believe that wasting people’s lives on fruitless endeavors, or not taking all possible measures to prevent civilian casualties, or any unnecessary abuse of human life, such as happened at Abu Gharib, is morally despicable and that those responsible for such actions should be punished accordingly.
With that in mind, I want to talk about the kind of world I would like to see in the somewhat distant future. The world today, at least in the west, is a far better place in terms of quality of life (on average) than at any other time in history. In understanding why this is the case, it is useful to look at the ideas in one of my favorite books, Nonzero, by Robert Wright. Wright talks about “societal evolution,” which is his theory that the behavior of civilizations approximates the long-term behavior of living organisms. This is a thesis which I find extremely persuasive. The first objective of a species is to ensure the survival of the gene pool. Similarly, the first objective of any society has to be to maintain its values, culture and system of government. As Darwin knew, not all species are equally well-equipped to survive in a given environment. Over time, the organisms that are unable to compete simply vanish. Similarly, Wright postulates that some societies are better organized for certain tasks than others, and in a given environment, weaker societies are swallowed up or replaced by more efficient ones. Wright spends a large part of his book on the theory that how well societies are able to compete depends on the level of non-zero sum interaction in a society. This is a complicated hypothesis, so I will just summarize the main conclusions. It predicts that societal evolution is a directional process, and that societies are necessarily becoming more interdependent, more complex and more specialized and that is what is responsible for the increase in quality of life. This integration is constrained by two factors, barriers in communication and barriers in trust.
The point of all this is that the future society I would like to see would be characterized by the absence of those barriers, and theoretically would then have the highest possible average quality of life. I will now discuss what I think this world would look like, but my interpretation is certainly open to refinement and debate. There would have to be some sort of global political and economic authority, but I think a “world government” per se is an impractical idea in the foreseeable future. Instead, I would advocate a global federation similar to, but with more power than, the European Union. This federation would be run by three elected bodies, one based on “power” (production capacity, economic strength etc), one based on population and one based on egalitarian national representation. For a more detailed description of how the political organization might work see my “Kingdom of Conscience” post. This federal authority would have the responsibility of maintaining a global constitution, guaranteeing uniform political and personal liberties such as those previously described, regulating the global economy by enforcing contract law and resolving economic crises (As the EU does) and providing for common global endeavors such as space exploration, global defense, peacekeeping and so on. The need to enforce a global constitution would also require a Global Supreme Court, in order to make sure that national laws do not conflict with said constitution. I know that what I have just outlined is a very idealistic vision, but I believe that it is possible, and certainly something to work toward. Much of the foreign policy that I advocate has at least an eye on that ultimate goal.
As you can see, I have started with the big picture in this post. However, a vision is nothing without more immediate and specific goals, and thus I will try to work downward, from the general to the specific. In my view there are two major factors that must be satisfied before large-scale global integration can move forward. They are related, but we must have both before we can proceed. First, conflict between nations must be resolved prior to any integration attempt. Nations that are openly hostile to one another cannot be expected to adopt common ideals and work closely together. In that light, it is extremely important to distinguish between resolving conflict and enforcing peace. Israel and the Arab states have had periods without war, but they have been engaged in a conflict since 1948. A ceasefire is not sufficient to foster interdependence, a lasting solution must be found for the problems at the core of the conflict. The second criterion has to do with establishing liberal democracy. The creators of the EU correctly determined that an integrated, democratic international body must be made up exclusively of democratic states. The political decision-making process in autocracies does not lend itself to integration, and if a global organization is looking to have a common constitution with guarantees of personal liberties, obviously member states must be able to tolerate these liberties within their countries, something that authoritarian regimes tend not to be very good at.
These two criteria are related in that the former almost always follows the establishment of the latter. Immanuel Kant wrote on this concept, which he called Republican Order, and it has since been debated and expanded by many other prominent philosophers and political scientists. Empirical evidence shows that wars between democratic states are extremely rare, and almost every example to the contrary is a case where one or both of the states had been democratic, in the modern sense, for less than five years. The evidence also shows that the incidence of civil war, genocide, political repression and other internal conflict is considerably lower within democratic states. In that light, it would seem that the most straightforward way of achieving the above criteria throughout the world is to support the establishment of liberal democracies at the expense of other systems of government. This goal also correlates well with Wright’s societal evolution, because logically, one of the best ways of preserving our social systems and ways of life is to propagate them as much as possible.
Of course, the next question becomes, how can we do this? For the answer to this, we can look again to history. There are three ways the system of government can be changed in a given country.
1. Peaceful, internally driven liberalization. This happened to England over a period of several hundred years and to several English colonies such as Canada, Australia and to some extent, India. It also occurred in Taiwan and Spain, among other places. This process is slowly beginning in China.
2. Revolution. This is perhaps the most common way. The populace grows discontented with authoritarian rule and collaborates to overthrow the previous government and establish democracy. This happened in the USA (1776), the USSR (1991), China (1912), much of Latin America and all over Europe, especially France, where it has happened probably five times since 1789.
3. External Force. This is the most controversial of the three ways. It involves other nations, either directly or indirectly, supporting the establishment of a democratic state through the use of force. It has been tremendously successful in several instances, Germany (1945), Japan (1946), South Korea (1952) and Israel (1948). Additionally, it has been somewhat successful in several other instances, notably in the former Yugoslavia (1990’s) and Germany (1918). However, the strategy has proven disastrous in some instances, Vietnam being the best example. The jury is still out on Iraq and Afghanistan, the two most recent attempts.
Each of these three approaches has its advantages and disadvantages as a way of spreading democracy throughout the world. From a purely sympathetic point of view, the first option is the best, in that it requires the least bloodshed. However it is also the most useless if one is looking at ways to propagate democracy. It is extremely difficult to influence a peaceful liberalization process from the outside, and also tends to take an extremely long time. In some cases it is not even a viable option, as the sitting government would rather face revolution than liberalize.
Choosing the right approach for fostering democracy across the world is not a simple matter of choosing the “best” of the three alternatives and then applying the strategy across the board. When we in the west are considering how best to proceed, each individual case must be carefully considered and a unique solution found. The first option, the peaceful transition option, is one that needs to be exacted in allied states that already have some characteristics of western government. This actually constitutes a large portion of non-democratic states in the world today. These countries have less distance to travel, are moving in the right direction and are not a threat to the west. Nothing would be gained by overthrowing the current regimes in these countries. Some examples might be China and Russia. Also, this tactic would be extremely useful in the aftermath of revolution or invasion for use in neighboring countries. For example, should the US succeed in the goal of establishing a strong democracy in Iraq, the peaceful transition option would become much more feasible and much more imminent in places like Saudi Arabia.
The second approach, the revolutionary approach, would also probably be the best tactic in several situations. Regimes that have radicalized and are unlikely to pursue reform, yet do not present an immediate threat to the west, would be possible candidates for this type of action. Also, states with the potential to exact heavy damage to the west in the wake of an invasion might be better dealt with through this method. North Korea is a good example, as military action could result in nuclear attack. Other possible candidates include several countries in central Asia and in Africa. In order to effectively utilize this tactic, a complicated series of procedures would have to be used. Perhaps the most effective way of inciting a population against its government is through economic means. Sanctions and incentives can be very effective. Additionally, creating international pressure against these states is a part of the strategy. Funding opposition groups is also a possibility, but great care must be taken to make sure those groups are committed to democracy. Funding groups just because they oppose your enemy is a mistake, as the Americans have learned in Afghanistan and Iraq. These measures, along with others, represent perhaps our best hope for democratizing radicalized regimes.
The third approach, external military action, is the most direct of the three, but also poses the most problems. It is not the preferred strategy in most cases. However, it should not be unnecessarily ruled out, as there are cases where it is the best option. When states pose an imminent threat to the democratic world, there is often no other option but force. In the Middle East, for example, Hezbollah, though not a regime per se, exercises de facto control over southern Lebanon. Hezbollah is a radical organization that poses an imminent terrorist threat to democracies. That is a case where the use of force by Israel is both necessary and justified. Another example of a situation where military action could be the best course of action is a situation where it is necessary to establish a “beachhead” for democracy. In regions where democracy is not prevalent, it is often difficult to find enough internal support to pursue either a liberalizing agenda or a revolution. In this case, establishing one or two democracies through external force can be a catalyst for further democratization of the region through the first two methods. In this case, the obvious example to use is Iraq, although until a stable democracy is established it cannot be considered a success. Establishing a liberal democracy in a Muslim state could be a critical turning point in democratizing the Middle East. It would make it considerably harder for states like Iran to say that Islam and democracy are incompatible. In the best case scenario, it could cause a domino effect and substantially contribute to the rise of democracy in the rest of the region. At a minimum, it will be one less radical regime blocking the way to a peaceful and integrated world. The mismanagement of the war by the Bush administration has made the job more difficult, but the goal can certainly still be accomplished. Iraq and Afghanistan are two big opportunities to expand democracy and create change in the wider Middle East, but in order to accomplish that, we must make sure that the job is finished before we leave. The sacrifice made by those Afghanis, Iraqis and coalition troops that have lost their lives in the conflict will not be wasted if those two countries can emerge as pillars of freedom. If we retreat, however, as many in the western world have advocated, those sacrifices will have been in vain.
Speaking of those people who have advocated unconditional peace and withdrawal from Afghanistan and Iraq, I want to address one of their principal arguments in some detail. Many of them hold the view that given enough time, the non-democracies of the world will go through the same process that happened in Europe in the 19th and early 20th centuries, in that their populations will realize the advantages of liberalizing and pressure for change, resulting in either peaceful liberalization or revolutions. In their view, the democratic world does not need to get involved, as the process will proceed regardless. There is a major problem with this view. Non-democratic states have been forced by two factors into taking an adversarial position against the world’s democracies. They are forced to vilify us and act against us, and we have no choice but to defend ourselves and our freedoms. Acceding to their demands, (abandon Israel, close military bases, prevent corporations from exploiting energy resources etc) will not pacify them, because in order for them to remain in power, we have to be the enemy. As mentioned, this is for two reasons. First, democracy tends to spread once it is firmly established in a region. It is therefore in the interest of non-democracies to prevent the emergence of a strong democratic state in their region. In this way, the democratic states of the world are already irrevocably involved in conflict with these states, as we are the greatest threat to their power. Israel is the shining example here. The authoritarian nations of the Middle East cannot afford to let Israel become stable and powerful as it would certainly incite pressure for change in their own regimes. I also believe that a large part of the insurgency in Iraq had developed in order to prevent the emergence of a strong democracy.
The second reason is slightly more complicated. It has to do with increasing globalization, the global information revolution and the tremendous power of the world media. The crux of the matter is this. The wide availability of detailed and reliable information about the state of the world has increasingly opened the eyes of the people living in non-democratic regimes. They now, more than ever, understand what life is like in liberal democracies. They know what they are missing out on. China is the easiest place to see this, where increasing knowledge of the west had driven much of the reform over the last twenty years.
These two factors, the regional pressure for democracy and the information revolution, have forced the hand of non-democratic regimes. Faced with regional democratic pressures and wide knowledge of the better quality of life enjoyed in the west these regimes have to take action to appease their populace. They can either liberalize or radicalize. China, for example, has responded to democratic pressures by introducing limited market-oriented reforms. Iran and North Korea on the other hand, have radicalized. By portraying liberal values as incompatible with Islam (Iran) or Communist ideology (North Korea) they can provide an excuse to their population why they cannot enjoy the quality of life or the personal liberties present in democracies. In order to legitimize this excuse, these regimes must attempt to prove to their populace that the advantages of their regimes outweigh the advantages of liberal democracy. They can only do this by challenging the west, and attempting to prove themselves superior.
I do not believe that the challenges of fundamentalist Islam and North Korean communism are sufficient in themselves to threaten the western way of life. I believe that the inherent advantages of liberal democracy would eventually prevail and these regimes would collapse through revolution. However, we cannot afford to wait. The cost of waiting 50 or 100 years for those regimes to collapse will be 50 or 100 more years of state-sponsored terrorism against the west. It is even possible that those states would, facing revolution, launch nuclear attacks against us. Therefore, I think the west must do everything they can to hasten the fall of those regimes. Supporting internal revolution may be what is necessary to subdue nuclear-armed radical states, and armed conflict against other terrorist organizations should be undertaken if necessary.
Democratizing the planet, and subsequently promoting an interdependent and just world, will not be an easy task. It will require gargantuan effort, tremendous resolve, and the willingness to sacrifice. In those three things we can learn much from the people of Israel. They have sacrificed more to earn their freedom than perhaps any other nation, and their arduous task is far from over. They should be commended and supported, not bigoted. To all those who would say that the sacrifice is not worth it, and point to the suffering of those that have lost on both sides, I would reply that paradoxically, establishing a lasting peace will necessarily require war and that freedom is not free. Every citizen of earth deserves the same freedom that we in the west take for granted, and to get that they will have to win it from their oppressors. I would also comment that as in the 1930’s, when Hitler ruled Germany, we will eventually have to face those that would destroy us. As it would have been in 1936, the cost now will be less than if we wait until we are attacked. We have to learn lessons from the past. As Lincoln said, “Let us have faith that right makes might, and in that faith, let us, to the end, dare to do our duty as we understand it”. Finally, to everyone in Israel and the other free countries of the world that have lost loved ones defending freedom and democracy, I would remind you once more of the words of Abraham Lincoln, “I feel how weak and fruitless must be any words of mine which should attempt to beguile you from the grief of a loss so overwhelming. But I cannot refrain from tendering to you the consolation that may be found in the thanks of the Republic(s) they died to save. I pray that our Heavenly Father may assuage the anguish of your bereavement, and leave you only the cherished memory of the loved and lost, and the solemn pride that must be yours, to have laid so costly a sacrifice upon the Altar of Freedom”.
Having said that, I want to outline some of the opinions I hold about international relations and tie them back to the central themes of this post, and the two that have come before it. I will start with a term that I am going to use, because I feel like it will need clarification as the post develops. I am going to use the phrases democracy and liberal democracy interchangeably for the purposes of this post, and use them as terms to represent the governmental structure common in the west, characterized by some form of elected representation determined by a large portion of the adult population, usually but not always a constitution, guarantees of the previously mentioned personal liberties and other protections, such as separation of powers and prevention of majority tyranny. I also want to clarify that when I talk about sacrifice, I mean necessary sacrifice. I believe that wasting people’s lives on fruitless endeavors, or not taking all possible measures to prevent civilian casualties, or any unnecessary abuse of human life, such as happened at Abu Gharib, is morally despicable and that those responsible for such actions should be punished accordingly.
With that in mind, I want to talk about the kind of world I would like to see in the somewhat distant future. The world today, at least in the west, is a far better place in terms of quality of life (on average) than at any other time in history. In understanding why this is the case, it is useful to look at the ideas in one of my favorite books, Nonzero, by Robert Wright. Wright talks about “societal evolution,” which is his theory that the behavior of civilizations approximates the long-term behavior of living organisms. This is a thesis which I find extremely persuasive. The first objective of a species is to ensure the survival of the gene pool. Similarly, the first objective of any society has to be to maintain its values, culture and system of government. As Darwin knew, not all species are equally well-equipped to survive in a given environment. Over time, the organisms that are unable to compete simply vanish. Similarly, Wright postulates that some societies are better organized for certain tasks than others, and in a given environment, weaker societies are swallowed up or replaced by more efficient ones. Wright spends a large part of his book on the theory that how well societies are able to compete depends on the level of non-zero sum interaction in a society. This is a complicated hypothesis, so I will just summarize the main conclusions. It predicts that societal evolution is a directional process, and that societies are necessarily becoming more interdependent, more complex and more specialized and that is what is responsible for the increase in quality of life. This integration is constrained by two factors, barriers in communication and barriers in trust.
The point of all this is that the future society I would like to see would be characterized by the absence of those barriers, and theoretically would then have the highest possible average quality of life. I will now discuss what I think this world would look like, but my interpretation is certainly open to refinement and debate. There would have to be some sort of global political and economic authority, but I think a “world government” per se is an impractical idea in the foreseeable future. Instead, I would advocate a global federation similar to, but with more power than, the European Union. This federation would be run by three elected bodies, one based on “power” (production capacity, economic strength etc), one based on population and one based on egalitarian national representation. For a more detailed description of how the political organization might work see my “Kingdom of Conscience” post. This federal authority would have the responsibility of maintaining a global constitution, guaranteeing uniform political and personal liberties such as those previously described, regulating the global economy by enforcing contract law and resolving economic crises (As the EU does) and providing for common global endeavors such as space exploration, global defense, peacekeeping and so on. The need to enforce a global constitution would also require a Global Supreme Court, in order to make sure that national laws do not conflict with said constitution. I know that what I have just outlined is a very idealistic vision, but I believe that it is possible, and certainly something to work toward. Much of the foreign policy that I advocate has at least an eye on that ultimate goal.
As you can see, I have started with the big picture in this post. However, a vision is nothing without more immediate and specific goals, and thus I will try to work downward, from the general to the specific. In my view there are two major factors that must be satisfied before large-scale global integration can move forward. They are related, but we must have both before we can proceed. First, conflict between nations must be resolved prior to any integration attempt. Nations that are openly hostile to one another cannot be expected to adopt common ideals and work closely together. In that light, it is extremely important to distinguish between resolving conflict and enforcing peace. Israel and the Arab states have had periods without war, but they have been engaged in a conflict since 1948. A ceasefire is not sufficient to foster interdependence, a lasting solution must be found for the problems at the core of the conflict. The second criterion has to do with establishing liberal democracy. The creators of the EU correctly determined that an integrated, democratic international body must be made up exclusively of democratic states. The political decision-making process in autocracies does not lend itself to integration, and if a global organization is looking to have a common constitution with guarantees of personal liberties, obviously member states must be able to tolerate these liberties within their countries, something that authoritarian regimes tend not to be very good at.
These two criteria are related in that the former almost always follows the establishment of the latter. Immanuel Kant wrote on this concept, which he called Republican Order, and it has since been debated and expanded by many other prominent philosophers and political scientists. Empirical evidence shows that wars between democratic states are extremely rare, and almost every example to the contrary is a case where one or both of the states had been democratic, in the modern sense, for less than five years. The evidence also shows that the incidence of civil war, genocide, political repression and other internal conflict is considerably lower within democratic states. In that light, it would seem that the most straightforward way of achieving the above criteria throughout the world is to support the establishment of liberal democracies at the expense of other systems of government. This goal also correlates well with Wright’s societal evolution, because logically, one of the best ways of preserving our social systems and ways of life is to propagate them as much as possible.
Of course, the next question becomes, how can we do this? For the answer to this, we can look again to history. There are three ways the system of government can be changed in a given country.
1. Peaceful, internally driven liberalization. This happened to England over a period of several hundred years and to several English colonies such as Canada, Australia and to some extent, India. It also occurred in Taiwan and Spain, among other places. This process is slowly beginning in China.
2. Revolution. This is perhaps the most common way. The populace grows discontented with authoritarian rule and collaborates to overthrow the previous government and establish democracy. This happened in the USA (1776), the USSR (1991), China (1912), much of Latin America and all over Europe, especially France, where it has happened probably five times since 1789.
3. External Force. This is the most controversial of the three ways. It involves other nations, either directly or indirectly, supporting the establishment of a democratic state through the use of force. It has been tremendously successful in several instances, Germany (1945), Japan (1946), South Korea (1952) and Israel (1948). Additionally, it has been somewhat successful in several other instances, notably in the former Yugoslavia (1990’s) and Germany (1918). However, the strategy has proven disastrous in some instances, Vietnam being the best example. The jury is still out on Iraq and Afghanistan, the two most recent attempts.
Each of these three approaches has its advantages and disadvantages as a way of spreading democracy throughout the world. From a purely sympathetic point of view, the first option is the best, in that it requires the least bloodshed. However it is also the most useless if one is looking at ways to propagate democracy. It is extremely difficult to influence a peaceful liberalization process from the outside, and also tends to take an extremely long time. In some cases it is not even a viable option, as the sitting government would rather face revolution than liberalize.
Choosing the right approach for fostering democracy across the world is not a simple matter of choosing the “best” of the three alternatives and then applying the strategy across the board. When we in the west are considering how best to proceed, each individual case must be carefully considered and a unique solution found. The first option, the peaceful transition option, is one that needs to be exacted in allied states that already have some characteristics of western government. This actually constitutes a large portion of non-democratic states in the world today. These countries have less distance to travel, are moving in the right direction and are not a threat to the west. Nothing would be gained by overthrowing the current regimes in these countries. Some examples might be China and Russia. Also, this tactic would be extremely useful in the aftermath of revolution or invasion for use in neighboring countries. For example, should the US succeed in the goal of establishing a strong democracy in Iraq, the peaceful transition option would become much more feasible and much more imminent in places like Saudi Arabia.
The second approach, the revolutionary approach, would also probably be the best tactic in several situations. Regimes that have radicalized and are unlikely to pursue reform, yet do not present an immediate threat to the west, would be possible candidates for this type of action. Also, states with the potential to exact heavy damage to the west in the wake of an invasion might be better dealt with through this method. North Korea is a good example, as military action could result in nuclear attack. Other possible candidates include several countries in central Asia and in Africa. In order to effectively utilize this tactic, a complicated series of procedures would have to be used. Perhaps the most effective way of inciting a population against its government is through economic means. Sanctions and incentives can be very effective. Additionally, creating international pressure against these states is a part of the strategy. Funding opposition groups is also a possibility, but great care must be taken to make sure those groups are committed to democracy. Funding groups just because they oppose your enemy is a mistake, as the Americans have learned in Afghanistan and Iraq. These measures, along with others, represent perhaps our best hope for democratizing radicalized regimes.
The third approach, external military action, is the most direct of the three, but also poses the most problems. It is not the preferred strategy in most cases. However, it should not be unnecessarily ruled out, as there are cases where it is the best option. When states pose an imminent threat to the democratic world, there is often no other option but force. In the Middle East, for example, Hezbollah, though not a regime per se, exercises de facto control over southern Lebanon. Hezbollah is a radical organization that poses an imminent terrorist threat to democracies. That is a case where the use of force by Israel is both necessary and justified. Another example of a situation where military action could be the best course of action is a situation where it is necessary to establish a “beachhead” for democracy. In regions where democracy is not prevalent, it is often difficult to find enough internal support to pursue either a liberalizing agenda or a revolution. In this case, establishing one or two democracies through external force can be a catalyst for further democratization of the region through the first two methods. In this case, the obvious example to use is Iraq, although until a stable democracy is established it cannot be considered a success. Establishing a liberal democracy in a Muslim state could be a critical turning point in democratizing the Middle East. It would make it considerably harder for states like Iran to say that Islam and democracy are incompatible. In the best case scenario, it could cause a domino effect and substantially contribute to the rise of democracy in the rest of the region. At a minimum, it will be one less radical regime blocking the way to a peaceful and integrated world. The mismanagement of the war by the Bush administration has made the job more difficult, but the goal can certainly still be accomplished. Iraq and Afghanistan are two big opportunities to expand democracy and create change in the wider Middle East, but in order to accomplish that, we must make sure that the job is finished before we leave. The sacrifice made by those Afghanis, Iraqis and coalition troops that have lost their lives in the conflict will not be wasted if those two countries can emerge as pillars of freedom. If we retreat, however, as many in the western world have advocated, those sacrifices will have been in vain.
Speaking of those people who have advocated unconditional peace and withdrawal from Afghanistan and Iraq, I want to address one of their principal arguments in some detail. Many of them hold the view that given enough time, the non-democracies of the world will go through the same process that happened in Europe in the 19th and early 20th centuries, in that their populations will realize the advantages of liberalizing and pressure for change, resulting in either peaceful liberalization or revolutions. In their view, the democratic world does not need to get involved, as the process will proceed regardless. There is a major problem with this view. Non-democratic states have been forced by two factors into taking an adversarial position against the world’s democracies. They are forced to vilify us and act against us, and we have no choice but to defend ourselves and our freedoms. Acceding to their demands, (abandon Israel, close military bases, prevent corporations from exploiting energy resources etc) will not pacify them, because in order for them to remain in power, we have to be the enemy. As mentioned, this is for two reasons. First, democracy tends to spread once it is firmly established in a region. It is therefore in the interest of non-democracies to prevent the emergence of a strong democratic state in their region. In this way, the democratic states of the world are already irrevocably involved in conflict with these states, as we are the greatest threat to their power. Israel is the shining example here. The authoritarian nations of the Middle East cannot afford to let Israel become stable and powerful as it would certainly incite pressure for change in their own regimes. I also believe that a large part of the insurgency in Iraq had developed in order to prevent the emergence of a strong democracy.
The second reason is slightly more complicated. It has to do with increasing globalization, the global information revolution and the tremendous power of the world media. The crux of the matter is this. The wide availability of detailed and reliable information about the state of the world has increasingly opened the eyes of the people living in non-democratic regimes. They now, more than ever, understand what life is like in liberal democracies. They know what they are missing out on. China is the easiest place to see this, where increasing knowledge of the west had driven much of the reform over the last twenty years.
These two factors, the regional pressure for democracy and the information revolution, have forced the hand of non-democratic regimes. Faced with regional democratic pressures and wide knowledge of the better quality of life enjoyed in the west these regimes have to take action to appease their populace. They can either liberalize or radicalize. China, for example, has responded to democratic pressures by introducing limited market-oriented reforms. Iran and North Korea on the other hand, have radicalized. By portraying liberal values as incompatible with Islam (Iran) or Communist ideology (North Korea) they can provide an excuse to their population why they cannot enjoy the quality of life or the personal liberties present in democracies. In order to legitimize this excuse, these regimes must attempt to prove to their populace that the advantages of their regimes outweigh the advantages of liberal democracy. They can only do this by challenging the west, and attempting to prove themselves superior.
I do not believe that the challenges of fundamentalist Islam and North Korean communism are sufficient in themselves to threaten the western way of life. I believe that the inherent advantages of liberal democracy would eventually prevail and these regimes would collapse through revolution. However, we cannot afford to wait. The cost of waiting 50 or 100 years for those regimes to collapse will be 50 or 100 more years of state-sponsored terrorism against the west. It is even possible that those states would, facing revolution, launch nuclear attacks against us. Therefore, I think the west must do everything they can to hasten the fall of those regimes. Supporting internal revolution may be what is necessary to subdue nuclear-armed radical states, and armed conflict against other terrorist organizations should be undertaken if necessary.
Democratizing the planet, and subsequently promoting an interdependent and just world, will not be an easy task. It will require gargantuan effort, tremendous resolve, and the willingness to sacrifice. In those three things we can learn much from the people of Israel. They have sacrificed more to earn their freedom than perhaps any other nation, and their arduous task is far from over. They should be commended and supported, not bigoted. To all those who would say that the sacrifice is not worth it, and point to the suffering of those that have lost on both sides, I would reply that paradoxically, establishing a lasting peace will necessarily require war and that freedom is not free. Every citizen of earth deserves the same freedom that we in the west take for granted, and to get that they will have to win it from their oppressors. I would also comment that as in the 1930’s, when Hitler ruled Germany, we will eventually have to face those that would destroy us. As it would have been in 1936, the cost now will be less than if we wait until we are attacked. We have to learn lessons from the past. As Lincoln said, “Let us have faith that right makes might, and in that faith, let us, to the end, dare to do our duty as we understand it”. Finally, to everyone in Israel and the other free countries of the world that have lost loved ones defending freedom and democracy, I would remind you once more of the words of Abraham Lincoln, “I feel how weak and fruitless must be any words of mine which should attempt to beguile you from the grief of a loss so overwhelming. But I cannot refrain from tendering to you the consolation that may be found in the thanks of the Republic(s) they died to save. I pray that our Heavenly Father may assuage the anguish of your bereavement, and leave you only the cherished memory of the loved and lost, and the solemn pride that must be yours, to have laid so costly a sacrifice upon the Altar of Freedom”.
Brothers in Arms (Aug 2. 2006)
That's the title of a song that Mark Knopfler wrote in the 80's about the IDF. It's just as relevant today as it has been for the last 50 years. The current conflict in Lebanon is just another incidence of what the terrible conflict has done to the region in the last half century. But you already know what I think about that.
Isreal's baptism of fire has led them here, and the here and the now is what I want to talk about. First of all, Israel did not start this conflict. As before, they were attacked. If armed forces cross into your country and kill and capture your soldiers, that is an act of war. No question. The onus of the conflict in on Hezbollah, and Israel has every right to defend itself. However, two questions whose answers are a little less clear obviously spring from this.
The first concerns the fact that Hezbollah is a distinct entity from the moderate Lebanese government. This is a bit of an issue, as essentially Israel is invading a blameless country. That is a fair point, but in my view, Israel simply had no choice. The collateral damage is a big problem (more on this in a bit), but Hezbollah bases out of Lebanon and the government is unable to do anything about it.
The second question that logically comes out of that line of reasoning is the issue of a proportional response. This is one of the issues that I am most conflicted about so I will go into some detail. The conflict started with the deaths of several Israeli soldiers and the capture of 2. This, although a major coup for Hezbollah, probably did not justify a full-scale attack. However, that is not neccesarily the whole story. In fact, there is a West Wing episode about this exact situation. The key is, Hezbollah certainly knew that Israel would have to retaliate for the loss of their soldiers. They certainly expected the IDF to attack some of their positions. They decided that this was an acceptable risk and carried out their operation anyway. This causes a problem, because Israel's stated goal of the retaliation, as it should be, was to secure the return of their captured soldiers and to deter further aggression by Hezbollah. Responding proportionally, as several international authorities have suggested, would have done absolutely nothing to deter further aggression, as that is exactly what Hezbollah was expecting. In order to actually provide an effective deterrent against future aggression, the response has to be such that it is not in Hezbollah's rational interest to attack Israel. In short, it has to be an overwhelming response.
I therefore think that Stephen Harper mischaracterized the Israeli response when he called it "measured". The words he should have used were, "a regrettably neccesary response". Nonetheless, he stood with the right side as a matter of principle, and for that he should be applauded. Unfortunately, this has resulted in him being villified as a mere lackey of George W. Bush. I think that Harper's opinion of the conflict is based far more on principle than people give him credit for, and they have to remember that agreeing with the US from time to time is not the same as being at their beck and call. As for the 77 percent of Canadians who feel the government should take a neutral stance in the conflict, I think they need to remember the difference between what is easy, and what is right.
Having said that, I did read Micheal Ignatieff's article on this topic in the Globe and Mail yesterday and I have to say that he makes a strong argument. He basically says that Canada needs to join others in the call for an immediate ceasefire, and that then Canada should spearhead a multinational force to secure the borders of Lebanon and prevent the influx of Iranian and Syrian weapons to Hezbollah. He actually agrees with Bush, Harper and Ehud Olmert, with the exception of the word immediate. No one has managed to point this out though.
Anyway, there are only two problems with Ignatieff's plan. First, if it was not a ceasefire promising the disarmamament of Hezbollah, the image in Israel and around the Arab world would be of an IDF defeat. Israel would not have accomplished their goals. Calling a ceasefire with no promise of the return of their soldiers and the disarmament of Hezbollah would be politically disasterous for Olmert's government, and given Kadima's unilateral disengagement plan, that is the last thing I, and the western world as a whole, should want. Support for the government's actions within Israel is tremendously high, contrasting with international opinion.
Second, Canada's military is already stretched to its limit, and is ill-prepared to participate in, much less spearhead, a multinational force. But Ignatieff has it right otherwise. His plan fulfills Harper and Olmert's wish for a more lasting solution to the problem, rather than an immediate ceasefire, which would simply allow Hezbollah to regroup. Ignatieff just needs to realize that Olmert, politically, needs a guarantee before he can call a ceasefire. The west should get its act together and provide such a guarantee as soon as possible. Harper might have done it already except he knows it is logistically impossible for Canada. The EU and US have to be the catalysts.
That's almost all I have to say, there are just two more things. The first concerns the hysteria in the media about the civilian casualties Israel is causing. People need to understand that this is one of Hezbollah's main aims. They intentionally fire their rockets and place their hideouts in heavily populated civilian areas so that Israel is forced to hit them. They know that their cause is strengthend if Israel is villified, and they apparently care about that more than Lebanese lives. So far, Hezbollah's plan is working. That is bad news. The last thing I have to say is on a bit of another topic. The criticism of the Harper government for the evacuation of Canadians is unfounded. Canada had no presence in that region, so it unfair to compare the Canadian effort to the American when the US has massive military resources in the region. Given the complexity of evacuating thousands of Canadians a week is a perfectly acceptable time-frame in my books. That's all for now, but part 3 will be along soon enough.
Isreal's baptism of fire has led them here, and the here and the now is what I want to talk about. First of all, Israel did not start this conflict. As before, they were attacked. If armed forces cross into your country and kill and capture your soldiers, that is an act of war. No question. The onus of the conflict in on Hezbollah, and Israel has every right to defend itself. However, two questions whose answers are a little less clear obviously spring from this.
The first concerns the fact that Hezbollah is a distinct entity from the moderate Lebanese government. This is a bit of an issue, as essentially Israel is invading a blameless country. That is a fair point, but in my view, Israel simply had no choice. The collateral damage is a big problem (more on this in a bit), but Hezbollah bases out of Lebanon and the government is unable to do anything about it.
The second question that logically comes out of that line of reasoning is the issue of a proportional response. This is one of the issues that I am most conflicted about so I will go into some detail. The conflict started with the deaths of several Israeli soldiers and the capture of 2. This, although a major coup for Hezbollah, probably did not justify a full-scale attack. However, that is not neccesarily the whole story. In fact, there is a West Wing episode about this exact situation. The key is, Hezbollah certainly knew that Israel would have to retaliate for the loss of their soldiers. They certainly expected the IDF to attack some of their positions. They decided that this was an acceptable risk and carried out their operation anyway. This causes a problem, because Israel's stated goal of the retaliation, as it should be, was to secure the return of their captured soldiers and to deter further aggression by Hezbollah. Responding proportionally, as several international authorities have suggested, would have done absolutely nothing to deter further aggression, as that is exactly what Hezbollah was expecting. In order to actually provide an effective deterrent against future aggression, the response has to be such that it is not in Hezbollah's rational interest to attack Israel. In short, it has to be an overwhelming response.
I therefore think that Stephen Harper mischaracterized the Israeli response when he called it "measured". The words he should have used were, "a regrettably neccesary response". Nonetheless, he stood with the right side as a matter of principle, and for that he should be applauded. Unfortunately, this has resulted in him being villified as a mere lackey of George W. Bush. I think that Harper's opinion of the conflict is based far more on principle than people give him credit for, and they have to remember that agreeing with the US from time to time is not the same as being at their beck and call. As for the 77 percent of Canadians who feel the government should take a neutral stance in the conflict, I think they need to remember the difference between what is easy, and what is right.
Having said that, I did read Micheal Ignatieff's article on this topic in the Globe and Mail yesterday and I have to say that he makes a strong argument. He basically says that Canada needs to join others in the call for an immediate ceasefire, and that then Canada should spearhead a multinational force to secure the borders of Lebanon and prevent the influx of Iranian and Syrian weapons to Hezbollah. He actually agrees with Bush, Harper and Ehud Olmert, with the exception of the word immediate. No one has managed to point this out though.
Anyway, there are only two problems with Ignatieff's plan. First, if it was not a ceasefire promising the disarmamament of Hezbollah, the image in Israel and around the Arab world would be of an IDF defeat. Israel would not have accomplished their goals. Calling a ceasefire with no promise of the return of their soldiers and the disarmament of Hezbollah would be politically disasterous for Olmert's government, and given Kadima's unilateral disengagement plan, that is the last thing I, and the western world as a whole, should want. Support for the government's actions within Israel is tremendously high, contrasting with international opinion.
Second, Canada's military is already stretched to its limit, and is ill-prepared to participate in, much less spearhead, a multinational force. But Ignatieff has it right otherwise. His plan fulfills Harper and Olmert's wish for a more lasting solution to the problem, rather than an immediate ceasefire, which would simply allow Hezbollah to regroup. Ignatieff just needs to realize that Olmert, politically, needs a guarantee before he can call a ceasefire. The west should get its act together and provide such a guarantee as soon as possible. Harper might have done it already except he knows it is logistically impossible for Canada. The EU and US have to be the catalysts.
That's almost all I have to say, there are just two more things. The first concerns the hysteria in the media about the civilian casualties Israel is causing. People need to understand that this is one of Hezbollah's main aims. They intentionally fire their rockets and place their hideouts in heavily populated civilian areas so that Israel is forced to hit them. They know that their cause is strengthend if Israel is villified, and they apparently care about that more than Lebanese lives. So far, Hezbollah's plan is working. That is bad news. The last thing I have to say is on a bit of another topic. The criticism of the Harper government for the evacuation of Canadians is unfounded. Canada had no presence in that region, so it unfair to compare the Canadian effort to the American when the US has massive military resources in the region. Given the complexity of evacuating thousands of Canadians a week is a perfectly acceptable time-frame in my books. That's all for now, but part 3 will be along soon enough.
The Jewish Question (Aug. 1, 2006)
Having observed the events in the middle east and the subsequent reactions from around the world, I felt a need to write on the topic. However, when I was thinking about what I should write, it occured to me that there was probably too much flying around in my head for a single post, as this topic tends to galvanize me into hours and hours of debate whenever it gets brought up. So I decided that I would write three posts on the issue and related issues. The first post, this one, will be composed of the bulk of a short essay I wrote in 2005 on the topic. Following the essay, I will include a few paragraphs on my views of the developments between January 2005 and May 2006. The second post will be my views on the current situation, the impetus for conflict, the following responses and a few forward-looking items. The third part of the post will be one that I have been intending to write for some time, about the broader ideas behind what I believe. It will talk about the state of the larger world, and the foreign policies of Israel as well as those of Canada and the US. It will offer my hope for a better world in the future, and I will try to provide a few prescriptions for getting there. So here we go.
The statement that the root cause of instability in the Middle East is the Israel/Palestine situation is one that I tend to agree with, on a general basis at least. The religious and historical implications of the conflict are the most emphasized, and they are certainly major contributors to the problem. One must also consider the purely political aspects of the conflict; especially that Israel is a democratic, liberal state in a region covered almost exclusively with monarchies and theocracies. This fact leads me to believe that not only are the Arab nations concerned with the ethnic and religious tensions caused by the creation of Israel, but that they are afraid that allowing a beacon of freedom and democracy to be strong and prosperous in the region will ultimately undermine their own regimes. History shows that democracy spreads prolifically once there is a strong and established regional base for it. (See England in 18th and 19th century Europe and post WWII Japan in East Asia for examples) Therefore, the solution to the conflict must include political aspects as well as ethnic and geographical ones.
The beginning of the Arab-Israeli conflict goes all the way back to the exile of the Jews from Egypt in the thirteenth century BC. The exiles settled in the land that is now Israel and maintained a kingdom for some five hundred years before being invaded by the Assyrians and the Neo-Babylonians. Some semblance of a Jewish kingdom survived another nine hundred years until its final destruction by the Romans in 132 CE. The land that they ruled over was sparsely populated and contained no established government, only nomadic tribes. The Muslim Arabs took over the area in the seventh century, and it remained under the dominion of various Muslim authorities, notably the Ottoman Turks, until 1918, when Palestine became a British protectorate. This history is relevant to the current question, as it establishes the historical justification that both sides have used to claim the land as their own. In my opinion, both sides have equally relevant historical concerns, and although they must be considered, history cannot be used as a rationale toward solving the problem.
The British, when considering the options available to them concerning the Palestine territory, realized that provisions had to be made for the historical complexities that I have just outlined. When they decided to remove themselves from the region after World War II, the plan they supported, tabled by the UN, outlined the creation of two states, a Jewish one and a Palestinian one. The Jewish organizations accepted this plan, while the Palestinian organizations rejected it, though it would have given them far more territory than they say they want, even today. The result of this was a declaration of independence by the Jewish factions in early 1948. Israel had to be established quickly, to provide a new home for Jews displaced by the war. The Israelis took only the land allocated to them by the UN plan, and were never opposed to giving the Palestinians a state of their own. Also in 1948, as Israel began developing and plans for a Palestinian state were in the works, surrounding Arab nations undertook an unprovoked attack on Israel, with the stated mandate of driving the Jews into the sea. It is often asked who bears responsibility for the continuing cycle of violence, and too often people blame Israel. In my opinion, it was the Arab states that caused the beginning of the violence, by attacking Israel. The common reply is that they were provoked, but the only provocation I can think of is shameless anti-Semitism (The Grand Mufti of Jerusalem, Amin al-Husayni, the Chairman of the Arab Higher Committee, collaborated with Nazi Germany during the Second World War. In 1940, he asked the Axis powers to acknowledge the Arab right, "to settle the question of Jewish elements in Palestine and other Arab countries in accordance with the national and racial interests of the Arabs and along the lines similar to those used to solve the Jewish question in Germany and Italy. He spent the second half of WWII in Germany making radio broadcasts exhorting Muslims to ally with the Nazis in war against their common enemies. In one of these broadcasts, he said, "Arabs, arise as one man and fight for your sacred rights. Kill Jews wherever you find them. This pleases God, history, and religion. This saves your honor. God is with you”) combined with a strong desire to prevent the emergence of a democracy in the region.
The 1948 war was perhaps the worst thing the Arab states could have done if they truly cared about establishing a Palestinian state. Israel had no choice but to fight, and after the IDF routed the Arab forces, all involved knew that the UN plan had failed. Still, Israel undertook only the offensives needed to secure their borders, and willingly allowed Palestinian areas to go to Jordan and Egypt in armistice agreements.
The long history on both sides has been the major contributor to the current problems. The Arab states have fought four major wars with Israel, and there has basically been continuing terrorist violence throughout the 50-year period. Major negotiations have been unfruitful, with the only major accomplishment being the 1979 Israel-Egypt peace treaty. In 2000, at Camp David, Israeli PM Ehud Barak offered a deal to Yasser Arafat that met 90% of Palestinian demands, all except for the return of Jerusalem and “acceptable” agreements concerning refugees. This offer was summarily rejected without a counter-offer, and led many, including myself, to believe that the Palestinians, and Arafat in particular, were unwilling to compromise or even negotiate. Things came to a standstill in 2001, when Arafat was labeled a terrorist by Ariel Sharon, who then refused to negotiate with him.
Now, with Arafat’s death in November, a new opening for negotiation has been created. Given the long-standing conflict, the solution must be understandably complex, and hinges on both sides being willing to negotiate and compromise. In my opinion, the time is drawing near where peace might be a viable option. A majority of Israelis favor a treaty, as long as it means an end to the suicide attacks that have plagued Israel for so long. The treaty should mandate the creation of a Palestinian state, provisionally run by the Palestinian Authority and its elected leader, Mahmoud Abbas, until an election can be held. This state should be comprised of the Gaza strip, along Israel’s 1950 border with Egypt, as well as the West Bank, excluding East Jerusalem, along the lines of Israel’s 1967 border with Jordan except in areas where there is a strong Jewish majority and 1967 borders would not make sense. A railway and a road, similar to the setup of West Berlin during the Cold War era, should connect these territories. The Jewish settlers in the area should be given the option to return to Israel or become citizens of the Palestinian state. The Palestinians, in turn, must guarantee the safety of any Jews who choose to remain in their state. Jerusalem should be removed from the control of either state and made into an international protectorate, run by a secular authority such as the United Nations, with an elected mayor and city council. Again, should its inhabitants wish, they need to have the option of becoming citizens of either Israel or Palestine. Finally, an arrangement should be worked out whereby Palestinian refugees wishing to return to Israel, and their first-generation direct descendants, should be allowed to do so after a stable Palestinian state has demonstrated its ability to co-exist peacefully with Israel and once a stable peace has been achieved in the region. A time frame for this is hard to estimate, but I believe that approximately 10 years would be required.
There's the essay. Obviously my plan would require a good deal of cooperation on both sides and it looks to me like that will not happen anytime soon. The Palestinians seem as unwilling as ever to reach a compromise, they elected a terrorist organization that refuses to even recognize Israel as their government. The continue to pursue anti-israeli policies, including perhaps the most blatant policy in support of terrorism I have ever seen (Giving huge amounts of money in desperatley poor Palestine to the families of suicide bombers). In that light, I truly applaud Sharon's/Olmert's unilateral disengagement plan, which starts Israel on the road to what I have recommended and leaves the door open for negotiations on refugees and other issues at a later date. The current situation has thrown a bit of a wrench in that though, but that's for part 2.
The statement that the root cause of instability in the Middle East is the Israel/Palestine situation is one that I tend to agree with, on a general basis at least. The religious and historical implications of the conflict are the most emphasized, and they are certainly major contributors to the problem. One must also consider the purely political aspects of the conflict; especially that Israel is a democratic, liberal state in a region covered almost exclusively with monarchies and theocracies. This fact leads me to believe that not only are the Arab nations concerned with the ethnic and religious tensions caused by the creation of Israel, but that they are afraid that allowing a beacon of freedom and democracy to be strong and prosperous in the region will ultimately undermine their own regimes. History shows that democracy spreads prolifically once there is a strong and established regional base for it. (See England in 18th and 19th century Europe and post WWII Japan in East Asia for examples) Therefore, the solution to the conflict must include political aspects as well as ethnic and geographical ones.
The beginning of the Arab-Israeli conflict goes all the way back to the exile of the Jews from Egypt in the thirteenth century BC. The exiles settled in the land that is now Israel and maintained a kingdom for some five hundred years before being invaded by the Assyrians and the Neo-Babylonians. Some semblance of a Jewish kingdom survived another nine hundred years until its final destruction by the Romans in 132 CE. The land that they ruled over was sparsely populated and contained no established government, only nomadic tribes. The Muslim Arabs took over the area in the seventh century, and it remained under the dominion of various Muslim authorities, notably the Ottoman Turks, until 1918, when Palestine became a British protectorate. This history is relevant to the current question, as it establishes the historical justification that both sides have used to claim the land as their own. In my opinion, both sides have equally relevant historical concerns, and although they must be considered, history cannot be used as a rationale toward solving the problem.
The British, when considering the options available to them concerning the Palestine territory, realized that provisions had to be made for the historical complexities that I have just outlined. When they decided to remove themselves from the region after World War II, the plan they supported, tabled by the UN, outlined the creation of two states, a Jewish one and a Palestinian one. The Jewish organizations accepted this plan, while the Palestinian organizations rejected it, though it would have given them far more territory than they say they want, even today. The result of this was a declaration of independence by the Jewish factions in early 1948. Israel had to be established quickly, to provide a new home for Jews displaced by the war. The Israelis took only the land allocated to them by the UN plan, and were never opposed to giving the Palestinians a state of their own. Also in 1948, as Israel began developing and plans for a Palestinian state were in the works, surrounding Arab nations undertook an unprovoked attack on Israel, with the stated mandate of driving the Jews into the sea. It is often asked who bears responsibility for the continuing cycle of violence, and too often people blame Israel. In my opinion, it was the Arab states that caused the beginning of the violence, by attacking Israel. The common reply is that they were provoked, but the only provocation I can think of is shameless anti-Semitism (The Grand Mufti of Jerusalem, Amin al-Husayni, the Chairman of the Arab Higher Committee, collaborated with Nazi Germany during the Second World War. In 1940, he asked the Axis powers to acknowledge the Arab right, "to settle the question of Jewish elements in Palestine and other Arab countries in accordance with the national and racial interests of the Arabs and along the lines similar to those used to solve the Jewish question in Germany and Italy. He spent the second half of WWII in Germany making radio broadcasts exhorting Muslims to ally with the Nazis in war against their common enemies. In one of these broadcasts, he said, "Arabs, arise as one man and fight for your sacred rights. Kill Jews wherever you find them. This pleases God, history, and religion. This saves your honor. God is with you”) combined with a strong desire to prevent the emergence of a democracy in the region.
The 1948 war was perhaps the worst thing the Arab states could have done if they truly cared about establishing a Palestinian state. Israel had no choice but to fight, and after the IDF routed the Arab forces, all involved knew that the UN plan had failed. Still, Israel undertook only the offensives needed to secure their borders, and willingly allowed Palestinian areas to go to Jordan and Egypt in armistice agreements.
The long history on both sides has been the major contributor to the current problems. The Arab states have fought four major wars with Israel, and there has basically been continuing terrorist violence throughout the 50-year period. Major negotiations have been unfruitful, with the only major accomplishment being the 1979 Israel-Egypt peace treaty. In 2000, at Camp David, Israeli PM Ehud Barak offered a deal to Yasser Arafat that met 90% of Palestinian demands, all except for the return of Jerusalem and “acceptable” agreements concerning refugees. This offer was summarily rejected without a counter-offer, and led many, including myself, to believe that the Palestinians, and Arafat in particular, were unwilling to compromise or even negotiate. Things came to a standstill in 2001, when Arafat was labeled a terrorist by Ariel Sharon, who then refused to negotiate with him.
Now, with Arafat’s death in November, a new opening for negotiation has been created. Given the long-standing conflict, the solution must be understandably complex, and hinges on both sides being willing to negotiate and compromise. In my opinion, the time is drawing near where peace might be a viable option. A majority of Israelis favor a treaty, as long as it means an end to the suicide attacks that have plagued Israel for so long. The treaty should mandate the creation of a Palestinian state, provisionally run by the Palestinian Authority and its elected leader, Mahmoud Abbas, until an election can be held. This state should be comprised of the Gaza strip, along Israel’s 1950 border with Egypt, as well as the West Bank, excluding East Jerusalem, along the lines of Israel’s 1967 border with Jordan except in areas where there is a strong Jewish majority and 1967 borders would not make sense. A railway and a road, similar to the setup of West Berlin during the Cold War era, should connect these territories. The Jewish settlers in the area should be given the option to return to Israel or become citizens of the Palestinian state. The Palestinians, in turn, must guarantee the safety of any Jews who choose to remain in their state. Jerusalem should be removed from the control of either state and made into an international protectorate, run by a secular authority such as the United Nations, with an elected mayor and city council. Again, should its inhabitants wish, they need to have the option of becoming citizens of either Israel or Palestine. Finally, an arrangement should be worked out whereby Palestinian refugees wishing to return to Israel, and their first-generation direct descendants, should be allowed to do so after a stable Palestinian state has demonstrated its ability to co-exist peacefully with Israel and once a stable peace has been achieved in the region. A time frame for this is hard to estimate, but I believe that approximately 10 years would be required.
There's the essay. Obviously my plan would require a good deal of cooperation on both sides and it looks to me like that will not happen anytime soon. The Palestinians seem as unwilling as ever to reach a compromise, they elected a terrorist organization that refuses to even recognize Israel as their government. The continue to pursue anti-israeli policies, including perhaps the most blatant policy in support of terrorism I have ever seen (Giving huge amounts of money in desperatley poor Palestine to the families of suicide bombers). In that light, I truly applaud Sharon's/Olmert's unilateral disengagement plan, which starts Israel on the road to what I have recommended and leaves the door open for negotiations on refugees and other issues at a later date. The current situation has thrown a bit of a wrench in that though, but that's for part 2.
A More Civilized Age (Jul. 31, 2006)
There is something about the past, isn't there? I am a student, and a lover, of history and I've never been quite sure why. I had guessed it had something to do with the lessons one could learn from the past, and also something to do with wanting to understand concepts such as virtue, courage and innovation. Then it hit me. The thing which draws me to history more than anything else, I think, is elegance.
After this revelation, I started thinking. It turns out that many of my interests and passions are of things that are suprisingly elegant in different ways. Despite their differences, I think it is the elegance that calls to me. In history, the things that I love to study the most are among history's more elegant moments. Bismark pulling the strings of Europe to unite Germany in the 1860's and 70's, Nelson's brilliance at Trafalger in 1805, the construction of so many of the world's wonders which are stunning in their simplicity (the pyramids, the Great Wall, Albert Speer's planned Berlin), the list goes on. Even Nazi Germany, a towering monument of evil, was evil with style, and the elegance of their early campaigns, the blitzkrieg etc, is only rarely challenged in the long history of civilization. This makes it fascinating to study.
Elegance is closely tied to efficiency, which I had previously known to be something I aspire to. For something to be beyond the normal level of efficiency there is a necessary element of elegance to it. Branching out from history, there are a myriad of other examples where elegance underlies my passion for something. In film, the films that I consider truly great express a mountain of detail and intrigue in a simple, dare I say elegant, sort of way. Chariots of Fire is one of the most refined movies I have ever seen, Star Wars gives us a picture of an entire, fabulously detailed galaxy silloutted against the backdrop of a very simple tale of a fall from grace and subsequent salvation and Casablanca, well, there is no word that describes it better than elegant.
The same is true of the Lord of the Rings. Those books are written magnificently (aside from about 200 pages in Fellowship) because they express so much detail and grandeur in mere words. Elegance in writing and speaking is called eloquence, and that too, has always be something I have striven to achieve. To give further examples, sailing is a tremedously elegant endeavour and I think that is why it so interests me.
The men, fictional and real, who I strive to emulate, live their lives with tremendous elegance. Three of the fictional are Thrawn, Thomas Crown and Jack McCoy. The cars I like are expressions of elegance, just take a look at the Aston Martin DB9. Sports? Track is the simplest of all of them, and watching El Guerrouj unleash a 300m kick to defeat Lagat is like watching elegance in motion. Soccer is called "The Beautiful Game" for a reason. Many other sports too, can be elegant and that is one of the reasons I love them. Macs? I don't even have to say it. Even in a relationship sense..the most beautiful women are always elegant. Romance itself, in its purest form, is certainly an elegant art. This revelation thrilled me, but also filled me with a little disappointment. I think the world is losing its elegance. Much of the modern world is complicated, convoluted and fragmented. I have few present-day heroes, I think in part because men lack the eloquence of their forebearers. It always irks me a little to read a poorly written email or novel or paper, even if it effectively conveys its message. Similarly, the key ingredient of good music is an ability to convey knowledge, ideas and emotions in a beautiful way. I feel as if that has become rarer over the years. Wow. This is a cool line of thought. And the beauty of this idea is that it is very all-encompassing, and extremely simple. Dare I say that it's quite an elegant explanation for a big part of who I am?
After this revelation, I started thinking. It turns out that many of my interests and passions are of things that are suprisingly elegant in different ways. Despite their differences, I think it is the elegance that calls to me. In history, the things that I love to study the most are among history's more elegant moments. Bismark pulling the strings of Europe to unite Germany in the 1860's and 70's, Nelson's brilliance at Trafalger in 1805, the construction of so many of the world's wonders which are stunning in their simplicity (the pyramids, the Great Wall, Albert Speer's planned Berlin), the list goes on. Even Nazi Germany, a towering monument of evil, was evil with style, and the elegance of their early campaigns, the blitzkrieg etc, is only rarely challenged in the long history of civilization. This makes it fascinating to study.
Elegance is closely tied to efficiency, which I had previously known to be something I aspire to. For something to be beyond the normal level of efficiency there is a necessary element of elegance to it. Branching out from history, there are a myriad of other examples where elegance underlies my passion for something. In film, the films that I consider truly great express a mountain of detail and intrigue in a simple, dare I say elegant, sort of way. Chariots of Fire is one of the most refined movies I have ever seen, Star Wars gives us a picture of an entire, fabulously detailed galaxy silloutted against the backdrop of a very simple tale of a fall from grace and subsequent salvation and Casablanca, well, there is no word that describes it better than elegant.
The same is true of the Lord of the Rings. Those books are written magnificently (aside from about 200 pages in Fellowship) because they express so much detail and grandeur in mere words. Elegance in writing and speaking is called eloquence, and that too, has always be something I have striven to achieve. To give further examples, sailing is a tremedously elegant endeavour and I think that is why it so interests me.
The men, fictional and real, who I strive to emulate, live their lives with tremendous elegance. Three of the fictional are Thrawn, Thomas Crown and Jack McCoy. The cars I like are expressions of elegance, just take a look at the Aston Martin DB9. Sports? Track is the simplest of all of them, and watching El Guerrouj unleash a 300m kick to defeat Lagat is like watching elegance in motion. Soccer is called "The Beautiful Game" for a reason. Many other sports too, can be elegant and that is one of the reasons I love them. Macs? I don't even have to say it. Even in a relationship sense..the most beautiful women are always elegant. Romance itself, in its purest form, is certainly an elegant art. This revelation thrilled me, but also filled me with a little disappointment. I think the world is losing its elegance. Much of the modern world is complicated, convoluted and fragmented. I have few present-day heroes, I think in part because men lack the eloquence of their forebearers. It always irks me a little to read a poorly written email or novel or paper, even if it effectively conveys its message. Similarly, the key ingredient of good music is an ability to convey knowledge, ideas and emotions in a beautiful way. I feel as if that has become rarer over the years. Wow. This is a cool line of thought. And the beauty of this idea is that it is very all-encompassing, and extremely simple. Dare I say that it's quite an elegant explanation for a big part of who I am?
The Red Glasses (Jan. 28, 2006)
Athletic achivement is a funny thing. I think most athletes that are heavily involved in a sport consider their sport to be "better" than other sports. But is there such a thing as a "better" sport? Which is more prestigeous, a stanley cup or a world cup trophy or an olympic gold? Is a summer olympic gold worth more than a winter olympic one? Is an olympic gold earned in a quasi-event (curling, trampolining etc) worth as much as the 100m title? Can you compare sports?
It would seem that making Team Canada in hockey is a considerably greater achivement than making Team Canada in cricket. Does that make hockey better? What about in other countries, where anyone who has played canadian junior could walk on to the national ice hockey team but making the cricket team is considerably harder? Who is the greatest athlete of all time? Tough questions.
Historically, the things people have used to differentiate one sport from another have been widely varied. However, they do provide a starting point. One of the biggest determinates is the level of competition. Usually this is based on the number of people in a population who play the sport. Soccer is often cited as the world's greatest sport for this reason. More participation makes for more natural skill through sheer chance, it also brings more money, better coaches and more prestige for the winners. Sports traditionally considered as "worse" sports lack these things. Trampolining is a prime example.
The second major determinant of good sports often comes from the level of "athletic" prowess required to excel. The defining feature of a sport as opposed to a game or a contest is that it requires physical exertion. I dont think anyone would deny that running the 800m is considerably more physically taxing than a game of curling. Does this make track a better sport?
Another determinant of good sport is the method of evaluation. In my view there are essentially five categories here. In sport, the object is to beat others. The order of placing is determined in several ways. The first way is primarily through luck. This is often the case is card games, which is why they are not usually considered sports. The second way is by measuring the precision of something. This is the prevailing order in golf, archery etc. The third category is sports where the outcome is decided by judges, such as in diving, figure skating and gymnastics. The fourth, and most prevalent category, are sports where completing a certain action, such as putting a ball in a net, accumulates points. Finally there is the oldest category of sports, those where people simply attempt to go faster, higher or further than their opponents. Track & Field, swimming, horse racing, auto racing and speed skating are the main sports in that category.
I think the first category is inherently less prestigious than the others, but that still leaves a myraid of sports that are not neccesarily equal. To find an order from among them, I think the following criteria have to be evaluated.
1. degree of worldwide participation
2. degree of concentrated participation
3. results come primarily from the differences in athletic skill of ther participants
4. level of knowledge of the sport and its rules among the general population
5. easy to understand and participate in
6. level of national rivalry in the sport
7. level of fitness throughout the sport
8. intensity of training required to excel
9. Use of judges or other subjective methods of evaluation (I believe this inherently worsens a sport, because it becomes a matter of opinion)
...i think these need to be weighted, some are obviously more critical than others, but I think they are all important. I guess this means I do think some sports are "better" than others, but i am not sure if that changes the value of success. I would rather have an olympic gold in swimming or track than one in snowboarding or trampolining, but at the same time, an olympic gold is an olympic gold. Maybe a tenth criteria needs to be added..degree of prevalence at international, multi-sport competitions...a sport that is in the olympics is better than one thats not? im not sure if i agree with that..and what about soccer, its in the olympics, but the olympics is by design not an important tournament.
It would seem that making Team Canada in hockey is a considerably greater achivement than making Team Canada in cricket. Does that make hockey better? What about in other countries, where anyone who has played canadian junior could walk on to the national ice hockey team but making the cricket team is considerably harder? Who is the greatest athlete of all time? Tough questions.
Historically, the things people have used to differentiate one sport from another have been widely varied. However, they do provide a starting point. One of the biggest determinates is the level of competition. Usually this is based on the number of people in a population who play the sport. Soccer is often cited as the world's greatest sport for this reason. More participation makes for more natural skill through sheer chance, it also brings more money, better coaches and more prestige for the winners. Sports traditionally considered as "worse" sports lack these things. Trampolining is a prime example.
The second major determinant of good sports often comes from the level of "athletic" prowess required to excel. The defining feature of a sport as opposed to a game or a contest is that it requires physical exertion. I dont think anyone would deny that running the 800m is considerably more physically taxing than a game of curling. Does this make track a better sport?
Another determinant of good sport is the method of evaluation. In my view there are essentially five categories here. In sport, the object is to beat others. The order of placing is determined in several ways. The first way is primarily through luck. This is often the case is card games, which is why they are not usually considered sports. The second way is by measuring the precision of something. This is the prevailing order in golf, archery etc. The third category is sports where the outcome is decided by judges, such as in diving, figure skating and gymnastics. The fourth, and most prevalent category, are sports where completing a certain action, such as putting a ball in a net, accumulates points. Finally there is the oldest category of sports, those where people simply attempt to go faster, higher or further than their opponents. Track & Field, swimming, horse racing, auto racing and speed skating are the main sports in that category.
I think the first category is inherently less prestigious than the others, but that still leaves a myraid of sports that are not neccesarily equal. To find an order from among them, I think the following criteria have to be evaluated.
1. degree of worldwide participation
2. degree of concentrated participation
3. results come primarily from the differences in athletic skill of ther participants
4. level of knowledge of the sport and its rules among the general population
5. easy to understand and participate in
6. level of national rivalry in the sport
7. level of fitness throughout the sport
8. intensity of training required to excel
9. Use of judges or other subjective methods of evaluation (I believe this inherently worsens a sport, because it becomes a matter of opinion)
...i think these need to be weighted, some are obviously more critical than others, but I think they are all important. I guess this means I do think some sports are "better" than others, but i am not sure if that changes the value of success. I would rather have an olympic gold in swimming or track than one in snowboarding or trampolining, but at the same time, an olympic gold is an olympic gold. Maybe a tenth criteria needs to be added..degree of prevalence at international, multi-sport competitions...a sport that is in the olympics is better than one thats not? im not sure if i agree with that..and what about soccer, its in the olympics, but the olympics is by design not an important tournament.
Man of Science, Man of Faith (Jan. 15, 2006)
In my younger days, I was a champion of rationality. I was never a determinist, and I still don't think I believe in fate, but i certainly believed that there was a rational way to solve even the most irrational of problems. However, it occured to me that most of the legends of mankind acquired their status preciseley because they acted without regard for sensibility. If I had been Leonides, I never would have stood at Thermopylae. If I had found myself in Magellan's place, I would have said it was foolish to brave the strait. I wonder if being a man of science, I have limited myself to doing what I believed was reasonable. Have I closed doors for myself by analysing and planning every step, every race, every word? Have I made things impossible by believing that they were impossible?
"It's the hardest thing in the world, believing in something" That's a good quote. Everyone dreams, perhaps I more than most. Nonetheless, I feel like I haven't always believed in those dreams. i feel like I have analysed and analysed and overanalysed, and taken the safe route more than maybe I should have. I've thought a lot about this lately, and I think that there are situations where a leap of faith might be the most rational course of action, as paradoxical as that sounds. The situation where i have come the closest to doing that is in the matter of personal values and personal conduct. For as long as I can remember, I have been an outsider in that area. I was among the last to start drinking, I remain 19 years drug-free, and in other, "personal" areas, I have shown far more prudence than most.
I have always believed that a moral existence would, in the end, make me a better man. I couldn't give a rational justification for that though. I could talk about health risks and so on, but in the end, I am the way I am because I believe in those values. And true to the earlier quote, it has been a hard thing, believing in that. In school too, I have faith. I have always believed that high academic achivement was within the reach of anyone who was willing to put in the requsite effort.
People don't agree with me, I know, and Sara opened my eyes to the fact that I am quite alone in that opinion. I am among the few who believe that a 4.0 is achiveable. I am among the few who believe that no test is so hard that it is impossible to get an A. I quoted Roger Ebert, who, when talking about Chariots of Fire, said, "It reminds us of a time when men believed they could do anything if only they wanted to badly enough." I stand by that when it comes to school, and to some extent, when it comes to careers. This has gotten me in a little bit of trouble lately, which is one of the things that got me thinking about this whole conundrum. I have always tried to be the "nice guy" but lately I feel like I havent been modest enough about my academic achivements, and I feel like this had alienated and intimidated people whose friendship I value.
After thinking about these questions for a few days, I have narrowed them down to a few, specific matters for thought. First, would it help me in some areas, specifically athletics and relationships, to be more of a man of faith? Second, in the areas where I have have put my faith in a specific path. how do I avoid trying to press that path onto others and/or seeming arrogant and elitist? Third, why, in the areas where I have strong beliefs, such as personal conduct and school, does planning and detail seem to provide excellent results, whereas in other areas, like the aforementioned athletics and relationships, does analytical breakdown usually fail to provide satisfactory results? Fourth, what exactly is the relationship between faith and reason? Can I be a man of science and a man of faith? At present I have only partial answers to these questions.
I found two quotes that have helped begin to formulate the beginnings of answers to at least some of the questions. "And three remain: faith, hope and love. But the greatest of these is love" That helps a little. But most significantly, i have begun to see some glimmers of understanding when it comes to the last question. The passage from Lost that mentions the quandary is a revealing one.
Locke: I think... that's why you and I don't see eye-to-eye sometimes, Jack because you're a man of science.
Jack: Yeah, and what does that make you?
Locke: Me, well, I'm a man of faith. We were brought here for a purpose, for a reason, all of us. Each one of us was brought here for a reason.
Jack: Brought here? And who brought us here, John?
Locke: The island. The island brought us here. This is no ordinary place, you've seen that, I know you have. But the island chose you, too, Jack. It's destiny.
Jack: I don't believe in destiny.
Locke: [pause] Yes, you do. You just don't know it yet.
"It's the hardest thing in the world, believing in something" That's a good quote. Everyone dreams, perhaps I more than most. Nonetheless, I feel like I haven't always believed in those dreams. i feel like I have analysed and analysed and overanalysed, and taken the safe route more than maybe I should have. I've thought a lot about this lately, and I think that there are situations where a leap of faith might be the most rational course of action, as paradoxical as that sounds. The situation where i have come the closest to doing that is in the matter of personal values and personal conduct. For as long as I can remember, I have been an outsider in that area. I was among the last to start drinking, I remain 19 years drug-free, and in other, "personal" areas, I have shown far more prudence than most.
I have always believed that a moral existence would, in the end, make me a better man. I couldn't give a rational justification for that though. I could talk about health risks and so on, but in the end, I am the way I am because I believe in those values. And true to the earlier quote, it has been a hard thing, believing in that. In school too, I have faith. I have always believed that high academic achivement was within the reach of anyone who was willing to put in the requsite effort.
People don't agree with me, I know, and Sara opened my eyes to the fact that I am quite alone in that opinion. I am among the few who believe that a 4.0 is achiveable. I am among the few who believe that no test is so hard that it is impossible to get an A. I quoted Roger Ebert, who, when talking about Chariots of Fire, said, "It reminds us of a time when men believed they could do anything if only they wanted to badly enough." I stand by that when it comes to school, and to some extent, when it comes to careers. This has gotten me in a little bit of trouble lately, which is one of the things that got me thinking about this whole conundrum. I have always tried to be the "nice guy" but lately I feel like I havent been modest enough about my academic achivements, and I feel like this had alienated and intimidated people whose friendship I value.
After thinking about these questions for a few days, I have narrowed them down to a few, specific matters for thought. First, would it help me in some areas, specifically athletics and relationships, to be more of a man of faith? Second, in the areas where I have have put my faith in a specific path. how do I avoid trying to press that path onto others and/or seeming arrogant and elitist? Third, why, in the areas where I have strong beliefs, such as personal conduct and school, does planning and detail seem to provide excellent results, whereas in other areas, like the aforementioned athletics and relationships, does analytical breakdown usually fail to provide satisfactory results? Fourth, what exactly is the relationship between faith and reason? Can I be a man of science and a man of faith? At present I have only partial answers to these questions.
I found two quotes that have helped begin to formulate the beginnings of answers to at least some of the questions. "And three remain: faith, hope and love. But the greatest of these is love" That helps a little. But most significantly, i have begun to see some glimmers of understanding when it comes to the last question. The passage from Lost that mentions the quandary is a revealing one.
Locke: I think... that's why you and I don't see eye-to-eye sometimes, Jack because you're a man of science.
Jack: Yeah, and what does that make you?
Locke: Me, well, I'm a man of faith. We were brought here for a purpose, for a reason, all of us. Each one of us was brought here for a reason.
Jack: Brought here? And who brought us here, John?
Locke: The island. The island brought us here. This is no ordinary place, you've seen that, I know you have. But the island chose you, too, Jack. It's destiny.
Jack: I don't believe in destiny.
Locke: [pause] Yes, you do. You just don't know it yet.
A Kingdom of Conscience (Oct. 26, 2005)
Karl Marx wasn't right about everything, and the political reality he inspired was really a dismal faliure. However, we have to note that the application of his theory and even the representation of his ideas have been influenced by the failiure of practical communism. Marx didn't believe that capitalism was bad. The soviet-american conflict seems to have given people the idea that Marx viewed capitalism as the devil, as nothing but a system of ruthless exploitation. In fact this is not the case, in many of his writings Marx portrays capitalism as a step forward from feudalism and as an immensley productive system. I have included this example as a clarification..because I know people are going to think "what is Blair doing talking about Marx?"
Although I strongly disagree with Marx's economic outlook, and even more so with the practical system it spawned, that isn't all Marx is. Personally, I find his most useful contribution to the argument I am about to make is his theory of societal change. He talks about the forces of production, by which he means the technology available for use, the resources and geography where that tech can be applied, and the characteristics of the population that will be applying the technology. These characteristics include culture, literacy and so on. A given set of forces of production give rise to a set of relations of production, how people organize themselves as a society to produce most efficiently. These relations of production eventually have an effect on the forces of production through technological improvement and changes to culture etc based on the new forms of organization. This results in a cyclical process that approximates evolution in a society.
I personally like Marx's interpretation in this case. Where he goes wrong is in saying that this societal evolution can only be accomplished through a series of violent class-based revolutions. We can see societal eveolution going on every day..for example, the math-science bend in western schools in the 1950's-1970's was a result of a cultural factor (high prestige associated with technological achivement, which in turn was motivated by the space race among other things) This math-science emphasis is a relation of production. The result of schools being so math-science oriented was a massive explosion in technology by the children that went through that school system, which fundamentally altered the forces of production (caused the information revolution), which is now allowing an increasing decentralization of businesses, which is part of the relations of production.
This theory can also be applied to relations in international politics. A given set of forces (for example, a europe-dominated state system recovering from a massive crisis (WWI), run by liberal, pacifistic elites) gave rise to a certain mode of relations between states (the league of nations, revanche, appeasement, US isolationism) This mode of relations causes changes in the system (rise of fascism and communism etc). In that case, the disparity between the mode of relations and the political forces did in fact cause a crisis, but I believe that a crisis is not neccesary for "evolution"
After WWII, a new set of international relations norms were defined. This included a United Nations that was designed to reflect the bipolar political reality, and as a result a good forum for negotiation and for less-political actions such as peacekeeping and humanitarian aid. However, on the political front the UN was and is almost completley toothless. Since 1991, the collapse of the soviet union has radically changed the international political reality. The emergence of the United States as a unipolar superpower and the massive waves of democratization and capitalist reform in the former communist states as well as some other parts of the Third World has made the political reality of the world very incongruent with the current mode of international relations. In order to continue to move forward without hinderance, changes must be made to the international system, and particularly the United Nations.
The next question clearly is about the nature of these reforms. I think there are a number of changes that have occured since the fall of communism that can point us in the right direction concerning furthur reform of the international system. First, since the fall of communism, the world as a whole has become more homogenous. There is no longer a great ideological divide among the nations of the world. Second, in the last decade, the information revolution I mentioned earlier has caused the world to become a much smaller place. Individual people can easily communicate with others across the world. Communication has been revolutionized over the last decade, and I think this has profound implications for global change.
Having put forward those two observations, I am reminded of an exceptional book by Robert Wright. In Nonzero, he outlines many arguments similar to the ones I have put forth so far. In particular, he talks at length about "societal evolution" and where it might be taking us. Obviously, the ideas he puts forth are similar to the ones of Marx, which i have just outlined. His thesis with regard to societal evolution is that humankind is continually moving toward an increasingly integrated global system. He says that there are two primary barriers to this integration, communication and trust, and uses game theory as a proof of this. Since 1991, the world has seen both these barriers reduced significantly. The lack of an ideological divide, and increased general knowledge of what is going on in the world has reduced trust barriers, and I would argue that people now more than ever see people of other nations as people like themselves, with thoughts, culture etc, rather than "them", a hostile group with whom they have nothing in common. The reduction in communication barriers is self-evident. Given the reduction in these barriers, if Wright is correct, the direction of his (and Marx's) societal evolution would be toward an increasingly integrated global system, both politically and economically.
There is a mountain of emprical evidence that this integration has in fact occured since 1991. In the economic arena, the phenomenon is called globalization. The world had become vastly more economically interdependent. In the political ring, there has been just one sterling example of what integration might look like, and that is the EU. Since the treaty of Maastricht in 1992, the EU has turned Europe's fortunes around. Economic growth has been staggering in some areas, notably Ireland, and the application of EU policies like a Europe-wide free trade zone, the euro, and common agricultural and resource polices have reversed a 45 year decline in European political and economic weight. The EU is a political entity that correlates much better with the new order in international politics, and allows economic integration to reach its maximum potential. In the rest of the world, I would argue that globalization will flatline sometime in the reletivley near future, because there will not be a sufficiently integrated political system to support economic growth. Problems with incompatible legal systems and differences in contract law, as well as subsidies, tariffs and taxes are continually becoming more significant as the level of globalization grows. International regulatory bodies, such as the WTO or the NAFTA panel. are powerless to back up any resolutions they might issue.
Despite the recent rejection of the EU constitution by France and Holland, I believe that the EU, and its policies of maintaing the state system while pushing for economic and political integration should be a model for the transformation of other international institutions like the UN. A stronger and more active UN would facilitate economic globalization while better reflecting the geopolitical realities of the post-USSR world.
Of course, there is a small portion of countries, approximatley 2.5% of UN membership, with about 29% of the worlds population but with 43% of world GDP, who currently benefit from enormous control over the UN and who are reluctant at this point to make significant changes, as they stand to lose significantly in the short run. If the UN is to become a democratic world body capable of increased responsibilities, the very first reform that must be made is the elimination or at the very least, modification of the security council veto power held by France, the UK, Russia, China and the US. Of course, these countries are reluctant to give up their power. Still, the veto power neccesitates consensus in the UN, and this in turn prevents the UN from action on any of the major world issues of today, which are often divisive.
For example, think of what might have happened to the Iraq situation if the veto power did not exist. A vote could have been held in the security council or the general assembly which either confirmed or rejected the US plan to topple Saddam Hussein. In the event of confirmation, the US would have gone into Iraq with much more legitimacy. Nations like France and Russia, who were opposed to the war, would have been under no obligation to send troops, but there could have been no charges of unilateralism and US-european relations would be much less strained than they are today. Even countries in the middle east would have had to acknowledge that a majority of the world believed military action against Iraq was justified. This would cool anti-american sentiment and undermine charges of hypocracy.
In the event the proposal was voted down, the US would have been in a position where they were faced with clear, democratically expressed opposition to their plan, and if they chose to ignore the vote, they could have been subjected to economic sanctions or other punitive measures. Such options were impossible in today's UN, because they would automatically have been vetoed. There have been attempts in recent years to eliminate or limit the veto power, and all have been unsuccessful. A proposal to eliminate the power in 1997 was vetoed by Russia. A proposal by Uruguay to limit the veto power to non-procedural questions was withdrawn under threat of veto from the United States. A Mexican proposal to limit the power to issues covered under chapter 7 of the UN charter (international peace and security) also never made it to a vote. Most recently, a Chilean proposal to phase out the veto by 2030 was withdrawn under American pressure.
The justification for the rejections was that the political realities of the world must be expressed in the United Nations to ensure participation by all countries. It is argued that if the veto power was eliminated, a predicament like that which doomed the League of Nations would arise, where powerful nations who had decisions go against them simply walked away from the institution. To prevent this, powerful countries must be given power within the UN as well, hence the existence of the veto. I think that this argument is flawed, because as we have already established, the world is much more interconnected than it was in 1930, and that simply walking away from the UN is no longer a viable alternative for any major power. However, the reality is that the countries who have the power want to keep it, and therefore, veto abolition is likely an impossible goal, and any modification would have to be a part of a much larger system of reforms that gave each of the major countries something in return for a limitation of the veto power.
My proposal would look something like the following. The UN would reform itself into an organization modelled along the lines of a bicameral national system. This system would work alongside UN bodies like the International Court of Justice, UN Economic and Social Council and the UN Trusteeship council, which would remain essentially unchanged. The system would include three levels, with the "executive" level being the security council, and the "legislative" level being comprised of the General Assembly and a new entity, which I will call the UN Senate. The Senate would be composed of 203 delegates, with distribution based approximatley on world population. Each seat would represent approximatley 31 million people, proportioned as closley as possible to national population levels. Countries with less than a cutoff level of population..perhaps 28 or 30 million, would share a seat with other countries of similar size and would rotate in alphabetical order every 2 years. This would provide a UN that reflected political reality, with one branch being based on world power and influence (security council) one branch based on population and one branch being egalitarian (one member per country). The UN secretariat would be responsible for facilitating relations between the three branches.
The decision allocation process would remain the same, with some General Assembly decisions allocated to the Senate. However, in the event of an "divisive issue", defined as an issue where over 1/3 of the body charged with the decision votes against the prevailing opinion or if there is a veto in a security council decision, the issue would be referred to seperate votes in all three bodies. In order for a resolution to be passed in this case, it would require 50% support in two of the three bodies. In the event of a veto, the following rules would apply. If a single Veto was cast, it would nullify the resolution except in the case of a 2/3 vote in the security council and at least 50% approval in both other bodies. if two vetoes were cast, it would take 2/3 approval in all three bodies to pass. If three vetoes were cast, it would take unanimity among the reminder of the security council and a 75% vote in both bodies to overturn the veto. If four vetoes were cast, it would take 90% approval in both houses and security council unanimity (which, incedentally, would make a resolution impossible to pass if China was one of the vetoing countries). If all five major powers were to veto, the veto would be final and impossible to overturn. (This prevents furthur restriction or elimination of the veto after this)
This reform could be the foundation for a stronger UN that would be far more democratic and far less bound to the 1945 status quo. Of course, given the significant opposition to veto modification, this proposal would be unlikely to pass without additional concessions. The addition of the population-based Senate would be a significant power boost to China, probably removing a threat of their veto. The UK has never used their veto except in conjunction with the US, and France has used it only once, and that was a situation involving a French military action. I think given that it is a reasonable assumption that those two would go along with a US/Russia approval. That leaves only those two. I believe that Russia would support the new system if given a minimum of concessions, including continued and increased aid funds for development, gurantees of its oil rights and so on in the Caspian/Black Sea region and international support of its position on Chechnya, especially if it was faced with US pressure.
That leaves only the superpower, and being a superpower there is little that could be offered to the US in the way of concessions. The biggest one would be the massive increase in international support that such reform would result in, it would certainly help the United States recover its tarnished international image. Other possible concessions could include an extended ban on the trial of US nationals in the International Criminal Court (perhaps 25 years), or the position that any votes on issues to do with Israel/Palestine could be subjected to US veto without threat of overturning, as most of their vetoes in recent years have been on that issue. i think, however, that the ultimate choice will have to rest on the US administration and their willingness to forgo their own interest for the sake of the greater good in this particular case. Given the history of past US administrations, I would judge this to be unlikely, but I believe that without meaningful UN reform, beginning with restriction on the veto, the organization will continue to be marginalized and will eventually become irrelevant. I think that even in this case political integration will eventually have to occur, but it will take a long time, will definatley exacerbate world problems in the short term, and might even cause a Marxian "crisis".
As HG Wells said in his 1921 book An Outline of History, "I believe that men will one day be united under a single government, committed to peace as one people, but whether this is a peaceful process that takes a few generations or a long struggle involving many crises and many centuries more of toil will ultimatley be determined by the will and morality of the leaders of mankind." In the subsequent 80 years, I think Wells would have been disappointed with our progress. But progress had been made, and I believe that my generation has the potential to make an impact, because among the widespread disillusionment and cynicism that tends to run through people my age, especially with regard to politics, I have observed that there exists pockets of idealism. They are rare, even among the distinguished and brilliant people I have met both here at McGill and at home in Calgary, and they hide themselves well. Nevertheless, I believe that the people of my generation believe that a better world is possible and that they can contribute, perhaps more so than any generation since WWII. So I want to ask everyone who reads this to "examine yourselves, and let each of you discover where your true chance at greatness lies." Follow your dreams. To quote James T. Kirk (I know I'm a nerd),
"Never let them do anything that takes you off the bridge of that ship, because while you're there, you can make a difference."
Although I strongly disagree with Marx's economic outlook, and even more so with the practical system it spawned, that isn't all Marx is. Personally, I find his most useful contribution to the argument I am about to make is his theory of societal change. He talks about the forces of production, by which he means the technology available for use, the resources and geography where that tech can be applied, and the characteristics of the population that will be applying the technology. These characteristics include culture, literacy and so on. A given set of forces of production give rise to a set of relations of production, how people organize themselves as a society to produce most efficiently. These relations of production eventually have an effect on the forces of production through technological improvement and changes to culture etc based on the new forms of organization. This results in a cyclical process that approximates evolution in a society.
I personally like Marx's interpretation in this case. Where he goes wrong is in saying that this societal evolution can only be accomplished through a series of violent class-based revolutions. We can see societal eveolution going on every day..for example, the math-science bend in western schools in the 1950's-1970's was a result of a cultural factor (high prestige associated with technological achivement, which in turn was motivated by the space race among other things) This math-science emphasis is a relation of production. The result of schools being so math-science oriented was a massive explosion in technology by the children that went through that school system, which fundamentally altered the forces of production (caused the information revolution), which is now allowing an increasing decentralization of businesses, which is part of the relations of production.
This theory can also be applied to relations in international politics. A given set of forces (for example, a europe-dominated state system recovering from a massive crisis (WWI), run by liberal, pacifistic elites) gave rise to a certain mode of relations between states (the league of nations, revanche, appeasement, US isolationism) This mode of relations causes changes in the system (rise of fascism and communism etc). In that case, the disparity between the mode of relations and the political forces did in fact cause a crisis, but I believe that a crisis is not neccesary for "evolution"
After WWII, a new set of international relations norms were defined. This included a United Nations that was designed to reflect the bipolar political reality, and as a result a good forum for negotiation and for less-political actions such as peacekeeping and humanitarian aid. However, on the political front the UN was and is almost completley toothless. Since 1991, the collapse of the soviet union has radically changed the international political reality. The emergence of the United States as a unipolar superpower and the massive waves of democratization and capitalist reform in the former communist states as well as some other parts of the Third World has made the political reality of the world very incongruent with the current mode of international relations. In order to continue to move forward without hinderance, changes must be made to the international system, and particularly the United Nations.
The next question clearly is about the nature of these reforms. I think there are a number of changes that have occured since the fall of communism that can point us in the right direction concerning furthur reform of the international system. First, since the fall of communism, the world as a whole has become more homogenous. There is no longer a great ideological divide among the nations of the world. Second, in the last decade, the information revolution I mentioned earlier has caused the world to become a much smaller place. Individual people can easily communicate with others across the world. Communication has been revolutionized over the last decade, and I think this has profound implications for global change.
Having put forward those two observations, I am reminded of an exceptional book by Robert Wright. In Nonzero, he outlines many arguments similar to the ones I have put forth so far. In particular, he talks at length about "societal evolution" and where it might be taking us. Obviously, the ideas he puts forth are similar to the ones of Marx, which i have just outlined. His thesis with regard to societal evolution is that humankind is continually moving toward an increasingly integrated global system. He says that there are two primary barriers to this integration, communication and trust, and uses game theory as a proof of this. Since 1991, the world has seen both these barriers reduced significantly. The lack of an ideological divide, and increased general knowledge of what is going on in the world has reduced trust barriers, and I would argue that people now more than ever see people of other nations as people like themselves, with thoughts, culture etc, rather than "them", a hostile group with whom they have nothing in common. The reduction in communication barriers is self-evident. Given the reduction in these barriers, if Wright is correct, the direction of his (and Marx's) societal evolution would be toward an increasingly integrated global system, both politically and economically.
There is a mountain of emprical evidence that this integration has in fact occured since 1991. In the economic arena, the phenomenon is called globalization. The world had become vastly more economically interdependent. In the political ring, there has been just one sterling example of what integration might look like, and that is the EU. Since the treaty of Maastricht in 1992, the EU has turned Europe's fortunes around. Economic growth has been staggering in some areas, notably Ireland, and the application of EU policies like a Europe-wide free trade zone, the euro, and common agricultural and resource polices have reversed a 45 year decline in European political and economic weight. The EU is a political entity that correlates much better with the new order in international politics, and allows economic integration to reach its maximum potential. In the rest of the world, I would argue that globalization will flatline sometime in the reletivley near future, because there will not be a sufficiently integrated political system to support economic growth. Problems with incompatible legal systems and differences in contract law, as well as subsidies, tariffs and taxes are continually becoming more significant as the level of globalization grows. International regulatory bodies, such as the WTO or the NAFTA panel. are powerless to back up any resolutions they might issue.
Despite the recent rejection of the EU constitution by France and Holland, I believe that the EU, and its policies of maintaing the state system while pushing for economic and political integration should be a model for the transformation of other international institutions like the UN. A stronger and more active UN would facilitate economic globalization while better reflecting the geopolitical realities of the post-USSR world.
Of course, there is a small portion of countries, approximatley 2.5% of UN membership, with about 29% of the worlds population but with 43% of world GDP, who currently benefit from enormous control over the UN and who are reluctant at this point to make significant changes, as they stand to lose significantly in the short run. If the UN is to become a democratic world body capable of increased responsibilities, the very first reform that must be made is the elimination or at the very least, modification of the security council veto power held by France, the UK, Russia, China and the US. Of course, these countries are reluctant to give up their power. Still, the veto power neccesitates consensus in the UN, and this in turn prevents the UN from action on any of the major world issues of today, which are often divisive.
For example, think of what might have happened to the Iraq situation if the veto power did not exist. A vote could have been held in the security council or the general assembly which either confirmed or rejected the US plan to topple Saddam Hussein. In the event of confirmation, the US would have gone into Iraq with much more legitimacy. Nations like France and Russia, who were opposed to the war, would have been under no obligation to send troops, but there could have been no charges of unilateralism and US-european relations would be much less strained than they are today. Even countries in the middle east would have had to acknowledge that a majority of the world believed military action against Iraq was justified. This would cool anti-american sentiment and undermine charges of hypocracy.
In the event the proposal was voted down, the US would have been in a position where they were faced with clear, democratically expressed opposition to their plan, and if they chose to ignore the vote, they could have been subjected to economic sanctions or other punitive measures. Such options were impossible in today's UN, because they would automatically have been vetoed. There have been attempts in recent years to eliminate or limit the veto power, and all have been unsuccessful. A proposal to eliminate the power in 1997 was vetoed by Russia. A proposal by Uruguay to limit the veto power to non-procedural questions was withdrawn under threat of veto from the United States. A Mexican proposal to limit the power to issues covered under chapter 7 of the UN charter (international peace and security) also never made it to a vote. Most recently, a Chilean proposal to phase out the veto by 2030 was withdrawn under American pressure.
The justification for the rejections was that the political realities of the world must be expressed in the United Nations to ensure participation by all countries. It is argued that if the veto power was eliminated, a predicament like that which doomed the League of Nations would arise, where powerful nations who had decisions go against them simply walked away from the institution. To prevent this, powerful countries must be given power within the UN as well, hence the existence of the veto. I think that this argument is flawed, because as we have already established, the world is much more interconnected than it was in 1930, and that simply walking away from the UN is no longer a viable alternative for any major power. However, the reality is that the countries who have the power want to keep it, and therefore, veto abolition is likely an impossible goal, and any modification would have to be a part of a much larger system of reforms that gave each of the major countries something in return for a limitation of the veto power.
My proposal would look something like the following. The UN would reform itself into an organization modelled along the lines of a bicameral national system. This system would work alongside UN bodies like the International Court of Justice, UN Economic and Social Council and the UN Trusteeship council, which would remain essentially unchanged. The system would include three levels, with the "executive" level being the security council, and the "legislative" level being comprised of the General Assembly and a new entity, which I will call the UN Senate. The Senate would be composed of 203 delegates, with distribution based approximatley on world population. Each seat would represent approximatley 31 million people, proportioned as closley as possible to national population levels. Countries with less than a cutoff level of population..perhaps 28 or 30 million, would share a seat with other countries of similar size and would rotate in alphabetical order every 2 years. This would provide a UN that reflected political reality, with one branch being based on world power and influence (security council) one branch based on population and one branch being egalitarian (one member per country). The UN secretariat would be responsible for facilitating relations between the three branches.
The decision allocation process would remain the same, with some General Assembly decisions allocated to the Senate. However, in the event of an "divisive issue", defined as an issue where over 1/3 of the body charged with the decision votes against the prevailing opinion or if there is a veto in a security council decision, the issue would be referred to seperate votes in all three bodies. In order for a resolution to be passed in this case, it would require 50% support in two of the three bodies. In the event of a veto, the following rules would apply. If a single Veto was cast, it would nullify the resolution except in the case of a 2/3 vote in the security council and at least 50% approval in both other bodies. if two vetoes were cast, it would take 2/3 approval in all three bodies to pass. If three vetoes were cast, it would take unanimity among the reminder of the security council and a 75% vote in both bodies to overturn the veto. If four vetoes were cast, it would take 90% approval in both houses and security council unanimity (which, incedentally, would make a resolution impossible to pass if China was one of the vetoing countries). If all five major powers were to veto, the veto would be final and impossible to overturn. (This prevents furthur restriction or elimination of the veto after this)
This reform could be the foundation for a stronger UN that would be far more democratic and far less bound to the 1945 status quo. Of course, given the significant opposition to veto modification, this proposal would be unlikely to pass without additional concessions. The addition of the population-based Senate would be a significant power boost to China, probably removing a threat of their veto. The UK has never used their veto except in conjunction with the US, and France has used it only once, and that was a situation involving a French military action. I think given that it is a reasonable assumption that those two would go along with a US/Russia approval. That leaves only those two. I believe that Russia would support the new system if given a minimum of concessions, including continued and increased aid funds for development, gurantees of its oil rights and so on in the Caspian/Black Sea region and international support of its position on Chechnya, especially if it was faced with US pressure.
That leaves only the superpower, and being a superpower there is little that could be offered to the US in the way of concessions. The biggest one would be the massive increase in international support that such reform would result in, it would certainly help the United States recover its tarnished international image. Other possible concessions could include an extended ban on the trial of US nationals in the International Criminal Court (perhaps 25 years), or the position that any votes on issues to do with Israel/Palestine could be subjected to US veto without threat of overturning, as most of their vetoes in recent years have been on that issue. i think, however, that the ultimate choice will have to rest on the US administration and their willingness to forgo their own interest for the sake of the greater good in this particular case. Given the history of past US administrations, I would judge this to be unlikely, but I believe that without meaningful UN reform, beginning with restriction on the veto, the organization will continue to be marginalized and will eventually become irrelevant. I think that even in this case political integration will eventually have to occur, but it will take a long time, will definatley exacerbate world problems in the short term, and might even cause a Marxian "crisis".
As HG Wells said in his 1921 book An Outline of History, "I believe that men will one day be united under a single government, committed to peace as one people, but whether this is a peaceful process that takes a few generations or a long struggle involving many crises and many centuries more of toil will ultimatley be determined by the will and morality of the leaders of mankind." In the subsequent 80 years, I think Wells would have been disappointed with our progress. But progress had been made, and I believe that my generation has the potential to make an impact, because among the widespread disillusionment and cynicism that tends to run through people my age, especially with regard to politics, I have observed that there exists pockets of idealism. They are rare, even among the distinguished and brilliant people I have met both here at McGill and at home in Calgary, and they hide themselves well. Nevertheless, I believe that the people of my generation believe that a better world is possible and that they can contribute, perhaps more so than any generation since WWII. So I want to ask everyone who reads this to "examine yourselves, and let each of you discover where your true chance at greatness lies." Follow your dreams. To quote James T. Kirk (I know I'm a nerd),
"Never let them do anything that takes you off the bridge of that ship, because while you're there, you can make a difference."
New Frontiers
This is going to be my second attempt at a blog. This one is intended to be a forum for ideas and a device for me to continue to develop my worldview. I intend to paste in a number of posts from my old blog that relate to this goal. What will not be found here is the personal reflection aspect that inundated Blair's Castle of Thought. The song lyrics and so on will disappear, and will hopefully be replaced by the political and moral analysis that I feel is missing from my life these days. Enjoy!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)