Open Space & Anti-Americanism

[Masud Sheikh]

Steve, thank for your email.
We may need to agree to disagree soon.

Many decades ago, Alfred Sloan (iconic CEO of GM) said "What is good for
General Motors is good for America". Similarly, the present U.S.
administration seems to believe that what is good for corporations and the
rich, is good for all Americans; and what is good for America, is good for
the rest of the world.

I was a college student in Pakistan during the Vietnam War. Unlike many
students, for a long time I accepted the American justification for that
war, and changed my views fairly late in that war.

During the last decade, I have done a lot of reading. In one of his books,
M. Scott Peck (author of "The Road Less Traveled") talks about the lying
that has become an accepted part of American administrations. He conjectures
that the lie about the Gulf of Tonkin incident during Vietnam War (which I
believe was used as the excuse for Congress to declare war) was perhaps the
start of the slippery slope. The lies have been more pronounced in American
foreign policy - I believe partly because many U.S. foreign operations have
been covert and through the CIA.

It is difficult for many Americans to accept that they have been lied to, in
the democracy in which they live. These American are as much in denial as
those Muslims who believe that 9/11 could not have been perpetrated by other
Muslims.

Specifically to me, your following comments are troubling:
1. Your saying "it was a small group of U.N. member nations lead by the U.S.
who acted upon the U.N. edict. Opposed by some members, but hardly,
unilateral".

Sounds like "The good guys" (America and its allies) doing the "right thing"


It was not only "some members" (of the Security Council) that opposed; it
was a clear majority, in spite of U.S. arm-twisting. More important, global
public opinion was opposed. Also opposed were key American weapons
inspectors (such as Scott Ritter) plus U.N. Secretary General as well as
other mediators (Hans Blix etc) who were disregarded, and made fun of.

2. Also troubling is your view that Sistani's edict (an Iraqi who opposed
the tyranny of Saddam Hussein, and forced the occupying power to hold
elections for a constituent assembly) was akin to the statement of King
George "a tyrant who .... tried to impose his will upon people in America.".

"The messiah/s" for any community or society can only arise from within. If
you see Sistani's fatwa akin to that of a colonial "tyrant", then Iraq has
lesser hope than I thought it had.

3. Perhaps most troubling is your final "All we seek is to share our
liberty". It sounds sanctimonious. America under Bush is focused on
security, which trumps liberty whenever there is tension between the two.
Replacement of Ashcroft by Gonzales is the most evident manifestation of
this fact.

I do not accept Bush's belief that America has been given a mandate by
"God", "from beyond the stars" to spread liberty and freedom. He seems to
truly believe that God speaks to him as "HE" spoke to Jesus and Moses. Iraqi
insurgents believe that the same God (re-named Allah) spoke to Muslim Sunni
clerics to defend Iraq against the invaders.

And a few minor points:
- I do not "misunderstand American Democracy". I believe those who believe
that (any) democracy is limited to casting votes periodically misunderstand
democracy.

There is another large group of Americans who do not understand democracy:
These are citizens who are unconcerned that nine out of ten candidates who
get elected in America are those that spend the largest amount of money.

- What you read in Wikepedia about Fatwas is generally correct. However, it
particularly applies to Sunnis. Shias tend to have some sort of hierarchy,
although it is not global as with Catholics.

Take care,
Masud

There is something called learning at a rather small level of organisation.
At a much higher gestalt level, learning is called evolution - Gregory
Bateson

-----Original Message-----
From: Steve Gawron [mailto:gawron at megsinet.net]
Sent: February 8, 2005 2:58 PM
Subject: Re: Open Space & Anti-Americanism

Hello Masud and all,

First, I appreciate your thoughts as expressed in your e-mail.  I would like
to respond to your questions.

1) Can open space be opened by force?
  If open space needed to be opened at all, then it would not by definition
be opened in the first place.  The example you gave of a CEO and consultant
is not one I share.  Whatever the actions taken by the consultant on behalf
of the CEO, the CEO still owns the problem.  If he does not correct a
dysfunctional department, he will soon be relieved of his responsibilities
by the shareholders and stakeholders of his company.  The consultant may or
may not join him.
  In the case you made for unilateralist, it was the United Nations who
warned Saddam to comply with the consent of the members nations.  When he
did not comply, it was a small group of U.N. member nations lead by the U.S.
who acted upon the U.N. edict.  Opposed by some members, but  hardly,
unilateral.

2) ... does not loyalty to American ideals demand dissent of policies that
disregard those ideals.
You might misunderstand American democracy.  Our democracy is based on the
premise that if a majority of its citizens disagree with the leaders and
their actions, they have the right to change those leaders.  If you look at
last November's election, a majority of the citizens agreed with the current
leadership.  There was much dissention but the citizens were free to choose
and spoke through voting.

I looked up the definition of fatwa on this site:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fatwa
I quote, a fatwa ... " is a legal pronouncement in Islam, issued by a
religious law specialist on a specific issue. Usually a fatwa is issued at
the request of an individual or a judge to settle a question where fiqh,
Islamic jurisprudence, is unclear. A scholar capable of issuing fataawa is
known as a Mufti.

Because there is no central Islamic priesthood, there is also no unanimously
accepted method to determine who can issue a fatwa and who cannot, leading
some Islamic scholars to complain that too many people feel qualified to
issue fatwas."

There is no parallel to this style of edict in the American form of
democracy.  As a citizen, are guaranteed by our constitution the right to
accept or ignore any edict whether it be the government, corporation, any
religious leader, or other citizen.  You must, however, respect the right of
the other citizens to present their opinions.  In our country, disputes are
handled under a judicial system.  While it is often inefficient, it
guarantees that all parties concerned have a right to voice their opinion on
the matter.

The United States was born when a tyrant, King George of England, tried to
impose his will upon people in America.  Even then, there were people who
dissented of behalf of King George. (we call them Canadians)  We still
respect their choices and consider them our friends though we often
disagree.  The fatwa you cited sound more akin to a statement of King George
not of Ben Franklin, Thomas Jefferson, or Patrick Henry.

The people of Iraq will be in charge of their country when the Americans
leave.  They will own their problems and hopefully will seek help from all
nations around the world.

As a free and democratic nation, the U.S. has made many mistakes.  All we
seek is to share our liberty.  I look forward to future discussions with
you.

Steve Gawron

----- Original Message -----
From: "Masud Sheikh" <masheikh at cogeco.ca>
To: <OSLIST at LISTSERV.BOISESTATE.EDU>
Sent: Tuesday, February 08, 2005 11:57 AM
Subject: FW: Open Space & Anti-Americanism

> Steve,
> My questions below are not rhetorical, and I do hope that you will take
them
> in the spirit in which I am trying to ask them:
>
> 1) Can space be opened by force?
> That sounds a lot like a CEO telling a consultant "that department is
> managed and controlled very badly. I want you to open up space in it"
>
> Of course, in the case of American involvement in Iraq, the related
question
> is "Was Bush authorized to behave like the CEO of planet Earth?"
>
> Do remember that most of the criticism has been about American
> administration's unilateralism.
>
> 2) While I empathize with American nationalism (fuelled and converted by
> Bush & Co after 9/11 as support of American policy), does not loyalty to
> American ideals demand dissent of policies that disregard those ideals?
>
> My opinions:
> 1) I am afraid that the right thing was not done before something horrible
> went wrong. Abandoning Afghanistan after the Soviets were driven out (at
the
> end of 1980s) was the wrong thing to do in Afghanistan. Manipulating
Islamic
> religious feelings (and American policy was at the forefront of doing
that)
> was the wrong thing to do in fighting the Soviets. Similarly, manipulating
> post 9/11 fearful feelings of American citizens is wrong now.
>
> 2) Re Iraq, it is still too early to say what the long-term impact of
these
> elections will be. Also, the recently held election was not the preference
> of Bush & Co. They were forced into accepting these by Ayatollah Sistani,
> called "Ayatollah Democracy" in articles last year. Here is the
Ayatollah's
> Fatwa insisting on elections:
>
> "The Occupational Authority in no way has the authority to choose members
> for the drafting committee of a Basic Law. In no way does any authority
> exist for such a drafting committee to represent the lofty interests of
the
> Iraqi people or to translate into law the wishes and basic identity of the
> Iraqi people, the pillars of which are the glorious faith of Islam and
> society's values. The current [American] plan discussed is fundamentally
> unacceptable.
>
> Accordingly, popular elections are necessary so that each Iraqi who is of
> voting age can choose his representative for a constituent assembly. And
> then any Basic Law written by this assembly must be approved by a national
> referendum. It is incumbent upon all believers with their utmost
commitment
> to demand this, and asserting the truth of this path is the best way that
> they can participate in this process."
>
> He sounds like a re-incarnated founding father of America.
>
> Take care,
> Masud Sheikh
>
> The world will be saved by individuals of integrity freely joining
together
> - Buckminster Fuller

*
*
==========================================================
OSLIST at LISTSERV.BOISESTATE.EDU
------------------------------
To subscribe, unsubscribe, change your options,
view the archives of oslist at listserv.boisestate.edu:
http://listserv.boisestate.edu/archives/oslist.html

To learn about OpenSpaceEmailLists and OSLIST FAQs:
http://www.openspaceworld.org/oslist