Let’s face facts

Few things in life are certain but I believe this is one of them:

Human beings will not long suffer under conditions of inequality before their dissatisfaction mounts to resistance. This is not the unique province of Americans, though we laud it in our history. It derives from a person’s very being, their self image and their own self respect. That given, the unequal nature of the commercial system that has developed over the last several hundred years, leading to the present extent of vast territory under US influence and control, cannot long endure. It has been built and is held in place through (some would say) moral example, but also through military force, and the threat and terror of nuclear weapons, maintained at 750 foreign military bases, through an annual military budget as great as that of the rest of the world—combined.

This situation cries out to every person placed in a position of inequality around the globe for transition to a more equitable distribution of the world’s resources. These bare facts led George F. Kennan to articulate for the post WWII era the policy of force and subversion veiled by diplomacy, in a statement that would have made Machiavelli proud, that guided US leaders in garnering the majority per capita use of the world’s resources at the expense of creating enemies in every corner of the globe:

We should cease to talk about vague and unreal objectives such as human rights, the raising of the living standards, and democratization. The day is not far off when we are going to have to deal in straight power concepts. The less we are then hampered by idealistic slogans, the better.

A succession of US governments have been fairly successful at cajoling the US populace to go along with this, in exchange for a minimal share in those benefits.

So, those who are unquestioningly committed to the enjoyment of this inequality must also be unquestionably committed to an unending war, at a time when the benefits from such an enterprise are fast disappearing for all but a miniscule number (war profiteers and oil men). It helps for one’s self image, if not one’s mental health, to live in denial of these facts, the better to feel morally justified in these wars, hot and cold, and enjoy their fruits. This, however, leaves us in the somewhat ridiculous position of wandering around asking each other “why do they hate us?,” when “they” have the temerity to strike back against “our” policies. This is the very question we need to be asking though, because its answer is the way out of our morass.

If we are to acknowledge our past behavior, which we must if we are to resolve this mess, then we must admit that while to us this may have seemed a good way (at the time, at least) to run the world, as to date we North Americans and Northern Europeans have enjoyed more of the benefits, it is less so for the majority of others. It is therefore unstable. We have started something we cannot finish. If you answer full spectrum dominance, I answer nuclear proliferation.

Add to this the following fact:

Global climate change is real. Its effects will be drastic enough to destabilize the global economy, through disruption of agricultural production (arable land turning into arid desert) and displacement of populations (reducing to desperation millions of people in every coastal nation on Earth due to the above and sea level rise). Our only hope on limiting the severity of its effects is to achieve global co-operation at shifting away from a carbon-based energy economy (coal, oil, natural gas and even ethanol).

Nuclear is no solution because there is not enough uranium ore on the planet to serve our needs, even if it could all be mined in time, even if there could be enough reactors on line in time to use it, which according to Dr. Nathan Lewis of Caltech is impossible. Even if we managed to surmount these insurmountable limiting factors we would merely succeed in tossing ourselves from the frying pan of climate change into the fire of irradiated un-disposable deadly waste and nuclear proliferation amidst political instability, before we ran out of uranium in twenty years or so. Effort in this direction is a red herring that will divert necessary intellectual resources and capital away from more effectual systems.

We need a global carbon treaty that serves the needs of developing and developed countries alike, as both will sink under these effects unless both are on board. This fact dictates a global transition to equity. “Don’t do as we do, do as we say” has worn very thin with the developing nations, and is a non-starter for climate negotiations. The US, with 6% of the world’s population consumes between 25 and 30% of the world’s resources, and is responsible for a like amount of global carbon emissions.

Responsibility for taking the first step to resolve these issues lies with the countries who to date have benefited most from industrialization while putting the majority of the carbon into the atmosphere, the wealthiest and therefore most capable of initiating the technological conversions necessary. The technology of avoiding this catastrophe is achievable. What is required is a major shift in our thinking.

This would be easy if we recognize the message the Earth is sending us. It is time for a new era in human relations—time to move beyond empire.

Forgiveness and survival

Tomorrow King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia will convene a conference in Madrid, the proposed purposes of which are to defuse interfaith tensions, and at the same time preserve morality. To guide their efforts I proffer a fundamental maxim, common to the faiths of all attendees, in the hope that the results can be more than window dressing.


“Do unto others as you would have them do unto you”

This thought forms a core tenet of all three Abrahamic faiths, now in contention and conflict in the Middle East, and elsewhere. Obviously, if it were followed faithfully by all, the conflicts we presently suffer would not exist.

How is it that this core maxim is so easily ignored? It is only possible to do so if we refuse to acknowledge that the “other” is worthy of our respect; and so all movements that seek religious justification for political violence begin with this premise, that the “other,” because of their obvious transgressions, falls outside the realm of human consideration.

We often seem to be doing the opposite. The opposite might be stated, “causing you pain will not cause me pain,” and this seems to be the case. What I do today may or may not be observed, or judged by society, or acted upon to be punished or rectified in any way. So it is easy to assume, especially with a differential of power that may likely or even certainly delay any response to my actions, that I may successfully act on the principle, “causing you pain will not cause me pain,” especially if I can further confuse the issue with a religious interpretation that defines the object of my aggression unworthy of mercy or compassion. I would like to examine why this might not be the case, and why “do unto others as you would have them do unto you” is actually a more realistic approach to mutual relations.

First, ‘the golden rule,’ as it is called, describes in human terms a manner of action that comes from balance and creates balance; while its opposite stems from and implies imbalance and exacerbates imbalance. Imbalance constantly seeks balance; if I oppress another, they will seek ways to free themselves from my oppression. If I am oppressed, I will seek a way to right the balance. So while I may feel obliged today to cause another pain with impunity, I automatically open the door for them to return the favor tomorrow, if not with me personally, then with someone else. Once enough actors on a limited stage are operating on the same principle, sooner or later everybody touches everybody else.

So let us recognize that first, the world is a limited stage. In fact even one’s own body is a limited stage. If I harbor ill-will toward another, it resides within me, so I am its first victim.

Second, the universal principles under which humanity has come into existence have not changed over time, but other things perhaps have. Our scientific understanding of the world has advanced at the same time that our population has increased, to the point we are capable of recognizing that our actions are crowding other species off the planet, and soon, unless we adapt our manner of being towards each other and the planet on which we reside, we will crowd ourselves off as well.

The crises that confront us seem varied — climate disruption, running out of oil, food shortages, water shortages, population pressures, political conflict, religious friction — yet they have a common root; our inability to recognize our extended being. If we recognize the other as ourself, it becomes easy to treat them rightly.

I recently visited Jordan and Syria, to speak with Iraqi refugees. Many had members of their family, their tribe, amongst the Sunni, Shia, and Christian faiths. This had not prevented them from coming together at family gatherings, and celebrating what they had in common. They assured me the current conflicts are of recent manufacture, a result of external political tensions playing themselves out.

Jews, Christians, and Muslims have existed in the same neighborhood largely in harmony for centuries, with some exceptions, the present and recent past being one. Hitler consolidated his power by focusing German desperation over their economic dispossession at what he thought was an easy target, the Jews, and laid the foundation for the current conflict. When the West sought an easy solution to the Jewish refugee crisis after World War II in the recognition of Jewish dispossession of Palestinians, a new round of refugees was created, and the first story was laid.

Now as my nation has become hostage to imperial dreams of global dominance, its latest victims are one million dead, and four million new refugees joining others. As resources become scarce, divisions are created where none previously existed. Local control is crushed into chaos and despotism, in which strong external actors believe themselves free to extract wealth.

We in the West must recognize our responsibility in the creation of this crisis, and with that recognition comes the responsibility to do our utmost to contribute to its solution. Yet, we are not alone.

East or West, there is only one path to its resolution, and that is forgiveness. Revenge is an endless road, leading nowhere. Forgiveness is what I would ask if I had offended others, knowingly or unknowingly, and hope to receive. It is what I must offer others who have offended me, if I wish to regain my personal balance, or become the same as that which I hate. It is our only hope for a future together.

To follow the admonition “do unto others as you would have them do unto you,” there cannot be separate laws for those of one faith over another, those of one nation at the expense of another. This has profound implications for any state that resorts to theology for ethnic and political divisions, such as Israel, Saudi Arabia, Iran, and including the United States and Britain. We must find it within ourselves to accept the other as ourselves, and treat them as we wish to be treated, or proudly wear the label the greatest of hypocrites.

This demands we share and respect the Earth that sustains us all. It will take our mutual cooperation to chart a path to survival. The alternative is endless war for dominance, bearing witness to the destruction of the Earth that sustains us as we battle over diminishing resources, and our mutual demise.

The choice seems simple, but it is ours to make.