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.
Sunday, January 30, 2011
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.
Friday, December 24, 2010
A Tribute to Mother
(Eulogy, Funeral Mass, December 15, 2010)
The Lord Has Given, and the Lord Has Taken Away
Our family would like to thank each and every one of you for coming to our mother’s funeral this morning, and for your kind thoughts and prayers. They are a source of comfort in this our time of mourning.
For these are indeed the saddest days of our lives. Our mother has always been there for us. She is the light of our home, the sunshine of our lives. We have been lucky to have this wonderful woman as our mother. She was strong-willed and independent, never wanting to be a burden to anyone. She was the epitome of an ideal mother – stern yet kind, strong yet compassionate, wise, and fair and just in her dealings with others. She taught us good habits and encouraged us to lead virtuous lives, inculcating in us integrity, honesty, and modesty. She taught us to be charitable to others, to value education, to succeed, and to excel.
Education is of paramount importance to my parents. I’d often hear my father say that the only legacy they could give us was education. [Our parents worked hard to put their 10 children through college.] They taught us to work hard and to achieve whatever we wanted out of life.
Our mother loved gardening. She’d often say that when she was among her plants, her aches and pains go away. She loved her roses; she loved her evergreens. She knew the right season for each one of them.
She also loved politics, as she was attuned to things around her. In my daily phone conversations with her from Washington, D.C. , I was discovering how [politically] smart and insightful she was, as she seemed to have an answer to every political question I’d ask.
Most of all, she loved her children, grandchildren, and great-grandchildren. Indeed, her life revolved around her family. Her life was dedicated to her family.
And we love her dearly. So that when her health started to decline in August, our fervent wish was that she be blessed with one more season of everything: one more Thanksgiving (that was granted to us, but barely), one more Christmas, one more New Year’s Day celebration, one more birthday in January, one more spring season, one more blossoming of her rose garden.
But as man proposes, God disposes.
In early September, she asked to be taken to the hospital. She felt something was wrong, and she wanted to know what was ailing her. Thus began what to her was a struggle with modern medicine. At the hospital, they ran a battery of tests on every conceivable ailment attacking our mother. Still and all, they could not explain why her platelet count remained low, despite massive transfusions. With everyone in the family taking turns on a daily 24-hour watch, we watched her decline even further. How to explain all this to mother who, ever in charge, would like to know what was ailing her. But mother knew better. She knew she wouldn’t get well in a hospital bed. And having been told that nothing much could be done, we brought her home.
Fr. Richard Neuhaus, a philosopher and a former Lutheran minister who became a Catholic priest, in his wonderful piece, “Born Toward Dying,” said that the last time we spend with the dying and they with us takes place many days and many hours before the final goodbye.
Well, our last time with our mother was those three weeks she spent at home. No more moanings, which she did a lot of when she was in the hospital; just frustrations at things she could not do anymore. We placed her blossoming roses right outside her window to remind her that she was home. [We did everything we could to make her feel comfortable, hoping that she would still get better. Her old doctor said she was feisty and fought till the end.] During those three weeks, her one question remained: “what is ailing me?.” To which we did not have an answer. To her, to know is to conquer, and to conquer is to love.
So the Lord gives, and the Lord takes away.
We thank Him for having blessed us with this wonderful mother. From the exemplary life she has lived and from the many prayers she has received, we are certain that she is in a happy place with my father, even as we look forward to the day when we get to see them again.
Mom, thanks for everything! We already miss you! But as you’ve taught us by example many, many times before, we will face this moment of loss with courage, faith, and white-winged hope, knowing that your love for us is as constant as the sun that comes out and shines every morning.
The Lord Has Given, and the Lord Has Taken Away
Our family would like to thank each and every one of you for coming to our mother’s funeral this morning, and for your kind thoughts and prayers. They are a source of comfort in this our time of mourning.
For these are indeed the saddest days of our lives. Our mother has always been there for us. She is the light of our home, the sunshine of our lives. We have been lucky to have this wonderful woman as our mother. She was strong-willed and independent, never wanting to be a burden to anyone. She was the epitome of an ideal mother – stern yet kind, strong yet compassionate, wise, and fair and just in her dealings with others. She taught us good habits and encouraged us to lead virtuous lives, inculcating in us integrity, honesty, and modesty. She taught us to be charitable to others, to value education, to succeed, and to excel.
Education is of paramount importance to my parents. I’d often hear my father say that the only legacy they could give us was education. [Our parents worked hard to put their 10 children through college.] They taught us to work hard and to achieve whatever we wanted out of life.
Our mother loved gardening. She’d often say that when she was among her plants, her aches and pains go away. She loved her roses; she loved her evergreens. She knew the right season for each one of them.
She also loved politics, as she was attuned to things around her. In my daily phone conversations with her from Washington, D.C. , I was discovering how [politically] smart and insightful she was, as she seemed to have an answer to every political question I’d ask.
Most of all, she loved her children, grandchildren, and great-grandchildren. Indeed, her life revolved around her family. Her life was dedicated to her family.
And we love her dearly. So that when her health started to decline in August, our fervent wish was that she be blessed with one more season of everything: one more Thanksgiving (that was granted to us, but barely), one more Christmas, one more New Year’s Day celebration, one more birthday in January, one more spring season, one more blossoming of her rose garden.
But as man proposes, God disposes.
In early September, she asked to be taken to the hospital. She felt something was wrong, and she wanted to know what was ailing her. Thus began what to her was a struggle with modern medicine. At the hospital, they ran a battery of tests on every conceivable ailment attacking our mother. Still and all, they could not explain why her platelet count remained low, despite massive transfusions. With everyone in the family taking turns on a daily 24-hour watch, we watched her decline even further. How to explain all this to mother who, ever in charge, would like to know what was ailing her. But mother knew better. She knew she wouldn’t get well in a hospital bed. And having been told that nothing much could be done, we brought her home.
Fr. Richard Neuhaus, a philosopher and a former Lutheran minister who became a Catholic priest, in his wonderful piece, “Born Toward Dying,” said that the last time we spend with the dying and they with us takes place many days and many hours before the final goodbye.
Well, our last time with our mother was those three weeks she spent at home. No more moanings, which she did a lot of when she was in the hospital; just frustrations at things she could not do anymore. We placed her blossoming roses right outside her window to remind her that she was home. [We did everything we could to make her feel comfortable, hoping that she would still get better. Her old doctor said she was feisty and fought till the end.] During those three weeks, her one question remained: “what is ailing me?.” To which we did not have an answer. To her, to know is to conquer, and to conquer is to love.
So the Lord gives, and the Lord takes away.
We thank Him for having blessed us with this wonderful mother. From the exemplary life she has lived and from the many prayers she has received, we are certain that she is in a happy place with my father, even as we look forward to the day when we get to see them again.
Mom, thanks for everything! We already miss you! But as you’ve taught us by example many, many times before, we will face this moment of loss with courage, faith, and white-winged hope, knowing that your love for us is as constant as the sun that comes out and shines every morning.
Sunday, December 5, 2010
Random Thoughts . . .
South Korea’s Call
In regard to the latest provocations of North Korea against South Korea -- when China and North Korea are eager to resume the Six-Party Talk, one cannot help but wonder if this diplomatic effort is just being used by North Korea and China to advance North Korea’s interests. According to this article, “After quitting the six-nation talks in April 2009, North Korea has shown it is eager to restart them to gain much-needed fuel oil and aid in exchange for nuclear disarmament. However, North Korea's recent revelation that it has developed a large uranium enrichment facility, giving it a new method for making material for bombs, has further called into question its intent to disarm.”
I think that the best way on the part of the United States to engage North Korea is to eschew these diplomatic maneuverings, stand behind South Korea in its declarations of defending its national security interests against the North, and provide it, as a partner and ally, with the military assistance that it needs. Strong statements made by the South Korean President and the newly-installed Defense Minister against the North suggest strength and a sense of national purpose. "If North Korea carries out a military provocation on our territory and people again, we must retaliate immediately and strongly until they completely surrender," Kim Kwan-jin said in a speech Saturday to senior military officials. Hear! Hear!
Coeds Rooming Together at GWU
Where have our sensibilities gone? I know I am not the only one who is indignant over this (to read the WP article, click here). I have friends who can write treatises about the natural roles and natural dynamics between males and females, about the moral and gender boundaries that should govern the actions of the young in their interactions with one another, about natural basic appetites that must be properly channeled into evolving, growing, and ultimately consummating of human desires based on human affections and reason. I can think of two unintended consequences that can come out of this new way of social living among students: they may become either sex-crazed (for sex and partners are free) or asexual (emerging from a displaced disposition that sharing a room with the opposite sex makes you cool, non-judgmental, and progressive in your thinking). Dorm living could now be fraught with sexual tensions. That or it could be devoid of them.
Why the Urgency Behind the Repeal of DADT policy?
“I think if we spent five solid days on this bill – we came in at 9 in the morning and we worked until 7 or 8 at night, I think it’d be hard for anybody to say . . . that we haven’t had opportunity for a good, thorough debate,” so said Sen. Joseph Lieberman (I-Conn.), commenting on the testimony of military commanders before the Senate Armed Services Committee on Friday, Dec. 3rd, 2010.
With 2 million Americans unemployed, a national security that is facing terrorist threats, a foreign policy that recently has been undermined by Wikileaks revelations, etc., why would our lawmakers consider the issue of repealing "don't ask, don't tell" of paramount importance? As Ed Rogers puts it, . . . Obama will again appear to have priorities that are wildly different than those of average American voters. Friday’s unemployment report reinforces the desperate need for serious economic initiatives that unleash the American private sector to drive economic growth and create Jobs” (Washington Post, Sunday Opinion, Dec. 4, 2010).
In regard to the latest provocations of North Korea against South Korea -- when China and North Korea are eager to resume the Six-Party Talk, one cannot help but wonder if this diplomatic effort is just being used by North Korea and China to advance North Korea’s interests. According to this article, “After quitting the six-nation talks in April 2009, North Korea has shown it is eager to restart them to gain much-needed fuel oil and aid in exchange for nuclear disarmament. However, North Korea's recent revelation that it has developed a large uranium enrichment facility, giving it a new method for making material for bombs, has further called into question its intent to disarm.”
I think that the best way on the part of the United States to engage North Korea is to eschew these diplomatic maneuverings, stand behind South Korea in its declarations of defending its national security interests against the North, and provide it, as a partner and ally, with the military assistance that it needs. Strong statements made by the South Korean President and the newly-installed Defense Minister against the North suggest strength and a sense of national purpose. "If North Korea carries out a military provocation on our territory and people again, we must retaliate immediately and strongly until they completely surrender," Kim Kwan-jin said in a speech Saturday to senior military officials. Hear! Hear!
Coeds Rooming Together at GWU
Where have our sensibilities gone? I know I am not the only one who is indignant over this (to read the WP article, click here). I have friends who can write treatises about the natural roles and natural dynamics between males and females, about the moral and gender boundaries that should govern the actions of the young in their interactions with one another, about natural basic appetites that must be properly channeled into evolving, growing, and ultimately consummating of human desires based on human affections and reason. I can think of two unintended consequences that can come out of this new way of social living among students: they may become either sex-crazed (for sex and partners are free) or asexual (emerging from a displaced disposition that sharing a room with the opposite sex makes you cool, non-judgmental, and progressive in your thinking). Dorm living could now be fraught with sexual tensions. That or it could be devoid of them.
Why the Urgency Behind the Repeal of DADT policy?
“I think if we spent five solid days on this bill – we came in at 9 in the morning and we worked until 7 or 8 at night, I think it’d be hard for anybody to say . . . that we haven’t had opportunity for a good, thorough debate,” so said Sen. Joseph Lieberman (I-Conn.), commenting on the testimony of military commanders before the Senate Armed Services Committee on Friday, Dec. 3rd, 2010.
With 2 million Americans unemployed, a national security that is facing terrorist threats, a foreign policy that recently has been undermined by Wikileaks revelations, etc., why would our lawmakers consider the issue of repealing "don't ask, don't tell" of paramount importance? As Ed Rogers puts it, . . . Obama will again appear to have priorities that are wildly different than those of average American voters. Friday’s unemployment report reinforces the desperate need for serious economic initiatives that unleash the American private sector to drive economic growth and create Jobs” (Washington Post, Sunday Opinion, Dec. 4, 2010).
Sunday, November 14, 2010
Does Karzai Understand Partnership?
In today’s Washington Post article, “Karzai calls on U.S. to lighten troop presence,” Karzai laments the “visibility and intensity” of U.S. troops in Afghanistan, arguing that their increased presence would only worsen the war and encourage Afghans to join the Taliban: “The time has come to reduce military operations,”he said. “The time has come to reduce the presence of, you know, boots in Afghanistan . . . to reduce the intrusiveness into the daily Afghan life.”
Karzai is particularly critical of night raids, which, he said, terrorize the people: “The Afghan people don’t like these raids, if there is any raid it has to be done by the Afghan government within the Afghan laws. This is a continuing disagreement between us” (that is, between Karzai and the U.S. military).
But not seeing the end-goal of U.S. military operations, Karzai seems to misunderstand the terms of this partnership. He is misconstruing his role as a worthy partner. He said, “If a partner means a silent spectator of events conducted by Washington, if that kind of partner you seek, well, I’m not that partner . . . Nor the Afghan people.” But a partnership entails thinking as one, aligning the mission objectives of both parties into one, pooling their resources together, and reinforcing each other so that instead of separate units of forces pursuing the same end, a unified force will emerge to accomplish with effectiveness the same goal.
It seems this is an aspect of the U.S.-Afghanistan partnership that is not clear to Karzai. Instead of being on the same page with the U.S. military and NATO forces in their fight against the Taliban, he seems to be pursuing a different agenda. What he should be doing is supporting their goals instead of pitting them against the Afghan people. He should be waging a PR campaign among his people, explaining to them why these forces need to engage in certain operations and why they should be considered allies and the Taliban the enemies. With Karzai’s encouragement, popular support should be directed to the former and antipathy to the latter.
Posing a negative, defensive, and contrarian stance against foreign forces is perhaps Karzai’s way of projecting strength and commanding respect on the world stage. But the exact opposite is happening instead. Pride, strength, respect, and wisdom of a leader come with recognizing what is right and just for his people, even if that would mean partnering with those foreigners on boots.
Karzai is particularly critical of night raids, which, he said, terrorize the people: “The Afghan people don’t like these raids, if there is any raid it has to be done by the Afghan government within the Afghan laws. This is a continuing disagreement between us” (that is, between Karzai and the U.S. military).
But not seeing the end-goal of U.S. military operations, Karzai seems to misunderstand the terms of this partnership. He is misconstruing his role as a worthy partner. He said, “If a partner means a silent spectator of events conducted by Washington, if that kind of partner you seek, well, I’m not that partner . . . Nor the Afghan people.” But a partnership entails thinking as one, aligning the mission objectives of both parties into one, pooling their resources together, and reinforcing each other so that instead of separate units of forces pursuing the same end, a unified force will emerge to accomplish with effectiveness the same goal.
It seems this is an aspect of the U.S.-Afghanistan partnership that is not clear to Karzai. Instead of being on the same page with the U.S. military and NATO forces in their fight against the Taliban, he seems to be pursuing a different agenda. What he should be doing is supporting their goals instead of pitting them against the Afghan people. He should be waging a PR campaign among his people, explaining to them why these forces need to engage in certain operations and why they should be considered allies and the Taliban the enemies. With Karzai’s encouragement, popular support should be directed to the former and antipathy to the latter.
Posing a negative, defensive, and contrarian stance against foreign forces is perhaps Karzai’s way of projecting strength and commanding respect on the world stage. But the exact opposite is happening instead. Pride, strength, respect, and wisdom of a leader come with recognizing what is right and just for his people, even if that would mean partnering with those foreigners on boots.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)