VickramBahl.com

Will we ever learn to co-exist ?

Margaret Thatcher, while leader of the opposition, is claimed to have remarked, “Some chancellors are micro economic, some chancellors are fiscal, this one's just plain cheap”. No wonder she was dubbed the “Iron Lady” by the Soviets. A name that stuck and I suspect she relishes. But that is democracy at it’s best. Try saying that about a military dictator or his cronies and you will be erased from history as well. In the democratic system, Baroness Thatcher, as she is today, rose to become the first lady British Prime Minister and the longest serving Prime Minister in 100 years.  

It is in human nature to form groups and rival each other for superiority. As we grew towards a more civilised society we hoped that the rivalry would be restricted to debate, negotiation or arbitration for settlement, rather than the primitive instinct to inflicting bodily harm. Apparently, that has not really happened. Despite democracy spreading conflicts have not reduced, rather the tactics have changed. The intensity of covert attacks on innocent civilian targets - labelled as terrorism - have actually increased and become the standard tactic amongst weaker groups taking on a formidable enemy. Sadly, conventional aggression has also not reduced.

When looking for an answer it is logical to presume that what happens today is usually a consequence of yesterday. So let us turn our attention to the most powerful country and it’s most successful President in recent history, Bill Clinton. I have always admired Bill Clinton for his oratory and ability to reach out to people. He can be as regal as the most powerful man on earth and as common as have his pet dog, “Buddy” run over by a car, among other things.

While delivering the Dimbleby lecture, he advocated that instead of fighting each other we should be fighting common enemies to mankind; like disease and poverty. He further explained that we should co-operate on developing technology and enhancing it to help mankind be more comfortable and educated.

In fact, all that he said makes absolute sense. He put the Afghanistan war expenses for America at one billion dollars per month and suggests that if America spends twelve months of this war budget on global education, eradication of disease, finance to small enterprise and investment in technology, there would be fewer terrorists around and the world would become a safer place, with change to spare.

The question arises that when the great leaders of the world know what is to be done why do they not do it?  I think part of the answer is in Bill Clinton’s own speech. He says, “Think about how important your differences are to you. Think about how we all organise our lives in little boxes - man, woman, British, American, Muslim, Christian, Jew, Tory, Labour, New Labour, Old Labour, up, down - you know, everything in the world”. He explains that we all live within these little boxes and fear what does not conform to our parameters.

But I would like to go a step further. I think Bill Clinton may have had the vision of a global community beyond his little box while he was President but millions of Americans did not share his vision. Had he talked of spending one billion dollars a month on various schemes overseas before the terrorist attacks on US soil, the idea would have been considered a waste of American tax payers money and he would have had a hard time defending his little box. Even today, Bush can sell a war budget of one billion dollars a month to his people in the interest of peace and security at home but cannot and will not risk selling a global development budget of that size for the same purpose.

The poorer nations grudge the rich countries interest in the creation of wealth. I see no harm in that because there is no benefit in all nations being poor. Margaret Thatcher explained that issue quite well when she said, “Nevertheless, the Tenth Commandment - 'Thou shalt not covet' - recognizes that making money and owning things could become selfish activities. But it is not the creation of wealth that is wrong, but love of money for its own sake. The spiritual dimension comes in deciding what one does with the wealth. How could we respond to the many calls for help, or invest for the future, or support the wonderful artists or craftsmen whose work also glorifies God, unless we had first worked hard and used our talents to create the necessary wealth?”

Therefore, the problem of co-existence is primarily an economic one and differences of ideals, religion, race, and all the other parameters could be taken care of by education and self-sustenance for all.

Now that Bush has his final term under his belt maybe he will look at alternative solutions for the Palestinian-Israeli conflict, Iraq, Afghanistan and North Korea.

To co-exist we need democracy, less economic disparity and more tolerance, but most of all we need politicians like Thatcher who state, as she did when she was elected to lead the party, “I am not a consensus politician, I am a conviction politician”.  And the people of the world must realise, as Bill Clinton puts it so well, “somewhere along the way, we finally come to understand that our life is more than all these boxes we're in. And that if we can't reach beyond that, we'll never have a fuller life.”

And he was talking of each one of us.

SPIRIT OF CHRISTMAS  :  A college time experience that has stayed with me and I share with you.

SEEING IS BELIEVING ?  : An experiment on how the journalist can stretch the imagination of his audience, augmented with photos.

WILL WE EVER LEARN TO CO-EXIST ?  :  A question we all need to ask ourselves. The answer ? Well, read on...

CONFLICT IN THE TWILIGHT  :  When has war ever been fair just or necessary?

THE PERFECTIONIST  :  A club so exclusive that one may be the only member present most of the time !