This is perhaps America's most important election in my lifetime, not just for our country, but for others all over the world. We have a chance as a collective human force to use our VOICES and our VOTES to institute a change in direction and mindset that could benefit all those looking and longing for leadership from American citizens. You may not think your VOTE matters, but this time, it truly could be the VOTE that becomes part of a global tipping point.
The whole world is watching and waiting to see what decisions we will make. A respected colleague from London, John Sloboda, Executive Director, Oxford Research Group, wrote yesterday:
"The world looks on with baited breath as the people of the USA prepare to vote - a vote with very important ramifications for the entire world. May you, and all who you care for, cast your votes wisely!"
John Sloboda also offered TEN lessons for us to consider as we cast our votes.
Ten things that the USA and its allies need to learn about military intervention
by John Sloboda, Executive Director, Oxford Research Group, London
Since 1999 the USA and its principal allies Britain and Israel have made military intervention the centrepiece their entire foreign policy. From Serbia/Kosovo, through Afghanistan, Iraq, Lebanon, and onwards to Iran and North Korea, the basic strategy has been the same: bomb from the air, destabilise or depose the existing regime, establish long-term on-the-ground military presence, take sides in internal ethnic or religious conflicts, prop up weak pro-American governments totally reliant on external aid and 'firepower' to extend their remit to the entire country, devote insufficient resources to meeting basic human needs of the people.
Far from achieving stability, these interventions have, to a greater or lesser extent, exacerbated local, regional, and global tensions, undermined effectiveness of the global governance system (UN and associated bodies); and increased the capacity and will of actors with no allegiance to any state to do harm around the world.
When the American people choose how to vote in three days time, their perceptions of the Iraq intervention, and Republican and Democrat attitudes to that intervention, will be key in determining their decision. Yet, for all that, it is not clear that even the most progressive political voices (such as that of Chicago Democratic Senator, Barak Obama) have a clear vision that extends beyond 'how to get out of the current mess with least further loss of life' .
What is desperately needed, in Washington, London, and Jerusalem, is a true 'road map'. This would be a set of clear benchmarks and principles for effective foreign policy.
Such benchmarks are already implicit in the enormous amount of critical reflection that is taking place, in diplomatic, civil service, military, academic, and NGO circles. Yet rarely do these issues get clear articulation in the media, in the parliamentary and representative agenda, or from government spokespersons. The trauma of Iraq has paralysed the political classes, and popular debate has been hollowed out so that 'stay' or 'leave' are the only items on the menu.
Here are 10 propositions which could be animating a real debate about long-term security for us all:
1. Regime change is most successfully achieved from within, and non-violently (cf Spain, Portugal, South Africa, Russia, Argentina)
2 The most important threats to human security (such as climate change, pandemic disease, global inequalities in wealth distribution) cannot be eliminated by military action. Indeed, militarization is in itself one of the greatest threats (3,000 innocents were killed in 9-11, upwards of 100,000 have been killed as result of our military response to 9-11). Terrorism is not, despite the constant insistence on this by western leaders, the 'greatest threat'.
3. 'We don..t talk to terrorists, or those who sponsor terrorism' is a self-defeating posture. In the end you always have to talk. Starting and continuing with it will always produce better results than breaking off.
4. Successful interventions must be legitimate in the eyes of the people in the place of intervention. Otherwise they will be resisted as occupation. Only the UN Security Council can currently deliver the necessary legitimacy.
5. Successful interventions have properly designed and resourced post-conflict reconstruction plans, accepted as legitimate and workable by all parties. This means nurturing and prioritising the expertise of those who possess deep long-term understanding of the region, and its political and cultural complexities.
6. It matters who intervenes. Intervening forces who have ethnic, religious and cultural affinities with the indigenous population will have the greatest chance of acceptance by the population.
7. It matters how the intervention is done. A force whose primary aim is protection of, and respect towards, local civilians, will be more successful that one that shoots first and asks questions later. The 'I am a warrior' creed of the US soldier is not fit for current purpose.
8. Combatting terrorists and insurgents requires completely different strategies, tactics to the conduct of traditional 'army versus army' battlefield wars. This requires root and branch transformation in the way military forces are chosen, trained, and integrated with non-military actors.
9. The views of informed electorates cannot be ignored without lasting damage to the democratic fabric. Western governments must find better ways of taking account of informed public opinion, which has tended to be marginalised and discredited by those in power.
10. Persisting with mistaken policies never works. It is always better to admit you were wrong, apologise, and reverse the unworkable policy. Governments must urgently find ways of moving beyond 'fear of loss of face'. History shows that leaders who admit their mistakes often increase their stature and effectiveness.
Maybe these 10 principles are not all correct. Maybe there are others equally important which are not on the list. The point is that the national and international debate needs to move to this level rapidly, to escape the paralysis of blame and counter-blame that has all but shut down serious debate about the role and meaning of the military forces of democratic and stable nations in the 21st Century. End.
There are hopeful indications that American citizens, in record numbers, recognize this election is far more than party politics and fringe issues that we are being bombarded with from every direction. This election is about THINKING, QUESTIONING and taking PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY at this time in history to contribute to a more generous, peaceful, respectiful world. It begins with getting informed and stepping up. Your name is being called ... do you hear it?
This year, I was taken by Franklin Delano Roosevelt's inaugural address in 1932 that I came across. He spoke to our neighbors around the world. It made me realize just how far off track we've become as a nation and how much we need a new vision:
"In the field of world policy, I would dedicate this nation to the policy of the good neighbor---the neighbor who resolutely respects himself and, because he does so, respects the rights of others."
How different the debate nationally and internationally would be if we started from such a visionary premise. This week, our friends across the world are counting on our VOICE and VOTE.
Cast your votes wisely!
Debbe Kennedy
Founder, Global Dialogue Center
RELATED PODCAST:
PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY: It's Role in Creating a Better World
Berrett-Koehler Authors' Dialogue
Listen and view NOW