We've got two parties: one that gets Nobel Prices and one that gets things done.
In a time when Europe unites, North America signs a trade treaty, it is natural to expect that the Arab speaking countries, will follow a similar path.
Moreover, an idea of the pan-arabian unity is much older than an idea of the united Europe is. From the above follows that some Middle-Eastern leaders may had seen themselves as a key figure in a process of implementing such a unity. Saddam Hussein, certainly, saw himself as a suitable candidate for such a leadership. Would the leader of the Baath party be successful? I do not know. But, evidently, both recent Republican presidents of USA were convinced that it may happen. Both believed that Saddam Hussein, was a bad candidate, mainly because of his anti-Semitic declarations, and both decided to spend billions of dollars on launching a war against him.
An alternative path, for the Westerners, was to broaden and to deepen friendly relations across industry networks and interest groups, with homologues in Arab World. It is a symptom of new times, that the states give away their powers. Under circumstances, one should ponder carefully if it make sens to revitalize divisions based on nonindustrial binds, such as nationality, ethnia or religion. Most twenty-first-century men see themselves a professional, a craftsmen, a businessmen, an intellectual rather than member of ethnic group. Calling one by the last category is, by most modern standards, an insult. Nations, in a first place, in most of the cases, were the people hurdled together by the strong guy of the area. Nations, in more than a few cases were the people forced to accept one language, one religion and a particular tax-collecting authority. All of the above done under a pressure of a death penalty. What is so great about being a part of the nation?
Well, a nation started as an extention of a tribe, is deeply rooted in our genes and in a history.
For thousands of years a main language talken between neighbouring cities was a genocide. I want to believe that the world is changing. I want to believe that birth of America was synonymous with rejecting the world based on no-chance, on blood lines, on slavery. The fathers of this nation promised the future based on equal rights of all individuals, equal chances and justice. This great idea spread across the planet.
After the attacks of 9/11 a sympathy of the entire World was on American side. After a prompt military victory in Afganistan the World could not avoid comparing it to fruitless Russian struggle going on for years, in the same country. Americans were BIG WINNERS.
Under Bush, an average American moved to a bigger house, drives newer car, spends more on
entertainment and on weight-loss programs than ever before.
We should be happy and admire Mr. Bush. Impossible! May be a history will swallow it easier, but today one can not agree with the fact that people are being killed by thousands. The solfier who is shooting rockets to humans at short range, or who is bombing whole blocks of houses just because some single terrorist might have been there, builds nothing else but hatred and moral justification for action of the same ethical value.
I want to keep admiring USA because they helped to dismantle Soviet empire. The World became too small and too transparent for us to tolerate the tyranny, just like a village became too small and too transparent for a husband to batter his wife and children.
Mr. Bush is right, the World needs to redefine the rules because it functions differently than a hundred years ago. One of cornerstones of international laws is respect for the sovereignty. The World needs to have a second look on how the roles of the states and the roles of interstate institutions should be shaped for future generations.
Not everything can, nor should, be solved by a parliamentary process! We all accept, that calling the Police takes place, not as a result of voting, but, simply, as a result of a decision of a neighbour or a passer-by to request urgent help!
If the UN does not tackle the most important issues of a day, it may be so, because UN is
empowered to address problems from after WW2 rather than these of tomorrow.
It may be that Arab World united under Saddam Hussein was Mr. Bush's nightmare. Democracy may require babysitting! A self-appointed babysitter is, most likely, taken for child molester. A self appointed policemen, most likely, will end up in jail.
So far, Mr. Bush got punished for his taking the law in his own hands. Why did he put himself in such a misery? To start with, Mr. Bush got pressure coming from the laws of the very democracy he promotes: he was in a time squeeze. One of restrains the democracy puts on its leaders, is limited time one can stay in the office. Mr. Bush could not prepare long term remedies to his Middle-East worries. He needed, instant cure,he needed to do what his father told him, get rid of Saddam.
Now what? Both Palestinians and Iraqis voted for "wrong party". That brings us back to the
fundamental questions of democracy: is popular the best? is the best for the most what is the
best for a subset? Can democracy come from outside?
I am sure, Mr. Bush's drive was to earn himself a distinct and noble place in the history. I am sure a dignity, he offers to each individual, he wants to allow to himself, as well. He is a good guy in his own mind.
"Divide and impera" is hardly a new idea. It is not perceived as a symptom of good will neither.
Given, however, that globalization and global policing are rather unavoidable facts than theory, the World needs to start working seriously on structures and mechanisms that would let us avoid committing errors such as bombing of a nation in order to change their leader.
A word "gerrymander", comes from an ever enriching vocabulary of democracy. In fact, is a softer word for a gentler version of "divide and impera". May be we should start there? A separatism should be as legal as a right to form an association or as a right to get divorced. Once a set of priviledges going together with sovereignty is trimmed and clearly defined, separatism becomes less
polarizing as an issue. Right now, no way! Due to the rules in place, the separatists are the
enemies of the nation.
Please, do not jump to fast conclusion that I suggest to Mr. Bush to gerrymander Iraq.
It is rather "reversed gerrymander" with quenched authority that I see as a solition.
What I say is that we should start working on mechanisms that would help us to avoid escaping to or being a target of a suecide mission or bombing of the church. I believe that redefining sovereignty, that letting the African nations in particular, but all nations in principle, to redefine their
borders, are essential changes that must take place.
Generous, if not unlimited, proviledges to sovereigns are direct reasons for escaping to bloody wars.
What I'm suggesting here is that Mr. Bush can still earn his place beside Jefferson and Reagan, if he uses his remaining years in office to repent himself, to recognize and analyze his errors and start working on building or rebuilding of the international forums and institutions that should and will govern the future World.
Well, we have two parties: one that gets Nobel Prices and one that gets things done.
I don't know which qualifies better for this job. I am sure, it is worth to be credited for setting a foundation for these important changes.
