It is often quoted that "Nations don't have permanent friends or enemies, only interests". We saw an example of that in the past weeks. Egypt's Hosni Mubarak was an ally of United States for a long time and helped maintain peace in the middle east by focusing Egyptians away from Palestine and Israel. But when Egyptians rose to demand freedom and democracy, US supported the people's struggle much to the dismay of Mubarak and other similar rulers in the adjacent countries who are allies of US.
Often times a nation finds itself having interests and thus dependency on other nations whose values don't match up with it. U.K and U.S. sided with Soviet Union, a dictatorship under Stalin to defeat the common enemy Germany in the second world war. U.S values are democratic. Unalienable rights of individuals and freedom, protection of life and liberty, and equal opportunity for the pursuit of happiness are the cornerstones of US belief system. Yet, we live in a world where much of those values are only dreams to citizens of many nations. Is it possible for a nation to isolate itself and/or work with only countries that share its values?
For a long time, almost the entire 19th century, US lived in isolation that ended after the attack on the Pearl Harbor during second world war. Technology innovations followed, and the globalization of the world became inevitable. Needs are every where. Nations that produce or can produce valuable goods surplus to their needs, should be able to trade and share the goods with where ever the needs are present. Resources should similarly be traded and used to build goods that benefit everyone. And there starts the dilemma!
Middle East has oil, a precious natural resource that is needed to run today's world be it US, Europe or the emerging economies. Whereas values of the nations that host the oil resource are far from democratic. What do you do? When your core values and your national interests conflict, does a nation isolate itself and not serve the national interest?! Consciously with the awareness to benefit the citizens of one nation, the fate of the citizens of other nation are seen as a jurisdiction of the rulers of the other nation. You protect and serve your national interest, I will take care of mine, went the logic. Much like how families work at a smaller level. But from time to time when heinous crimes, abuse or genocide is witnessed, nations of the world cannot standby and leave that as a domestic issue. UN was established for the very purpose to protect the citizens of the world from their governments and facilitate the world forum to intervene as necessary. It is a different story that UN stood watching over what happened in Rwanda, Darfur and Srilanka in the recent history. But I digress.
Coming back to the topic of interests and values, the recent events in Egypt show that the technology is enabling people of the world understand and demand their rights from their rulers and governments. To what extend will it be successful and how quickly across different nations is yet to be seen.
After pressure from the King(s) of the Middle Eastern countries and also to protect its national interest, US has softened its tone now with a statement that "US will help maintain stability in the region". That is, it will not express its enthusiastic support to the people of Bahrain, Libya, Algiers, etc wherein there is copy-cat gatherings and protests following successful toppling of Mubarak in Egypt. Of course, US will issue strong statements to condemn any violence against innocent people and ask the rulers to exercise restrain. National interests once again triumphs over the core values!
This is much in line with how the choice was handled historically in America. Some of the founding fathers of US, including Jefferson and Washington, while they wrote in their Declaration of Independence that "all men are created equal", were slave owners! It took a civil war in Lincoln presidency to abolish slavery. It took another century until Martin Luther King Jr came around to abolish segregation.It is neither easy nor fast to change the hearts and minds of people.
Hopefully in future, the choice between values and interests will vanish and a nation need not have to choose one over the other. Freedom and justice to all citizens of the world, free and fair elections in all countries, trade partnership among nations for the mutual benefit of the citizens of both nations rather than just the rulers of one nation, may sound like an idealistic state of the world. But one that is not impossible; most likely probable in this century.
Often times a nation finds itself having interests and thus dependency on other nations whose values don't match up with it. U.K and U.S. sided with Soviet Union, a dictatorship under Stalin to defeat the common enemy Germany in the second world war. U.S values are democratic. Unalienable rights of individuals and freedom, protection of life and liberty, and equal opportunity for the pursuit of happiness are the cornerstones of US belief system. Yet, we live in a world where much of those values are only dreams to citizens of many nations. Is it possible for a nation to isolate itself and/or work with only countries that share its values?
For a long time, almost the entire 19th century, US lived in isolation that ended after the attack on the Pearl Harbor during second world war. Technology innovations followed, and the globalization of the world became inevitable. Needs are every where. Nations that produce or can produce valuable goods surplus to their needs, should be able to trade and share the goods with where ever the needs are present. Resources should similarly be traded and used to build goods that benefit everyone. And there starts the dilemma!
Middle East has oil, a precious natural resource that is needed to run today's world be it US, Europe or the emerging economies. Whereas values of the nations that host the oil resource are far from democratic. What do you do? When your core values and your national interests conflict, does a nation isolate itself and not serve the national interest?! Consciously with the awareness to benefit the citizens of one nation, the fate of the citizens of other nation are seen as a jurisdiction of the rulers of the other nation. You protect and serve your national interest, I will take care of mine, went the logic. Much like how families work at a smaller level. But from time to time when heinous crimes, abuse or genocide is witnessed, nations of the world cannot standby and leave that as a domestic issue. UN was established for the very purpose to protect the citizens of the world from their governments and facilitate the world forum to intervene as necessary. It is a different story that UN stood watching over what happened in Rwanda, Darfur and Srilanka in the recent history. But I digress.
Coming back to the topic of interests and values, the recent events in Egypt show that the technology is enabling people of the world understand and demand their rights from their rulers and governments. To what extend will it be successful and how quickly across different nations is yet to be seen.
After pressure from the King(s) of the Middle Eastern countries and also to protect its national interest, US has softened its tone now with a statement that "US will help maintain stability in the region". That is, it will not express its enthusiastic support to the people of Bahrain, Libya, Algiers, etc wherein there is copy-cat gatherings and protests following successful toppling of Mubarak in Egypt. Of course, US will issue strong statements to condemn any violence against innocent people and ask the rulers to exercise restrain. National interests once again triumphs over the core values!
This is much in line with how the choice was handled historically in America. Some of the founding fathers of US, including Jefferson and Washington, while they wrote in their Declaration of Independence that "all men are created equal", were slave owners! It took a civil war in Lincoln presidency to abolish slavery. It took another century until Martin Luther King Jr came around to abolish segregation.It is neither easy nor fast to change the hearts and minds of people.
Hopefully in future, the choice between values and interests will vanish and a nation need not have to choose one over the other. Freedom and justice to all citizens of the world, free and fair elections in all countries, trade partnership among nations for the mutual benefit of the citizens of both nations rather than just the rulers of one nation, may sound like an idealistic state of the world. But one that is not impossible; most likely probable in this century.
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment