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.
Wednesday, April 13, 2011
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)