Tuesday, March 18, 2008
how effective is non-violent diplomacy in the modern world?
In light of recent events taking place around China and India, specifically with the clash between the Tibetans and the Chinese. The original intent was to march peacefully from Dharamsala, India to Lahasa, Tibet and possible begin talks about a compromise to allow exiled Tibetans to return to their homeland that was taken from them and commercialized by the Chinese government, but more recently it seems that many of the Tibetans have started to clash with the Chinese military in the area because the Tibetans feel that the Dalai Lama's message of trying to reach a consensus towards autonomy is not progressing as well as the displaced Tibetans would like, and feel that by clashing with gov't officials it will resonate a louder message, not only to the world but to the gov't of China as well. Looking back in time, the non-violent protests in Tienanmen square held by students and countless other Chinese citizens hoping for more democratic policies in the PRC's gov't let to a violent response by the military that killed many protesters. Just recently the peaceful anti-government protests in Burma also elicited a violent response from the Junta, that led to the deaths of hundreds of monks. In India, a peaceful protest against the British rule was led by Mahatma Ghandi, the most popular of which was the Salt March that caused a retaliation by the British gov't towards the peaceful marchers, and this retaliation involved violence towards the marchers. I'm sure there are many many other references that I don't want to continue to list, but what I'm getting to is... is it feasible to hold non-violent diplomatic talks in an age of weapons and the need to show force to get ones standpoint across? I like to be optimistic and think it is possible, that if the nations of the world would want to sit down and talk about possible reducing the amount of bloodshed, that the civility of humans can be displayed, I'm one to believe that we live in a time that is at peace with moments of war, instead of the belief that we live in a world that is filled with war with moments of peace. So why not extend the period of peace even further, why not find a way to compromise without greed. I don't know what do other people think about this question?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
The unfortunate thing is; even collective non-violence is an aggressive behaviour. Sadly the work of Ghandi, the Dali Lama, Desmond Tutu, Mother Teresa, Dr. King and many others, is overshadowed by the unfortunate prevalence of violence in our "modern" world. Violence is prevalent enough that many people don't see a problem with genocide, as long as it isn't on their doorstep.
Would that I could live in a time where ignorance, hate, injustice and war were only taught in history classes.
But, we live in a world that is dominated by pseudo-xenophobic leaders. Who are more interested in keeping money in their own pockets than serving the greater good.
I have drawn these parallels between Indian freedom struggle, struggle in Zimbabwe and fights in Burma(note that I am ignoring China). In these cases we have two entities: Govt and Freedom-fighter.
I do not think non-violent method would have any chance in these cases because Governments are ruthless and not worried about their 'image'. Compared to current breed of dictators British were decent if not saints.
MK Gandhi, Mandela and Dr King worked for years in organizing protests, rallies, and this must have helped them build up credibility or stature. And it would have been hard for Govt to ignore the integrity an stature of those fighters and British had to speak with Gandhi.
Coming back to present, I do not see any such leaders and Dalai Lama is not an activists. I have not read about him actively taking part in organizing a protest or rally(like Gandhi).
Oops I was forgetting to mention the most crucial mental part, that is 'idealism'. There is a vaccum of idealism, people are so worried about the their economic growth( unfortunately there is no end for this greed), they do not mind sacrificing their liberties/values in exchange consumer goods. Ask a someone what he wants 'freedom-of-speech' and 'PlasmaTV/iPhone/Car'? Recently, Indian Govt agreed to ignore all the evils and started dealing with corrupt regimes in Africa. I do not see any difference between Govt. of China and India in this specific issue. Sadly now the bottom line is economy.
To summarize,
- non-violence with a touch calculated radicalism(to fight ruthless Govt and to free leaders like 'Aung San Suu Kyi')
- a rise in idealism, across the world, so that international community keeps aside their economic interests and puts hard pressure on dictators. This would make non-violent movements lot effective. (Ex: Lack of role of India and China in Burma)
Post a Comment