How fragile life can be

Of the many things President Obama could have said about Friday’s tragic earthquake in Japan, he chose the most apt. “Today’s events remind us of just how fragile life can be. Our hearts go out to our friends in Japan and across the region, and we’re going to stand with them as they recover and rebuild from this tragedy.” I salute him for this. He draws a lesson for both the victims and those who (like most of us) can only watch with pity and fear. It reveals the thoughtful man behind his presidency and awareness of our common humanity.

*      *      *

It may be hard to accept that President Obama could depart from what is expected of the lone superpower that America is as far as the Middle East crisis in concerned. But he did and again this is consistent with his character that New York Times described as “trumping the trailblazer.”

His policy of restraint is not a lack of bravery so much as it is about prudence. If he were President at the time of the Iraq crisis we might have had a different, more desirable, more humane results than what happened. It is not an easy policy for American national security interests weigh as heavily as idealistic impulses.           

On another occasion, during the climate change conference in Norway, he opted for the more cautious approach by citing that famous saying by the French philosopher Voltaire “not to allow perfection come in the way of the good.”

He may not have pleased impulsive do-gooders but he has expressed a measured response that will go a long way in achieving both peace and saving lives. If he were to send troops to Libya, the same people who would have led him to do so will be the same people who will blame him for the deaths of American soldiers. He may not be a trailblazer but he will be remembered for a more judicious foreign policy He will of course be criticized by the war hawks but as NYT said, his emphasis on pragmatism over idealism has left Mr. Obama vulnerable to criticism that he is losing the battle for the hearts and minds of the Arab street protesters.” The trouble is with those who think that historical change can be achieved only through violence for violence, bullet vs. bullet. Well, Obama is of different stuff and should be supported. “It’s tempting, and it would be easy, to go out day after day with cathartic statements that make us feel good,” said Benjamin J. Rhodes, the deputy national security adviser, who wrote Mr. Obama’s soaring speech in Cairo to the Islamic world in 2009. “But ultimately, what’s most important is achieving outcomes that are consistent with our values, because if we don’t, those statements will be long forgotten.”

Filipinos who have suffered from American policy about its misconceived good of intervention in the internal politics of a country should cheer this president. It does not mean that there is no lack of sympathy for the protesters. There is. But Obama has chosen a more difficult terrain because unlike his predecessors he values “the fragility of lives.” This can be done in other ways than swooping down on a country because there are “protesters.” His policy, seems to be to vary American reaction on a case to case basis while continuing to use other means to persuade Arab rulers to come down from their high perches and dialogue with their own people. Admittedly this course of action will be slower and achieved with more patience.

On the other hand, critics may be coming from political differences with President Obama than we are made to believe. So it is not surprising that the International Republican Institute should be one of those against Obama’s attitude of restraint. “Striking a very balanced, and in many ways, neutral approach is recognized by many people in the region as not being with them, or on their side,” said J. Scott Mastic, the head of Middle East and North Africa for the International Republican Institute. It remains to be seen how Mr. Obama’s policy of restraint will be judged by other countries in the future. Time will tell whether he was right in “balancing American interests.”

*      *      *

The protests in the Arab world, then the earthquake in Japan. Why is it all happening at the same time?

 Why, indeed? There is a theory about natural disasters accompanying social upheavals. The natural disaster in this case are the earthquakes in New Zealand and Japan. There was nothing puny men could do in the face of the power of nature. Since these disasters are beyond men to control, the stress from the disasters are directed elsewhere.   

 Jack Coburn writing for Helium: Sociology gives examples when natural disasters seemed to have interacted with social upheaval. He cites the “direct social results of the great Lisbon earthquake, which struck Portugal in the late eighteenth century.”

“The quake was generated just south of the country, in the Atlantic Ocean, but traveled towards the capital, bringing heavy shaking, tsunamis and raging fires along with it. In the end, most of the city was destroyed and Portugal suffered great economic losses. In response to this event, the leading church authority of the time, oddly being the Quakers, were exiled from the city and perhaps all of Portugal. As if that weren’t coincidental enough, the area hasn’t received a significant or destructive quake since.

He also cites the black death and the reformation as an example of a natural disaster foreshadowing the downfall of the Catholic Church. “When the Catholic Church failed to cast out the Plague that ran through Europe in the 1300s and 1400s, they examined themselves and the Church, and found that only some odd worldliness had entered their religious activities that they had missed. Church activities were then redone to emphasize the afterlife and God, giving the few priests and clergy left after the Plague plenty of money and power. With that came the search for more secular pleasures and ideals, or as many say, “absolute power corrupts absolutely. Through that, the reformers could send their message of religious revival in response to these sinful Church leaders.” I

It brought about the Renaissance and the emergence of different sects that broke away from Catholicism.

“What if Genghis Khan’s fleet had not been intercepted twice by typhoons while en route to conquer Japan? How about if smallpox and other diseases hadn’t given the conquistadors such an advantage in the earliest Indian wars?” he asks.

How will natural upheavals affect social connections in the future? We have to wait and see.” We can now ask the same question with Japan’s earthquakes and people’s protests in the Arab world.