This wikileaks saga is getting out of hand. As I understand the situation, the only ‘crime’ committed has been by someone in the American armed forces who wishes to make a point and cause maximum embarrassment – in this they have succeeded, I am sure, beyond their expectations. Now that Julian Assange has handed himself in the British Police (in response to an Interpol “red note”), the American wolf pack is salivating at the prospect of getting their hands on him. This response from those whom wikileaks has exposed is what one has come to expect – outrage and a thirst for revenge.
The Americans are calling him a terrorist – how far out is that! To me wikileaks is definitely worthwhile as it exposes murder, deception, underhand activities and the general ineptitude of many in positions of influence. How can the Americans say Assange is a terrorist? He has killed no one; has no plans to. His only rationale, as far as I can make out is to expose injustice in any shape or form. Now THAT is a good idea and needs to be supported by all fair minded people.
At least Julian Assange is doing something to clean up the world and he needs all the support we can give him. Remember it was the British statesman and philosopher Edmund Burke (1729-1797) who said, “All that's necessary for the forces of evil to win in the world is for enough good men to do nothing.”
Thursday, December 9, 2010
Wednesday, December 8, 2010
Everyday life
It is strange how different cultures have developed differing ways of looking at life and the world about them. This difference also affects behaviour and emotions. For instance it is well known that someone from the “West” or brought up in the “West” will have a more individualistic approach – “me, I am the important one.” By “West” I mean the more industrialised countries that have been influenced by European standards. On the other hand someone from the “East” or brought up in the “East” is more likely to have a collectivist approach – “us; the group is the important one.” By “East” I mean those countries in the Middle East, Asia and South East Asia; in other words those not having had a historically long European influence.
This “division” between Individualistic and Collective cultures would appear to be a remnant from the older less industrialised days when peoples were grouped by tribal or village affiliation. This affiliation and the small numbers of people concerned encouraged a “one for all and all for one” attitude. This was as defence or survival mechanism that developed to keep the village or tribe as a viable unit. Once industry and a “cash” economy developed then the situation changed and it became more of a individualistic “free-for-all” wherein people sought to get as much of the cash and what the cash would buy as possible. Thus there was no longer a pressing, defence or survival, need for the support of the group, village or tribe. People could go it alone and support themselves.
This means that when someone in the “West” is discomforted by, say a Wikileaks disclosure, they tend (and in using this word I am cautious as I am against categorising people) to take it personally – unless of course they speak for a government in which case the government and the political party concerned would be exceedingly discomforted. This discomfort would not necessarily flow on to the entire country – if people felt strongly enough about the matter they would, most probably, vote the government out at the next election and be done with it.
In an “Eastern” collectivist culture, on the other hand there is a tendency (again I use this word with caution) to take any discomforting disclosure not only as a personal affront – loss of face or a feeling of shame – but this feeling often flows on to the entire country which now “feels” the shame and considers itself diminished thereby.
While this division between “East” and “West” is (thankfully) no longer what it was because of the rapid industrialisation of the “East”, this “collectivist” attitude may still give rise to expressions of outrage and accusations that the international community is interfering in the internal affairs of their country, be it China, Serbia, Israel, Iran, Turkey or Burma or whatever.
What is affected may not be the image of the country so much as the ego of the country’s leader – this is what gives rise to international tensions and aggression.
This “division” between Individualistic and Collective cultures would appear to be a remnant from the older less industrialised days when peoples were grouped by tribal or village affiliation. This affiliation and the small numbers of people concerned encouraged a “one for all and all for one” attitude. This was as defence or survival mechanism that developed to keep the village or tribe as a viable unit. Once industry and a “cash” economy developed then the situation changed and it became more of a individualistic “free-for-all” wherein people sought to get as much of the cash and what the cash would buy as possible. Thus there was no longer a pressing, defence or survival, need for the support of the group, village or tribe. People could go it alone and support themselves.
This means that when someone in the “West” is discomforted by, say a Wikileaks disclosure, they tend (and in using this word I am cautious as I am against categorising people) to take it personally – unless of course they speak for a government in which case the government and the political party concerned would be exceedingly discomforted. This discomfort would not necessarily flow on to the entire country – if people felt strongly enough about the matter they would, most probably, vote the government out at the next election and be done with it.
In an “Eastern” collectivist culture, on the other hand there is a tendency (again I use this word with caution) to take any discomforting disclosure not only as a personal affront – loss of face or a feeling of shame – but this feeling often flows on to the entire country which now “feels” the shame and considers itself diminished thereby.
While this division between “East” and “West” is (thankfully) no longer what it was because of the rapid industrialisation of the “East”, this “collectivist” attitude may still give rise to expressions of outrage and accusations that the international community is interfering in the internal affairs of their country, be it China, Serbia, Israel, Iran, Turkey or Burma or whatever.
What is affected may not be the image of the country so much as the ego of the country’s leader – this is what gives rise to international tensions and aggression.
Tuesday, November 30, 2010
Wikileaks.
I have generally applauded the efforts of the Wikileaks team in trying to show up unethical conduct and to bring pretentious people down a peg or two. I just love that – when tall poppies are chopped down!! I have always believed that as humans we are all, basically, the same. We all have hopes and aspirations; we all have relatively fragile emotions and we all bleed when hurt; that, at the core of their being, no-one is better or worse than anyone else – just some have bigger egos!!
The previous Wikileaks exposure of documents relating to the war in Iraq I thought was excellent as it highlighted some very shady dealings and cover-ups. This was, I believe, a “correct” use of whistle-blowing. But I am not so sure about this time, with about 400 000 diplomatic documents having the light of public scrutiny directed at them. I ask for what purpose? Surely governments, like individuals, should be afforded some privacy; some “space” in which they may speak their minds without fear or favour?
Now I have no real issue with Wikileaks itself or the idea behind it, but I think reason must have a part, somewhere, in their “mission statement” otherwise it may be considered they have gone a step too far this time and possibly lost some of their moral high-ground. Exposing the actions of banks, telecommunication companies or other commercial organisations, I have no trouble with. Be that as it may I believe the Americans must look to their own before trying to arrest and charge Julian Assange and his Wikileaks team for criminal activities. Someone in the American administration is very frustrated or very angry and is trying to seek “revenge” by wreaking havoc in the diplomatic field – and by all accounts succeeding.
I do acknowledge that I have not had time to read any documents in the current “crop” so I am writing with information based on what others, possibly biased, have said. I await further details on this “case” with great interest!
The previous Wikileaks exposure of documents relating to the war in Iraq I thought was excellent as it highlighted some very shady dealings and cover-ups. This was, I believe, a “correct” use of whistle-blowing. But I am not so sure about this time, with about 400 000 diplomatic documents having the light of public scrutiny directed at them. I ask for what purpose? Surely governments, like individuals, should be afforded some privacy; some “space” in which they may speak their minds without fear or favour?
Now I have no real issue with Wikileaks itself or the idea behind it, but I think reason must have a part, somewhere, in their “mission statement” otherwise it may be considered they have gone a step too far this time and possibly lost some of their moral high-ground. Exposing the actions of banks, telecommunication companies or other commercial organisations, I have no trouble with. Be that as it may I believe the Americans must look to their own before trying to arrest and charge Julian Assange and his Wikileaks team for criminal activities. Someone in the American administration is very frustrated or very angry and is trying to seek “revenge” by wreaking havoc in the diplomatic field – and by all accounts succeeding.
I do acknowledge that I have not had time to read any documents in the current “crop” so I am writing with information based on what others, possibly biased, have said. I await further details on this “case” with great interest!
Sunday, November 28, 2010
Love is everywhere
Well, after a month of very heavy studying followed by exams, I am back. I am sure my one reader will be as pleased as I am. Strange though it may seem I enjoy academic work – it seems to satisfy something and gives me a sense of fulfilment.
But what I really wanted to write about was something I saw the other day while driving to work. What caught my eye, on the road ahead of me, was a group of three black crows on the road trying to get at something, which I guessed was some “road kill”. What they were trying to pick up was very small and I immediately thought it might be a small bird killed by a passing motor car. Then my attention was drawn to a small shape – a sparrow – attacking the crows and trying to drive them away. They were ducking and weaving to avoid the little “dive bomber”. This was a contest the sparrow could not win – one against three was not a fair contest. Sure enough the sparrow was diverted by one crow and one of the other two immediately scooped up the little carcass and flew off followed by the other crows. I saw the sparrow fly back to where, presumably its mate, had been killed and then commence a fruitless pursuit of the crows.
The whole episode was over in a minute or so. I know it was a sparrow that was killed because as I drove passed I looked down as saw a few feathers marking the spot. It is difficult for me not to assume that the surviving sparrow was trying to defend the body of its mate from being eaten by the crows.
We are told never to anthropomorphise the lives of animals – never to assume that human like attributes are present in animals – you see to do so is not “scientific”. But to me it makes perfect sense to do it, after all we are animals too, aren’t we?
I like to think that love IS actually everywhere, even in a bird. Swans are known to mate for life and to grieve over the loss of a mate. If a swan can why can’t a sparrow?
But what I really wanted to write about was something I saw the other day while driving to work. What caught my eye, on the road ahead of me, was a group of three black crows on the road trying to get at something, which I guessed was some “road kill”. What they were trying to pick up was very small and I immediately thought it might be a small bird killed by a passing motor car. Then my attention was drawn to a small shape – a sparrow – attacking the crows and trying to drive them away. They were ducking and weaving to avoid the little “dive bomber”. This was a contest the sparrow could not win – one against three was not a fair contest. Sure enough the sparrow was diverted by one crow and one of the other two immediately scooped up the little carcass and flew off followed by the other crows. I saw the sparrow fly back to where, presumably its mate, had been killed and then commence a fruitless pursuit of the crows.
The whole episode was over in a minute or so. I know it was a sparrow that was killed because as I drove passed I looked down as saw a few feathers marking the spot. It is difficult for me not to assume that the surviving sparrow was trying to defend the body of its mate from being eaten by the crows.
We are told never to anthropomorphise the lives of animals – never to assume that human like attributes are present in animals – you see to do so is not “scientific”. But to me it makes perfect sense to do it, after all we are animals too, aren’t we?
I like to think that love IS actually everywhere, even in a bird. Swans are known to mate for life and to grieve over the loss of a mate. If a swan can why can’t a sparrow?
Sunday, October 10, 2010
Chinese ethics and plagiarism
It is interesting – I have just finished a month of intense studying and writing to lodge two psychology assignments within the due time. This is why I did not “blog” for the whole month of September. Actually I missed the opportunity of writing my thoughts that some, maybe a few, possibly only one may actually read!! I find writing a good outlet for my frustrations and any tensions.
What is really interesting and what I want to write about is ethics and the pernicious and apparently increasing academic crime of plagiarism. One of my recently completed assignments had to be submitted to the ‘anti-plagiarism’ process using the very useful web site called “Turnitin”. This checks the submitted work against a massive data base of previously published journals and books and tells you how much of the work submitted is original or plagiarised. Anything over 10% plagiarism is not acceptable and must be reworked and resubmitted. Mine rated at 5% without reworking, which I was quite pleased with.
This reworking is actually not that difficult it means that the original work that you have referred to must be reworded, in your own words (with appropriate citation or reference). This is as it should be and shows that you understand the topic sufficiently well to be able to write about it without using the original author’s actual words. Again, this is as it should be. Imagine if you were the original author and you read about your ideas and original work, in your words, but claimed as original by someone else? How would you feel? Very annoyed I suggest. Again, imagine, if you will, the consequences of plagiarism and academic cheating if you were treated by an alleged medical doctor who had fake qualifications? How would you feel? Apart from showing a lack of respect, it is cheating and considered to be intellectual theft and is rightly condemned by all.
What brought about this train of thought was an article on the very subject, in the Friday 8th October edition of the Australian Financial Review (AFR), entitled “China fails to rein in fakes”. This is an interesting article because it highlights what seems to be a growing trend in China, something being encouraged by the government there, the feeling, “I must get ahead at any cost.” This attitude applies to individuals, businesses and the government as well. There is a tragic incident, quoted in the AFR, about Chinese airline pilots who faked their flying hours and experience which resulted in an accident in which 26 people lost their lives. I can understand that the Chinese Government wants to trumpet the greatness of China and believe me somewhere in the vast throng of 1.2 billion people there will be some really great and noble individuals. But they will not become great by cheating.
Then there is the statement made by a masters student from Tsinghua University, Lu Xiaoda, that plagiarism is ok and that it is not that students are incapable of the work – copying someone else’s work saves time!! How does he know they can do the work unless they actually do it? Take also the reported case of Xiao Chuanguo a well known Chinese urologist. He was so incensed that two investigative journalists found out that he had been cheating about his skills that he arranged for them to be savagely attacked and beaten up. When confronted by the police he confessed. His reason for this attack was vengeance for the revelations which blocked his appointment to the prestigious Chinese Academy of Social Science! (What a nice man he must be). Yet his university employer, Huazhong University, has not removed him from his position. This case I find quite astonishing. To me both the man himself and his university are worthless.
With greatness comes power and with power comes responsibility – this is something the Chinese have to learn and learn quickly. Responsibility means owning up to ones obligations, accepting ones faults (no one is without faults!) and dealing fairly with all. This is where ethics comes in. A country, a business or an individual must treat others as they would like to be treated. To do otherwise is to attract consequences that may not be pleasant. It is the same as making a cane for others to use to beat you with. And given the opportunity they will, Oh, they will.
The article in the AFR states quite correctly that unless this practice of plagiarism in China is stamped out, Chinese academics will be marginalised by the rest of the world, and their work considered as worthless because no one will be sure of its accuracy or its true worth. So who suffers? China! Its reputation will be in tatters and its people diminished. That is no way to greatness!!
What is really interesting and what I want to write about is ethics and the pernicious and apparently increasing academic crime of plagiarism. One of my recently completed assignments had to be submitted to the ‘anti-plagiarism’ process using the very useful web site called “Turnitin”. This checks the submitted work against a massive data base of previously published journals and books and tells you how much of the work submitted is original or plagiarised. Anything over 10% plagiarism is not acceptable and must be reworked and resubmitted. Mine rated at 5% without reworking, which I was quite pleased with.
This reworking is actually not that difficult it means that the original work that you have referred to must be reworded, in your own words (with appropriate citation or reference). This is as it should be and shows that you understand the topic sufficiently well to be able to write about it without using the original author’s actual words. Again, this is as it should be. Imagine if you were the original author and you read about your ideas and original work, in your words, but claimed as original by someone else? How would you feel? Very annoyed I suggest. Again, imagine, if you will, the consequences of plagiarism and academic cheating if you were treated by an alleged medical doctor who had fake qualifications? How would you feel? Apart from showing a lack of respect, it is cheating and considered to be intellectual theft and is rightly condemned by all.
What brought about this train of thought was an article on the very subject, in the Friday 8th October edition of the Australian Financial Review (AFR), entitled “China fails to rein in fakes”. This is an interesting article because it highlights what seems to be a growing trend in China, something being encouraged by the government there, the feeling, “I must get ahead at any cost.” This attitude applies to individuals, businesses and the government as well. There is a tragic incident, quoted in the AFR, about Chinese airline pilots who faked their flying hours and experience which resulted in an accident in which 26 people lost their lives. I can understand that the Chinese Government wants to trumpet the greatness of China and believe me somewhere in the vast throng of 1.2 billion people there will be some really great and noble individuals. But they will not become great by cheating.
Then there is the statement made by a masters student from Tsinghua University, Lu Xiaoda, that plagiarism is ok and that it is not that students are incapable of the work – copying someone else’s work saves time!! How does he know they can do the work unless they actually do it? Take also the reported case of Xiao Chuanguo a well known Chinese urologist. He was so incensed that two investigative journalists found out that he had been cheating about his skills that he arranged for them to be savagely attacked and beaten up. When confronted by the police he confessed. His reason for this attack was vengeance for the revelations which blocked his appointment to the prestigious Chinese Academy of Social Science! (What a nice man he must be). Yet his university employer, Huazhong University, has not removed him from his position. This case I find quite astonishing. To me both the man himself and his university are worthless.
With greatness comes power and with power comes responsibility – this is something the Chinese have to learn and learn quickly. Responsibility means owning up to ones obligations, accepting ones faults (no one is without faults!) and dealing fairly with all. This is where ethics comes in. A country, a business or an individual must treat others as they would like to be treated. To do otherwise is to attract consequences that may not be pleasant. It is the same as making a cane for others to use to beat you with. And given the opportunity they will, Oh, they will.
The article in the AFR states quite correctly that unless this practice of plagiarism in China is stamped out, Chinese academics will be marginalised by the rest of the world, and their work considered as worthless because no one will be sure of its accuracy or its true worth. So who suffers? China! Its reputation will be in tatters and its people diminished. That is no way to greatness!!
Monday, August 30, 2010
The electrical age – no Plan B
It is my view that we should call this “age”, the age we are currently living in, the “electrical age”. Everything that we do today seems to be governed by the use of electricity – from either mains or a battery. Just think how much we rely on electricity - if there was a major power cut or an “outage”- nothing would work. We couldn’t cook; couldn’t read (no lighting); couldn’t use a computer (even lap-tops need to be recharged at some stage); couldn’t travel (electrical suburban trains or trams); couldn’t use telephones (unless it is an old land line handset - which uses the electricity in the line itself) and cell phones need to be recharged; couldn’t use any bank cards.
Seriously if there was NO electricity then we would be in real trouble. What drew this to my attention is the fact that my employer banks with one of the four major banks in Australia and this afternoon, “all the lines are down” to that bank. Meaning we could not process any payments using a card. So any customer had to pay cash or there was no sale! But then if they used the particular bank concerned they could still not withdraw any cash because “all the lines are down”.
If there was a major catastrophe, God forbid, a major earthquake or something that affected the entire nation and ALL electricity was cut off or all generating capacity had to be shut down, what would happen? While fuel in vehicle tanks or immediate storage tanks remained then some movement or some power could be generated for emergencies – hospitals and the like. But as soon as that fuel ran out they could not be refilled – no electricity at the service stations to pump fuel. All refining capacity would be reduced to zero – again no electricity to run equipment. There would be no water – no refining and no pumping to give pressure. Abattoirs and dairies would cease operating – no refrigeration and no power to run equipment. Even gas needs electricity to pressurise and pump it.
When you think about it, our total reliance on electricity is a major weakness in our society. We have no “Plan B” to fall back on if anything happened. I am not sure what can be done about it except build as many safeguards and duplicate “fail safe” systems into the electrical grids as possible. The internet is a weakness - all the “fire walls” built into the system will not stop a determined person (or persons) with malicious intent from causing serious delays and damage by feeding virus’ into the electrical process.
Our only real fall back, Plan B, is to revert to a manual system using minimal electricity but I cannot imagine that anyone would choose this course of action – unless we were forced to.
Seriously if there was NO electricity then we would be in real trouble. What drew this to my attention is the fact that my employer banks with one of the four major banks in Australia and this afternoon, “all the lines are down” to that bank. Meaning we could not process any payments using a card. So any customer had to pay cash or there was no sale! But then if they used the particular bank concerned they could still not withdraw any cash because “all the lines are down”.
If there was a major catastrophe, God forbid, a major earthquake or something that affected the entire nation and ALL electricity was cut off or all generating capacity had to be shut down, what would happen? While fuel in vehicle tanks or immediate storage tanks remained then some movement or some power could be generated for emergencies – hospitals and the like. But as soon as that fuel ran out they could not be refilled – no electricity at the service stations to pump fuel. All refining capacity would be reduced to zero – again no electricity to run equipment. There would be no water – no refining and no pumping to give pressure. Abattoirs and dairies would cease operating – no refrigeration and no power to run equipment. Even gas needs electricity to pressurise and pump it.
When you think about it, our total reliance on electricity is a major weakness in our society. We have no “Plan B” to fall back on if anything happened. I am not sure what can be done about it except build as many safeguards and duplicate “fail safe” systems into the electrical grids as possible. The internet is a weakness - all the “fire walls” built into the system will not stop a determined person (or persons) with malicious intent from causing serious delays and damage by feeding virus’ into the electrical process.
Our only real fall back, Plan B, is to revert to a manual system using minimal electricity but I cannot imagine that anyone would choose this course of action – unless we were forced to.
Monday, August 23, 2010
More on whistleblowers!
You may have read about the latest twist in the WikiLeaks saga. Julian Assange (the WikiLeaks founder and principle operator) had been accused by someone, unnamed, of rape, in Sweden. Swedish prosecutors have now said that Julian Assange was not suspected of rape in Sweden and was no longer wanted for questioning.
It seems a bit of a co-incidence that this charge should suddenly appear at the same time the American’s are very anxious to shut down the WikiLeaks site as it is drawing unwelcome attention, shall we say, to a few moral shortcomings in the American intelligence and armed forces. I wonder which CIA backroom boy thought up this latest ploy?
The American’s cannot say, from any moral “high ground”, that Wikileaks disclosures may possibly cause the loss of life of supporters of the USA when, because of the invasion of Iraq, and the subsequent breakdown of law and order, an unknown number (but believed to be greater than 600 000) people, many innocent, have been killed in factional fighting and suicide bomb blasts. Similarly in Afghanistan, where a desperately dysfunctional and possibly corrupt government is in “control” and where many thousand s of people, (many innocent) have been killed.
Go back a few years – who financed, trained and armed the Taliban? The Americans in the guise of the CIA. I know that the American’s chose to do this to cause maximum problems for the Soviets who were then trying to occupy and subdue Afghanistan. In this they succeeded but at what cost?? Did anyone think the whole thing through to any possible end-game? The Afghani are a tough and resilient people. They resent and have fought off ALL invaders – from Alexander the Great to the Russians. What did the American’s expect, an open arm welcome? Why should the Afghani react any differently now?
Historically many (if not all) wars have been determined to be nothing but pointless exercises in self aggrandisement of some leader somewhere and at sometime. No one “wins” a war – all participants are “losers”. Everyone suffers and humanity is diminished in the prosecution of the war. Any exposure of illegal, immoral and exploitative behaviour needs to be supported and encouraged. Such activities can never be justified. They are always wrong.
Think of any war you care to name, led by any general or national leader you can think of –First World War or the Second World War; and the wars in Korea: Vietnam; India and Pakistan; Israel and the Arab countries in the Middle East; Iraq’s invasion of Iran; the invasion of Iraq; and then some of the famous/infamous people who initiated conflicts - Alexander the Great; Napoleon; Hitler; Tojo (Japan) – is the world better off and a safer place because these people, as leaders of the various countries, engaged in war? I don’t think so. So why fight at all?
What makes the current situation ethically more problematical, in Afghanistan, is the American’s widespread use of what they call “private contractors”. I would call them mercenaries, or in old fashioned terms “soldiers of fortune”. They are not accountable to anyone. Remember the Blackwater fiasco in Iraq when a number of these “private contractors” shot and killed innocent civilians? As far as I can establish none of those involved was ever brought to justice.
A war cannot be fought in secret. A war affects millions of people and those people have a right to know, and the governments concerned an obligation to explain, what they are doing and why. Trying to avoid the issue or to lie about what is going only causes confusion and distrust. This is why we need whistleblowers and why I believe that those sources of information, such as Wikileaks, and others, are essential if the world is not to descend into anarchy. People, leaders, must be made accountable for their actions. If they will not come clean about what they are doing and why, then exposure through whistle blowing is the only way.
The trouble is leaders (and people in general) do not like being exposed and shown, for all to see, what they have been up to. This is why whistleblowers are condemned by governments and big business rather than supported. The condemnation of whistleblowers may take the form of the false accusations that lead this article. This may quite easily lead to the bizarre situation where we would need a whistleblower to expose the government that is accusing whistleblowers of making false accusations!! But if whistleblowers did not exist how would we find out what the issues are that affect us all (as in a global sense) and what we should do about them?
It would be much better for all concerned if people and governments just told the truth!
It seems a bit of a co-incidence that this charge should suddenly appear at the same time the American’s are very anxious to shut down the WikiLeaks site as it is drawing unwelcome attention, shall we say, to a few moral shortcomings in the American intelligence and armed forces. I wonder which CIA backroom boy thought up this latest ploy?
The American’s cannot say, from any moral “high ground”, that Wikileaks disclosures may possibly cause the loss of life of supporters of the USA when, because of the invasion of Iraq, and the subsequent breakdown of law and order, an unknown number (but believed to be greater than 600 000) people, many innocent, have been killed in factional fighting and suicide bomb blasts. Similarly in Afghanistan, where a desperately dysfunctional and possibly corrupt government is in “control” and where many thousand s of people, (many innocent) have been killed.
Go back a few years – who financed, trained and armed the Taliban? The Americans in the guise of the CIA. I know that the American’s chose to do this to cause maximum problems for the Soviets who were then trying to occupy and subdue Afghanistan. In this they succeeded but at what cost?? Did anyone think the whole thing through to any possible end-game? The Afghani are a tough and resilient people. They resent and have fought off ALL invaders – from Alexander the Great to the Russians. What did the American’s expect, an open arm welcome? Why should the Afghani react any differently now?
Historically many (if not all) wars have been determined to be nothing but pointless exercises in self aggrandisement of some leader somewhere and at sometime. No one “wins” a war – all participants are “losers”. Everyone suffers and humanity is diminished in the prosecution of the war. Any exposure of illegal, immoral and exploitative behaviour needs to be supported and encouraged. Such activities can never be justified. They are always wrong.
Think of any war you care to name, led by any general or national leader you can think of –First World War or the Second World War; and the wars in Korea: Vietnam; India and Pakistan; Israel and the Arab countries in the Middle East; Iraq’s invasion of Iran; the invasion of Iraq; and then some of the famous/infamous people who initiated conflicts - Alexander the Great; Napoleon; Hitler; Tojo (Japan) – is the world better off and a safer place because these people, as leaders of the various countries, engaged in war? I don’t think so. So why fight at all?
What makes the current situation ethically more problematical, in Afghanistan, is the American’s widespread use of what they call “private contractors”. I would call them mercenaries, or in old fashioned terms “soldiers of fortune”. They are not accountable to anyone. Remember the Blackwater fiasco in Iraq when a number of these “private contractors” shot and killed innocent civilians? As far as I can establish none of those involved was ever brought to justice.
A war cannot be fought in secret. A war affects millions of people and those people have a right to know, and the governments concerned an obligation to explain, what they are doing and why. Trying to avoid the issue or to lie about what is going only causes confusion and distrust. This is why we need whistleblowers and why I believe that those sources of information, such as Wikileaks, and others, are essential if the world is not to descend into anarchy. People, leaders, must be made accountable for their actions. If they will not come clean about what they are doing and why, then exposure through whistle blowing is the only way.
The trouble is leaders (and people in general) do not like being exposed and shown, for all to see, what they have been up to. This is why whistleblowers are condemned by governments and big business rather than supported. The condemnation of whistleblowers may take the form of the false accusations that lead this article. This may quite easily lead to the bizarre situation where we would need a whistleblower to expose the government that is accusing whistleblowers of making false accusations!! But if whistleblowers did not exist how would we find out what the issues are that affect us all (as in a global sense) and what we should do about them?
It would be much better for all concerned if people and governments just told the truth!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)