Perhaps I am one of those cynics, though I am not really terrible crazy about being a part of such a band. Yet from various points of perspectives, most of the so-called world institutions have been worthless in the majority of the cases where some sort of intervention was either expected from or undertaken from them. In fact, I cannot remember a single case where a world institution such as the UN, IMF or World Bank have made a major change in people’s lives in a positive manner, although I would not deny that they have had minor contributions, contributions of the kind that were mostly in private spheres and for specialized projects.
On the other hand, the UN, supposedly the United Nations, disregarding the fact that it is not even set up structurally to function as such, but as the UN of a handful of countries permanently appointed to the security council, has a rather bad history of not really being very objective, if we are to dig deep into our memories. It was, until very recently, and actually still is in many ways, simply a tool to be exploited for publicity reasons, for creating so-called public opinions for those opinion-less masses in those so-called democratic societies to get certsin jobs done with seemingly public support (In Turkish for ‘kilifina uydurmak icin’). It was nothing more than a publicity tool for coming up with necessary justifications for certain projects that certain countries needed, and when there were no conditions for creating such justifications they were used this time for completely opposite intentions – that of preventing the opposition to have a similar justification. To cut the discussion short, the UN or any other International organ, has hardly been even close to being satisfactory. They are simply worthless to the many on this planet; they have been unable to create much difference on the lives of the many for decades now – in fact, they have had the opposite effect quite often, if we are to take into account the contributions of world institutions such as the World Bank and IMF. In fact, had most of these institutions, especially the UN, not been around, I doubt seriously if the situation we are observing right now would be much different in any negative way.
Having said all this, I am, however, not really talking about such institutions when I mention the subject of global situations, but actually type of institutions that will be manned and organized by citizens of various countries, by public forces of various nation-states, not by these very states, as a force in opposition to what the nation-states administrations represent or defend ideologically. The UN, in this respect, is an outcome of various states, rather than various publics, or bodies of citizens. It actually came into existence in war conditions, and its structure, in some ways, that of the security council, does remind me what we have in our state as far as the generals are concerned. Both structures are hardly democratic. I realize that what I am saying is very much an utopia at the moment, but this, involving publics instead of only states, is what I would consider thinking globally. This kind of thinking is actually the very antithesis of nation-state-ism or nationalism, so to come close even to discussing such an option, both of these ideologies need to be very much discredited first in the eyes of the masses. I understand this as well.
I do not necessarily have a solution right now, but, when there are policies being discussed for economic and technological globalism, and when there is such a thing as global terrorism, I believe one of the most logical things to do would be to carry the same globalism to some other areas as well. Will the latest American experience bring such a result, or even a discussion of the possibility of working for such a result? This is one thing I, as a normal citizen, would like to see coming from the Bush administration, or simply from America. I am still waiting. Nobody would expect America, rather the US, to come up overnight with a solution to this problem. However, they may start discussing it. There are two things that can come up from such tragedies: one either becomes more aggressive and goes for blood, or one starts thinking about starting already existing, or if such an option is not immediately available, working towards founding, organs of critical think tanks, public wide discussions, and etc. The latter option is usually the most difficult one in countries, which would be the most of them in today’s world, where either the previous critical public of the early capitalist era was almost wholly transformed into masses that are used before elections or similar private interest projects, or simply never existed. The dilemma is that a public of the sort that is critical and critically involved in everyday life practices and decisions is most needed right now, both on local and global levels; it is the solution. But, the existence of such a public may also easily bring an end, or at least turn out to be a threat, to the hegemony of the private group interests and the mass democracies created by such groups. In other words, they may lose the elections, the very tools and in some cases sources of their incomes. Therefore, the first option is logically the best one from the perspective of certain groups which actually very much rule these mass democracies, and Afghanistan is simply a great choice and an opportunity to create a ‘wag the tail’ (if I remember the title of this movie correctly) type of publicity event. The only problem is those damn mountains; if only it was as flat as Iraq.
t.
PS Nihat, and others for that matter, I am able mostly to write on my weekends, which is from Saturday through Monday. So, there will be quite a few posts coming up one after another to address all those challenging points you raised in your post(s).
Also about the loading times in this new format, I agree. i think it will be best to keep the chains 10-12 posts long.
This message has been edited by pigeti on Sep 30, 2001 9:51 PM This message has been edited by pigeti on Sep 30, 2001 9:47 PM
First of all, whatever I might have written before, perhaps I have phrased it wrongly in my previous post, the idea of dealing with conditions is not simply about fixing certain conditions that are outside of the land of the US, because, according to the declarations that have been made so far, the US itself is one of these conditions. It is the US presence in the Middle East that is under heavy critique. So, it is not simply that certain conditions were messed up in the area and that the US and others did not pay much attention to them, but that certain conditions got messed up through the intentional policies of the US and others in the area. Therefore, the US is faced with the job of dealing with these policies of its own and consequently the principles, the foreign policy principles, these policies are set upon. For example, as far as the Israel-Palestine case goes, we can clearly see the British role in the origin of this problem. Then comes the American role. Even the origins of the Albanian problem can be taken back to the Balkan Wars in the beginning of the 20th century and the European involvement in this area. There are many examples, and what the whole thing eventually comes down to is that the modern age brought to this area the West, the Western interventions in the name of western interests. Such interventions brought opposite reactions naturally, and such reactions have eventually resulted in wrong actions as well.
There is really no first and last responsible party in this. Perhaps the West had to colonize the rest of the world; they had believed in the rightness of what they were doing. But, still, this does not change the fact that what we are experiencing and observing as present conditions in this area are makings of the modern era, and mostly under the initiative and control of the hegemonic and dominant Western powers. In fact, the political, and to some extent militant, Islam the West is targeting right now is a creation of this era, of Western interventions. Therefore, not necessarily are we dealing with ideologies and people that are determined to be dissatisfied, but at struggle against certain parties that have been the cause of their so-called dissatisfactions. In case of el-Kaide, the satisfaction is very simple in some ways: withdrawal of the American troops from Saudi primarily, and secondarily, changes in policies towards Middle East. From this very perspective, the US itself is almost one of those groups that is bound to remain dissatisfied.
What we, mostly westerners, mentally that is, cannot seem to understand is that whereas certain things may seem very logical to us the same things, for various reasons, but mostly for religious reasons, are impossible to live with for some other people. If one’s religion dictates strict absence of non-believers in certain places, we should understand that not obeying such a command may have serious psychological and personal problems for them. After all, I cannot go on with my life all naked in the US, can I? Many people would find this very disturbing. Then why are we so surprised and unaccommodating, when others, for their own religious or other reasons, find certain practices very disturbing. It is after all their own country. Just because some countries accommodate certain degrees of religious and ethnic diversity does not mean that others should do. Bin Laden, and his followers, seem to be very violated by the presence of the American (Christian) presence on their land, and in whatever (sometimes strange) ways some people may interpret Islam, Islam is actually very clear on this matter. And, because of this clarity that Bin Ladin has a case in the eyes of many Muslims; that he is actually a hero. And, that is exactly why this whole thing is already about two ‘civilizations’ in conflict.
What I am trying to say here is that we are not necessarily dealing with a marginal group here first of all, and secondly we are not actually dealing with an entirely unreasonable group. Other than their tactics, and the fact that I do not agree with their ideology, I cannot find anything too wrong with el-Kaide and others of this sort. They are not bound to stay dissatisfied. In fact, as long as one of the main sources of the Western energy needs is in the Middle East, the US and its other capitalistic allies are bound to stay very dissatisfied, and they have. Especially the US, in the name of American interests, has refused to be part of reasonable solutions and resolutions on quiet many matters, the latest being the case of recognizing Zionism as a racist ideology, just to give a minor example.
The US may have very vital interests in the area; granted. Similarly, these Islamic groups and people have vital interests in the same area, which, by the way, happens to be their own land. It is not like that they are making a claim for LA or New York. One takes off from economic needs, the other from more psychological/cultural needs. They may, if they are let to their own, try using petroleum as an economic weapon one day, but who can say that the US is not doing the same already. So, the matter is not really only about a dissatisfied group of this or that sort, but also about a bully who wants everything his own way at the expense of others and through, quite often, violent ways. We got to be able to see things from others’ perspectives as well.