Russia's re-annexation of the Crimea has stirred up a lot of
questions. Putin's counter denunciations of American unilateral actions
throughout the world, including Kosovo, reflect their sense of national
humiliation over the collapse of the Soviet empire. By all accounts, there are Russians
both in Crimea and elsewhere who are proud and ecstatic about the peninsula
rejoining "the motherland." Even Mikhail Gorbchev, architect of the
Soviet dissolution, was quoted, applauding Russian retaking of Crimea! How
differently we humans view what seems like the same circumstances.
Speaking of different views: you probably
know that some people in the Middle East deny that the Holocaust ever took
place! How many sincere Americans have questioned our own wars of intervention
from Vietnam to Iraq, to name a few of our “adventures” into foreign countries.
How about the 1950’s and the overthrow of an elected government in Iran favor
of the installation of the Shah of Iran with covert CIA assistance (all for national
security, of course!) How about American history in re slavery, racism,
treatment of native tribes, and on and on? Is there anyone with clean hands?
On “the other hand,” are we Americans
really just another chapter of the tale of humans grasping for power? Are we
but the mirror image of the evil empire that fell after decades of the Cold
War? We just happened to win that one?
What is true? Should the West do more than
protest Russia’s unilateral action in Crimea? Should we do more than impose
weak-willed, futile sanctions? Is this so wrong an evil that we should go to
war? What if Texas wants to secede? Scotland? Northern California?
Abraham Lincoln fought to save the union
in his conduct of the American Civil War. He was of course also against
slavery. But initially his quest was simply to preserve the union: or, so, at
least, he declared it to be, even if, as a consequence, slavery in the south was
to be preserved as per the original Constitution. Whatever his thoughts on the
matter, the question of a state or region's power to rise up and form its own
nation is a darn good question. Some Southerners still fume about the whole
thing.
I suppose, musing as much aloud to myself,
that there ought to be a compelling moral or ethical reason for a state,
province or some minority to secede. Secession must be a bit like disowning
one's family to whom natural love and loyalty is otherwise owed. There would
need to be, I believe, a case to make of mistreatment of one form or another to
permit secession to occur. It shouldn't be merely be prejudice or selfishness
in reverse---which, in a sense, the secession of the southern states of America
essentially amounted to. What they saw as defense of their way of life was a
commitment to the economic and social system of slavery. What they also sensed
was the rising tide of northern industrialization that would, in time, eclipse
the agrarian south for many decades to come--shifting money and power
northward. Both reasons seem far too weak to bolster their case. Industrialization
was a simple socio-economic fact for which no rebellion could have thwarted.
Secession for this reason would have been futile anyway.
Ukraine, for all the outrage we might
naturally feel here in the West, has suffered under its own leaders’ rampant
corruption and mismanagement. I don't think I've heard the Russians of Crimea
or even eastern Ukraine make accusations of mistreatment at the hands of Ukrainians.
Their reasons for rejoining Russia are presumably more cultural and historical
than economic or ethical. I am ill equipped to say anything intelligent or
well-informed on that issue but I wonder, as many must surely also, what the
right and moral response is to the annexation. Certainly wrist slapping
sanctions are inevitable, politically, at least. Long term? Well, I can't
imagine many Americans think it's worth WW 3!
Are we "just as bad" as the evil
empire? Is it all merely a matter of perspective? Yes, and, well, No!
Regardless of how poorly or well America may manifest the ideals on which our
country was founded, those ideals stand emblazoned for the ages as the standard
against which the body politic anywhere on this earth must be
measured--including America.
But too many nations, newly formed since
the end of WW2, are culturally and politically far, far away from being
"in tune" with and ready to make the necessary personal sacrifices to
manifest the ideals so eloquently put forth in the Declaration of Independence.
How many former holdings of the colonial powers have made a tragic mess of
their hard-won freedom?
With Indian independence in 1947 the
slaughter was horrific. Genocide is still happening in Asia and Africa, e.g.,
and is too brutal for most of us to contemplate. Should the colonial powers
have held on? Well, what difference does a question like that make at this late
date? Conquest necessitates brutality and the imperial empires had run their
course and suffered their own fate. The chaos that has resulted from the
dissolution of those empires is evidently the price of freedom and the price is
evidently very high. The American colonies paid a price for freedom, too.
Who would argue that America should have
stayed out of WW 1? WW 2? Vietnam? Iraq? Afghanistan? Some would; most would
not. Doesn't matter now....these things have their own course to run and
there's no use in "crying over spilt milk." But, now, with Russia on
the loose again? Should countries like America continue to be the world's
police force? I say a resounding "Maybe!"
In fact what I feel is needed and is long,
long overdue is a kind of "Cooperative Union" of nations of like
mind. Not West vs East; not 1st world vs 2nd or 3rd world. But nations whose
cultures and consciousness are forward looking, expansive and inclusive, and
willing to work together for shared goals that express worthwhile human values
and ideals. Is this just another form of interconnected treaties such as
existed before WW 1? I say “No,” because
such an alliance would not be focused on mutual defense but would emphasizing
mutual support and cooperation: culturally, economically, politically, and yes,
if necessary, militarily.
How often has China and Russia defeated
the legitimate role of the Security Council because, in essence, we don't share
a mutual and cooperate set of ideals? I don't mind that such countries aren't
ready for American-style democracy, but their own histories of ruthlessness
towards their own people make our capitalistic excesses and self-interested maneuverings
look like fist fights among school boys. We don't lack corruption and cronyism
and there is much wrong with American life, culture and politics today, but
there are certain values we share with other countries around the world (not
just in Europe) that make for natural allies. Russia is simply not on our
wavelength. Is China? That's more difficult to say because of the fast pace of
change in what is generally a positive direction. But right now, my vote is NO.
I don't see how any culture or nation can
join such a Cooperative Union if it doesn't possess some form of national
transparency and accountability, a directional commitment to rule of law, and a
culture working towards greater inclusiveness (within and without) and
individual liberties.
This union would not be allies AGAINST
anyone, but constitute countries that can work together without having to deal
with obstreperous nations constantly thwarting our efforts out of a lack of
essential harmony and consciousness. A cooperative of nations could, then, more
responsibly and ethically act from time to time to intercede in global hotspots
for the protection and safety of innocent people. Doing so by common agreement
would tend to mitigate too strong or too narrow a motivation of self-interest.
Such a union would serve as a model and inspiration to other countries.
Well, that's my Sunday night two cents. I
hope Ukraine will get their country back together but by golly they are going
to have to work for it. They've lost something valuable and I suspect they lost
it partly deserving it and partly because it is "in the stars" for
Russia to flex its imperialistic muscles and revenge its humiliation.
Is Russia a threat to peace-loving
nations? Yes, no question about it. A friend of mine who has lived for periods
of time in Russia told me a story I heard echoed in other forms about a man who
was sent to Siberia under communism and to the end, however brutally treated he
was, held Stalin in great esteem. Such is the blindness of human beings; such
is the power of jingoism, like lemmings over a cliff. If Russians yearn still
for empire and glory they happen to be about a century too late. It ain't gonna
happen. They will be defeated if they really try to regain their lost empire
and they will suffer even more than they have during this last century. It
would trigger another world war and suffering would be worldwide but Russia
would lose, I believe.
I hope this Crimea thing isn't like Hitler taking little bites of
Europe and Lord Chamberlain declaring "peace at last" with each bite,
but, we cannot really say for sure at this time, can we?
I don't mind whining a little bit about
"Why help other nations who simply hate us?" Where is the boundary
between helping and rescuing? We Americans are who we are and have done what we
have done, but I think and hope America is learning some discernment, like wise
parents eventually learn, that sometimes the kids have to get bruised and
battered working through their own issues in order to grow up. We can't do it
for them but we can stand ready to help if truly asked because we know that a rescue
will merely “enable.”
Blessings to you on a fair Spring Equinox
weekend where hope Springs Eternal and the promise of beauty and harmony, like
a rainbow, shines before us.
Nayaswami Hriman