William T. Hathaway (“America is under Attack!” Dissident Voice: 5/31/2012), author of A World of Hurt and an adjunct Professor of American Studies, University of Oldenburg, Germany, attempts to clarify how warmongering by the US and Britain has culminated havoc world of action-reactionary warfare in Afghanistan, Pakistan, the Middle East and now against Iran:
“The USA and Britain committed similar atrocities in Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, Libya, Indonesia, and Afghanistan. We overthrew their governments, installed dictators, undermined their economies – all to strengthen our business interests. In every nation where we now have terrorism, we had first assaulted them. America is under attack only because it is on the attack. It’s no wonder they hate us. Imagine how we would feel if a foreign country were doing this to us. We’d be fighting back any way we could…. If people knew this – knew how easy it would be to stop terrorism –they wouldn’t want to fight this war. That’s why the media ignore al-Qaeda’s demands. Western leaders don’t want people to see that the war’s real purpose isn’t to stop terrorism but to control the resources of this region. They actually want the terrorism because that gives them the excuse they need – the threat of an evil enemy.”
Ross Anderson (“We’re Underestimating the Risk of Human Extinction” The Atlantic, March 2012), opens up the discussion with an alarming sensitivity to global peace and security of mankind:
“Unthinkable as it may be, humanity, every last person, could someday be wiped from the face of the Earth. We have learned to worry about asteroids and super volcanoes, but the more-likely scenario, according to Nick Bostrom, a professor of philosophy at Oxford, is that we humans will destroy ourselves. Bostrom, who directs Oxford’s Future of Humanity Institute, has argued over the course of several papers that human extinction risks are poorly understood and, worse still, severely underestimated by society. Some of these existential risks are fairly well known, especially the natural ones. But others are obscure or even exotic. Most worrying to Bostrom is the subset of existential risks that arise from human technology, a subset that he expects to grow in number and potency over the next century…. Bostrom sees technology as a bridge, a bridge we humans must cross with great care, in order to reach new and better modes of being. In his work, Bostrom uses the tools of philosophy and mathematics, in particular probability theory, to try and determine how we as a species might achieve this safe passage.”
Are the technological advancements more dangerous than the unpredictable thought of a sadistic mindset? Throughout the human history all major wars were instigated by man against man often by accident and overwhelmingly with irrational thoughts of the future consequential outcomes. Problems vary whether innovative technology can sustain life in a mature understanding or could it destroy the existence of mankind in a split second touch button action? Invariably being conscious of the facts of technological outreach and about the risks posed to humans by technological progress, Bostrom is no luddite. In fact, he is a longtime advocate of transhumanism – the effort to improve the human condition, and even human nature itself, through technological means. How can we strike a balance between directing our scientific and technological resources toward mankind’s existing problems rather than the futuristic existential risk and dangerous outcomes?
Are the 21st century political geniuses more redundant and backward that they are unable to speak against the political drudgery and wickedness of the few warlords to destroy the humanity? Surely, Robert Burns, the poet (“Man’s inhumanity to Man”, from his poem Man was made to Mourn: A Dirge, 1785), knew better and must have had unravelling moral and intellectual understanding of the human nature and interests of the global mankind.
‘Many and sharp the num’rous ills / Inwoven with our frame! / More pointed still we make ourselves / Regret, remorse, and shame! / And Man, whose heav’n-erected face / The smiles of love adorn, – / Man’s inhumanity to man/ Makes countless thousands mourn!’
If the global institutions were founded on the principle of Man being the supreme creation of God having moral, social, spiritual and legal sets of accountability, perhaps, the conduct of global affairs would have been based on clearly defined laws and systems of governance which would have articulated a fair and just balance of system for all of the living mankind. That is not the case anywhere in the global system.
Man’s biggest aspirations were to acquire peace and security through institutionalised approaches and to ensure that history of the past error judgments and sadistic brutality of man killing man will not be repeated. That conscious realisation is absent from the global thinking and observations of the outcomes of the major international institutions. None of the global institutions seems to reflect the sacred nature of life and the role of Man in preserving life and its encompassing standards as the pivotal role of obligations on the planet.
To reflect at the Nature of Things, the universe encompasses many challenging opposites which exist and operate in peace and harmony: time, space, sun, moon, gravitational rotation of the earth, greed and honesty, fire, water, air, sand, floods, earthquakes, tsunami, disasters, explosions, wars, destructions, bombing and all that can be imagined to destroy mankind and endanger the continued movement of the splendid, inspiring and harmonious Universe. How is it that Man – a chief creation of God cannot co-exist with fellow Man? Is Man by nature a blood thirsty creature? Perhaps, the invisible forces of culture and environment and societal indoctrinations frame and shape that mindset.
Could Man and the Humanity learn from the past ignorance and arrogance and redirect their thoughts and energies and passion towards positive Thinking, peaceful change and adaptability to the future?
In the 21st century age of information and knowledge driven advanced culture, Man, Humanity and the Universe appear at crossroads. The continued broken pledges of stopping the bogus Wars on Terrorism against the innocent people of Iraq, Afghanistan and Pakistan, Greenhouse effects, depleting natural resources and the secretive space weaponry to be used by man against man and the planet Earth have ruptured the human consciousness and betrayed the trust that mankind assumed it had over the institutional credibility to serve the interest and priorities of the people of the globe. Global institutions are fast becoming inept and redundant as few sadistic rulers and the war economies of the few cruel superpower nations enlarge their scope of operations to planned killings, global warming on rise and rolling possibilities of extinction of human life are challenging the Thinking people of the globe. Those who are part of the problems cannot be part of the solutions. The solutions must come out of New Thinking, New Visions and New Strategies for the future-making.
Sadly enough, the 21st century so far does not seem to have produced any leaders of vision, integrity and men of Peace and Humanity. What a tragic loss for mankind! If Dr. Martin Luther King was not gunned down and still alive, he could have played that role model. Dr. Martin Luther King was a pioneer of non-violent peace movement for the equality of humanity beyond time and space. Perhaps, Americans could have learnt and benefited more from his ideas and ideals rather than erecting his symbolic statue at a Washington memorial site. In his remarkable address to oppose the Vietnam War, Dr. Martin Luther King (“A Time to Break the Silence – Beyond Vietnam” 4/4/1967) offered this moving insight to challenge the doctrine of war:
“Over the past two years, as I have moved to break the betrayal of my own silences and to speak from the burnings of my own heart, as I have called for radical departures from the destruction of Vietnam, many persons have questioned me about the wisdom of my path. At the heart of their concerns this query has often loomed large and loud: Why are you speaking about war, Dr. King? Why are you joining the voices of dissent? Peace and civil rights don’t mix, they say. Aren’t you hurting the cause of your people, they ask? And when I hear them, though I often understand the source of their concern, I am nevertheless greatly saddened, for such questions mean that the inquirers have not really known me, my commitment or my calling. Indeed, their questions suggest that they do not know the world in which they live.” (concluded)
[Dr. Mahboob A. Khawaja specializes in global security, peace and conflict resolution with keen interests in Islamic-Western comparative cultures and civilizations, and author of several publications including the latest: Global Peace and Conflict Management: Man and Humanity in Search of New Thinking.]