|
MORALITY
As
the President of the Scottish Rite Club of Oakland, I recently
had the privilege of arranging and listening to a speech by
Professor Karen Miller, Chairperson of the Department of
History, Oakland University.
Her speech was entitled and described as follows:
“Finding Purpose in American Foreign Policy: the Moral
Dilemma of post-Cold War International Relations: For more
than a generation, American foreign policy had been built on the
moral premise that the containment of the Soviet Union was a
necessary pre-requisite to global peace. This meant that most
of our energy was expended in understanding the communist threat
as a manifestation of Russian expansionism. All policy
decisions ultimately led to the objective of curtailing Soviet
strength. With the sudden dissolution of the Soviet Union
in 1991, the United States government momentarily lost the means
to determine its foreign policy objectives. As a result,
American foreign policy has become much more tightly linked to
the individual goals of the president and less a reflection of a
larger consensus of the American people. Ultimately, this makes
it easier for Congress and the general public to disassociate
from major foreign policy initiatives.”
Dr. Miller explained that the United States was the sole
remaining superpower capable of directing international foreign
policy. In fact, President Bill Clinton strove to achieve
international consensus on goals, such as elimination of
warfare, prevention of genocide and elimination of world
starvation. Sometimes the president believed he had to
achieve these goal covertly, because many in our nation believe
that “might makes right” and felt that after going through the
cold war successfully, we ought to unilaterally make the world
“safe for democracy.” However, Dr. Miller states that President
Clinton occasionally used covert techniques to by-pass
opposition. He tended to vacillate in his commitment in an
effort to search for a consensus with neo-conservatives and
advocates of realpolitik. In both the Balkans and Somalia
he wavered in his commitment to use force for nation building.
In Afghanistan and Iraq he vacillated between a policy of
accommodation and military strikes.
President Bush and others were so traumatically affected by 9/11
that to some degree their sense of proportion was distorted and
they got carried away by the atrocity.
President George W. Bush enthusiastically endorsed the
unilateral belief that the U.S. has the right and duty to
provide leadership in the world. He almost unilaterally
sent troops to Iraq to take over the nation, depose
Saddam Hussein
and aid the inhabitants of Iraq in establishing a democracy.
He did this despite a great deal of hostility from our
traditional foreign partners like France, Germany and Canada.
He said that the U.S. desired to assist the inhabitants of Iraq
in obtaining their desire for a democracy. However, Dr.
Miller explained that such actions were actually against the
will of the Iraqi nation.
According to the polls, most Americans want us to end our
activities in Iraq. We do not want to continue to be
involved in a civil war in which participants are willing to
commit suicide in their desire to kill whom they believe to be
the enemy, including our troops.
*
*
*
In
continuing this paper, I acknowledge that I have already written
on morality in “Bias Hate Crimes”
and “Fairness” as links in this
website,
www.davidhakim.com. Displaced aggression, as
discussed in my link, “Capital
Punishment,” causes one to portray poor behavior and hatred
toward others. These are generally learned behaviors that
are sometimes continued from lifetimes as also is true love.
Many would rather die than treat others unfairly, and generally
it is through emotion that negative feelings are displayed
toward others.
I
have taken many courses from Francisco Coll, founder of the
Americana Leadership College, and his associates, and many times
have heard the following: “There is no right or wrong, no good
or evil, just self respect and respect of others.”
The
Bible, Genesis 2:16-17 (New International) states: “And
the Lord commanded the man, ‘You are free to eat from any tree
in the garden, but you must not eat from the tree of the
knowledge of good and evil, for when you eat of it you will
surely die.’” Could this mean that man has created the concept
of good and evil, without which love would more easily exist
throughout the world? Was original sin created because of
man’s loss of innocence? Most religions acknowledge the
presence of good and evil, but don’t their various definitions
of good and evil actually result in negative practices of man
against man which result in much bloodshed?
Other sayings of Francisco and his followers are: “You are
what you think, not what you think you are” (see my links on
“Secret” and “Enjoy”), “Be a peace lover, not a peace maker,”
“Live and let live” and “Do not judge another, because you may
find yourself judging yourself twice as hard.”
One’s environment, especially what one learned from his/her
parents, largely dictates whether one practices these behaviors.
Of course, it is possible to overcome past training and
practices, and if enough people world wide were able to practice
the above, true love would prevail.
In
my link, “Israeli Palestinian,” I gave a
solution of the Israeli Palestinian crisis: Divide the
land in separate nation states. I also showed my
displeasure of going to war against Iraq, especially since I
have relatives living there. I believe that attempts are
being made to achieve peace in the Middle East that will soon
bear fruit, and but for certain mistakes of fact and judgment we
would not have gone to war with Iraq.
David C. Hakim
Rochester, Michigan
May 31 – June 6, 2007 |
