As al-Qaeda threatens global reprisals for the death of its leader, Osama bin Laden, the Philippine government, itself battling an al-Qaeda-affiliated terrorist organization south of its border, is warning the nation to be on alert for potential terror attacks. And as Filipino Muslims sympathetic to bin Laden started staging protest rallies in Manila, presidential spokesman Edwin Lacierda, has issued an appeal worth emulating everywhere:
“It’s a war against terrorism and a warrior of terrorism is no respecter of persons. Bin Laden should pay for his misdeeds,” presidential spokesman Edwin Lacierda told reporters in a briefing. “I appeal to our Muslim brothers and sisters to look at the consequences of bin Laden’s actions and not at his being a Muslim,” he said. “This terrorism affects our country as well and the entire globe. . . They should not base their judgment on his being a Muslim. Bin Laden had inflicted terrible suffering on the world.”
Hear! Hear!
Friday, May 6, 2011
Thursday, May 5, 2011
What To Do With Pakistan?
America’s quandary over the role of Pakistani military in providing safe haven for Osama bin Laden revolves around these two ideas: whether Pakistani officials are guilty of complicity in tolerating or helping bin Laden or “were so inept that he lived for years right under their noses.” Embarrassed Pakistani authorities, according to this piece, say it is the latter but that some members of the US Congress are not buying it, putting in jeopardy the $1.3 billion military aid that the US government provides to Pakistan’s anti-terror efforts. Indeed, who are they kidding?
Common sense would have anyone believe that certain Pakistani officials were hiding these terrorists precisely because they’re their bread-and-butter. Why turn them in when they attract US cash? I could just imagine these Pakistani officials pointing those drone strikes away from Abbottabad, chuckling in the process while extending a secret handshake with their resident terrorists, and making America the laughingstock of the Waziristan region.
So why America is agonizing over what to do with Pakistan? If Pakistan is engaged in double-dealing, why continue to deal with it? That seems harsh, and a blanket condemnation of the entire Pakistani government may be adding fuel to the fire. But we have to show anger and demand accountability, at least. How much leverage does Pakistan have over our security interests in the region, anyway? In this crucial war against bin Laden, it was practically a non-player. While its nuclear arsenal is cause for concern, India can deter it by way of a détente agreement, to be underwritten by the international security forces’ air strike capabilities. And why would Pakistan resort to it if it understands that unleashing one’s nuclear capability is tantamount to a national suicide?
So the question to ask of Pakistan is simple: are they with us, or are they against us?
Common sense would have anyone believe that certain Pakistani officials were hiding these terrorists precisely because they’re their bread-and-butter. Why turn them in when they attract US cash? I could just imagine these Pakistani officials pointing those drone strikes away from Abbottabad, chuckling in the process while extending a secret handshake with their resident terrorists, and making America the laughingstock of the Waziristan region.
So why America is agonizing over what to do with Pakistan? If Pakistan is engaged in double-dealing, why continue to deal with it? That seems harsh, and a blanket condemnation of the entire Pakistani government may be adding fuel to the fire. But we have to show anger and demand accountability, at least. How much leverage does Pakistan have over our security interests in the region, anyway? In this crucial war against bin Laden, it was practically a non-player. While its nuclear arsenal is cause for concern, India can deter it by way of a détente agreement, to be underwritten by the international security forces’ air strike capabilities. And why would Pakistan resort to it if it understands that unleashing one’s nuclear capability is tantamount to a national suicide?
So the question to ask of Pakistan is simple: are they with us, or are they against us?
Sunday, May 1, 2011
Contradictions in Islamic Banking
What makes Islamic banking unique to its Muslim customers and endemic to the Muslim world, according to its proponents and defenders, is its alternative form of financing that is “more ethical and more equitable” because it is informed by the teachings of the Koran and the Sunna. It offers interest-free transactions on loans and home mortgages as it channels penalties on late payments to religious charities in the form of donations. In this Washington Post article, a Meezan bank officer, Irfan Zulqemain, an MBA degree-holder and who has “a vision of Islam as a socially transformative force,” views interest as a curse: “We don’t treat money as a commodity, which just makes a few people richer and everyone else poorer. Our way generates economic activity and spreads money throughout society.” With religion as its selling point, Islamic banking is rapidly spreading in countries like Pakistan where to be financially successful should also mean to be religiously correct.
According to Prof. Timur Kuran, professor of economics and political science at Duke University, Islamic banking is part of an intellectual tradition called “Islamic economics” that seeks to give the economy an Islamic character. It promotes among other things a form of banking that offers an interest-free alternative to traditional savings accounts and a wealth-redistribution process called zakat -- Islam’s tax on wealth and income -- that would help solve inequality and poverty in society.
In his scholarly and voluminous work on Islamic banking and economic development in the Middle East, Kuran argues, however, that Islamic banking has not made significant achievements because its emphasis on economic morality runs contrary to human nature. He also argues that wealth-redistribution based on zakat has not reduced inequality and that in fact the direction of the distribution of wealth is going away from the poor. He is also worried that charitable-giving only leads to the strengthening of Islamic fundamentalism.
Revisiting Prof. Kuran’s work will help shed light on the Muslim world’s perceptions of Islamic banking. His article on“The Economic Impact of Islamic Fundamentalism (in Martin E. Martyand R. Scott Appleby, eds. Fundamentalisms and the State: Remaking Polities, Economies, and Militance (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 302-341) is especially enlightening as he traces the intellectual and historical traditions of Islamic economic thinking.
Such knowledge is what Naeem Bumey, a Meezan Bank client, needs. During an interview for this Washington Post article, Naeem says, “Most of us don’t have detailed knowledge of what is Islamic or un-Islamic. . .There may be a gray area in how a bank determines its profit, but if the scholars have declared this to be Islamic, then at least you don’t have any doubt.”
According to Prof. Timur Kuran, professor of economics and political science at Duke University, Islamic banking is part of an intellectual tradition called “Islamic economics” that seeks to give the economy an Islamic character. It promotes among other things a form of banking that offers an interest-free alternative to traditional savings accounts and a wealth-redistribution process called zakat -- Islam’s tax on wealth and income -- that would help solve inequality and poverty in society.
In his scholarly and voluminous work on Islamic banking and economic development in the Middle East, Kuran argues, however, that Islamic banking has not made significant achievements because its emphasis on economic morality runs contrary to human nature. He also argues that wealth-redistribution based on zakat has not reduced inequality and that in fact the direction of the distribution of wealth is going away from the poor. He is also worried that charitable-giving only leads to the strengthening of Islamic fundamentalism.
Revisiting Prof. Kuran’s work will help shed light on the Muslim world’s perceptions of Islamic banking. His article on“The Economic Impact of Islamic Fundamentalism (in Martin E. Martyand R. Scott Appleby, eds. Fundamentalisms and the State: Remaking Polities, Economies, and Militance (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 302-341) is especially enlightening as he traces the intellectual and historical traditions of Islamic economic thinking.
Such knowledge is what Naeem Bumey, a Meezan Bank client, needs. During an interview for this Washington Post article, Naeem says, “Most of us don’t have detailed knowledge of what is Islamic or un-Islamic. . .There may be a gray area in how a bank determines its profit, but if the scholars have declared this to be Islamic, then at least you don’t have any doubt.”
Wednesday, April 13, 2011
Natural Rights and America’s Foreign Ventures
To those who are still looking for a philosophical/moral justification behind America’s current foreign ventures, here is a seminal article that lays out the argument for why our engagements actually promote the freedoms and rights of peoples everywhere. To those who view Americans as occupiers and invaders, this piece argues in fact for equality of human beings everywhere.
What’s interesting about this piece, “The American Philosophy of Government and Its Application to the Annexed Countries,” was that it was written in 1913, by Alpheus Henry Snow, about America’s democratic experiment in the Philippines. It’s a testament to the enduring principles of the American Founding and the Declaration of Independence, which the McKinley-Taft rule tried to embody in their colonial administration of the Philippines, circa 1901-1911. It is both at once enlightening and persuasive.
So much discourse has taken place about how to justify America’s expansionist policy abroad, or how to balance, if not unify, America’s national interests and values against security and stability. Some are stuck in their idealism v. realism framework, faithful students of International Relations that they are. What we need first and foremost is a serious grounding in our first principles, if it’s not too late in the game. This will give us clarity and conviction that should guide our actions abroad.
What’s interesting about this piece, “The American Philosophy of Government and Its Application to the Annexed Countries,” was that it was written in 1913, by Alpheus Henry Snow, about America’s democratic experiment in the Philippines. It’s a testament to the enduring principles of the American Founding and the Declaration of Independence, which the McKinley-Taft rule tried to embody in their colonial administration of the Philippines, circa 1901-1911. It is both at once enlightening and persuasive.
So much discourse has taken place about how to justify America’s expansionist policy abroad, or how to balance, if not unify, America’s national interests and values against security and stability. Some are stuck in their idealism v. realism framework, faithful students of International Relations that they are. What we need first and foremost is a serious grounding in our first principles, if it’s not too late in the game. This will give us clarity and conviction that should guide our actions abroad.
Sunday, April 3, 2011
Pleading for Reason to Prevail in Florida and Afghanistan
The short-sightedness, stupidity, and malicious intent of the Florida pastor over his act of burning the Koran and the violent reactions of Afghan protesters that led to the death of innocent UN workers showcase extremism in its most unreasonable and evil form. Driven by angry passions and blind prejudices, both sides defied reason and justice. What’s especially troubling about these acts is it smacks of self-righteousness, of a certain kind of moral indignation that proclaims among its followers a moral superiority over those who don’t embrace their religious beliefs. What kind of religion preaches man’s inhumanity to man, I wonder?
Still and all, this is a teachable moment. May a world leader of wisdom and good character come forward and teach us with moral convictions and philosophical clarity why the Florida pastor and the Afghan protesters are both wrong. That leader should seize this opportune moment to affirm and uphold moral standards and principles that are universally held, applicable to all and at all times. Perhaps it will inspire the rest of us, who are trying to make sense of this our short earthly journey, to be kind to one another.
Still and all, this is a teachable moment. May a world leader of wisdom and good character come forward and teach us with moral convictions and philosophical clarity why the Florida pastor and the Afghan protesters are both wrong. That leader should seize this opportune moment to affirm and uphold moral standards and principles that are universally held, applicable to all and at all times. Perhaps it will inspire the rest of us, who are trying to make sense of this our short earthly journey, to be kind to one another.
Tuesday, March 29, 2011
What a Middle East Transition May Entail
Elliott Abrams, in this National Review article, highlights a strategy for transitioning Middle East societies marching towards democracy to limit the powers of monarchs (especially those friendly to US interests) and autocrats in the region through legal and constitutional means.
To St. Thomas Aquinas, a monarchy is the best regime. For the rule of an enlightened monarch ruling in the interest of all, guided by wisdom and compassion, without meeting any opposition from the less enlightened ones, is perfect. But it’s rare to find such a being. Plato says that the best regime happens by chance, when politics and philosophy meet, best embodied in a powerful yet wise and compassionate monarch.
Modernity, having indeed given way to institutions and technological inventions that are mass-based (hence, egalitarian, hence, great equalizers), cannot afford to be ruled by a monarch. The individual has become the source of sovereign power, but whose power he equally shares with his fellowmen through a representative government that he and the others empower to represent his and their interests. But that individual together with the rest must be wise, enlightened, and just. And insofar as he and they are ruled sometimes by unruly passion and prejudices, a representative government provides the mechanisms with which to check such excesses. This is the meaning of genuine republicanism.
But in the absence of the above conditions, of a people who is habituated in the ways of self-rule, the next best thing for countries ruled by monarchs and autocrats is constitutional monarchy.
To St. Thomas Aquinas, a monarchy is the best regime. For the rule of an enlightened monarch ruling in the interest of all, guided by wisdom and compassion, without meeting any opposition from the less enlightened ones, is perfect. But it’s rare to find such a being. Plato says that the best regime happens by chance, when politics and philosophy meet, best embodied in a powerful yet wise and compassionate monarch.
Modernity, having indeed given way to institutions and technological inventions that are mass-based (hence, egalitarian, hence, great equalizers), cannot afford to be ruled by a monarch. The individual has become the source of sovereign power, but whose power he equally shares with his fellowmen through a representative government that he and the others empower to represent his and their interests. But that individual together with the rest must be wise, enlightened, and just. And insofar as he and they are ruled sometimes by unruly passion and prejudices, a representative government provides the mechanisms with which to check such excesses. This is the meaning of genuine republicanism.
But in the absence of the above conditions, of a people who is habituated in the ways of self-rule, the next best thing for countries ruled by monarchs and autocrats is constitutional monarchy.
Finding a Strategy for Libya
In today's WP op-ed piece, David Ignatius' search for clarity in President Obama's Libya policy leads him to wonder if indeed a formula has been found, which is that ". . . The United States should use military force unilaterally only when it involves core U.S. national interests; in other cases, such as Libya, the United States should act militarily only with the support of its allies."
He adds, "Obama appears to be evolving a hybrid strategy, blending 'realist' and 'humanitarian interventionist' themes. Several weeks ago the administration seemed almost to be allying with Shiite protesters in Bahrain against the minority Sunni monarchy. But Obama has recognized that America has an abiding interest in the stability of neighboring Saudi Arabia, which sees Bahrain as its 51st state and won’t tolerate the overthrow of its ruling family."
He concludes, "Obama’s speech Monday was a lesson in how presidencies are a matter of trial and error."
Putting aside terms and labels that one learns in an International Relations class, determining a strategy for the Middle East phenomenon should be shaped and formed by the nature of the phenomenon. In other words, the nature of a conflict should determine strategy, and not the other way around. To come up with a formula before the facts is to engage in theorizing, a mental exercise in abstraction.
I like to think that the strategy that is evolving, even though slow, is being shaped by a reasonable understanding of ME realities as they unfold.
He adds, "Obama appears to be evolving a hybrid strategy, blending 'realist' and 'humanitarian interventionist' themes. Several weeks ago the administration seemed almost to be allying with Shiite protesters in Bahrain against the minority Sunni monarchy. But Obama has recognized that America has an abiding interest in the stability of neighboring Saudi Arabia, which sees Bahrain as its 51st state and won’t tolerate the overthrow of its ruling family."
He concludes, "Obama’s speech Monday was a lesson in how presidencies are a matter of trial and error."
Putting aside terms and labels that one learns in an International Relations class, determining a strategy for the Middle East phenomenon should be shaped and formed by the nature of the phenomenon. In other words, the nature of a conflict should determine strategy, and not the other way around. To come up with a formula before the facts is to engage in theorizing, a mental exercise in abstraction.
I like to think that the strategy that is evolving, even though slow, is being shaped by a reasonable understanding of ME realities as they unfold.
Sunday, March 27, 2011
Stifling Creativity and Capitalism in Afghanistan
A promising program involving mineral wealth exploration and job-creation in Afghanistan, being underwritten by a Pentagon task force, is now an object of a bureaucratic turf war between USAID and State Department on one side and the Pentagon on the other. That’s just too bad. When a government agency would rather be territorial than support the good work of its neighbor, public service loses its meaning.
At issue is the US Congress’s cutting off of funding for this DOD task force -- composed largely of folks who have worked in the private sector and are now engaged in business development projects in Afghanistan -- and transfer their functions to USAID. Deputy Undersecretary of Defense, Paul Brinkley, director of the program, has quit in protest. Key members of his group have done the same.
USAID and State want more accountability from these projects and the people that run them. They complain about the group’s sense of independence and the secretiveness behind their work, just going about doing things their ways.
But such is the virtue of capitalism! It thrives when it is not restricted!
As Brinkley puts it, “We do capitalism. We’re about helping companies make money,” and ‘shifting his group’s work to USAID will smother an entrepreneurial organization in a risk-averse agency that is more oriented toward providing development assistance than brokering business deals.’ Indeed. Let the market flourish in Afghanistan. To the folks who make this happen, let’s leave them alone and let them do their work!
A good test of whether a US agency is contributing towards achieving results in places like Afghanistan is for it to ask itself this question: am I part of the problem or part of the solution?
At issue is the US Congress’s cutting off of funding for this DOD task force -- composed largely of folks who have worked in the private sector and are now engaged in business development projects in Afghanistan -- and transfer their functions to USAID. Deputy Undersecretary of Defense, Paul Brinkley, director of the program, has quit in protest. Key members of his group have done the same.
USAID and State want more accountability from these projects and the people that run them. They complain about the group’s sense of independence and the secretiveness behind their work, just going about doing things their ways.
But such is the virtue of capitalism! It thrives when it is not restricted!
As Brinkley puts it, “We do capitalism. We’re about helping companies make money,” and ‘shifting his group’s work to USAID will smother an entrepreneurial organization in a risk-averse agency that is more oriented toward providing development assistance than brokering business deals.’ Indeed. Let the market flourish in Afghanistan. To the folks who make this happen, let’s leave them alone and let them do their work!
A good test of whether a US agency is contributing towards achieving results in places like Afghanistan is for it to ask itself this question: am I part of the problem or part of the solution?
An Example of Muslim Moderation
This short letter to the Editors of the Washington Post ("Why a Muslim Teacher is Misguided," March 27, 2011) says it all:
As a practicing Muslim — and a manager with decades of experience in countries around the world — I am disturbed by teacher Safoorah Khan’s lawsuit over her school district’s denial of time off for a pilgrimage to Mecca [“Justice Dept. backs Muslim teacher,” front page, March 23].
While every Muslim who can afford it is obligated to make the pilgrimage in his or her lifetime, there is no requirement that it be done as soon as possible. I have never before heard that “it is a sin to delay”; that is clearly Ms. Khan’s belief. The overwhelming majority of pilgrims are in their 40s or 50s, or older. At age 60, Ms. Khan might be justified in wishing to avoid a delay; but at 29, why can’t she wait for the pilgrimage to fall during her summer school holidays?
Any manager (myself included) would expect a first-year employee such as Ms. Khan to consider the pupils (or co-workers) relying on her — an equally critical Islamic duty.
With our community facing blatant misunderstanding and discrimination every day, no Muslim should fight for special privileges that reflect personal choices rather than religious duty. Had she been denied the right to pray on Fridays or to take off on the holy days of Eid or to fast during Ramadan, she would be justified in filing a lawsuit.
But it is a stretch for anyone — especially the Justice Department — to support a personal desire that may reinforce negative perceptions at a time when we should be building bridges.
Robert J. Marro, Great Falls
The writer is a trustee of the All Dulles Area Muslim Society.
As a practicing Muslim — and a manager with decades of experience in countries around the world — I am disturbed by teacher Safoorah Khan’s lawsuit over her school district’s denial of time off for a pilgrimage to Mecca [“Justice Dept. backs Muslim teacher,” front page, March 23].
While every Muslim who can afford it is obligated to make the pilgrimage in his or her lifetime, there is no requirement that it be done as soon as possible. I have never before heard that “it is a sin to delay”; that is clearly Ms. Khan’s belief. The overwhelming majority of pilgrims are in their 40s or 50s, or older. At age 60, Ms. Khan might be justified in wishing to avoid a delay; but at 29, why can’t she wait for the pilgrimage to fall during her summer school holidays?
Any manager (myself included) would expect a first-year employee such as Ms. Khan to consider the pupils (or co-workers) relying on her — an equally critical Islamic duty.
With our community facing blatant misunderstanding and discrimination every day, no Muslim should fight for special privileges that reflect personal choices rather than religious duty. Had she been denied the right to pray on Fridays or to take off on the holy days of Eid or to fast during Ramadan, she would be justified in filing a lawsuit.
But it is a stretch for anyone — especially the Justice Department — to support a personal desire that may reinforce negative perceptions at a time when we should be building bridges.
Robert J. Marro, Great Falls
The writer is a trustee of the All Dulles Area Muslim Society.
Sunday, March 20, 2011
Egypt’s Transition
The WSJ ran an editorial today, criticizing Egyptian generals for hastening the process of democratic transition in the country. Today’s referendum was held to adopt constitutional amendments that would lay down the foundations of a functioning democracy, hoping to put the reins of power in the hands of civilians through free elections as early as this summer. But by rushing things up, the military is perhaps unconsciously handing power to the most organized group in the country: the Muslim Brotherhood, an extremist political group that has a stake in the upcoming parliamentary elections.
Some analysts say that this is a good thing, however. A restrictive democracy that excludes the Muslim Brotherhood is bound to fail. Marginalizing the group will lead to all kinds of complications, they say, including giving them ammunitions, intellectual and otherwise, to engage in terror-related activities.
But this thinking is premised on the assumption that Egypt’s liberal culture is strong and stable, and, therefore, is able to withstand conflicting interests among competing groups. But it isn’t so. Its liberal culture is still weak. It cannot afford to hand its democratic space to extremist elements that may sooner or later undermine its very existence.
I say this in light of the Philippine society’s experience with the Filipino communist movement, an underground movement that continues to exist despite decades of persecution by the Philippine government. What is the secret of its longevity? It created an aboveground faction from within itself that would assume an identity of a legitimate political organization, a regular player with a legitimate role on the country’s political stage. Calling themselves mainstream parliamentarians, this group of Filipino communists has been successful in pursuing its ideological agenda by fielding its members to positions of power in the Philippine government. From the kinds of policies they espouse, they’ve never had it so good! And so easy! For at their disposal is nothing less than legitimate political power.
Legitimizing extremist groups in the name of democracy has a way of legitimizing the existence of the enemies of democracy. Democracy is not a free-for-all enterprise. It has political and moral limits.
Some analysts say that this is a good thing, however. A restrictive democracy that excludes the Muslim Brotherhood is bound to fail. Marginalizing the group will lead to all kinds of complications, they say, including giving them ammunitions, intellectual and otherwise, to engage in terror-related activities.
But this thinking is premised on the assumption that Egypt’s liberal culture is strong and stable, and, therefore, is able to withstand conflicting interests among competing groups. But it isn’t so. Its liberal culture is still weak. It cannot afford to hand its democratic space to extremist elements that may sooner or later undermine its very existence.
I say this in light of the Philippine society’s experience with the Filipino communist movement, an underground movement that continues to exist despite decades of persecution by the Philippine government. What is the secret of its longevity? It created an aboveground faction from within itself that would assume an identity of a legitimate political organization, a regular player with a legitimate role on the country’s political stage. Calling themselves mainstream parliamentarians, this group of Filipino communists has been successful in pursuing its ideological agenda by fielding its members to positions of power in the Philippine government. From the kinds of policies they espouse, they’ve never had it so good! And so easy! For at their disposal is nothing less than legitimate political power.
Legitimizing extremist groups in the name of democracy has a way of legitimizing the existence of the enemies of democracy. Democracy is not a free-for-all enterprise. It has political and moral limits.
Frameworks for Middle East Strategies
This piece by former Prime Minister Tony Blair, laying down “a framework for shaping the democratic revolution” in the Middle East is worth reading and pondering about. So is this piece by Zalmay Khalilzad, describing the different challenges America confronts in the region and arguing for strategies on transitions, without which, he says, countries in the region risk increased instability.
I thought it interesting that both mentioned constitutional monarchy as a transitory solution to rapid and emerging democratic demands in these countries long ruled by monarchs and autocrats. It limits the powers of kings even as it prepares a people not yet habituated in the ways of self-rule to begin to understand and exercise the duties and obligations of a free people.
I thought it interesting that both mentioned constitutional monarchy as a transitory solution to rapid and emerging democratic demands in these countries long ruled by monarchs and autocrats. It limits the powers of kings even as it prepares a people not yet habituated in the ways of self-rule to begin to understand and exercise the duties and obligations of a free people.
Sunday, March 6, 2011
Anti-blasphemy Law in Pakistan
Mr. Shahbaz Bhatti, Pakistan's Minister for Minorities Affairs (and the only Christian minister in the Pakistani Cabinet), was assassinated last week for his condemnation of the country’s anti-blasphemy law, which sanctions death for those who speak against Islam. This tragic event took place in the aftermath of another assassination of a public official, Salman Taseer, former governor of Punjab, who wanted that law repealed.
In a Letter to the Editor of the WP, Sameena Ahmed, responding to Mr. Bhatti’s assassination, wrote
The killing of PakistanMinoritiesMinister Shahbaz Bhatti by extremists [news story, March 3] is a loss for those of all faiths and countries, not just for Pakistan’s Christians and those trying to change Pakistan’s controversial blasphemy laws. Frequently, fear is used by those who wish to silence others, because they cannot win others over with reason, facts or logic.
Muslims everywhere, as well as all believers in peace and tolerance, must speak up against this crime and others like it — even if a perpetrator belongs to one’s “own group.” We must support and defend acts of peace and tolerance for all; otherwise one day it’s possible that your own group or cause will be violently targeted, too— an all-too-often-forgotten principle. -- Sameena Ahmed, Potomac Falls
While her call for Muslims everywhere to speak up against this crime is commendable, her argument for religious liberty as a group right is only half right. Religious liberty is an individual right, exercised intimately by a person based on the dictates of his or her conscience. It is a right that he can freely exercise even outside of and despite his ethnic affiliations. It is a right that is guaranteed by the principle of separation of church and state. As I have cited Prof. Harry Jaffa’s argument many times before, “By removing theological differences from the political arena, people could worship freely according to the dictates of their consciences, thereby promoting confidence and even friendship among citizens” (Harry Jaffa, “The American Founding as the Best Regime.”
There is a moral issue at stake here, too, that is perhaps deeper than the political argument above. While the Becket Fund (a nonprofit organization in DC that protects religious liberty of all faiths) argues that “blasphemy laws empower states against their citizens, protect ideas rather than individuals, and engender violence by condemning peaceful speech,” what the assassinations in Pakistan represent is a certain kind of moral indignation, of self-righteousness that moves its religious followers to kill or murder those who don’t share their beliefs, convinced that their action as morally justified. Jealous guardians of the tenets of their faith that they are, they believe that their faith is superior over those of the infidels. To them, murdering a nonbeliever is morally equivalent to defending the faith.
But what kind of god would approve such moral equivalence?
In a Letter to the Editor of the WP, Sameena Ahmed, responding to Mr. Bhatti’s assassination, wrote
The killing of PakistanMinoritiesMinister Shahbaz Bhatti by extremists [news story, March 3] is a loss for those of all faiths and countries, not just for Pakistan’s Christians and those trying to change Pakistan’s controversial blasphemy laws. Frequently, fear is used by those who wish to silence others, because they cannot win others over with reason, facts or logic.
Muslims everywhere, as well as all believers in peace and tolerance, must speak up against this crime and others like it — even if a perpetrator belongs to one’s “own group.” We must support and defend acts of peace and tolerance for all; otherwise one day it’s possible that your own group or cause will be violently targeted, too— an all-too-often-forgotten principle. -- Sameena Ahmed, Potomac Falls
While her call for Muslims everywhere to speak up against this crime is commendable, her argument for religious liberty as a group right is only half right. Religious liberty is an individual right, exercised intimately by a person based on the dictates of his or her conscience. It is a right that he can freely exercise even outside of and despite his ethnic affiliations. It is a right that is guaranteed by the principle of separation of church and state. As I have cited Prof. Harry Jaffa’s argument many times before, “By removing theological differences from the political arena, people could worship freely according to the dictates of their consciences, thereby promoting confidence and even friendship among citizens” (Harry Jaffa, “The American Founding as the Best Regime.”
There is a moral issue at stake here, too, that is perhaps deeper than the political argument above. While the Becket Fund (a nonprofit organization in DC that protects religious liberty of all faiths) argues that “blasphemy laws empower states against their citizens, protect ideas rather than individuals, and engender violence by condemning peaceful speech,” what the assassinations in Pakistan represent is a certain kind of moral indignation, of self-righteousness that moves its religious followers to kill or murder those who don’t share their beliefs, convinced that their action as morally justified. Jealous guardians of the tenets of their faith that they are, they believe that their faith is superior over those of the infidels. To them, murdering a nonbeliever is morally equivalent to defending the faith.
But what kind of god would approve such moral equivalence?
Mexico’s Calderon Says U.S. Policy Is Incoherent
Fred Hiatt’s Washington Post piece, “Promises to Keep,” and a follow-up editorial piece, “Mexico’s Bad Neighbor” (subtitled, As President Calderon points out, that would be the United States), published by the same paper the following day, describe President Felipe Calderon’s frustrations over inconsistencies in the US policy towards Mexico as both countries try to combat the scourge of a drug war that is alarmingly reaching a critical stage. Calderon enumerates the following inconsistencies: whether or not the US is going to legalize marijuana as Mexican drug production is driven by US demand; whether or not the US will do something to stop the flow of arms and ammunitions that bolster the cartels’ security forces; whether the package of assistance promised during the time of the Bush Administration will be fully disbursed.
I wonder what would come out of this visit. Will President Obama work on Calderon’s demands by immediately mobilizing divisions in various agencies of the government that deal with Mexico to work on these issues? It seems that the only government agency that is taking Mexico seriously is the DEA. Will the US military contemplate establishing some presence there, if security conditions warrant it? Will Obama mobilize the private sector to come up with alternatives that they can use to lure the drug cartels away from illegal drugs to products and services that could be equally profitable? Or will things revert back to the status quo?
I attended a short talk last week about the growing presence of the Chinese in Latin America. Whatever their intentions are, the Chinese and their Latin American overreach should serve as a good reminder to the US government that we do need to practice the virtue of neighborliness, especially with our neighbors down south. But Mexico, in particular, should be on the radar screen of our policy-makers. It is quite strategically important to the peace and stability of the United States. For our sake, Mexico cannot become a failed state.
I wonder what would come out of this visit. Will President Obama work on Calderon’s demands by immediately mobilizing divisions in various agencies of the government that deal with Mexico to work on these issues? It seems that the only government agency that is taking Mexico seriously is the DEA. Will the US military contemplate establishing some presence there, if security conditions warrant it? Will Obama mobilize the private sector to come up with alternatives that they can use to lure the drug cartels away from illegal drugs to products and services that could be equally profitable? Or will things revert back to the status quo?
I attended a short talk last week about the growing presence of the Chinese in Latin America. Whatever their intentions are, the Chinese and their Latin American overreach should serve as a good reminder to the US government that we do need to practice the virtue of neighborliness, especially with our neighbors down south. But Mexico, in particular, should be on the radar screen of our policy-makers. It is quite strategically important to the peace and stability of the United States. For our sake, Mexico cannot become a failed state.
The World’s Poor, the Good Life, and the Market
Socrates was not exactly referring to refrigerators and microwave ovens when he talked about the good life. But he would have approved of the great inventions that our civilization has produced, especially in science and technology. Human beings now have great tools with which to conquer the harsh forces of nature. Human living has been made a lot easier. And once the basic functions of human living are attended to, the life of the mind can then be nourished.
But this blog is not about political philosophy. It’s about economics.
When a poor farmer living in a remote village in India was interviewed by a market researcher about what new products he wanted to buy in the next six months, he said, “I want to buy a refrigerator, and my wife wants a microwave oven.” Imagine the implications!
In this article, “Marketers’ Next Frontier: Rural India,” market researchers have discovered a new frontier for the market. As they combed through the countryside to study “the consumption habits and aspirations of villagers,” their findings, collected over the past three years, “promise a new frontier that could transform the way domestic and foreign businesses look at the Indian market and could offer them hundreds of millions of potential consumers.”
If two-thirds of the world’s population are below poverty line, that’s 2/3 of the world’s untapped market. Talks about recession and overproduction of goods these days seem out of place in the context of these infinite possibilities. We just need good ideas, good rules informed by the rule of law, and honest enforcers of those rules to make this world a better place for everyone.
But this blog is not about political philosophy. It’s about economics.
When a poor farmer living in a remote village in India was interviewed by a market researcher about what new products he wanted to buy in the next six months, he said, “I want to buy a refrigerator, and my wife wants a microwave oven.” Imagine the implications!
In this article, “Marketers’ Next Frontier: Rural India,” market researchers have discovered a new frontier for the market. As they combed through the countryside to study “the consumption habits and aspirations of villagers,” their findings, collected over the past three years, “promise a new frontier that could transform the way domestic and foreign businesses look at the Indian market and could offer them hundreds of millions of potential consumers.”
If two-thirds of the world’s population are below poverty line, that’s 2/3 of the world’s untapped market. Talks about recession and overproduction of goods these days seem out of place in the context of these infinite possibilities. We just need good ideas, good rules informed by the rule of law, and honest enforcers of those rules to make this world a better place for everyone.
Libya's Civil War
It looks like there is a full-blown civil war unfolding in Libya, which is cause for both despair and elation. Weekend headlines indicate that the rebels are having being setbacks from Qaddafi’s powerful arsenals. To date, the opposition-held city of Zawiya, where Libya’s largest oil refineries are located, suffered the fiercest attack. But it is also a hopeful moment when a people find their voice and demand for their rights and liberties.
Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said that this civil war might turn out to be a long and protracted war, which is to be expected inasmuch as the security forces surrounding Qaddafi have remained loyal to him. But to put things in perspective, two weeks ago, Qaddafi was still deeply entrenched in power. Two weeks later, his regime has been put on notice and is merely surviving. As an opposition spokesman said after the fierce attack on the city of Zawiya, “We are still in the square . . . Zawiya has not fallen.”
The US and the rest of the international community must find a way to get to Libya’s freedom fighters the urgent support that will help put to an end the excesses of a tyrannical regime. Their cause is just, and they deserve the kind of freedom that we living in a free society enjoy.
Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said that this civil war might turn out to be a long and protracted war, which is to be expected inasmuch as the security forces surrounding Qaddafi have remained loyal to him. But to put things in perspective, two weeks ago, Qaddafi was still deeply entrenched in power. Two weeks later, his regime has been put on notice and is merely surviving. As an opposition spokesman said after the fierce attack on the city of Zawiya, “We are still in the square . . . Zawiya has not fallen.”
The US and the rest of the international community must find a way to get to Libya’s freedom fighters the urgent support that will help put to an end the excesses of a tyrannical regime. Their cause is just, and they deserve the kind of freedom that we living in a free society enjoy.
Sunday, February 27, 2011
The Middle East: Tribesmen v. Twitters
Clearly, something great is unfolding in the Middle East. Thanks to the Internet and cellphones, those mass-based technologies that are proving to be the great equalizers of our century, disseminating information far and wide in remote villages and harsh deserts of the Middle East, the minds of the youths of these lands have been opened to new and great possibilities. They now are hungry for change and have the freedom to say it. They want to be treated with dignity. They want the duties and obligations of full-fledged citizens and discard the slavish dispositions and passive resignations of subjects they acquired from their tyrannical regimes.
But what are the obligations of a citizen in a democratic republic? What makes a good citizen? It begins first and foremost with understanding the foundations of self-rule, both political and moral.
Democracy in its practical political sense is equated with equality that is the basis of one-man, one-vote principle, of self-rule that is the foundation of republicanism, of enlightened representation through the equal consent of its citizenry. The individual is the source of sovereign power, but whose power he equally shares with his fellowmen through a representative government that he and the others empower, to represent his and their interests. But that individual together with the rest must be wise, enlightened, and just. And insofar as he and they are ruled sometimes by unruly passions and prejudices, a representative government provides the mechanisms with which to check such excesses.
Michael Novak puts it this way:
. . . What Americans meant by liberty are those acts that are made from reflection and choice. The acts that we commit ourselves to when we have reflected on the alternatives and when we understand the consequences.
That's freedom.
What you do by impulse, by contrast, is not freedom; that's slavery to your impulses. Such slavery is what the animals live under. They're hungry; they need to eat. That's not freedom; it's animal instinct.
Freedom is not doing what you want to do; freedom is doing what, after reflection, you know you ought to do. That's what freedom is, and that's why early American thought has been summed up thus: "Confirm thy soul in self-control, Thy liberty in law." Freedom springs from self-government,after reflection and calm deliberate choice.
. . . To have reflection and choice, you need people with enough virtue to have command of their passions. You need people, that is, with the habits that allow them to reflect, to take time to be dispassionate, to see consequences clearly, and then to make a choice based upon commitment. None of us act that way all the time. But we do aspire to have at least sufficient virtue to live responsibly. For how can a people unable to govern their passions in their private lives possibly be able to practice self-government in their public lives? It doesn't compute. In short, freedom in a republic is not feasible without virtue in a republic. . .
Democracy unlike tyranny guarantees a liberal space where freedom in all its facets can flourish. Where conditions of freedom are absent, as manifest in a nation’s value-system steeped in class-consciousness and inequality, or absence of security for movement of goods and people, or in an unenlightened citizenry, then corrupt elections ensue, and bad regimes come to power.
The Middle East is at a crossroads. Either it moves forward or falls backward. As tribesmen should be made to understand the virtues and obligations of becoming members of a political community, so should twitters be made to see that their social movement needs a proper grounding on the virtues and obligations of a republican citizenship.
But what are the obligations of a citizen in a democratic republic? What makes a good citizen? It begins first and foremost with understanding the foundations of self-rule, both political and moral.
Democracy in its practical political sense is equated with equality that is the basis of one-man, one-vote principle, of self-rule that is the foundation of republicanism, of enlightened representation through the equal consent of its citizenry. The individual is the source of sovereign power, but whose power he equally shares with his fellowmen through a representative government that he and the others empower, to represent his and their interests. But that individual together with the rest must be wise, enlightened, and just. And insofar as he and they are ruled sometimes by unruly passions and prejudices, a representative government provides the mechanisms with which to check such excesses.
Michael Novak puts it this way:
. . . What Americans meant by liberty are those acts that are made from reflection and choice. The acts that we commit ourselves to when we have reflected on the alternatives and when we understand the consequences.
That's freedom.
What you do by impulse, by contrast, is not freedom; that's slavery to your impulses. Such slavery is what the animals live under. They're hungry; they need to eat. That's not freedom; it's animal instinct.
Freedom is not doing what you want to do; freedom is doing what, after reflection, you know you ought to do. That's what freedom is, and that's why early American thought has been summed up thus: "Confirm thy soul in self-control, Thy liberty in law." Freedom springs from self-government,after reflection and calm deliberate choice.
. . . To have reflection and choice, you need people with enough virtue to have command of their passions. You need people, that is, with the habits that allow them to reflect, to take time to be dispassionate, to see consequences clearly, and then to make a choice based upon commitment. None of us act that way all the time. But we do aspire to have at least sufficient virtue to live responsibly. For how can a people unable to govern their passions in their private lives possibly be able to practice self-government in their public lives? It doesn't compute. In short, freedom in a republic is not feasible without virtue in a republic. . .
Democracy unlike tyranny guarantees a liberal space where freedom in all its facets can flourish. Where conditions of freedom are absent, as manifest in a nation’s value-system steeped in class-consciousness and inequality, or absence of security for movement of goods and people, or in an unenlightened citizenry, then corrupt elections ensue, and bad regimes come to power.
The Middle East is at a crossroads. Either it moves forward or falls backward. As tribesmen should be made to understand the virtues and obligations of becoming members of a political community, so should twitters be made to see that their social movement needs a proper grounding on the virtues and obligations of a republican citizenship.
Showdown in Libya and Beyond
These are heady times in the Middle East! Those revolutions that have toppled down tyrannical regimes in the region these past weeks are cheap (relatively speaking, that is, although lives that have been sacrificed are priceless). And they are quick, although Libya is being difficult. Measures currently in place against the Qaddafi regime may prove effective, but my money is on those rebellious military personnel defecting to the opposition and boldly building a provisional government in Benghazi, not too far from Tripoli. One should not discount tyrannicide as well, despite a NY Times article about problems that a power vacuum may create in the eventuality that Qaddafi is forced to leave. I say anything is better than what Libyans have been dealing with these past 40 years.
Foreign policy analysts and experts are being challenged to come up with a new policy towards the Middle East. There cannot be one, as conditions relative to our national interests and theirs vary from regime to regime. Whatever policy we adopt, these four -- 1) education; 2) religious liberty; 3) equal rights for women; 4) entrepreneurship and property rights -- should be its main pillars. Educating the young ensures a bright future for these countries in terms of producing skilled and intelligent citizenry. Promoting religious liberty allows a spirit of comity and friendship among peoples of different faiths yet ensures the right of everyone to freely worship his or her God. Equal rights for women will make for strong and assertive citizenry of equal and responsible individuals. And entrepreneurship and property rights will inculcate private effort and initiative that are the foundation of national strength and prosperity.
Foreign policy analysts and experts are being challenged to come up with a new policy towards the Middle East. There cannot be one, as conditions relative to our national interests and theirs vary from regime to regime. Whatever policy we adopt, these four -- 1) education; 2) religious liberty; 3) equal rights for women; 4) entrepreneurship and property rights -- should be its main pillars. Educating the young ensures a bright future for these countries in terms of producing skilled and intelligent citizenry. Promoting religious liberty allows a spirit of comity and friendship among peoples of different faiths yet ensures the right of everyone to freely worship his or her God. Equal rights for women will make for strong and assertive citizenry of equal and responsible individuals. And entrepreneurship and property rights will inculcate private effort and initiative that are the foundation of national strength and prosperity.
Sunday, February 13, 2011
Can Ballots Liberalize Regimes?
One popular argument in the current discourse on democracy is that there is too much of it in the world today. But it is of the illiberal kind that gives more value to the outside trappings of democratization rather than to the principles of individual liberties and enlightened consent. Democracy has become a mere popularity contest, devoid of rational deliberations supposedly among equally competent and intelligent citizenry. Indeed, in many Third World countries today, elections often yield autocrats and oligarchs that win elections on the ignorance and weaknesses of their unenlightened majorities. The way out of this problem, experts recommend, is to strengthen liberal institutions that will put limits to the unchecked powers of government.
But institution-building must first and foremost recognize that individuals are the final source of sovereign power, and that liberal institutions must have its proper grounding on individual rights and liberties. There must be a deliberative participation by the people in any democratic process in terms of having the opportunity to acquire political education and exercise property rights, among other things. Political education and property rights are good indicators of a liberalizing democracy as political education leads to one’s understanding of his rights and political obligations, while the exercise of his property rights cultivates private initiative and personal responsibility that are the bedrock of economic liberties.
Any country that recognizes the importance of strengthening its people’s rational deliberative participation is on the road to a genuinely liberalizing democracy.
But institution-building must first and foremost recognize that individuals are the final source of sovereign power, and that liberal institutions must have its proper grounding on individual rights and liberties. There must be a deliberative participation by the people in any democratic process in terms of having the opportunity to acquire political education and exercise property rights, among other things. Political education and property rights are good indicators of a liberalizing democracy as political education leads to one’s understanding of his rights and political obligations, while the exercise of his property rights cultivates private initiative and personal responsibility that are the bedrock of economic liberties.
Any country that recognizes the importance of strengthening its people’s rational deliberative participation is on the road to a genuinely liberalizing democracy.
Tuesday, February 8, 2011
Arming Afghan Villagers
In January 2009, I came across a Washington Post article, In Afghanistan, Terrain Rivals Taliban as Enemy, describing the dilemma of the US military on whether or not to arm tribal elders against the Taliban. Lt. Col. Patrick Daniel, Jr., put it this way:
"For a lot of us out here, we recognize that it's much like how we feel about the Second Amendment and the right to bear arms in the States" . . . But we already have tribal disputes that are resolved by violence, and when you give them more weapons, that could mean those disputes could get resolved with those weapons. So it's a roll of the dice. Still, you can't rule it out . . . because people here need to protect themselves."
In an e-mail note I sent to a friend back then, I said that for this strategy to work, perhaps the US military could do the following: 1) educate in clearest possible terms those who will take part in this "arms program" as to the purposes, duties, and responsibilities that come with owning a gun and require everyone to express allegiance to an honor code that upholds those purposes, duties, and responsibilities; 2) on less lofty terms, offer them incentives in the form of community-based livelihood programs such as cooperatives, road-building, water purification, energy infrastructures -- programs that lead to community sustenance and development, but with a caveat -- anyone abusing or misusing the use of weapons will be removed from such programs; community-building projects create a network of individuals engaged in collaborative efforts and are held accountable to each other; 3) also, require a collateral for every gun that is given away, say a horse or something of great value to the person, especially among folks who live in remote areas and are not able to take part in community programs. All these, after all, are meant for everyone’s well-being.
I am revisiting this as yesterday another article came out, assessing this time the effectiveness of this strategy. It points out the risks involved, namely, that some of these armed militiamen are now using their weapons against other tribes for their own personal vendettas. This could get out of hand. While they serve an important role in America’s fight against the Taliban, these militias must be held accountable for their actions, at all times. There must be mechanisms for accountability as well as principles that can elevate expediency to a higher standard of justice.
"For a lot of us out here, we recognize that it's much like how we feel about the Second Amendment and the right to bear arms in the States" . . . But we already have tribal disputes that are resolved by violence, and when you give them more weapons, that could mean those disputes could get resolved with those weapons. So it's a roll of the dice. Still, you can't rule it out . . . because people here need to protect themselves."
In an e-mail note I sent to a friend back then, I said that for this strategy to work, perhaps the US military could do the following: 1) educate in clearest possible terms those who will take part in this "arms program" as to the purposes, duties, and responsibilities that come with owning a gun and require everyone to express allegiance to an honor code that upholds those purposes, duties, and responsibilities; 2) on less lofty terms, offer them incentives in the form of community-based livelihood programs such as cooperatives, road-building, water purification, energy infrastructures -- programs that lead to community sustenance and development, but with a caveat -- anyone abusing or misusing the use of weapons will be removed from such programs; community-building projects create a network of individuals engaged in collaborative efforts and are held accountable to each other; 3) also, require a collateral for every gun that is given away, say a horse or something of great value to the person, especially among folks who live in remote areas and are not able to take part in community programs. All these, after all, are meant for everyone’s well-being.
I am revisiting this as yesterday another article came out, assessing this time the effectiveness of this strategy. It points out the risks involved, namely, that some of these armed militiamen are now using their weapons against other tribes for their own personal vendettas. This could get out of hand. While they serve an important role in America’s fight against the Taliban, these militias must be held accountable for their actions, at all times. There must be mechanisms for accountability as well as principles that can elevate expediency to a higher standard of justice.
Friday, February 4, 2011
A Happy Compromise?
According to this WSJ piece, Regime Seeks an Exit for Mubarak, one of the possibilities being considered towards solving the deadlock between President Mubarak and the Egyptian people is to make the president into a figurehead, a symbol of continuity during a proposed transition period, but completely stripped of executive powers. As to how that will play out remains to be seen.
But it seems to be a happy, well-conceived compromise. Perhaps a win-win for everyone. The arrangement seems practically prudent not only because of the chaos and turmoil but also because of the major security concerns in the Middle Eastern region that require stability within the Egyptian government. This compromise may give Mubarak the opportunity to tell his people that he gets their message (doing so will dignify his legacy), and that indeed it's time that they be made the sole source of all sovereign powers in Eqypt.
But a peaceful transition does take time. And so this proposed arrangement presents an opportunity for the people to show their common sense and practical understanding of the limits of power: that they have made their will known in the public square, and that they recognize that at some point they have to go home to attend to the business of everyday living. But they will leave the public square with a promise from their government that liberty and well-being are there for their taking, with nothing less than the rest of the world as their witness.
Egypt is the seat of one of the great ancient civilizations. It will survive this crisis with dignity.
But it seems to be a happy, well-conceived compromise. Perhaps a win-win for everyone. The arrangement seems practically prudent not only because of the chaos and turmoil but also because of the major security concerns in the Middle Eastern region that require stability within the Egyptian government. This compromise may give Mubarak the opportunity to tell his people that he gets their message (doing so will dignify his legacy), and that indeed it's time that they be made the sole source of all sovereign powers in Eqypt.
But a peaceful transition does take time. And so this proposed arrangement presents an opportunity for the people to show their common sense and practical understanding of the limits of power: that they have made their will known in the public square, and that they recognize that at some point they have to go home to attend to the business of everyday living. But they will leave the public square with a promise from their government that liberty and well-being are there for their taking, with nothing less than the rest of the world as their witness.
Egypt is the seat of one of the great ancient civilizations. It will survive this crisis with dignity.
Thursday, February 3, 2011
Egypt Must Save Itself
What to do now that the latest Mubarak offensive did not work out, I wonder. It seems there's only one course left: Mubarak must step down. Perhaps he could talk to his nation again, tell them that indeed Egypt must come first, that its well-being must come above any man's glory or pride or ambition or service. And it is in this sense of humility that he would acknowledge that his service to the nation must take on a different path.
He then should hand power to his vice-president who will start a caretaker government that will transition the country into its democratic future.
Since the Muslim Brotherhood is anti-democratic, it should not be engaged in political dialogues unless its members are ready to embrace freedom of religion and respect other people's right to worship freely, a principle that is the cornerstone upon which democracy is built.
If Mubarak refuses to step down, the Egyptian military should start withdrawing support from him. Without them, Mubarak will be rendered practically powerless.
He then should hand power to his vice-president who will start a caretaker government that will transition the country into its democratic future.
Since the Muslim Brotherhood is anti-democratic, it should not be engaged in political dialogues unless its members are ready to embrace freedom of religion and respect other people's right to worship freely, a principle that is the cornerstone upon which democracy is built.
If Mubarak refuses to step down, the Egyptian military should start withdrawing support from him. Without them, Mubarak will be rendered practically powerless.
Sunday, January 30, 2011
Egypt’s Leaderless Revolution
When news of street protests in Egypt was breaking a few days ago, the first question I asked to a colleague of mine was, “who is acting as the leader behind these protests?.” To which he answered, “no one; the whole thing will take on a life of its own, it will take care of itself.” I went away perplexed, as I have a habit of wanting to see the big picture all at once. Stories must have a beginning and an ending. And street protests must not only be spontaneous; they must have a purpose, and a plan on how to get there.
The latest news from Egypt about looting and lawlessness proves my point: these protests could easily slide into something unintended. An Egypt on the brink of anarchy is certainly not what these protesters have in mind. Yet, there is no one at the helm to offer guidance and directions.
All this reminds me of the Philippines’ People Power Revolution, a bloodless revolution that was propelled by the sheer force of the collective will and hopes of millions of Filipinos who on the streets of Manila in that year of 1986 dared stop armored trucks and tanks on their tracks, wooed the Philippine military with rosaries and flowers, and successfully toppled down a dictatorship. It was, as others would have described it, a revolution won on a wing and a prayer.
At the center of it all was a leader, Cory Aquino. Her sincerity, quiet strength, and commitment to democratic principles catapulted her to national fame that she herself did not anticipate. The Filipino people, tired and weary of 20 years of dictatorship and cronyism, saw in her a new hope, an inspiration of better things to come.
Soon, however, realpolitik set in. While helping to restore democracy for the country, Cory found herself defending her government against at least 7 coup attempts. But what she brought to the table of Philippine politics was an inspiration, a hope, a symbol at a time when the country needed it most.
But an inspiration is just that, a moment meant to encourage and, well, to inspire. Her regime’s purpose was to provide a transition from a dictatorship to a constitutional democracy. It was meant to represent a symbol of better things to come.
Egypt’s street protests don’t have a leader. Still and all, the protesters are succeeding in making their point – they want an end of the Mubarak regime.
Lest Egypt slide into chaos and fall into the hands of opportunists and Islamists, the Egyptian military are reaching out, and rightly so, to the moderate majority who are behind these protests. While watching over them, Mubarak, for his own sake, should start contemplating about viable options open to him, options that will prevent a power vacuum from occurring. Perhaps he should resign and call for early elections, or resign and form a caretaker government that will attend to the business of governing until the September elections.
Until then, it is hoped that Egypt’s street protesters will come to understand that what they have started -- a democratic movement and an ethos so new and liberating for a country with no democratic tradition – will transform itself into a genuine republicanism, at the core of which is an intelligent populace who choose and empower their leaders through their enlightened consent.
The latest news from Egypt about looting and lawlessness proves my point: these protests could easily slide into something unintended. An Egypt on the brink of anarchy is certainly not what these protesters have in mind. Yet, there is no one at the helm to offer guidance and directions.
All this reminds me of the Philippines’ People Power Revolution, a bloodless revolution that was propelled by the sheer force of the collective will and hopes of millions of Filipinos who on the streets of Manila in that year of 1986 dared stop armored trucks and tanks on their tracks, wooed the Philippine military with rosaries and flowers, and successfully toppled down a dictatorship. It was, as others would have described it, a revolution won on a wing and a prayer.
At the center of it all was a leader, Cory Aquino. Her sincerity, quiet strength, and commitment to democratic principles catapulted her to national fame that she herself did not anticipate. The Filipino people, tired and weary of 20 years of dictatorship and cronyism, saw in her a new hope, an inspiration of better things to come.
Soon, however, realpolitik set in. While helping to restore democracy for the country, Cory found herself defending her government against at least 7 coup attempts. But what she brought to the table of Philippine politics was an inspiration, a hope, a symbol at a time when the country needed it most.
But an inspiration is just that, a moment meant to encourage and, well, to inspire. Her regime’s purpose was to provide a transition from a dictatorship to a constitutional democracy. It was meant to represent a symbol of better things to come.
Egypt’s street protests don’t have a leader. Still and all, the protesters are succeeding in making their point – they want an end of the Mubarak regime.
Lest Egypt slide into chaos and fall into the hands of opportunists and Islamists, the Egyptian military are reaching out, and rightly so, to the moderate majority who are behind these protests. While watching over them, Mubarak, for his own sake, should start contemplating about viable options open to him, options that will prevent a power vacuum from occurring. Perhaps he should resign and call for early elections, or resign and form a caretaker government that will attend to the business of governing until the September elections.
Until then, it is hoped that Egypt’s street protesters will come to understand that what they have started -- a democratic movement and an ethos so new and liberating for a country with no democratic tradition – will transform itself into a genuine republicanism, at the core of which is an intelligent populace who choose and empower their leaders through their enlightened consent.
Sunday, January 23, 2011
The New York Times and Spy Thrillers
Because of the kinds of things that the New York Times has been liberally publishing these days (Wikileaks and now this), its readers have the right to ask of them this question: what do they gain from all this? I am not referring to monetary gains or publicity. Those are easy answers. I am referring to things like honor, patriotism, and loyalty to one’s country. If there are internal controversial disagreements behind our foreign policies and military operations, as expected of a democracy, why air them publicly? Journalistic reporting should at least be able to withstand the scrutiny of prudence and decency. I wonder if the New York Times ever asks itself whether the stuff that it publishes undermines America and feels guilty about it.
Whittaker Chambers in his book, Witness, showed us the ugly face of bearing false witness against one’s country.
Whittaker Chambers in his book, Witness, showed us the ugly face of bearing false witness against one’s country.
Upcoming Peace Talk with Filipino Communists
Another round of peace talks between the Philippine government and the Communist Party of the Philippines (CPP) is scheduled to begin next month in Oslo, Norway. Among issues to be settled are: 1) the communists’ demand that the Philippine government take its time in implementing its Public-Private Partnership (PPP) program; 2) the release of a captured communist leader; and, 3) the legitimacy behind those revolutionary taxes being levied on private companies doing business in “rebel-controlled” territories.
Still and all, CPP issued this statement: “The Filipino people cannot principally rely on peace negotiations to achieve a just and lasting peace, especially given the duplicity of the (Philippine government) and its repeated violations of existing agreements,” . . . “The revolutionary forces must continue to firmly hold on to their arms, and relentlessly wage people’s war until the puppet reactionary rule is finally replaced and a new democratic order is established.” Whatever.
What if for a minute we take these thugs seriously, ask them about their agenda for a more just, more prosperous Philippines, and give them the opportunity to defend and describe in concrete terms their ideologically-inspired programs and projects for the Filipino people? During this round of peace talks, let’s have the Philippine government pit these communists against the best free-market minds in the Philippines (preferably economists and other scholars who are former communists who have long abandoned the movement), to see whose ideas are indefensible, once and for all. Hope that would lead to a communist’s self-examination on how and when he can start becoming a productive member of the Philippine society.
For the question that this peace talk should really address is whether the CPP, with all its grandiose plans and abstract notions of peace and social justice, has the right to continue to exist.
Still and all, CPP issued this statement: “The Filipino people cannot principally rely on peace negotiations to achieve a just and lasting peace, especially given the duplicity of the (Philippine government) and its repeated violations of existing agreements,” . . . “The revolutionary forces must continue to firmly hold on to their arms, and relentlessly wage people’s war until the puppet reactionary rule is finally replaced and a new democratic order is established.” Whatever.
What if for a minute we take these thugs seriously, ask them about their agenda for a more just, more prosperous Philippines, and give them the opportunity to defend and describe in concrete terms their ideologically-inspired programs and projects for the Filipino people? During this round of peace talks, let’s have the Philippine government pit these communists against the best free-market minds in the Philippines (preferably economists and other scholars who are former communists who have long abandoned the movement), to see whose ideas are indefensible, once and for all. Hope that would lead to a communist’s self-examination on how and when he can start becoming a productive member of the Philippine society.
For the question that this peace talk should really address is whether the CPP, with all its grandiose plans and abstract notions of peace and social justice, has the right to continue to exist.
Monday, January 17, 2011
China’s Achilles Heel
Amidst talks about China’s rising military prowess and debates over which, between cooperation or conflict, is the better path with which to achieve a more stable US-Sino relationship, China remains vulnerable on at least two fronts: the state of its currency and the state of its political affairs.
President Hu, in this Washington Post interview, acknowledges the importance of pegging its currency to the dollar, as the dollar remains the currency used for global trade and international financial transactions. He recognizes that China’s own currency cannot replace the dollar at the moment as “it takes a long time for a country’s currency to be widely accepted in the world.” Both countries have been accusing each other of currency manipulation that sets off global inflation. In particular, Hu has criticized the Federal Reserve’s effort to keep interest rates low, while Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner has been critical of the Chinese government’s deliberate move to keep its currency value artificially low.
While on the surface it seems that the US has the upper hand in this monetary war, its monetary weapons can only be effective if they are grounded on sound principles. Sound money is a reasoned, principled way of commanding respect on the world’s financial stage. With honesty and integrity in the dollar comes leadership and strength.
China’s second vulnerability lies in its lack of liberalizing political reforms (in what the State Department would call human rights violations). In this same interview, Hu, however, was quick to explain China’s own version of its political reforms, which lie in an expanded socialist democracy.
We will continue to expand people’s democracy and build a socialist country under the rule of law in keeping with China’s national conditions . . . We will define the institutions, standards and procedures for socialist democracy, expand people’s orderly participation in political affairs at each level and in every field, mobilize and organize the people as extensively as possible to manage state and social affairs as well as economic and cultural programs in accordance with the law, and strive for continued progress in building socialist political civilization.
But how does socialist democracy justify continued government control over people’s political participation? Hu has this to say: The fact that China has enjoyed sustained, rapid economic growth and social stability and harmony proves that China’s political system fits China’s national conditions and meets the requirement of overall economic and social development.
All this affirms the communists’ unchanging yet abstract notion of the “people,” who are viewed as a collective whole and as mere instruments of the state to be used in attaining the country’s material well-being. This premise is central in Marxist-Leninist thought: the herd must be led by a party of vanguards, the “enlightened ones,” towards the right path of the communist revolution. Instead of benefitting from the enterprising and creative spirits of a free people, the Chinese government continues to treat its people as children, to be led.
For as long as communism fails to see the character, dignity, and freedom-loving nature of every human being and his tendencies towards enlightened self-interestedness, it is safe to say that in China’s future political horizon lies seeds of political dissent.
President Hu, in this Washington Post interview, acknowledges the importance of pegging its currency to the dollar, as the dollar remains the currency used for global trade and international financial transactions. He recognizes that China’s own currency cannot replace the dollar at the moment as “it takes a long time for a country’s currency to be widely accepted in the world.” Both countries have been accusing each other of currency manipulation that sets off global inflation. In particular, Hu has criticized the Federal Reserve’s effort to keep interest rates low, while Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner has been critical of the Chinese government’s deliberate move to keep its currency value artificially low.
While on the surface it seems that the US has the upper hand in this monetary war, its monetary weapons can only be effective if they are grounded on sound principles. Sound money is a reasoned, principled way of commanding respect on the world’s financial stage. With honesty and integrity in the dollar comes leadership and strength.
China’s second vulnerability lies in its lack of liberalizing political reforms (in what the State Department would call human rights violations). In this same interview, Hu, however, was quick to explain China’s own version of its political reforms, which lie in an expanded socialist democracy.
We will continue to expand people’s democracy and build a socialist country under the rule of law in keeping with China’s national conditions . . . We will define the institutions, standards and procedures for socialist democracy, expand people’s orderly participation in political affairs at each level and in every field, mobilize and organize the people as extensively as possible to manage state and social affairs as well as economic and cultural programs in accordance with the law, and strive for continued progress in building socialist political civilization.
But how does socialist democracy justify continued government control over people’s political participation? Hu has this to say: The fact that China has enjoyed sustained, rapid economic growth and social stability and harmony proves that China’s political system fits China’s national conditions and meets the requirement of overall economic and social development.
All this affirms the communists’ unchanging yet abstract notion of the “people,” who are viewed as a collective whole and as mere instruments of the state to be used in attaining the country’s material well-being. This premise is central in Marxist-Leninist thought: the herd must be led by a party of vanguards, the “enlightened ones,” towards the right path of the communist revolution. Instead of benefitting from the enterprising and creative spirits of a free people, the Chinese government continues to treat its people as children, to be led.
For as long as communism fails to see the character, dignity, and freedom-loving nature of every human being and his tendencies towards enlightened self-interestedness, it is safe to say that in China’s future political horizon lies seeds of political dissent.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)