Beyond Xenophobia
Can't we all just get along? Maybe, if certain societies can be linked to global goodwill.
The problem with books—at least the ones that aren't written by Dean Koontz—is that they make the reader think about things. Instead of just feeding your ol' meat melon mindless drivel from the TV or listening to politicians talk, reading words seems to energize all the cerebral powers that we keep in reserve. As a man of many tastes, I stock my "to-read" pile with a wide range of titles, from campy science fiction and history books to political thrillers and classics. Strangely enough, the last two books I read seem to be connected on an unintentional level, and come to bear on our current state of world affairs. For better or worse, they seem to confirm the wisdom of our nation's policy in the Mid-East.
Hoo-boy, I probably just lost two-thirds of my readers right there, and I won't be surprised if a substantial portion of them are dashing off to their word processors, angrily composing fan mail for me revolving around the words "idiot" and "bone-head." But for the remaining fraction, allow me to explain: If history repeats itself, then we are doing the right thing.
The first book I base this wild-eyed proposition upon is a wonderful, if not about two chapters too long, book called The Pentagon's New Map by Thomas P.M. Barnett. This book was recommended to me by a long-time beer-drinking companion who is taking a political science course at New Mexico State right now. Barnett, who had a long career as a strategist and consultant for the Pentagon, developed a fascinating theory of global stability. In a nutshell, he has identified a core group of nations best described as technologically and economically developed that are so interconnected that the prospect of armed conflict is obsolete. These nations are free, educated and economically interdependent on trade with other nations. The other group, the non-core nations, is distinguished by closed societies, dictatorial governments that regulate information and isolated economies. These are the societies that are most likely to engage in hostilities and armed conflicts. Maddeningly enough, these non-core groups are not necessarily nations, but can be religious groups or political movements not constrained by international borders.
Barnett theorizes that the key to global peace is in globalization, a prospect reviled by many as being a terrible homogenizer of cultures. But what's not to like about globalization? It doesn't forbid cultural distinctions, but it does promote common interests between nations and peoples. Traditional antagonists can quickly turn around without sacrificing their culture. Take France and Germany, for instance; France still celebrates Bastille Day and Germany still hosts beer-guzzling Oktoberfests. They share common money and security interests. These two nations used to be at war as recently as 1945. (Well, Germany was, at least; the French were just kind of "hosting.") Doesn't it stand to reason that if we can get closed, information-deprived cultures and nations to share in the fruits of a global climate, it will generate the same peace dividends?
In the case of the Mid-East, the task is enormous: The cultures are controlled by both religious and political leaders, often wearing the same shirt. But when these societies become connected, they will be inexorably linked to the global good. Look at China—for a Communist country with an impressive military, they've gone way down on the military-threat scale. They're more capitalist than we are, and they will probably never do anything so aggressive as to jeopardize their international trade relations. If China does any American butt-kicking, it'll be on the global markets, not the battlefield.
Keeping that in mind, the next book on the Lightcap nightstand was a historical tome called Flyboys: A True Story of Courage by James Bradley. This is the latest of the oh-so-trendy in-depth historical accounts pioneered by writer Stephen Ambrose, and this one retells some particularly atrocious aspects of how the Japanese treated American pilots when they were prisoners on Chichi Jima, near Iwo Jima. The writer also spends reams of paper explaining how Japan became so warlike and aggressive, beginning with neighboring China.
Now get the connection: Japan was pretty much isolated from western civilization until the mid-1800s, and didn't have much truck with the outside world. When the Japanese first interacted with these other nations, they were quickly in awe of the military might of the outsiders, who were otherwise considered less than human since they weren't the "chosen" people like the Japanese. So, in an environment of isolationism and imperial authority with no democratic principles, Japan expanded its sphere of divine influence into China, killing hundreds of thousands of "non-human" gaizin. This naked aggression was met with an international reaction not unlike that of a cow chewing a large cud, and the Japanese were emboldened to perpetrate a surprise attack on an unprepared America.
Sound familiar? The reclusive, detached society removed from the sphere of global knowledge and influence, equipped with an intolerant view of other people who aren't one of "them"? Capitalizing on the fears of a civilized world bent on appeasement and eager to avoid conflict or war? A populace subject to the tyrannies and decisions of an isolated, authoritarian government? Take away the raw fish and sake and substitute minarets and sand, and you have just described much of the Middle East.
It is said that ideas can be dangerous, but I think far less so than repeating the mistakes of the past. Sure, we can all sit around and trade clever lines from Molly Ivins or Bill O'Reilly, and we can fritter away our limited attention criticizing the day-to-day actions and strategies of the politicians we may or may not agree with. I think what we as a nation are trying to do in the Middle East far transcends mere politics, or the latest missteps of the present administration. It is the first step in assuring that fear, intolerance and ignorance no longer have a place in the world. When you consider the future, it doesn't take a lot of book smarts to know an educated, free society economically linked to global goodwill isn't going to engage in xenophobic behavior. Unfortunately, Hirohito's people achieved enlightenment on the business end of an atomic weapon. I would prefer we avoid having to solve the problem the same way this time around.
Henry Lightcap writes from a bunker somewhere in Las Cruces.