So much in the news that warrants comment.
For those of us who are paying attention, we are witnessing a world changing series of events in North Africa and the Middle East. Long standing governments are being destabilized and their very existence threatened by citizens from within. Governments that haven’t necessarily been of a style we might prefer, but in control of their countries never-the-less.
The concepts of diplomacy and statesmanship have led our country into partnerships with other countries that are in no way similar to our own, but where we do share an interest beneficial to both parties. If we limited our treaty commitments to only countries sharing our personal views, we would have few partners so it has been and will be in the future necessary for us negotiate with kings and dictators who rule countries that do not grant their citizens even basic freedoms we cherish.
So now when those citizens challenge their unelected leaders to taste the freedom we take for granted, what should our government’s role be in the process?
Should we take sides and actively support one side or the other or should we silently watch and let the chips fall where they may and resume diplomatic relations with whoever is standing after the smoke clears? This is a dilemma we are struggling with in steadily increasing numbers.
Having said that, how would we feel if foreign governments that embrace a system different from our own decided to destabilize our own country and promote change to America consistent with their system?
I am no student of the History of Western Civilization, but I can remember times when people with strong feelings about their own beliefs felt compelled to “share” their beliefs with others in spite of the fact that those others had beliefs of their own already. The “sharing” of religious beliefs has been the source of much bloodshed for thousands of years. So should we be forcing our beliefs on others?
This is an important issue because it causes us to question our motives in dealing with every foreign country in the world.
The United States of America was founded by citizens who left their home lands to find a place where they could worship as they chose; citizens who demonstrated an independence that could not tolerate undue “taxation without representation.”
For more than two hundred years, Americans have embodied the freedom we gained from our own revolution.
In spite of the fact that our country represented the ideal form of government for people who cherished their individual freedoms, our form of government has not been successfully adopted by any other country in the world. The delicate balance of interests required for our government to survive this long has been guaranteed by our Constitution and our Bill of Rights.
But that took hard work and a firm belief in the individual freedoms that are the founding principles of our country.
So as time passed, many Americans came to the conclusion that our government’s job was to spread “our freedom” to everyone else in the world.
As painful as it might be, our country needs to step back and stop interfering with struggles taking place in other countries. We can root for freedom, but we cannot play a role in manipulating the evolution of change.
Mubarak was a despicable dictator for thirty years because it was in the best interest of Israel for him to stay in power. So should we support principles of freedom or support despots? We need to decide our role so we can be consistent. If we choose freedom over security then we need to know that.
If we determine that is it our job to “share” our view of freedom and Free the world from Kings and Dictators we better beef up our armies.
Posted on February 23, 2011 at 7:39 am in Foreign Affairs, Political commentary | RSS feed
|
Reply |
Trackback URL
No Loss for Words
Freedom or Security?
by Steve DanaSo much in the news that warrants comment.
For those of us who are paying attention, we are witnessing a world changing series of events in North Africa and the Middle East. Long standing governments are being destabilized and their very existence threatened by citizens from within. Governments that haven’t necessarily been of a style we might prefer, but in control of their countries never-the-less.
The concepts of diplomacy and statesmanship have led our country into partnerships with other countries that are in no way similar to our own, but where we do share an interest beneficial to both parties. If we limited our treaty commitments to only countries sharing our personal views, we would have few partners so it has been and will be in the future necessary for us negotiate with kings and dictators who rule countries that do not grant their citizens even basic freedoms we cherish.
So now when those citizens challenge their unelected leaders to taste the freedom we take for granted, what should our government’s role be in the process?
Should we take sides and actively support one side or the other or should we silently watch and let the chips fall where they may and resume diplomatic relations with whoever is standing after the smoke clears? This is a dilemma we are struggling with in steadily increasing numbers.
Having said that, how would we feel if foreign governments that embrace a system different from our own decided to destabilize our own country and promote change to America consistent with their system?
I am no student of the History of Western Civilization, but I can remember times when people with strong feelings about their own beliefs felt compelled to “share” their beliefs with others in spite of the fact that those others had beliefs of their own already. The “sharing” of religious beliefs has been the source of much bloodshed for thousands of years. So should we be forcing our beliefs on others?
This is an important issue because it causes us to question our motives in dealing with every foreign country in the world.
The United States of America was founded by citizens who left their home lands to find a place where they could worship as they chose; citizens who demonstrated an independence that could not tolerate undue “taxation without representation.”
For more than two hundred years, Americans have embodied the freedom we gained from our own revolution.
In spite of the fact that our country represented the ideal form of government for people who cherished their individual freedoms, our form of government has not been successfully adopted by any other country in the world. The delicate balance of interests required for our government to survive this long has been guaranteed by our Constitution and our Bill of Rights.
But that took hard work and a firm belief in the individual freedoms that are the founding principles of our country.
So as time passed, many Americans came to the conclusion that our government’s job was to spread “our freedom” to everyone else in the world.
As painful as it might be, our country needs to step back and stop interfering with struggles taking place in other countries. We can root for freedom, but we cannot play a role in manipulating the evolution of change.
Mubarak was a despicable dictator for thirty years because it was in the best interest of Israel for him to stay in power. So should we support principles of freedom or support despots? We need to decide our role so we can be consistent. If we choose freedom over security then we need to know that.
If we determine that is it our job to “share” our view of freedom and Free the world from Kings and Dictators we better beef up our armies.
Rate this:
Share this:
Related
Posted on February 23, 2011 at 7:39 am in Foreign Affairs, Political commentary | RSS feed | Reply | Trackback URL