One World, Many Peaces

Scenes from Central Europe Twenty Years Later

In a few months, the twentieth anniversary of the fall of the Berlin Wall and the collapse of the Soviet Union will be commemorated around the world. But perhaps nowhere other than at its epicenters will this momentous series of events be celebrated more than in Central Europe, where embodied tensions between East and West, capitalism and communism, were highest. Even for someone who did not live in or visit the stage behind the Iron Curtain while it was down, doing so now that it has been lifted is still a strong reminder of how non-violent, historically rapid changes as well as continuities can bring about lasting peaceful and prosperous results that benefit guests and hosts, residents and newcomers alike.

The medieval town center of Erfurt, for example, about a two hours drive at German Audi owners' scarily quick pace from the busy Frankfurt Airport,  was left largely intact during allied bombings and by the heavy hands of the takeover regime, eventually called the German Democratic Republic. Walking through its tight cobblestone  streets to the church at which Martin Luther was matriculated, taking a picture beside his bronze statue, is a religious experience for anyone with a smidge of revolutionary idealism, whether Christian, atheist or neither. At this point in Luther's career, there were few signs that he would go on to spearhead the Reformation, just as the populist overthrow  in 1989 was indiscernible to all but a few until it happened. Below the surface, each was waiting for an impetus to happen.

With the longest inhabited bridge in the world, spatially and temporally, a centuries-old gothic cathedral that can sends shivers down the spines of the most militant modernists, interspersed with as-if secret theatres playing avant-garde work, Erfurt can be a taken as a sign of things to come for those who stop to see its picturesque bunched up buildings which would make a city planner weep on the way to Leipzig, again a couple of hours away. The for the most part perfectly smooth highway roads, rolling hills with scattered villages separated by dense forests, are surrounded by hundreds if not thousands of renewable energy-producing wind turbines that would make Obama blush and a medieval miller stare in awe, and for those aware of the distant yet immediate connection between the two, both.

So far, there is no evidence whatsoever of the totalitarian Nazi and communist dictatorships that have defined the area, but not its inhabitants, for some sixty years before the Berlin Wall fell. The twenty years since have seemingly erased their apparent traits, if not their unapparent traces.  What there is plenty of evidence of, what can be seen even if it is not visible, heard even if it is not audible, sensed even if beyond the senses, is an awareness of the peaceable perseverance of everyday people who serve local mushroom soups and mixed grilled meat platters to hungry tourists with a smile, offer to give directions to them without being asked, and want to show them with pride what their towns and country have to offer despite and not because of their pasts. These are some of the current events creating the future of Central Europe, in many ways unimaginable two decades ago.

Pope Denies Religious History in Rejecting Violence

An apology for the centuries of violence the Catholic church supported politically, financially and spiritually may have been a sounder place for Pope Benedict to start his condemnation of religious-based violence in other religions since 2006, when he linked Islam with terrorism. Difficult to do given the papal infallibility doctrine, but part and parcel of the reconciliation he admirably still seems to be seeking and which we should hope will be universally supported after being reconsidered and revised for historical accuracy and ideological inconsistencies.

Speaking to 40,000 people in Cameroon today, his Holiness said "Genuine religion... stands at the base of any authentically human culture… It rejects all forms of violence and totalitarianism: not only on principles of faith but also of right reason." While his rhetoric of peace is commendable, it may be insightful to pick apart the terms a bit. If "genuine" religion rejects violence, then close to all religions have proven to be anything but, including the Pope's own. This is not to say that they haven't played pivotal roles in helping secure spiritual peace for individuals or occasionally facilitating non-violent transformations of societies and collectives. However, to deny the one while supporting the other risks permitting purposeful violations that prevents what the Pope is after.

What irks me most about this statement is the supposition that there can be or even is "inauthentic" human cultures, however defined. Is he referring to what used to be called "heathens" and "unbelievers," a theological dichotomy that allowed religions throughout history to support colonization and enslavement of members of "inauthentic" cultures?   Another highlight in the Pope's statement is the term "right reason," which to me resonates with the Buddhist principle of the same name in the Eightfold Path, by which adherents are asked to always think non-violently in order to act so. Whether or not this is what the Pope was alluding to, the theological battle between faith and reason that has been part of Christianity since the post-Apostolic era is more than a bit glossed over by him here.

Finally comes the word "totalitarianism," by which the Pope must mean the political and socio-economic  kinds because, if not, he should consider resigning or be forced to. Few major world religion are or have been more totalitarian than Catholicism, theologically or historically. Its priests who step out of line are consistently removed by authorities, and its members are sentenced to eternal damnation for even the slightest deviation from its doctrines. This, apparently, includes using condoms to prevent AIDS, as the Pope said the day before. Moreover, granting forgiveness for sins it defines biblically and baby baptismal cleansing as a spiritual insurance policy are the exclusive prerogatives of the Church. Telling Catholics and other faithful who must cling to religious totalitarianism for their very salvation, knowingly or not, that totalitarianism must be rejected sends contradictory and counterproductive messages, even if and all the more so because it should be.

Only by confronting head-on the violence that has been embedded in close to all religions, then taking pragmatic measures towards reconciliation and transformation, can religious-based violence be overcome. Denying the past is the first step towards repeating it, and given the Pope's justified outrage at a priest who denied the Holocaust, maybe he should turn it on himself to make the current event he is into one that creates a future in which religious, and all, violence has ceased to exist.

Cornering the US into Post-WWI Germany

Each of us has their own personal doomsday scenario related to the economic crisis: losing our jobs, losing our housing, being unable to pay for college or medical bills, bankruptcy. Collective scenarios have remained for the most part in the realm of indifferent-sounding statistics to everyone except macroeconomists: millions without work, millions without housing, and so on. Global scenarios have been even more conveniently vague, running along the lines of "things are bad and get worse before they get better." Terms like mass starvation, immigration for survival, social upheavals and world war rarely enter the ongoing discourse, but with a statement made by China's premier, maybe they will start to.

The shock value of the following historical parallel is less important than the immediate lessons that ought to be drawn from it. Late last week, China's premier announced that he is "worried" about the massive loans his country has made to the US over the past few decades, totaling about $1 trillion in US government foreign debt, nearly half of its total. Known for his diplomatically-worded, suggestive hints rather than blunt statements, Wen Jiabao's message may be translated: we are scared as hell, and if you don't give us reason to do otherwise, we will make sure we get our money back somehow. Here is where the imperfect parallel, though of great import, kicks in.

After WWI, during the Versailles Treaty negotiations of 1919, the victorious Allies (notably England, France and the US), blamed the War on Germany and forced it into reparation debts it could not feasibly repay, along with demilitarization requirements that crippled one of the key sectors in the country's economy. The democratic Weimar republic that emerged could not repay the debt and keep the domestic economy growing at the same time, which sowed the seeds of unrest that germinated into National Socialism when heightened exponentially during the Great Depression. Once elected, this party turned the country into a dictatorship and the rest, as the saying goes, is world history: desperate, its leaders annulled the debt and rearmed to boost the economy, in turn sowing the seeds of WWII.

In case the parallel isn't immediately clear, the US has been and continues to get itself into two holes of debt, the walls of which are caving before our eyes: one, on a consumer basis; the other, on a federal basis. Analysts have just started to announce scenarios in which people who can no longer pay their mortgages no longer being able to repay their other loans.  Foreign policy wonks have not yet done so on the federal basis, but the corner into which the US is being pushed is eerily similar to that of post-WWI Germany. There is no shortage of American right-wing fanatics who are fortunately not in complete power for the time being, so by the parallel's terms we are still in the Weimar phase. Whether they become so as the recession turns into a depression (or not) is only one of many factors that could return past events as current ones, creating a future that may still be prevented.

Against US Economic Bilateralism, Especially Now

One of the hallmarks of global economic policy during the last US presidency and for its antagonists was purposefully jeopardizing international forums aimed at creating a worldwide frameworks for trade and development. Picking the issues was easy, ranging from subsidies to tariffs and beyond. Acknowledging the not-so-hidden point has proven to be much more difficult, both domestically and abroad. In stating that the recession is a global problem while continuing bilateral discussions almost exclusively, Obama and his advisers  may be exacerbating the very dangers created by a lack of an internationally accepted financial and trade system originally caused by this, his predecessor's strategy.

Today, Obama meets with China's finance minister behind closed doors, and the top topic when meeting the premiers of Canada and the UK was understandably the economy. While the outcome of the first meeting is not yet apparent, that of the first two is clear: yes master. US economic bilateralism can be put metaphorically thus- one big boxer is likely to beat a series of single smaller ones, but put a dozen or more of the latter in the ring and they are much more likely to win. The first strategy is smart  if the big boxer can pull it off, but when he is already beaten up and bloody (as the US economy is now), it becomes one of survival rather than supposed success, and herein lies the pressing danger.

That the World Bank and IMF are more or less instruments for advancing the economic interests of developed nations is hard to refute, despite the occasional benefits to those developing. That the UN has not stepped up to plate to tackle the global doomsday economics shows to what extent its mandate is too limited and under-supported. It should be remembered that the G8 was a counter-organization to the G88 of what were then called Third World countries in the Non-Aligned Movement, neither of which has really survived. The G20 is trying to identify itself as the economic organization that bridges the gap, and in its failing or impossibility to do so the need for one becomes all the more clear. Where can advocates of a comprehensive, far-sighted and short-term minded solution look to?

Obama, I believe rightly, tries to cast this crisis as a window of opportunity. However, continuing to pursue bilateral economic trade, financial and other agreements to the exclusion of seeking a boldly new global economic framework to resolve this and prevent future such catastrophes is a gross mistake. Global accounting standards now in the works are one of many possible building blocks. Without seizing this opportunity to establish a worldwide, consensus-based agreement geared towards perpetual prosperity, this current-event recession may become a constant creating a future no one would sign up for except those big enough to box their way through it, and small enough to have to take beatings.

The Clintonian Reset of US Foreign Policy

That much of the policy focus in the US nowadays is on domestic economic recovery  is readily understandably, though unfortunate in taking away the spotlight from pragmatic foreign policy renewal. Warren Buffett's analogy between the economy and the attack on Pearl Harbor is nothing short of alarming in his statement that "What is required is a commander in chief that's looked at like a commander in chief in a time of war." What of a commander in chief in a time of peace?

Whether or not Obama takes up this role, Secreary of State Hillary Clinton as the country's chief diplomat has, in her first months in office, without doubt trail blazed seemingly forgotten paths to better US foreign policies. So far, they seem to be moving the world towards collaborative, idiosyncratic peaces in both the short and long-term. Here are, in my and others'  view, some of the key highlights:

Rapprochement with Asian Nations: Clinton's first diplomatic trip in office was to Asia, where she stopped in Japan, South Korea, China and Indonesia. Apart from signaling foreign policy priorities for the Obama presidency, this trip signaled both Clinton's personal appeal abroad and her shrewdness in tackling several problems at once, breaking with the past when necessary and continuing it when best. Notably, she backed the perennially troubled six-party talks with North Korea and stressed that China, while certainly the highest, is not the US' only concern in the region.

Détente with Russia: To put it mildly, by the end of the Bush presidency relations with Russia were strained. In meeting with Russian premiers, she made clear that, though frayed, the energy, economic and security ties (NATO and otherwise) that bind the two former archenemies are not broken and must be mended. Gifting a "reset" button to Medvedev was quirky and clever, though it turned out to be a gaff in being mistranslated into "overload."  Let's hope not.

Commitment to Middle Eastern Cooperation and a Palestinian State: Seeking closer relations with Syria and affirming a Palestinian state, all without pissing off Israel too much, is nothing short of a miraculous feat for Clinton and a boon for peace prospects for the region. Although these are brave and potentially beneficial moves for both US interests and the region's residents, what worries me is that, like so many times before, hot air will become indistinguishable from desert heat. Only time will tell.

Opening Public Diplomatic Channels: Clinton and her team are acutely aware that putting a new face to US foreign policy is a top priority and perhaps the only way to simultaneously change minds and policy. She has gone above and beyond the standard diplomatic approaches of meeting counterparts, officials, dignitaries and humanitarians (all necessary, of course) by making constant efforts to appear in local public places such as schools and media platforms such as regional TV and radio.

Cautionary Approach to Iran and North Korea: Direct talks promised by Obama during his campaign with these two members of what some still think of as the "Axis of Evil" have not yet happened. Still testing the waters, Clinton's cautionary approach, setting out the terms with others beforehand and building international consensus about this being the way to go (if this is the case, among other apparent means), may prove to be as smart as it could be productive in de-escalation and re-integrating these countries into a long-awaited though only recently articulated "Axis of Peace."

Having hit the reset button on US foreign policy, the question then turns to the consequential spectacle once the play button is pressed. When you reset a movie or MP3, it plays over again; if that's the case here, there's little to look forward to. What remains to be seen is in what ways (if any) Clinton's pragmatic case-by-case approach becomes part of a coordinated effort and overall foreign policy plan, clearly articulated and effectively executed, that is a positive current event creating a more peaceful future.

From War to Peace Crimes Courts?

The International Criminal Court at the Hague (ICC) has, in charging Sudan's President Omar al-Bashir yesterday, flexed its still-new muscles for the second time against African leaders in as many months. The first time was also its maiden one, in charging the leader of Congo's Union of Congolese Patriots rebel group leader Thomas Lubanga in late January.  Although in future retrospect these moves may be considered giant strides in reigning in nation-state sovereignty upon which our current international system is based, by focusing on certain of its abuses, they also raise serious questions as to the efficacy of how such charges are levied and the validity of why they are.

War crimes courts allow the accused too ample opportunities to use the actualities or perceptions of the wars they have perpetrated as arguments in their own defense, as was attempted in the Nuremburg trials of Nazis after World War Two. A peace crimes court would, instead and which has never been tried, remove the basis of such arguments by foregrounding the facts of the changes in on-the-ground conditions from one devoid of violence to its presences. Whereas charges in war crimes courts are based only on violations of "rules of war" of the accused during the wars in question, implicitly and contradictorily accepting that the wars were otherwise acceptable to begin with, peace crimes courts would permit charges based also or solely on proof the wars took place to begin with.

Strategically framed as a catch-all court for war crimes, crimes against humanity, peace crimes and other criminal acts by leaders for which their national legal systems (if any) may not hold them accountable, the ICC could become a powerful instrument of international jurisprudence or burdened by its many hats to the point of impracticality. Given the gravity of the charges levied so far, among them extermination in the case of al-Bashir and levying armies of children in the case of Lubanga, my fear is that the ICC may follow the path blazed by most international bodies so far, being tactically abandoned by the supporters without which they cannot survive. Assigning particular types of cases to different international courts, from war to peace, would both help build and strengthen their recepective legal precedents as well as their credibility, each still in their relative infancy.

We are also reminded of when, during the early civil rights struggles in the US, the courts were used to simultaneously uphold and enforce social change on constitutional grounds, which resulted in forceful reactions on resisters' sides, as is  happening today in the Sudan. Two major differences between these situation are that (a) there is not yet a legally enforceable international constitution, and (b) the workability of the US legal system had already been  proven for decades. My point is not to wantonly criticize the ICC before it has had a chance to start, but to emphasize that the only way to ensure its (or more specialized versions') validity and enhance its efficacy going forward is to criticize without wholly undermining it each step of the way as an imperfect current event creating more just future.

Language Rights as Human Rights

Someone who studies endangered languages for a living once told me that when a language dies, so does a way of understanding who we and the world are; I would add a chance to integrate and improve both as well. Combine this notion with another saying, "what doesn't kill me makes me stronger" and we find ourselves closer to the predicament in which Kurdish speakers in Turkey and Spanish speakers in the US, among many other people around the globe, find themselves on a daily basis.  To what extent is the denial of the right to communicate in a language a violation of human rights?

UNESCO's world language week ended this past Sunday, and during it legislator Ahmet Turk spoke in his native Kurdish tongue in the national parliament to which he and the constituency he represents belong. Regardless of the irony in his name, state-run television cut off the broadcast immediately. In contrast, when Penelope Cruz was at the Oscar podium receiving her reward, she pointedly made part of her speech in Spanish, to great applause and no cut offs anywhere. Yet, the drive to circumscribe both minority languages in the countries in which they are communicated is strong, albeit unequally. So one wonders whether in linguistic xenophobia (in these cases, from the inside out) degrees, personas or  platforms bear more weight in challenging status quos.

Kurdish was made an "illegal language" in Turkey in 1991, barred from state-run institutions such as schools, courts and administrative buildings. In 2006, responding to mass immigrant rallies, the US Congress voted on an act to make English the "official" language of the country for the first time in its history. Both pieces of legislation are a denial of the fact that for centuries if not millennia, multilingualism was de facto within the territories now called national geo-political borders. Banning, suppressing or hierarchically positing languages for the sake of national or international unity is,  like the anti-war protestor slogan goes, fucking for virginity. Regardless of how noble the ends may or may not be, the means are counter-productive because they are based on and perpetuate mutual exclusivity. The ultimate outcome is what I and others have called a logocide, when an endangered language becomes extinct and with it a part of the polity whose unity was supposed to be preserved in so doing.

Growing up in the province of Quebec during the second heyday of nationalist separatism was in some ways the luckiest, and in others a most traumatic experience of my life. Because my parents were both immigrants, I was forced to go to a French school under the infamous Law 101, speaking Greek and English at home, and English in my community. At the time, I often confused the benefits of becoming multilingual with the banes of being branded an internal outsider, and acted out accordingly. So began without me yet knowing my concerns with how languages can bring people together but also keep them apart, literarily, legally or otherwise, which eventually sparked and fuelled my concerns about how peace, peacemaking and other social formations can be paradoxical in the same way. 

To my knowledge, as of this writing, language rights are not human rights. Despite or because of violations of both perhaps they should be made so before endangered languages as current events become reactively endangering languages aimed at preventing a universally or nationally monolingual future where worldwide mind control is possible.

See Antony Adolf's Multilingualism and Immigration in U.S. Public Policy for more in-depth analysis of these issues.