A vision . . . at the end of the day

It is not always true that intervention even for noble humanitarian motives is the wiser course of action. A cogent example is given by William Shawcross in his book Deliver us from evil – Warlords and peacekeepers in a world of endless conflict. He refers, if in hindsight, to the American civil war in 1861 about which there was much furore in Europe to intervene because of the loss of so many lives, the threat to world stability and the disruption of the cotton trade on which millions of people in France and Britain depended. When that American war ended with the defeat of the Confederacy (and without the intervention of any other nation) in April 1865, 620,000 Americans had been killed. This was more than the number of Americans who would die in the First and Second World Wars combined.

* * *

Yet Shawcross implies that on balance, despite this tragedy, because of what the American nation would later achieve by being able to stick together as one nation, there is no cause for regret that the war should have ended the way it had – without the need for intervention. Although there was early sympathy for the cotton rich but underdog South, by the end of the war European opinion subsequently changed in favor of the North. Consequently, the "Union had survived" and the "notion of self-determination for the South had been killed for ever."

* * *

But what if the same war had happened in our time – when as Shawcross puts it "dispatches from Bull Run would have travelled instantly through the air rather than slowly through the ocean? Imagine what the effect on Europe might have been if CNN camera crews had been showing Europeans every night the prison camps of Andersonville, the Battle of Gettysburg, the burning of Atlanta or Sherman’s march through the South?" Shawcross asks. Like the Americans of today, the Europeans then would have found it difficult to restrain themselves or act "irresponsibly" when cotton fields were being burned and people being killed before their eyes. By 1862, Britain and the US were almost at war and both the French and Russian government seriously discussed intervention.

* * *

Shawcross speculates that had there been instant communication then European opinion would have been even more aroused, and it might have reinforced the inclinations of the French and British governments to intervene to manage the conflict. Would they have sent an occupying force of ‘peacekeepers’ How long would it have stayed? What would have been the effect of such an intervention? Shawcross turns to Professor Michael Howard, a former professor of war at Oxford, to deliver a well-chosen understatement "I think we can agree that it would have been adverse."

* * *

He goes further and adds "Imagine Abraham Lincoln and Jefferson Davis shaking hands on the lawn at 10 Downing Street or the Elysee Palace under the benevolent eyes of Lord Palmerston and Napoleon III. Such an intervention would not have been very welcome to many people in the United States. By what right would they have intervened? What good would it have done? If the prospect of having their conflict managed for them by foreigners however well intentioned, would have been unwelcome to the American people then, why should it be more acceptable to other peoples in the world today just because the motives of those who believe fervently that something must be done are often decent?

* * *

To me, the lesson from Shawcross’s example of the American civil war is as always, the problem of the human condition. We do not really know how and why things work the way they do. More often it is those who presume certainty in what they do who mislead us. Humanitarianism may be good but it should not be the single standard for judgment and action. More often than not we demand immediate reconciliation from contending forces that are not ready to do so. We cannot force reconciliation. Going back to the American civil war, Shawcross points out reconciliation took decades. Ironically, perhaps, if we had a more realistic view of how enemies, whether individuals or countries, finally make peace, we would have less war.

* * *

The Saudi proposal. The Philippines would do well if it went ahead to consider the Saudi Peace Proposal in Beirut to demonstrate our independence and ability as its own nation in the diplomatic arena. We can remain a staunch ally of the United States without sacrificing our ability to shape our own foreign policy. We should also be reminded that more than a million Filipinos live and work in the Middle East particularly Saudi Arabia. We espouse and promote the Arab formula for peace in concert with our ASEAN neighbors as well as our own Muslim brothers and sisters in the south and our migrant workers in that region.

* * *

At the same time we remain conscious that the Saudi peace initiative should be approached with humility. No one is saying that peace will be achieved instantly or that Palestinians and Israelis will embrace each other other as soon as they sign on the dotted line. What the Saudi peace initiative has done and credit must go to His Royal Highness Prince Abdullah bin Abdulaziz, the Crown Prince of the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, is to commit the Arab world to a comprehensive peace in the region. The proposal is expansive and wide ranging, so different from Prime Minister Ariel Sharon’s narrow mindedness which limits the resolution of the conflict to the removal of one man- Yasser Arafat. Happily Sharon is but one Israeli, there are thousands others who do not share his narrow view and they may yet be the key to pushing the peace initiative on the Israeli side. We have to reach out to them, too.

* * *

As Economist said sometime before the Beirut announcement, the Saudi initiative is good because it is vague enough to allow for Israeli sovereignty over the Western Wall in Jerusalem’s Old City and for minor modifications in the border between Israel and Palestine. President George Bush, who had earlier referred to the Saudi peace initiative as "a vision… at the end of the day" may be right in saying that this kind of understanding between the warring nations may be a long way off. But it is also the only starting point. No matter how long the journey towards peace, it can only happen through the path of peace, not through violence and the Saudi proposal has shown the way. Nowhere in the document submitted to the Beirut meeting was there recrimination of any sort against the Sharon government or US support for Israeli aggression.

* * *

As I write this piece the Europeans have already thrown their support to the proposal. The rest of the world can help by supporting the peace initiative. It is also the best time to adopt the attitude of patience. When I say this I do not refer only to governments, I refer to indivduals who have become important players in a globalized world through instant communications. A simple tap on the keyboard of your computer can do wonders in spreading the message of peace of the Saudi initiative around the world.

* * *

Movement for a Federal Philippines. Back home, hope for peace in Mindanao is anchored on a movement for a Federal Philippines. As promised this column will keep covering developments so those who are interested to know more about the movement can be reached. While we are heartened by recent moves from members of Congress to amend the Constitution to shift to the more efficient parliamentary system, the movement for federalism is another aspect of political reform that will have to be addressed. Both would require changing the Constitution. That does not mean that one excludes the other. Debate is not something to be avoided in a democracy, it is to welcomed, pursued and if resolved intelligently is a powerful unifying tool.

* * *

If misguided quarters think that they can repeat what they did in 1998 to destroy a constitutional reform initiative, they are very wrong. On the contrary, the gathering of forces through peaceful means is far advanced for them to destroy by violent or smear tactics. Quietly, like-minded people have been linking up, albeit differing in their advocacies, but united in the pursuit of non-violent, constitutional routes of reform. The Movement for Federal Philippines is only one of them. Other initiatives will follow. The first Luzon-wide Conference on Federalism will be held on April 12-13 (Friday and Saturday). It will be held at the Orchid Garden Suites, 620 Pablo Ocampo Sr. St, formerly Vito Cruz St., Malate, Manila. It will start at 1.30 pm on Friday, the 12th and end on Saturday.after a dinner.

* * *

My e-mail address: [email protected]