I’ll show you mine if you show me yours…
Because of a recent discussion in my adult Sunday School class, I’m going to follow up Brian’s posting on Nuclear Options.
As I mentioned before, my Sunday school class is unusual; we often discuss political and social issues in light of our religious beliefs. The Iraq war is frequently mentioned, and, lately, concerns about Iran have arisen.
One class member brought in an article; the source is the American Friends Service Committee website. To summarize: Last September, Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad met with over forty religious leaders in NYC to discuss the tense situation between Iran and the U.S. Many issues were discussed, but one proposal stands out: Ahmadinejad stated “Iran would open its nuclear facilities to inspections if the United States agreed to do the same.”
We’ve heard from the White House that they are worried Iran’s development of nuclear energy is not solely for a power source but also for weapons. The U.S. wants inspections to ensure that no bombs are being manufactured. But how to force this issue? Hmmmm…
Well…. how about not forcing it? How about consenting to Ahmadinejad’s suggestion? That would get inspectors in the door in a calm, neutral fashion. Why not go along with it? What have we got to hide? Surely there’s nothing illegal occurring in the American nuclear plants? (Surely…)
I’ve been trying to think of the downside to permitting the inspections, and the only negatives that I can envision have to do with perpetuating the “tough guy” image of the United States; we’re not going to give in just because Iran asks…we’re not the ones to be afraid of here…
News flash: we are the ones to be feared. A lot of people are afraid of what is seen as unchecked U.S. aggression. Going along with inspections is equitable… I’ll show you mine if you show me yours…
What have we got to lose? Certainly, it’s possible that one reason Ahmadinejad offered the deal is that he’s convinced President Bush will never agree; Iran then appears reasonable, trying to find a compromise. But if the U.S. consents and Iran reneges, we suddenly might find ourselves in the novel position of receiving international support.
There may be serious objections to submitting to Ahmadinejad’s proposition, but I simply can’t conceive of any. What’s a girl to do? Luckily, I have access to Brave Humans… a place where we try to fill in the gaps for each other. Seriously, what am I missing here? What’s wrong with this picture?
Thanks.
Be brave. Be human.
Susan
February 14th, 2007 17:10
President Ahmadinejad’s views are summarized on this website: ahmadinejadquotes.blogspot.com
February 15th, 2007 05:35
Al,
Thanks for providing more background on this subject.
February 15th, 2007 07:53
Susan,
The person asking the questions is the one that has control. Why does the car salesman keep asking you questions, even if he innocuously starts with, “are you enjoying the weather?” He gets you comfortable with answering HIS questions…on his terms.
He who controls the questions has the upper hand, no matter how “in control” the responder thinks he is. It’s not a question of bravado, but of who controls the debate.
I don’t want to start down the road of making concessions to him.
Rick
February 15th, 2007 10:06
Hi Rick-
I get your point about the questions, and it’s a good one. I absolutely know what you mean about carsalesmen…I went with my dad last year when he bought a new car and there were quite apparent attempts at controlling our behavior; there’s certianly psychology involved in that field. It’s not an experience I’d llike to repeat soon…hope my car holds up a while longer.
Still, I don’t see it as making a concession if we agree to share inspections; I see it as a compromise. We were asking for concessions from Iran to accept inspectors in their nuclear plants.
Maybe the U. S. should have been the one to first suggest dual inspections…then we would have been in control. Even if we go along with the proposal now, that doesn’t mean we have to agree to anything in the future. One step at a time. This is not a contract; there are no past practice issues that could force us to do something we don’t want to in the future…
I’m still thinking about this. Thanks for helping.
Susan
February 15th, 2007 16:50
President Bush and Vice President Cheney are primitive thinkers. A big part of what that means is that when a possibility such as this comes up, their first reaction is to arrive at a judgment about what kind of people are on the other side.
Good people — ones they deem potentially helpful or at least useful, loyal or at least reliable, they might deem worthy of dealing with. That’s especially true if they perceive an opportunity to score political points with their base and/or find themselves over a barrel.
They simply refuse to engage the unworthy rest, except with threats and bravado.
Rattled by our swift invasion and regime toppling in Afghanistan and Iraq, the Iranians made an offer of talks several years ago. Among things they put on the table was an offer to help put down al Qaeda in Iraq, at least to the extent of squelching aid to it from Iran. Bush & Co. would have none of it.
Dealing effectively, especially with a cagey and hostile party, requires a good sense of possibilities and liabilities. It also requires a willingness to give things up. I don’t think Bush, Cheney and the rest of this motley crew has the intellectual wherewithal for either.
What’s more, for domestic political reasons, they find having foreign bogeymen and threats that they can ballyhoo very useful.
Any hope for reaching some worthwhile level of detente with the Iranians is almost certainly going to have to await a new U.S. administration. These people don’t have it in them.
February 16th, 2007 06:21
I believe you make a good point about the Bush administration’s judgment of others; it’s very black and white. Remember the “axis of evil?” Dramatic, true, but a gross overgeneralization. I’m quite certain there are people in the world who would label the US as “evil.” As in my earlier posting, I’m a believer in shades of gray.
I am not hopeful about progress with Iran under the current leadership. I AM hoping that with the Democrats (barely) in control of the House and Senate, Congress will develop enough of a backbone to prevent matters from escalating until there’s a “change in regime” in the US.
February 16th, 2007 08:27
Susan,
The extreme leadership of the Muslim party, er, the Muslim religion, already did label us as evil. It’s what has led to every terrorist attack against western civilization over the last several decades. It’s what is indoctrinated into Muslim children from birth, and reinforced at every turn in their schools. It’s what led Bush to declare an “axis of evil”, no matter how right or wrong you think it is. At least we declared an enemy. Look at France, the Netherlands, Spain. We could be them, and fighting the physical battle daily within our own boundaries instead of without.
Question, then…how do you label a non-geopolitical organization as your enemy?
How well did diplomacy, via the U.N., work with Iraq after the first Iraq war? How many times do you warn your kids before you actually discipline them…or do you never discipline them, and just continually warn them? The U.N. never disciplines its kids; it warns them, then sheepishly looks the other way.
Don’t get too excited about an overwhelming change in policy with the Democrats, they are only the opposite side of the same coin.
February 16th, 2007 12:53
Susan,
I suppose that the only sustainable solution is one that involves an international agency - for either country. We’ve worked out a lot of issues at the national level that would be helpful if adapted to the global level. For instance, we accused Iraq of having a weapon and of wanting to shoot someone with us and then, without proof, attacked them “first.” Think about the parallels at the national level. You think a neighbor has a gun. You attack him first. That would never fly. Instead, we have officials intervene, courts to judge, etc. In primitive worlds, individuals “work out their differences” between each other - kind of like the Hatfields and McCoys. In more civilized places they actually have agreed upon rules and agencies to care for all that.
Sorry to go on so long. You raised an important question. Thanks,
February 16th, 2007 14:50
Ahmadinejad certainly has us sized up well. I think he’s going to make us look like fools no matter what course of action we take regarding Iran. (As though we hadn’t already accomplished that ourselves in Iraq.) Great post. And thanks for stopping by my page.
February 17th, 2007 00:39
Rick asked, “. . .how do you label a non-geopolitical organization as your enemy?”
I label it as a criminal conspiracy.
And, “How well did diplomacy, via the U.N., work with Iraq after the first Iraq war?”
Well, Saddam gave up on invading Kuwait and, as we’ve learned, on developing nuclear weapons and stockpiling other weapons of mass destruction.
Saddam certainly never walked a straight and narrow path. But where the essentials of not destabilizing the region with armed aggression and/or blackmail were concerned, the policy of containment and surveillance worked rather well.
February 17th, 2007 13:38
The “axis of evil” term was not spawned solely in reaction to extreme Islam… North Korea was in there, too. I believe, however, that it was an ill-conceived effort to characterize countries with which we have profound differences; the inclusion of the work “evil” could only inflame, frighten, and stigmatize. That’s old-fashioned politics at its worst. As long as our administration continues on the same course, we’ll get the same results.
Truly we are fortunate that we have not had another terrorist attack in the US since 9/11; I’m actually surprised at that. That actually may be because of effective actions our government (federal? state? local?) is taking in the fight against terror; I don’t know. As long as our foreign policy remains unchanged, however, I think little progress will be made with the countries that are feared (and we’re trying to work against fear here at Brave Humans). One maxim I’ve come to believe: “If you keep doing what you’re doing, you’ll keep getting what you’ve gotten.” There are options (such as dual inspections and the outside intervention that Ron mentioned) haven’t been tried because of assumptions such as “that’s not how we do things,” “that won’t work,” “that’ll make us look weak,” “give them and inch and they’ll take a mile…”
At this point I’m not advocating one course; I’m still investigating the situation (hence the post). I do think, however, that our present non-negotiating policy will not solve anything. At best, we’ll remain in this awkward, tense status. I don’t want to think about worst-case scenario. But I don’t want to react to a scenario out of fear; I want to approach it seeking a solution we can all, literally, live with.
Susan
February 17th, 2007 15:37
I think the “axis of evil” reference in Bush’s State of the Union address was a bid to strike a chord within the fundamentalist Christian hard liners who form the core of his political base.
It sent a message abroad that just being technically within the bounds of international law or U.N. mandates doesn’t make your country OK with Uncle Sam.
It thus set the U.S. up as sole arbiter of who’s OK and who’s not OK among nations — cop, judge, jury, and, if it comes to that, executioner. Not surprisingly, the same international community we’ve preached the necessity of honoring the rule of law to for 60 years found that assertion hypocritical, wrong and dangerous.
Time and events have proven them right — and Bush, Cheney and the rest wrong.
February 17th, 2007 16:42
Rick said with respect to Iraq …”How many times do you warn your kids before you actually discipline them”.
I hardly think the word ‘discipline’ applies to what is going on in Iraq now as a result of misconceived US action. Bush wasn’t disciplining Iraq, he was having a war like his Daddy did. Only he was too blind to see that it wouldn’t be a walk in the park.
Agreeing with previous comments about how the international community will see the US, I wonder how long it will take the US to recover from the damage done to its reputation, particularly loss of trust. At least the US has the potential to recover, Bush himself, will go down in history as one with limited intelligence and poor vision.
This perspective is from an Australian - one who marched in ‘Not in my name’ rallies when our Prime Minister, John Howard, eagerly joined the Coalition of the Willing.
February 19th, 2007 22:59
S.W.,
I’m sorry, but I don’t understand your “criminal conspiracy” comment. Can you explain?
All,
Don’t mistake me as someone who thinks Bush is a genius. Has this administration made mistakes? Absolutely, just as Clinton did with Bin Laden before him. Will he go down as the worst President ever? That all depends on who/when/how America is attacked next, and under which political party’s tenure. Just as it always does in American politics and reporting.
Gillian,
The U.N. turned its head while Saddam continually ignored its warnings. That’s the discipline I’m talking about. I do not trust the U.N. to act in the best interest of the capitalistic societies.
February 19th, 2007 23:46
Rick… isn’t the UN supposed to act in the best interest of all member nations? Not just the ‘capitalistic societies’?
Who do you mean by ‘capitalistic societies’, it’s a phrase that has uncomfortable echoes for me.
February 20th, 2007 17:17
Gillian,
Why the uncomfortable echoes?
Rick
February 20th, 2007 19:58
I’m wondering which countries you bundle under the term ‘capitalistic’ and which ones don’t fit the category. How many other categories do you have in your framework?
I picture a sliding scale with uncontrolled, market-driven economies at the ‘capitalistic’ end, and centrally-controlled economies at the other end. Both extremes have proven to be dangerous (e.g. C19th Britain at the capitalist end and Soviet Russia at the controlled end).
Modern economies mostly fit somewhere along the scale, with some exceptions - Korea is pretty much at the central-control end.
Also, ‘capitalistic’ refers to economies, but social and cultural values other than economic ideologies also feed into the cultural mix. The ‘unchecked US aggression’ referred to in the initial post on this topic relates more to cultural ideology than to the economic system.
February 20th, 2007 20:52
Gillian,
As long as you use “uncontrolled” and “market-driven” as distinct qualifiers, I don’t have issue with your continuum or your comments. The U.S. has governing bodies like the Securities and Exchange Commission and the Federal Trade Commission, among others, to regulate some controls on trade. If you want to talk price controls or mandated corporate philanthrophy, however, then we have definite areas of disagreement.
Agreed that we are off-topic. However, one of Susan’s comments got me thinking about the U.N. as an overseer, and I don’t think it is a good one. Yes, its charter is to act in the best interest of all nations, but it, just like the U.S., props up certain leaders that should not be; it also looks to redistribute wealth globally. (Would you give your good-for-nothing brother-in-law half of your earnings if you knew he would waste it on drugs and prostitution, and not on providing for his family?) I am solidly against these “side-benefits” of the U.N. But, alas, that is fodder for another post.
February 20th, 2007 22:06
Following the drift… and thinking about your criticisms of the UN, I agree that it is cumbersome and inefficient so that it is hampered in its effectiveness. I wonder what it will take for the world community to bring Israel to heel on the way it flouts UN mandates.
In Kosovo, the UN was ineffective, the US action to bomb the attackers seemed to bring the right resolution to the problem.
So, I agree that there are times when the UN is ineffective when action is needed. But US ‘disciplinary’ action in Iraq is turning out to be worse than the problem it was trying to fix. The US action was a bad one because consequences that many could foresee were ignored by the Bush administration.
You ask — Would you give your good-for-nothing brother-in-law half of your earnings if you knew he would waste it on drugs and prostitution, and not on providing for his family?
I say, no, I wouldn’t give it to him, but I WOULD do what the UN does and set up programs that ensure that some direct help goes to the wife and kids.
At present, I give no assistance to any programs in Zimbabwe (good for nothing brother), but I do actively support a school for bright children from poor families in Tanzania, democratic country that is opening its economy and improving governance (low ability brother who is trying?).
It’s nice talking to you, but I wonder whether the concept for this website will work out? I suspect there will be a natural convergence of like to like over time.
And I also wonder about the American-centric (red state / blue state) framework for the site. Perhaps an Australian will bring a different point of view.
February 20th, 2007 22:09
Sorry… I would prefer to express it as ‘low capacity brother’… Tanzanian abilities are no lower, but they are working hard on capacity building…
Here’s an example of capacity building in a school in Tanzania, with the help of US expertise…
http://schoolstjude.blogspot.com/2007/02/always-improving.html
February 20th, 2007 23:34
Gillian,
Just to jump in, you make an excellent point about the American-centric nature of the site. The goal of BraveHumans is to be open to all viewpoints, and that includes non-American ones. Currently all the authors at BraveHumans are American, and so we have focused on breaking through the left-right schism which has become deeply ingrained in the U.S. Given the make-up of BraveHumans, I expect it will always focus on American society and politics. But having a global view is also important. That is one of the reasons I’m very glad you’ve entered this discussion, as you give a perspective we as Americans simply don’t have.
Brian
February 20th, 2007 23:57
Gillian,
I caught your intention on the ‘low capacity brother’ comment. Agreed; I would look for other ways to support the wife and kids, too. I don’t have a problem with the U.N. acting as a humanitarian organization, as long as there aren’t mandates on what we could term charitable giving. If countries see benefit in contributing, and do so freely, I can understand that. Even if they don’t go through the U.N. to do it.
(Aside: if there’s one thing I can’t stand, it’s Christian churches that mandate tithing and other forms of giving. Christian charity is to be done in private. If someone chooses to give all their givings to the church, no big deal; but if someone only gives part of their givings to the church, and the remainder to other charitable organizations, there’s nothing wrong with that, either.)
As a policing organization, though…sheesh, I don’t think the U.N. should go there. They are like the police force in Demolition Man; is mandated virtual sex to follow?
I also have a concern of this site veering further left. Like does attract like, but I think it’s a twofold problem. First, the propensity to attract “like” also dissuades the “dislike” from posting or commenting. Second, many conservatives (not all, not a majority, but many) would rather do than talk. The discourse is nice, but accomplishes nothing if it doesn’t lead to action.
If you link on my name on the right-hand pane, you can see more of my “alternate views”, including my first post about moving toward results.
Talk to you again soon.
February 21st, 2007 08:07
This whole discussion has been really interesting…if you think it got a bit off topic, I’d encourage you to write your own post about, oh, say, the U. N., other international issues…whatever.
We at Brave Humans are also concerned about “like attracting like.” That was one of the major reasons we started the blog. We’re all somewhere within the liberal spectrum, and we were driven to connect with other viewpoints.
I agree that discussion alone is not enough. I think that many liberals also would like action. I’m convinced that debate is part of that action; finding common ground, common concerns…perhaps common solutions. (Grant has a very interesting post on debate coming up; it made me think twice.) I believe true debate is a starting place, and that serious action can result from it. (You can see my argument for this at my earlier posting, “Mathematics.”)
What we at BH want to avoid is the assumption that liberals and conservative views are too different, and, therefore, we can’t work together. Please encourage others you know, especially those with non-liberal or non-American viewpoints to join in here. The Brave Humans blog has only been around a few months, and Brian, one of our resident geeks, tells us that we’ve seen really encouraging growth in that time. Please continue to stop by, comment, post…help us understand, and we hope, take action.
Thanks
Susan
February 21st, 2007 22:43
Rick said… “I don’t have a problem with the U.N. acting as a humanitarian organization, as long as there aren’t mandates on what we could term charitable giving.”
I would challenge your use of ‘charity’ here. Helping those who are desperately poor and trapped by a system (e.g. international trade) that is tilted towards the benefit of the rich at the expense of the poor is not charity, it is necessary for peace and global prosperity.
Nelson Mandela points to this in his much-quoted phrase — “Overcoming poverty is not a gesture of charity; it is an act of justice”.
Necessity is not optional. And while I am thinking about it, I now wonder why we think that charity is, or should be, optional - a nice-to-have luxury like a fridge that crushes ice - an optional extra. Why is helping others (charity) an optional extra in our moral universe?
So, I would ask you to re-think and re-frame your position - what if this is not about charity at all? How would your sentence read if you substituted ‘justice’ for ‘charity’?
And regarding mandate vs free choice, I believe that countries have chosen to sign up to the Millennium Development Goals and the associated goals for ODA (Offical Development Assistance) - I don’t believe that they were mandated to agree to these goals. The problem is not that countries have not signed up, the problem is that they are falling short on their promises.
I blog about this here… http://schoolstjude.blogspot.com/2007/02/does-wealth-make-us-more-generous.html
February 22nd, 2007 12:56
Gillian,
Charity is the action of love; not eros love, not philos love, but agape love. Justice is the action of law. I cannot in good conscience make the switch you are requesting. If charity is not optional, then it is not charity; it is a tax, fee, fine, whatever you want to call it. You are asking me to subjugate free will, and I will not do so.
You assume that there is equity between distribution and appropriate use. That is a faulty assumption. I desire not to give my dollars to warlords and leaders that would rather bite the hand that feeds. So, to work with Mandela’s point, why not prosecute the political leaders that allow their countries to become or remain poor? THAT would be justice.
There is no such thing as global prosperity. As long as groups have power, they will control who has prosperity. Wasn’t Zimbabwe once called ‘the breadbasket of the world’? Did their physical climate change so much that they cannot grow their own food? I would say their political climate changed.
Now, if a nation, with the citizen’s majority approval, register for MDG and ODA, no problem; I’m all for their ability to do that. Then, yes, the jurisdictions should be policed for compliance. Understand, however, that churches run into the same problem, so I’m not surprised by the current problem with countries sticking to their commitments.
BTW…I agree with your post. If you’ll permit me to get Christian on you, generosity (i.e. charity) is not based on finance, but on care for your neighbor. Before you declare me to be hypocritical, understand that my charity first goes to my household and my family; then, where time / resources permit, it goes to my community (i.e. my neighborhood, church, etc.); then, after I have satisfied my vocations of husband, father, and national civilian, then I expend whatever resources I have remaining that I desire to use on the global front. If I remember correctly, this is also a Buddhist principal.
It frustrates me when secular and religious organizations alike think that charity can be mandated.
February 22nd, 2007 12:57
Gillian,
You didn’t comment to my reply about the policing ability of the U.N. Does that mean you agree?
February 22nd, 2007 15:36
Hi Rick,
First of all, let me say that Brave Humans is a welcome breath of fresh air in the blogsphere. Not that I’ve got an extensive exposure to the blogsphere, after only a couple of months exploration. It’s refreshing to find a place where mutual exchange is genuine and wide enough to let us ramble.
You bring a lot of material in your latest post, so I’ll see where I go.
Re UN policing. I thought a bit about that and decided that I don’t know enough about UN policing to have formed an over-arching view for or against. There have been so many times when it has fallen short. In principle, however, I do see that the world needs a neutral peacekeeping capacity that has widespread support from many nations.
Regarding charity and justice, love and law, I see what you are saying. And it is true that we can demand justice from others, but can’t demand love. Still, for myself, I find an opening to a more compassionate life when I make the demand for myself to dig deeper into the practice of unconditional love — manifested in action, not just in theory.
Yes, I wouldn’t ask you to subjugate free will. I need you (we need each other) to make the active, intentional choice to love.
“why not prosecute the political leaders that allow their countries to become or remain poor?” — Yes, I think this idea could lead us somewhere! We do it on an individual level - parents that mistreat or neglect their children come within the justice system. I would want to distinguish between viciousness (bad dictators like N Korea and Zimbabwe) and incompetence or low-capacity (too many to mention!). Current international aid programs are strongly framed in capacity-building models that help develop capability. And there are a LOT of evidence-based programs that are known to be effective, so perhaps ODA is becoming more efficient overall. That gives hope.
I get stuck on the dilemma of what to do about vicious leaders that are destroying their countries and dragging the people into misery. Do people deserve their leaders? Should they be left to suffer, till the old man dies and something changes? There’s the sovereign right of nations to consider. And a lot else beside.
And here’s an idea that is challenging — we assume that dictators are the bad guys who have stepped in and created a repressive regime for their own ends. But nothing exists in a vacuum. I suspect that Tito and Sadam Hussein became as extreme as they did partly because they were leading very divided communities. Their strong hand kept the lid on things. As soon as the hand was released, civil war and chaos resulted.
The leader is partly created by the circumstances. So, were they quite as black as we generally picture them?
I’m happy for you to get Christian on me! Though there are so many colours of Christianity, that it could mean almost anything!
You sound very organised and rational! I wonder?
February 22nd, 2007 20:02
Gillian,
I’ve enjoyed e-conversing with you, too. Family and friends say I am good at rambling.
I don’t have much to say on most of your points; for me, you wrapped up most of the topics very nicely. On your point regarding vicious leaders vs. incompetent leaders, I agree that the difference is important.
I’m sure all evil men and politicians believe they are doing the right thing. I’m not so sure ‘evil for evil’ is generally a good idea though.