This, fact, however, certainly does not suggest that Ahmadinejad will wage war on Israel to fulfill his dream of a Middle East in which the Zionist regime "must vanish from the pages of history." Ahmadinejad gives no indication of an impulse to national suicide -- of allowing his own country to be "wiped off the map" in precisely the literal sense in which his own words about Israel have been falsely interpreted. Surely, national suicide would be the consequence of any attack on Israel, taking into account that nation's nuclear arsenal and the unlimited military support it would surely receive from its unquestioning ally, the United States. In the meantime, given the drumbeat of hostility toward Iran over its own suspected but unproven nuclear weapons program, it is of course far more likely that Israel and/or the United States will launch a preventive military attack on Iran than that Iran would ever attack Israel even with nuclear parity.
Moreover, Ahmadinejad has said time and again that he is willing to engage in diplomatic negotiations of all outstanding issues between his country and the U.S., including the nuclear issue. What he will not accept, he says, is dictates from a country that doesn't reason over the foundations of conflict, but merely makes demands based on superior military power. In speeches and interviews seen on American television, Ahmadinejad constantly asserts that he himself, and his country, are not pursuing right through might, as if that approach was the only basis for satisfying national interests. Nor, he says, will he tolerate such bullying when his own country is the victim. Instead, he proposes -- at least in his public discourse -- a paradigm of foreign relations in which reason, not power, is the arbiter of conflict and all nations are left alone to create their own future.
Ahmadinejad also frequently invokes "love" as the necessary power for reaching out to the "other." Isn't there a chance he is speaking from the heart? Yet, without a pittance of concern for the truth, or embarrassment at its conscious misrepresentation, American presidents and allied world leaders continue to demonize Ahmadinejad personally. Rather than reaching out to this "other" in either reason or love, they continue to blindly libel him by insinuating that he not only hopes for the demise of the Zionist government, but intends to "wipe Israel off the map," perhaps with the help of a second genocide.
This demonization of Ahmadinejad by Western leaders rests on several factors: among them, fear-driven suspicions; the lock-step tribal alliance between the U.S. and Israel; and the belief that only domination over other nations can secure national safety and economic success. In spurning diplomatic openness, the West is once again forgoing an opportunity to break through the dividing wall that history time and again builds on foundations of "fear of the other." Regrettably, it is only on the other side of that wall that peace and all of its rewards can be found.
A Revaluation of Values.
Certainly, the long, doleful history of mankind suggests that the tendency to view life as a continual struggle of "us against them" must be built into our very DNA. But is that struggle characteristic of the kind of world most people want? Wouldn't we prefer a world that is free from the shackles of fear, duplicity, hypocrisy, and bad conscience that flow from the drive to dominate others? Don't we want a world instead that opens the way to the compassionate sharing of the essentials of life and the fruits of human creativity? With respect to American politics, can't we see that these ends depend on a foreign policy that balances our own material interests with a caring regard for the national pride, rights, and human needs of every other country?
Clearly, international politics needs a makeover. In particular, America itself, as the world's greatest military power and biggest influence by far on world culture, must learn to "walk a mile in the other guy's moccasins." We plainly do not do that now.
Take our attitude toward North Korea, for instance, a failed state and one of the world's poorest nations. Do we offer it tangible help? No. Do we see its nuclear weapons program for what it undoubtedly is, a desperate effort to gain political respect in the world? No. Instead, we demonize it as a perpetrator of evil, and, in one silly TV talk show after another, ridicule as fatuous its now-deceased "Dear Leader," his inexperienced successor son, and the people themselves, who, for want of a meaningful life of their own, regard their leaders with idolatrous admiration.
Who, among the leaders of our own "exceptional" land, has ever put himself in the shoes of Kim Jong Il, and considered what he would do in the face of his country's poverty and catastrophic food shortages, and the tens of thousands of American soldiers stationed in the Korean peninsula and straddling his state in the DMZ? Might we not too view this alien power as a menace, and, out of sheer defensive reflex, build both an oversized army and a daunting, though largely symbolic, nuclear program? Isn't it possible that lending a helping hand to North Korea, rather than belittling its culture and threatening its survival, would not only restrain its motivation to further buildups in military might, but provide both a cheaper and more effective way to insure that its nuclear weapons never fall into the hands of terrorists?
What I am suggesting here is a truly revolutionary "revaluation of all values" (to use Nietzsche's phrase) in America's foreign policy. It undoubtedly represents a whole new way of looking at things, but, at the same time, points the way to a more humane approach to international relations that I think could in time be accepted as entirely normal by both our political leaders and ordinary people.
Human beings are not limited to an instinctual fear of others and the notion that their own security and welfare depend on controlling them. To a greater or lesser degree, they also have a spiritual power for unity that is frequently revealed in extraordinary expressions of brotherhood. A notable example is the self-initiated "Christmas truce" between German and British soldiers along the Western Front in World War I.
In all of its manifestations, the power of the spirit is characterized by an openness to, and empathy with, the "other." In his presidential campaign of 2008, Barack Obama raised eyebrows and evoked derision by his stated willingness to talk at any time to any world leader with whom the United States had differences. He undoubtedly imagined that a reasoned exchange of ideas was possible even with leaders of very different persuasions, based on the goodwill and openness inherent in their common humanity. Obama soon learned, however, that his outreach would be limited by the "interests" of the governing system he aspired to lead, and that his conformity to this restriction would be ensured by much preliminary schooling and the presence of a retinue of advisors at any discussions he might hold.
It must be conceded, of course, that, in the conduct of its foreign relations, America is not entirely selfish. It does, for example, offer a modicum of no-strings-attached foreign aid to developing countries, and is rightfully recognized for its generous assistance to victims of natural disasters. Such human outreach is dwarfed, however, by arms sales and other military aid to allies, and the use of bullying tactics, or waging wars of choice, on non-allied weaker nations.
One might well ask, therefore: Considering the death. destruction, resentment, and hatred wrought by America's discretionary war-making, isn't it finally time that this powerful and still prosperous nation, perhaps the most "religious" on earth, bound by law to ethical principles, and with immense power to do good, redirect its foreign policy substantially to the eradication of suffering and want so evident in much of the world?
For those who hate brutality, and respect the powers of empathy, compassion, and love, the answer is, Of course, it's time to make that change. It is essential to recognize, however, that the federal government, no matter how well-intentioned the men and women elected to run it, cannot reverse its course on its own. Government operates as part of a system closely wedded to the profit ambitions of corporations that underwrite the ambitions of those who seek to lead it. It is, in effect, programmed in its foreign policy to dominate weaker nations in order to advance perceived national economic, strategic, and security interests.
Only the demands of a critical mass of the American people can redirect the government to a more humane path. But, that outcome itself represents an immense challenge. Before the people can be prepared to make such demands, they themselves must be freed from manipulation by the very corporate interests that work in synch with the government to pursue the ends that lead to war.
(Note: You can view every article as one long page if you sign up as an Advocate Member, or higher).
