Home
Previous letters
Subscribe
Useful links
About me
Contact me
|
WORLD CITIZEN LETTER: 528
View full list of previous letters
Receive future letters by email
WCL 528 August 2006
World citizen viewpoints
Why is it feasible that an analysis of current events from the standpoint of a world citizen can have distinctive value and is in some important ways different from the view of any other rational and liberal observer? The answer can only be found in an examination of hidden assumptions usually made by such observers. We all have assumptions hidden and thus unnoticed. Because we are all brought up and schooled in our own national boxes, we learn the national shibboleths and their accompanying prejudices. Most of us accept them without thought and become addicted to the national themes and passions.
Thereafter everything is seen thought the prism of national assumptions and the world appears as through a distorting lens. Thus when Israelis and Americans watch the bombing of Lebanon and the turning of a million people into refugees, they can see only the hand of a band of guerilla terrorists, while most Arabs see only Israeli terrorism on a country-wide scale. The rest of the world looks on and takes sides according to its national or religious commitments. It needs a world citizen view to steady the picture, with historical depth and a refusal to allow sympathy or partisanship to determine explanations that make sense.
It is when conflict erupts that the nation-state view of the world is most misleading and dangerous. At that time, all the accumulated misunderstandings and deliberate falsities become consolidated into a corpus of prejudice designed to solidify support for the rulers. These identify their own views and policies as being "in the national interest", taking steps to denigrate opposition and often to censor and persecute differing views. Without the counterbalance of established and steadfast world-citizen alternatives the likelihood of ordinary people seeking access to truthful accounts is greatly diminished.
One good example is seen in a country that that has a relatively free press where much truth can be ascertained by diligent enquiry - Britain. For several generations, the idea of federalism has been denigrated and rubbished by a large part of the media. This was done, partly unthinkingly, to serve the interests of the two largest political parties, neither of which felt comfortable with the idea.
But the prevailing tide of anti-federalist comment and propaganda produced, for example, the nonsensical position that the anti-federalist prime minister, Margaret Thatcher, could make denigratory remarks in speeches that were being lauded as eminently suitable for audiences in the United States, a country constitutionally dedicated to federalism, without the British press noticing the contradictions.
There are far more serious issues here. Sloppy thinking about the terms of political discourse almost always implies the impossibility of dispassionate and rational decisions on political issues. These include, ultimately, issues of peace and war. It may be that most wars have economic causes, but it is also true that modern wars always lead to loss all round: there are no winners, economic or other, in the long run (when, of course, as has been pointed out, we are all dead). But leaders on all side persist in talking in outdated cliches. These include things like national interest and even honour or, unintelligibly, prestige, which has been the pretext for 50 years for maintaining a crippling burden of British nuclear weapons.
A decision to express a world citizen view implies the observer consciously examining his own assumptions about such arguments or quarrels. Results may not always be impartial or unbiased, but the attempt will be there, whereas the 'parti pris' conventional commentators will glorify in supporting their own groups, even if not as far as 'my country right or wrong' which is no longer now openly avowed.
It is not only Israel v. the Arabs that provoke these attitudes: other conflicts see similar situations. The Iranians see American moves to restrict their access to nuclear technology as designed to pave the way for an attack upon the country, if necessary by Israel. The Americans take anti-Zionist utterances by Islamic fundamentalists as not only intentional but eternal and showing undying enmity. Reflection upon the varied history of terrorist movements, unofficial and state-sponsored, brings understanding that circumstances modify beliefs. This year's guerilla leader is next year's negotiator, from Nelson Mandela to Gerry Adams.
World citizenship is one necessary precondition for global peace in the 21st century. That in itself is sufficient reason for advocating the viewpoint. But it is more than that, for without the regular and thoughtful analysis of affairs from that stance, chances of understanding are almost nil. We live with Orwellian unreal world-views being transmitted by those interested parties who wish us to consider peace as war and vice versa. We cannot expect to make sense of the world if we are habitually fed partial views of the world and its doings without any counter-balance.
John Roberts
Comment on this letter
View full list of previous letters
Receive future letters by email
Comments on this letter
|
|