BLESSED ARE THE PEACEMAKERS
BLESSED ARE THE PEACEMAKERS
Lines blur when examining our emotions, logic and motivations for defending our homes and countries against invasion, depending on how close you happen to be standing to the disaster, how threatened you feel, how imminent the danger to you and your loved ones, how accessible the enemy, and the overall state of national defense. This is a subject that could use further scrutiny, and one which we should explore as individuals and nations. It is far better to have guidelines in place for dealing with a crisis rather than waiting for the fatal moment to arrive and then flying by the seat of our pants to undesirable destinations. In retrospect, most modern warfare, needless slaughter and destruction of international cultures could be avoided by thoughtful examination, careful introspection and realistic diplomacy instead of investing our blood and treasure. Because in World War I&II there were such massive losses of life and limb, culture and wealth, (estimates of the human casualties for both wars exceeded 100 million lives), it is imperative that serious students of history seek to avoid their repetition. I would like to think that true diplomats are willing spokesmen for responsible solution and sustainable harmony, who are too-often ignored by political forces which pursue darker purposes. Global peace depends on temperaments and political and military recommendations which are most appropriate to the occasion--neither too passive nor too harsh. Similar to a family, we all need to maintain some degree of rational equilibrium when living in such close proximity to one another. Caveman thought and reaction lose their appeal in the modern world where instant communication and modern weaponry have created an urgent need for diplomacy and appropriate reaction to various assaults on our established cultures. How do we decide which actions deserve our attention and response? When the world disagrees with our vigilante plan of action, should we forge ahead, oblivious to the collective wisdom of our most-trusted allies? We who would instruct the world—do we fail to heed instruction? Are our motives purely peacekeeping and bridge-building? Perhaps if the Western response to 9-11 had been to collectively “turn the other cheek” and patiently strengthen our ties with each other and our allies in the Middle-East, we may have encouraged those in authority to reign-in harmful and destructive elements within their own borders and build regional consensus. Rather than assuming a broader conspiracy against the West by our Middle-Eastern brothers, we could have viewed the actions of a few as the exception to an otherwise more stable and self-regulated political environment. Our over-reaction has polarized the region by insisting that lines be drawn between their cultures and their loyalty to the West. It is likely that the increase in Muslim fratricide can be blamed more on loss of infrastructure in the wake of regime-change, than on historical precedent. Can the erosion of the Middle-Eastern mindset towards the West be improved through greater respect for their cultural autonomy? Are political and economic impotence the perceived and actual reasons for their disagreements with the West, or are religious and cultural differences at the core of the conflict? When the citizens of Afghanistan, Iraq and Pakistan, and Lebanon, Gaza and the West Bank demonstrate a desire to choose their own systems of law and governance and clearly desire less interference in their internal affairs, what is our justification for further confrontation? Because our methods of civil and moral law have tended to diverge not so much in principle as in methods of enforcement, does this justify condemnation and contempt? We also have a history of exploitation and mistreatment, rather than the careful examination and rehabilitation of our misunderstood and neglected native populations, our imported slave populations and our dissident and criminal elements. Our own Code of the West, in effect until fairly recently in our nation’s history, was enabled and enforced as long as we deemed it effective, yet we wag our hypocritical fingers at those whose legal systems, through the use of all measurable indices of crime and dissidence, have historically tended to maintain greater civil harmony with less injury than those who would be their instructors. We cannot expect other nations who have ancient and stable systems of law enforcement to adopt our Western methods and timetables as though we shared the same historical development. Those who live in glass houses and moralize about the methods used by others should carefully consider their own hypocrisy before throwing stones. There are those in the West who pride themselves on life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, while denying these same freedoms to others. By focusing on governmental differences rather than on our shared interests in tolerance and development, we delay our diplomatic progress and risk further polarization and its attendant perils. If the governing systems of the West are truly superior to those of our Middle-Eastern neighbors, then this truth will be self-evident, and history will benefit when we lead by good example, and reward us with success without needless struggle for domination. We can do a better job of encouraging others by practicing diplomatic restraint and developing more hopeful agendas. If our Middle-Eastern strategy towards Israel and her neighbors is merely the defense of Israel from her more surly neighbors, why not bolster her defenses without further antagonism of her enemies? Just as Israel’s right to defend herself rests upon the same claims as freedom-loving peoples everywhere, depriving or restricting her neighbors’ ability to create their own sustainable culture is ideological hypocrisy as well as a recipe for disaster. Since Christianity, Islam and Judaism share common religious roots, whose purpose is devotion to The One God’s eternal principles of law and justice, why is it that in the pursuit of such lofty aspirations, we forget our shared faith in the command to love our neighbors as ourselves, which is the fulfillment of all the law and prophets? If our Mid-Eastern policies result in the further proliferation of anti-American sentiments among grassroots Muslims, wouldn’t any logical diplomatic assessment infer that our policy is misguided? A shared commitment to basic standards of human decency and infrastructures which support the common dignity and beneficial development of humanity must engage in those border-neutral pursuits which strengthen our shared advancement. The command to “do unto others as you would have them do unto you” presumes a proactively-peaceful and helpful attitude, agenda and actions. When Madison Avenue seeks to create the desire for goods and services, do they begin by destroying the lives and homes of potential customers, and then assign blame and make demands that their victim-customers help to pay for the new infrastructure? Shall we blame the victims for their political and physical inability to reign in harmful elements, or should we rather assist them in their decision-making ability by presenting viable alternatives as choices rather than mandates, and show by our own good example that we are patiently working toward stability and humanitarian solutions? Are bullets and bombs the key to a peaceful and holistic diplomacy? Why not discourage rogue elements by treating the majority as our friends instead of lumping them all into the same category and assuming the worst about their character? If the carrots the West is offering to the Middle-East are not desirable, helpful, wholesome and constructive, why are we surprised by rejection and retaliation? When you plant weeds, should you be surprised at the harvest? If our motivation is the protection of the West, why not counterbalance the opposition by modeling an effective strategy, while observing their methodology and their peaceful and aggressive behaviors from a diplomatic frame of reference and formulating an appropriate solution in solidarity with our Western partners? If we are promoting democracy as the Mid-Eastern savior, why do we increasingly appear as intruders, both uninvited and unwelcome? With current human casualties in Afghanistan, Iraq, Pakistan and Lebanon, Gaza and the West Bank numbering well over 2 million dead, wounded and destroyed lives, with shaky infrastructures in peril of military and economic collapse, and ancient cultures in ruins, the least that we can do is to admit our misguided premise and fundamental failure to bring stability to a troubled region. None truly believe that our results justify the incalculable and ever-increasing costs of these wars in terms of human and financial capital. We are in desperate need of an overall rethinking of our Mid-Eastern policies so that they are aimed at peaceful coexistence and mutual development rather than political and military posturing. Narrow-agenda anarchy, guerrilla warfare, and various other methodologies of revolution which overthrow leadership and encourage mayhem and destruction are tools which will fall into disuse when we remove the motivations which created them. One wonders how different the perpetrators are from their victims when both the methods employed and their results are so similar. Is our opposition to certain governments based on real or perceived injustice, or is it merely an excuse for our own intolerance? Globally, one out of three people are Christians, while one out of five people are Muslims. Since together we represent over half of the world’s population, and in-name if not in-example, we are devoted to The One God, isn’t it about time that we learn to get along without torturing and killing each other? Forgiveness is a basic Christian requirement, while Muslims consider it exemplary and recommended, if not mandatory. Surely not all of those who in-name are Christian practice forgiveness, any more than all who in-name are Muslim do, still we all benefit from the free and willing forgiveness of each others’ daily trespasses. Rather than attempting to outdo each other in a race to the bottom of our diplomatic ladders, we should use every opportunity to encourage each other in the promotion of a more stable and peaceful world, where tolerance and goodwill are the hallmarks which replace the weapons of war and fanatical rhetoric. We can begin by inviting all the participants in these regional conflicts to a diplomatic roundtable which will focus our efforts on stability and self-governance which is supported by a world community whose goal is sustainable and lasting peace and goodwill. Now is the time for the bold pursuit of reconciliation between these brothers who have so far resisted each others’ individual claims of cultural autonomy and freedom. Perhaps the world together can accomplish what we have been unable to achieve by our own efforts—a Middle-East whose culture, dignity and autonomy are able to peacefully coexist with her Western neighbors. When the source of our diplomatic inspiration is brotherly love and goodwill toward our neighbors, boundaries are transformed into bridges of hope. May God help us as far as possible to build an enduring and peaceful planet and a diplomatic framework that will inspire future generations to pursue harmony in their regional and global dialogues, and let’s begin this process today, before pointlessly destroying any more lives through misguided diplomatic adventures.
Mark Overt Skilbred
No comments:
Post a Comment