Duality of Responsibility

“The duality of responsibility we have” is a phrase that circled in my thoughts for many years. At that time in my life I had no idea it was even a subject of thought for old dead white guys (the usual philosophers).  As I moved through life I found out that most of them touched on this subject in many ways.  A few popular themes are conscience and sub-conscience, life and death. Machiavelli dealt with business life and home life, although most only focus on his point of “the ends justify the means, business at all cost” philosophy. The manner in which I think about duality is the responsibility to the self and the responsibility to society.

Within that framework I look at myself and the world, just so I can keep things in order to find a way through chaos. This is my method. You most likely have a different one. It would be a boring world if we did all think alike. Although I do wish that people did not suffer because of our differences of ideology. Within this method there are the struggles where self- preservation is in opposition to society.

Ghandi met that duality with starvation. People who put their lives on the line to ensure the safety of others are acts that take place every day around the world, these are the acts of martyrs, intended or not. The thought process of doing something to improve society at the cost of the self is the conflict of dual responsibility, eg., Mohamed Bouazizi.

Take any warlord and you will see self-preservation at the cost of society. Although they speak to the protection of society because they know that is the treasure of power. We can look at the situations in Syria and see both sides speaking to the needs of society. We can look at the United Nations Security Council and see each side making arguments for society. These are the leaders speaking. The people on the street also speak of society yet they also speak about their own lives.

If the question is asked, “why protest” the answer is usually, “We are tired of the corruption, insecurity, no jobs, no choice, no voice and what future is that? The desires of the self, met with the desires of the society.  

We can see self-preservation in the acts of countries as well. The RUSA is an easy target for such acts, just about every war they have started since 1962 has been about self-preservation. Israel is constantly barking about self-preservation.  

This method of understanding the world is helpful to see what the goals are of those that you face. Is the person or people out to ensure their own purpose or are they seeking to ensure the purpose of everyone. Even within that we have those that act with serious intent to secure the safety of society, but do so in a harmful manner, for example Hitler or a serial killer that preys on people they deem harmful.

At some point there will be a choice between yourself and society. People who choose to take public transit for example to help lower pollution are acting in benefit of society, buying fair trade products, recycling, donating to charities and other acts.

At the end of it all, this helps me sort through the garbage. I can listen to the words of others as they speak to helping society and then balancing that with how those words reflect the personal benefits. Just like the sales pitch we got from mobile phone companies, “buy these because in case of an emergency you can reach someone.” All of a sudden that emergency has now become, “Oh my god, what restaurant/bar are you at?” We sold out to the advertising campaign founded on safety but in reality it was to make a dollar. That example has more to it than the duality of responsibility though, a good idea gone to hell because of sell outs and suckers.

Going through the debate on duality of responsibility helps me see what my motivations are. I can ask why I have a desire to act in one way. I can understand if it is self-preservation or not. Perhaps I am not sure, which tells me I need to get clear, otherwise a huge mess is about to unfold. When that happens the task of peace just explodes.

Syria and United Nations Security Council (UNSC)

Down goes a resolution from the UNSC that deals with Syria. Now the blame for who killed it goes around. Both China and Russia did vote no on the resolution so they are the ones that will take the brunt of the blame. However as such things go, why table a resolution that was doomed before the vote was taken?

As the news reports come out we are hearing the reasons for the failure is premised upon the yes side seeking to blame the government of Syria and the no side seeking to blame everyone. Another reason is the yes side wanted to enforce a regime change and the no side wanted that to be left out as it is a decision of the people, not outsiders. There it is. The entire reason more people will die in Syria because the UNSC can not decide who to blame and support the government to step down.

This may sound harsh but I do agree with Russia and China that the UNSC should not enforce the government to step down. Now before you get all indignant, realize that sovereignty is a crucial element of being. Also realize that just because that point is not in the resolution does not mean it will not happen. Furthermore, the entire point of regime change is not possible at the moment considering the fact that the country is heading towards collapse.

At best, international politics is not an easy situation to grasp. People die and that is a fact, which I would rather not have happen. However, in the reality of international politics sovereignty matters. The two countries that have continued to uphold that are Russia and China, at the peril of many lives lost.

In my view I would not care who is to blame or what the future holds, the only concern is to stop the killing, return of peace and allow the Syrian people to figure out what to do next.

If the countries of the UNSC who voted yes cared about those that are killed they would not bother with who to blame. If the countries that voted no cared they would see that the current government in Syria at the very least, needs to be shaken up. The diplomats of the UNSC once again dug their heels in to show more care for their own politics than the lives of civilians.

Now, to be a bit of an ideologist here, this lack of concern for lives is in contrast to the very constitution of the United Nations and it spits in the face of the Responsibility to Protect.

What will happen now? More people will die, more weapons will flow into Syria, More rhetoric and words will spill out in the media as fingers point to blame.

What should happen? Someone should take all five permanent members of the UNSC outside, tie them to any peace  monument and give them a good smash upside the head, in hopes that some sense will go in.

These are the leaders we have. What a bunch of knobs.

Preventive Diplomacy

Wisdom is a resource that is often given to us in riddles and clichés.  Clichés such as “an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure” or “a stitch in time will save nine” have been offered as solid points to ensure that a situation is kept in check.  The result is much worse and more costly if proper care is not taken.  The same wisdom and knowledge is important to understand when managing peaceful conflict.

Peaceful conflict may seem like an oxymoron or just moronic.  However, as I have stated in past writings conflict is only the meeting and joining of two or more whatevers.  For example typing this article, my fingers come into conflict with each key, thought is conflict, child birth is a conflict as is the act that began the child, and meeting a person for the very first time is a conflict.  It just so happens that most of us are brainwashed to see conflict as a negative element. The negative focus only warns us that we must take notice of the wisdom we have to prevent situations from getting worse.

When dealing with international peace often we do focus on violence, death, struggle, injustice and rights abuses.  As we think about those situations the world had invented Peacekeepers to prevent the worsening impact of war.  Today we have come to the point where preventive diplomacy is a common element in political circles. Below are five priority areas that the current Secretary-General of the United Nations listed for strengthening the use of preventive diplomacy:

(1)early and decisive action to address emerging threats;

(2) investing in and better equipping “preventive diplomats” and their staff;

(3) predictable and timely financial support to maximize efforts on the ground and to deliver results;

(4) stronger strategic partnerships with regional and subregional organizations;

(5) greater support for national institutions and mechanisms for mediation, including civil society and, in particular, women’s and youth organizations.

For me and my work I feel that the most important element of the five is number five.  Engaging in this area will accomplish all the rest. 

Taking the holistic mindset we go from international politics to the personal relationship. On a personal front and in the lives of individuals, preventive diplomacy is a difficult ideology to explain and even harder to implement.  I have been engaged in peace for at least twenty years, I still get caught up in emotions and do stupid things that have caused a number of my own relationships to crumble.

In our personal lives preventive diplomacy is all about caring for yourself and others equally. The policy of “do no harm” is often relevant as is the Golden Rule, “treat others as you wish to be treated”. The difficult part is that we are all different in some manner.  Some of us truly believe in Machiavelli where the ends justify the means and business is conducted at all cost to win. 

What is vital though is the foundation of understanding.  We gain understanding through learning and communication.  Sometimes you know what to do but just do not have the energy or desire.  You feel that you have given enough.  Frustration sets in and then you throw all the work out and let loose.  If the other side is well trained they will realize this and just let you go off.  To be honest, I can count the number of times when I have been able to vent without fear of repercussion.  Someday I hope that balances out even.

Strength to resolve matters peacefully

Having lived in many areas of chaos, I am positive that most people are peaceful. In turn, the larger part of society, is peaceful as well.  It is quite an odd situation while being a guest in a stranger’s home in a war zone.  The subject of the war is obviously discussed.  The reality soon hits you that most people have a strong understanding of peace.  However, you can hear the war rage on outside.  Then the question comes; how did this all get so ugly?

From that question alone the war will begin as the people recall the injustices set upon them.  This is called “stacking bodies”, the part where people begin to list all the injuries they have incurred.  Engaging in this activity is the method to prove how one side is the enemy.  Such tactics are rarely helpful in resolving a conflict.  Continually pointing out the injustices keeps you rooted in the mindset of revenge and being treated unfairly.  To get to the point of resolving any conflict you have to be able to do two things.

First you have to truly understand your part through accepting the others view point. You do not have to agree with their view point but there is no way you can change that view point.  Second you have to see past the committed injustices.  Again, you do not have to forget about the injustices but you do have to be able to accept that nothing can change those events.  Both of these items are simple yet they are difficult to enact.

Often we see these two items as a large part of being weak or giving in.  These views are a hindrance for most peace workers as it takes more strength, effort, intelligence and will power to engage in such a manner than it does to kill.  However there are times when killing is the only option, unless you want to die yourself.  World War Two, stopping Hitler stands as one example when killing was the only option.

Getting back to the methods needed for resolving conflict, the best tools we have is the ability to learn, educate and adapt.  We must have the capacity to understand that each and every one of us has a desire to improve upon themselves.  As we go about our lives we see others and we notice how others live.  In turn we see the parts of our own selves in these people that we wish we had.  We see in others the qualities that we know and want to improve upon.  If that person is in your daily life, the change that you wish to improve upon will become an irritant and you will develop a dislike for that person.  This is a popular theory of Carl Jung and it holds a great amount of truth.  This is on an individual level, not so sure it holds true on a societal level.  However the methods of dealing with conflict are transferable from individual to society and into international relations.

With the case of Syria, the government has given a great deal of attention to killing and very little to discussion.  We can be assured that the methods of killing will continue.  The Arab Council tried to force the discussion method by sending in Observers, that failed.  The United Nations Security Council (UNSC) is again looking at intervention.  Economic Sanctions, strongly worded resolutions and a litany of press releases will most likely be the result if the UNSC takes action.  All the while the government will continue to crush its own people, at a slower pace perhaps. The killing will continue until morale improves in Syria.  It will continue at a pace slow enough for the appearance of peace and discussion.  Which brings in the world of optics, spin and bullshit.

All because some people do not have the strength to resolve matters peacefully.

Reality of friendship

In the realm of peace there comes a moment in the lives of people where a decision has to be made to sacrifice.  On a personal level, in the chaos of war, sacrifice maybe your life for the protection of your friends.  These sacrifices are the foundations of why soldiers become so close to each other.   To experience, know and believe that your friends will go to such lengths, as you would do the same for them, is a very humbling state of mind.  Using that understanding we can gauge the situation in which the world is in.  The question being: is there any country that would defend another to the point of certain death?

The short answer is no.  That level of friendship does not exist in the world of international politics.  Some may point to the actions taken in Iraq and Afghanistan.  Those wars were not about defending a friend; they were about self-preservation at the cost of your friend.  Iraq is in a far worse state than before the war. Afghanistan is no better today compared to what life was like fifteen years ago.  To be honest, at no time were the countries involved ever in grave danger. 

Now the argument is made that soldiers died and that is an indication of our sacrifice.  I have lost many friends due to war and I can tell you that most people in Canada do not know or understand such a cost.    Our soldiers died and we honour that sacrifice because they were in harm’s way, our country was never at harm.  I recall one particular media personality saying in 2007 that Canada has not been at war since 1945. Life continued on as much in the same manner in 2011 as it did in the past forty or so years.

At this moment I can hear a litany of opposition saying, how dare you say such a thing?  Vicarious feelings and crocodile tears are what those people offer.  The hypocrisy of mentality today is solidified in the minds of people.  They will talk of dedication of friendship as a BFF which may only last a year, all the while forgetting that the last F is forever.  A small matter, perhaps yet it is a reality to how far the world has slipped when it comes to true friendship.

This self- attachment to external drama being conveyed as personal experience is bullshit.  Perhaps such a world is too stressful for those people?  Perhaps they are not capable to see the joy of having such deep understanding and commitment? Perhaps the character of today is more fragile?  Whatever it is, I hope it gets resolved so that we can regain our strong sense of what true friendship is all about.

And I do know I am as guilty of such bullshit myself.  I did not play in the World Junior Hockey tournament but I can understand the feelings of Swedish, Russian Canadian and the players for Finland.

Syrian Intervention

The revolutions that are ongoing in Syria have been deemed an internal problem by almost every world leading organization.  The UN Security Council quickly decided that Syria is experiencing a civil war.  As I have mentioned before that designation allows the Security Council the moral standpoint of non-intervention.  However, there still exists the pesky ideology of “Responsibility to Protect”.

The Responsibility to Protect (R2P), ideology was born in 2001.  It was the brain storm of the “soft” or “smart” power countries.  The crux of this ideology is that sovereignty can be broken if there is cause enough to do so. Criteria for breaking sovereignty would be a ruling government failing to stop a violent uprising or conducting a violent rampage upon its own people, for example Yugoslavia and Rwanda.  There are other cases that can be pointed to as well such as Cambodia and Somalia. 

There is no magical number or line in which we can point to and say this is the line for action.  The world is just not that easy or simple.  Also there are many scales of account to consider.  A civil war is by nature a challenge to the ruling government.  As brutal as it may seem such a condition of chaos must be allowed to play itself out, case in point is Ireland, Egypt, Tunisia and Georgia.  The murky cases are Libya, Kashmir Region, Sri Lanka and others.  Even the countries named here are debated whether or not they indicate civil war, terrorism, gang violence, failing states or what have you.

 With all of this judging of circumstances we have the politics of intervention.  The questions swirl around about; why should we intervene, is there capacity to intervene and who should lead the intervention.  In addition to those questions there is always predicting how long it will take to quell the violence.  I myself have come to understand that the only answer is – as long as it takes.  It may take months, years or even decades.  To be completely honest time is a reason the UN Security Council stays out.  Well not just time but the longer the war the higher the death count.  Few countries have the will to be engaged in a single combat for extended periods of time, unless it is happening in their own area. 

With the case of 5 000 dead in Syria and counting, is a significant portion of the population.  The Arab Observers have seen enough and are being recalled due to an unsafe environment.   The Arab Council had seen a need for intervention as it did with Libya.  The different between Libya and Syria is the location of Syria, the area is extremely volatile.

Now on the surface of all that is peaceful this would be the exact area where the UN Security Council should deploy.  This region holds the crucible of tension in most wars today – religion/ideology.  The only reason I can see for not having a greater presence is the hypocrisy in political will of the world leaders.  Killing 5 000 people because they asked for a different government is a crime against humanity in my view.

The debate about who fired the first shot will forever go on.  In some sense that is an important fact yet, the thousandth shot is just as important.  In such a debate this is called “stacking bodies”.  The side that has the most bodies is the side that has incurred the most harm, therefore is justified in all their actions.  In the world of peace relations, justification is not an excuse for killing.  Killing is part of the “eye for and eye” game theory.  In the end we are all dead if we follow that theory through. 

I say it is time that the people of Syria be relieved and the world step in to stop the killing.