Today’s discussion was very thought-provoking, I’m sure we’ll all agree. There were a couple of issues left that I would have liked to have commented on, but couldn’t due to time constraints.
First of all, with regards to the exact parameters of what exactly falls into the category of world politics, I agree with the general consensus that most everything easily has the potential to impact the entire world. My assertion that a difference exists between national and international affairs was not meant to exclude seemingly internal events and conditions. Rather, I believe that defining an issue as an internal affair, rather than an international one, is yet another tool used by diplomats to respond to such issues. The D.C. riots, for example, very well may have had global implications that we are not aware of, and I’m sure their influence extended beyond the confines of the city and the country. However, if one were unable to find an outward effect of these riots, they could be written off as an “internal social crisis” and ignored by diplomats and politicians. This would only allow such an issue to fester, until it eventually boils over into a major political concern.
A similar “internal affairs” situation recently took place in Zimbabwe, where controversy over the country’s “democratic elections” was a point of contention throughout the world. Zimbabwe’s president, Robert Mugabe, faced a serious challenge to his presidency by rival Morgan Tsvangirai of the Movement for Democratic Change. He took covert, but nonetheless obvious, measures to retain his presidency. These consisted mainly of rigging ballot stations, threatening opposition supporters, and arresting opposition leaders. Many throughout the world called for Thabo Mbeki, president of the considerably more stable and democratic South Africa, to intervene and support fair democratic principles. However, President Mbeki told the world that he regarded the dispute as a matter of Zimbabwe’s internal political system, and that it was not his place to get directly involved. The most he could do, he said, was to facilitate talks between the two factions. Now, whether or not it was “moral” to stay neutral is questionable, but it was nonetheless a product of the diplomatic strategy of containment, an effort to limit the troubles within one nation’s borders. In this sense, the concept of the state remains the primary character in world politics: the leaders involved vie for control of a particular nation as a whole, regional national leaders struggle to keep the blowback from entering their borders, and outside powers decry the entire situation and direct whatever resources they can towards or away from the country in question (sanctions would be one example of this).
Despite the growing influence of private interests and international/supranational organizations, the individual state remains the primary building block of world politics. And as for a precise definition of what does and doesn’t count as world politics, I would ultimately argue that the issue is irrelevant. World politics is a business conducted between people, who, in dealing with the issues before them, should be free to take into consideration any factor that may affect their argument. In short, there should not be imposed on them any limitation as to what constitutes a “world affair”, because any matter can quickly balloon to that level of importance.
As a final note, I wanted to quickly address another matter that was brought up in class. Someone (Jasmine, I think?) mentioned the Danish newspaper controversy, and the worldwide riots among Muslims. Later, PTJ asked the question “What economical gain is there to the Muslims rioting?” This reminded me of a point I had made in my previous blog entry, about modern diplomatic values versus traditional ones. Today, of course, that question seems like a perfectly logical one: decisions by those in power reflect self-interest, and those in power always try to make the most economical or politically beneficial decision. However, the riots proved that there are still groups that favor theological concerns over all else. Of course there was no economic benefit to such behavior, nor was it good publicity. The rioters were driven instead by a true belief that their actions were in accordance with the will of God, and the opinions of the rest of the world were irrelevant in comparison. These people still operate under a traditionalist mindset, and have not yet embraced western ideas of secularism and free speech in the face of religion. It is a belief that has steadily been dying out for the last several hundred years, but its recent resurgence amid vocal support in some areas of the world has caused bewilderment and concern among intellectuals and strategists.
That’s all for now. As a side note, as much as I love Antonio Iparralde, I also wish I could have chosen “President Camacho” as an alias. If you don’t know who that is, I suggest you watch the movie “Idiocracy”. Like right now. Here’s an idea: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cxJnf5tkfoo.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
4 comments:
You make some good points through out your post, but I had a major problem with the last part...
"These people still operate under a traditionalist mindset, and have not yet embraced western ideas of secularism and free speech in the face of religion. It is a belief that has steadily been dying out for the last several hundred years, but its recent resurgence amid vocal support in some areas of the world has caused bewilderment and concern among intellectuals and strategists."
First of all, they have NOT YET embraced western ideals??? Who are you to say that they should, or even that they eventually will migrate towards the western style of thinking?
Secondly, I have no idea where you are coming from when you say that theocracy has been dying out but strategists have no idea why it is making a comeback. Yes, there are probably more secular states than there were, say, a couple of hundred years ago, but in no means has the movement against secularism died out. Do you think that the American presence in Iraq could have anything to do with the vocal support that the more radical side is getting?
At least from my point of view, the same thing has been happening in the United States with the rise in the vocalism of racist and sexist people. As soon as we had a viable woman and a viable black presidential candidate the racists and sexists became more vocal. People came out with slogans such as, ‘If Obama becomes president will they still call it the White House?’, Hillary nutcrackers, where she cracks the nuts between her legs, were sold in airports, and people yell ‘iron my shirt’ at her speeches. And yes, there has been a movement to ‘go back to the word of God’ and ‘amend the Constitution to be in God’s Standards’ in the United States. Mike Huckabee did very well in a number of states.
When you make comments like these, it reinforces the negative image that many people in the world have of the United States. It gives truth to the stereotype that Americans don’t accept other ways of thinking and are willing to throw their weight in the world around to achieve ‘Western’ ideals.
I believe by "western ideas", Antonio is simply referring to the concept of free speech, freedom of the press, and the freedom to petition the government. These ideas began in the 18th century when thirteen colonies decided to break from the British monarchy to create their own sovereign state. This American idea spread throughout Europe, and now is the prevalent way of thinking in many countries around the globe.
I must agree with both of you regarding theocracy. I agree with Antonio that the world is secularizing, but I agree with Amanda that theocracy is very much alive in some of the world's more volatile areas.
I must contend that racists and sexists are still present in this country. They are a dying, but vocal, minority.
I must preface my Hillary response with the fact that I voted Clinton in the primaries. However, most of my female friends back in Chicago were fiercely anti-Hillary. They were disgusted that she stayed with Bill after numerous scandals (Flowers, Jones, and Lewinsky) and thought she did it to help her political aspirations. I thought her decision was a personal one and should be respected, not to mention her decision had nothing to do with how she could fix the numerous problems in this country. Bottom line: all candidates were valid, but to discredit one based on a personal choice is a terrible decision. It's not like she's John Edwards (what a slimy character).
As for the Huckabee issue, the Bible Belt lives up to his name. I know I will sound like a complete elitist saying this (which I'm not), but when I heard Obama say that people were bitter and held on to guns and religion, I saw the truth in what he was saying. I have a number of relatives who live in small rural towns; and there is a definite sense of isolation and a feeling of being left behind by the rest of American society. God is something they turn to because tradition is one of the few things they can be certain of in a rapidly changing era.
I may be incredibly naive, but I believe the western ideas of free speech and the right to voice their grievances to the government is desired by the vast majority of people. No not all governments should resemble the western ones, they must address the culture and values of that specific nation. But basic human rights are an ideal I believe all people desire and many are denied.
Whoa. Hold on.
OK, I think we can both agree that "western ideals" like secularism have more or less penetrated cultures around the globe. It's why most people profess religious belief while refraining from the more extreme elements of their religion. And yes, secularism is more or less a "western ideal", as it originated in western Europe and travelled through colonial contact and trade. Though it did spring up independently in some areas, it has now become solidly identified with the west.
Now, it is almost universally aknowledged that secularism has been steadily growing for the past several hundred years. There are no more crusades, no more major schisms within religious orders, and fewer and fewer religious requirements for state executives. This has led many to believe that human civilization was on a permanent path towards secularism, that no one in power would dare to make decisions based on religious motives.
However, when one looks at the Middle East, they seem to be moving in reverse. Religious radicalism is on the rise, and is, as I pointed out, clashing with the political order, which has in most cases adopted modernist views. Pakistan is a prime example of this.
Now, as you said, the American presence in Iraq does fuel this radical sentiment. However, what I was getting at was that this movement started long before the U.S. invasion. It can be dated back to Sayyid Qutb, who gained a following among Egypt's Muslim Brotherhood movement and denounced all western ideals, especially secularism. He was eventually arrested and imprisoned until his death by Egypt's nationalist but secular president Gamel Abdel Nasser, who represented the modern ideals I was talking about. Qutb's ideas, however, influenced men like Ayman al-Zawahiri, who founded one of the first violent Islamist groups, the Egyptian Islamic Group, which would later merge into al-Qaeda. The power of Islamism has grown over the years, from the Iranian Revolution to the mujahideen in Afghanistan at the time of the Soviet invasion, and eventually to September 11th. My point is, despite secularism's seeming instoppable encroachment into society, the Muslim world's refusal to accept this is puzzling to many outside observers. Yes, as you pointed out, there are reasons for this. However, as a whole, it throws a wrench into most theories of globalization.
Most of my point here was inspired by this brilliant article in the New York Times Magazine about a year ago. You can find it here: http://www.nytimes.com/2007/08/19/magazine/19Religion-t.html?pagewanted=1
Now, to address your first and last point, about my reinforcing of the American stereotype, I ask you: Do the riots in the Muslim world against the Danish cartoons represent a positive aspect of Muslim society? Is it good for them to express their deeply-held beliefs in this manner? Is it their right to brush off western concepts of religious openness and criticism? Before you answer yes, let me pose a personal question: If someone criticized your religion in this way, would you take to the streets, demanding the death of this person? I would argue that, if anything, the exhibition of such instability and radical hatred serves only as a hindrence to the Muslim world. It does anything but invite outside friendship, cooperation, and investment, which would drastically improve the lives of the common citizen. This is, as I stated, the "clash" between two sets of values. These people do not fear being ostracized and left alone in the world, their only concern is the will of God. Some may see this as a legitimate cultural expression, but if you ask me, allowing in even the slightest western ideals, even a hint of secularism, their society could benefit greatly.
You, as a Hillary Clinton supporter, should understand this. When Muslim society adheres to these ideals so greatly, it ends up restricting them far more than it liberates them. If our society seems racist and sexist, imagine what it must be like in the Middle East! Benazir Bhutto was assassinated in December by adherents to this traditional mindset, who saw the concept of a vocal woman abhorrent and were willing to kill in order to put a stop to it. In our secular country, how many suicide bombers have shown up at Hillary's rallies? Despite what may sem to many as a high level of racism and sexism in our presidential election, thanks to western ideals, it is a pittance compared to some areas of the world.
Now, to answer your question, "Who are you to say that they should...migrate towards the western style of thinking?" I would argue that, while some may see the western world as too proactive in it's attempts to export it's ideals, some of them are justified. Despite the right of the Muslim world to hold on to it's cultural heritage, I would argue that a healthy dose of secularism and free speech would do good for these societies. Granted, America doesn't need to "throw it's weight around" in order to do this, and nowhere in my blog post did I advocate that it do so. However, I have no qualms in saying that the Muslim world woud do good to take a page from America and Europe and learn to separate political questions from religious ones. They should not demand the death of anyone who "transgresses" against their beliefs, but should welcome criticism and individually attempt to counter it in a logical, concise, and approachable manner. It is in that sense, through words (or possibly cartoons) that America should work to export it's ideals.
Oh, and as a final side-note, I wanted to address your point about the election. Despite the notable instances of racism and sexism along the campaign trail, I was actually surprised that it wasn't even more prominent! I was always told by my folks that no African-American, no woman, no Jew, no Hispanic, no anyone but white men could ever be elected to the presidency. There were just too many idiots in the middle of the country, I was told, who wouldn't be able to see past the physical differences. And yet, along this campaign trail, nearly all of the criticism directed at Clinton and Obama had to do with their respective records, and only fringe Republicans seem obsessed with their race or gender (and they wouldn't have voted Democrat anyway). As I see it, if nutcrackers, t-shirts, and the occasional catcall are the worst of it, then it shows that our country is a lot more tolerant that I was told growing up. Then again, we still have a ways to go until it's completely eradicated.
Is it not US foreign policy to advance democracy, free market capitalism, and all our "western" ways of thinking? Perhaps not via violent warfare, but at the end of the day that's our goal and what we try to spread around the world.
Post a Comment