Steve, thank for your email. We may need to agree to disagree soon. Many decades ago, Alfred Sloan (iconic CEO of GM) said "What is good for General Motors is good for America". Similarly, the present U.S. administration seems to believe that what is good for corporations and the rich, is good for all Americans; and what is good for America, is good for the rest of the world.
I was a college student in Pakistan during the Vietnam War. Unlike many students, for a long time I accepted the American justification for that war, and changed my views fairly late in that war. During the last decade, I have done a lot of reading. In one of his books, M. Scott Peck (author of "The Road Less Traveled") talks about the lying that has become an accepted part of American administrations. He conjectures that the lie about the Gulf of Tonkin incident during Vietnam War (which I believe was used as the excuse for Congress to declare war) was perhaps the start of the slippery slope. The lies have been more pronounced in American foreign policy - I believe partly because many U.S. foreign operations have been covert and through the CIA. It is difficult for many Americans to accept that they have been lied to, in the democracy in which they live. These American are as much in denial as those Muslims who believe that 9/11 could not have been perpetrated by other Muslims. Specifically to me, your following comments are troubling: 1. Your saying "it was a small group of U.N. member nations lead by the U.S. who acted upon the U.N. edict. Opposed by some members, but hardly, unilateral". Sounds like "The good guys" (America and its allies) doing the "right thing" It was not only "some members" (of the Security Council) that opposed; it was a clear majority, in spite of U.S. arm-twisting. More important, global public opinion was opposed. Also opposed were key American weapons inspectors (such as Scott Ritter) plus U.N. Secretary General as well as other mediators (Hans Blix etc) who were disregarded, and made fun of. 2. Also troubling is your view that Sistani's edict (an Iraqi who opposed the tyranny of Saddam Hussein, and forced the occupying power to hold elections for a constituent assembly) was akin to the statement of King George "a tyrant who .... tried to impose his will upon people in America.". "The messiah/s" for any community or society can only arise from within. If you see Sistani's fatwa akin to that of a colonial "tyrant", then Iraq has lesser hope than I thought it had. 3. Perhaps most troubling is your final "All we seek is to share our liberty". It sounds sanctimonious. America under Bush is focused on security, which trumps liberty whenever there is tension between the two. Replacement of Ashcroft by Gonzales is the most evident manifestation of this fact. I do not accept Bush's belief that America has been given a mandate by "God", "from beyond the stars" to spread liberty and freedom. He seems to truly believe that God speaks to him as "HE" spoke to Jesus and Moses. Iraqi insurgents believe that the same God (re-named Allah) spoke to Muslim Sunni clerics to defend Iraq against the invaders. And a few minor points: - I do not "misunderstand American Democracy". I believe those who believe that (any) democracy is limited to casting votes periodically misunderstand democracy. There is another large group of Americans who do not understand democracy: These are citizens who are unconcerned that nine out of ten candidates who get elected in America are those that spend the largest amount of money. - What you read in Wikepedia about Fatwas is generally correct. However, it particularly applies to Sunnis. Shias tend to have some sort of hierarchy, although it is not global as with Catholics. Take care, Masud There is something called learning at a rather small level of organisation. At a much higher gestalt level, learning is called evolution - Gregory Bateson -----Original Message----- From: Steve Gawron [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: February 8, 2005 2:58 PM Subject: Re: Open Space & Anti-Americanism Hello Masud and all, First, I appreciate your thoughts as expressed in your e-mail. I would like to respond to your questions. 1) Can open space be opened by force? If open space needed to be opened at all, then it would not by definition be opened in the first place. The example you gave of a CEO and consultant is not one I share. Whatever the actions taken by the consultant on behalf of the CEO, the CEO still owns the problem. If he does not correct a dysfunctional department, he will soon be relieved of his responsibilities by the shareholders and stakeholders of his company. The consultant may or may not join him. In the case you made for unilateralist, it was the United Nations who warned Saddam to comply with the consent of the members nations. When he did not comply, it was a small group of U.N. member nations lead by the U.S. who acted upon the U.N. edict. Opposed by some members, but hardly, unilateral. 2) ... does not loyalty to American ideals demand dissent of policies that disregard those ideals. You might misunderstand American democracy. Our democracy is based on the premise that if a majority of its citizens disagree with the leaders and their actions, they have the right to change those leaders. If you look at last November's election, a majority of the citizens agreed with the current leadership. There was much dissention but the citizens were free to choose and spoke through voting. I looked up the definition of fatwa on this site: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fatwa I quote, a fatwa ... " is a legal pronouncement in Islam, issued by a religious law specialist on a specific issue. Usually a fatwa is issued at the request of an individual or a judge to settle a question where fiqh, Islamic jurisprudence, is unclear. A scholar capable of issuing fataawa is known as a Mufti. Because there is no central Islamic priesthood, there is also no unanimously accepted method to determine who can issue a fatwa and who cannot, leading some Islamic scholars to complain that too many people feel qualified to issue fatwas." There is no parallel to this style of edict in the American form of democracy. As a citizen, are guaranteed by our constitution the right to accept or ignore any edict whether it be the government, corporation, any religious leader, or other citizen. You must, however, respect the right of the other citizens to present their opinions. In our country, disputes are handled under a judicial system. While it is often inefficient, it guarantees that all parties concerned have a right to voice their opinion on the matter. The United States was born when a tyrant, King George of England, tried to impose his will upon people in America. Even then, there were people who dissented of behalf of King George. (we call them Canadians) We still respect their choices and consider them our friends though we often disagree. The fatwa you cited sound more akin to a statement of King George not of Ben Franklin, Thomas Jefferson, or Patrick Henry. The people of Iraq will be in charge of their country when the Americans leave. They will own their problems and hopefully will seek help from all nations around the world. As a free and democratic nation, the U.S. has made many mistakes. All we seek is to share our liberty. I look forward to future discussions with you. Steve Gawron ----- Original Message ----- From: "Masud Sheikh" <[email protected]> To: <[email protected]> Sent: Tuesday, February 08, 2005 11:57 AM Subject: FW: Open Space & Anti-Americanism > Steve, > My questions below are not rhetorical, and I do hope that you will take them > in the spirit in which I am trying to ask them: > > 1) Can space be opened by force? > That sounds a lot like a CEO telling a consultant "that department is > managed and controlled very badly. I want you to open up space in it" > > Of course, in the case of American involvement in Iraq, the related question > is "Was Bush authorized to behave like the CEO of planet Earth?" > > Do remember that most of the criticism has been about American > administration's unilateralism. > > 2) While I empathize with American nationalism (fuelled and converted by > Bush & Co after 9/11 as support of American policy), does not loyalty to > American ideals demand dissent of policies that disregard those ideals? > > My opinions: > 1) I am afraid that the right thing was not done before something horrible > went wrong. Abandoning Afghanistan after the Soviets were driven out (at the > end of 1980s) was the wrong thing to do in Afghanistan. Manipulating Islamic > religious feelings (and American policy was at the forefront of doing that) > was the wrong thing to do in fighting the Soviets. Similarly, manipulating > post 9/11 fearful feelings of American citizens is wrong now. > > 2) Re Iraq, it is still too early to say what the long-term impact of these > elections will be. Also, the recently held election was not the preference > of Bush & Co. They were forced into accepting these by Ayatollah Sistani, > called "Ayatollah Democracy" in articles last year. Here is the Ayatollah's > Fatwa insisting on elections: > > "The Occupational Authority in no way has the authority to choose members > for the drafting committee of a Basic Law. In no way does any authority > exist for such a drafting committee to represent the lofty interests of the > Iraqi people or to translate into law the wishes and basic identity of the > Iraqi people, the pillars of which are the glorious faith of Islam and > society's values. The current [American] plan discussed is fundamentally > unacceptable. > > Accordingly, popular elections are necessary so that each Iraqi who is of > voting age can choose his representative for a constituent assembly. And > then any Basic Law written by this assembly must be approved by a national > referendum. It is incumbent upon all believers with their utmost commitment > to demand this, and asserting the truth of this path is the best way that > they can participate in this process." > > He sounds like a re-incarnated founding father of America. > > Take care, > Masud Sheikh > > The world will be saved by individuals of integrity freely joining together > - Buckminster Fuller * * ========================================================== [email protected] ------------------------------ To subscribe, unsubscribe, change your options, view the archives of [email protected]: http://listserv.boisestate.edu/archives/oslist.html To learn about OpenSpaceEmailLists and OSLIST FAQs: http://www.openspaceworld.org/oslist
