I don't think he (Chretien) is unsympathetic with America, but he is looking realistically at how you head off at the pass the continued hostility of some nations. I am not sure this can be done easily. For instance in the middle ages the Arabic nations were rich, and Ghenghis Khan was looking to expand his borders. You could say Khan was poor. So in order to appease him many Arabic cities paid him tribute instead of fighting. I am not sure that was effective in all cases. It was also hardly justified that Khan should expand his borders. Today many Muslims have the last name Khan. It was equally culturally insensitive that the Muslims expanded their borders both east and west in later times. They used the religious conversion excuse. They were the first crusaders, or we could say scimitaraders.
I think the problem of why nations and cultures polarize, and what to do about it is more complex than merely rich-poor issues. It is partly religious-cultural, partly perceived dominance of the richer country politically, and partly sheer propaganda and will to power. In the case of Iraq, and to a lesser extent Iran, they both view the US as historically interfering in their domestic politics, which is true. the US dominated and interfered with Iran and Iraq in the name of supporting repressive puppet regimes for regional control, and for oil. This is deeply resented. The hostility of the US towards these countries today is seen as an extension of that former policy. These nations also deeply resent, and say they are sympathetic with the plight of Palestinians whose ancestral homeland is fragmented by recent political occupation and religiously rooted hegemony. This is for the most part hypocritical because it is doubtful that any Arab regime, let alone Sharon or other Iraeli leader, would let the Palestinians have self determination. Ask the Jordanian rulers.
The unrest in the Muslim world is also because the regimes are fundamentally undemocratic. Filling that void or threatening to fill that void are extreme students and cleric who rally around a uni-party state based on Muslim principles and repressive policies. Why there has to be only one party, and religious dominance is a mystery. The penchant that some Muslims have justifying killing anyone who disagrees with them or insults their religion, lets them get the upperhand in any "democracy "that does not suppress their worst tendencies and extreme demagogues. That is why Algeria, Pakistan, Syria, Egypt and Iraq would be dangerous vaccums if the regimes that currently dominate politics there were replaced with anything but a clean house, and military control for some period of time until the culture can be stabilized.
I should note here that fr. Canadian views on world poltics are generally quite independent of Western Canada and English speaking views. Fr. Canadians are definitely far more lenient to socialist regimes. They do not see Cuba as a threat, or look upon their regime as that repressive. They would tend to believe that the Sandanistas were preferrable to Batista or Somoza. You could call it laissez-fair socialistic world politics. English Canada is far more leery about the thin edge of the socialist wedge in principle, and far too tolerant of strong man dictatorships in Latin America. My tendency is to think both points of view have their dangers and need revisiting if we are to promote regimes that are self sustaining politically and economically, whether or not they are perfectly aligned with our way of thinking.
EC<:-} |
