We all know there is conflict in the Middle East, but when this is brought up the majority of people make reference to the war efforts in Afghanistan and Iraq. They are not wrong although there is a lot more going on. Israel and Iran are a large scale conflict in the making, and one that needs to be watched. The situation is combustible to say the least.
First in Iran the president is an extremist proclaiming 'Death to Israel' in nation-wide, televised speeches, furthermore he denies that the holocaust ever even happened, he figures it was a sham, put on by the Jews. He says all of this based on his religious affiliation, does anybody else see something wrong with that? Can we allow international leaders to condone aggression based on theological differences? This man's name is Mahmoud Ahmadinejad; he has won several elections in Iran based on his widespread support from the Iranian people. He has even hinted to another invasion of Israel by Muslims in Middle Eastern countries. To this extent can we call Iran a theocracy? Of course we can, above Ahmadinejad is the Ayatollah, a religious figure with a greater power than the president himself. Historically, have theocracies been generally successful? Generally speaking, no. Because, as Rousseau states, 'The Government must represent the general will of the people.' This needs to be true in any circumstance, or the government risks revolution. Upon the topic of revolution, one could argue that the 'Revolutionary Spirit' is very much alive in the Middle East, given the revolution in Egypt just days ago.
In Tehran, there are mass revolts chanting for 'Death to Khamenei', Khamenei being the Ayatollah. Rousseau states that if the people no longer support the government, the people must be able to depose it. Rousseau postulates these rules as a means to keep a government constantly reflective of the will of the people, to avoid tyranny.
So if there are revolts, in Tehran, this would seem to reflect that the agenda of the Ahmadinejad government has strayed from the needs and wants of the Iranian people. So to this extent, if this is the general desire of the people, is it upon the rest of the world to arbitrate and aid in the deposition of Ahmadinejad, or would that be simply an act of imperialism in the style of the cold-war USA? People of religious ideology and even some of atheist ideology agree that arbitration is something to be avoided, especially when there is religion or old tradition involved. To depose a theocracy is to depose a religiously inclined government and in turn to punish members of a certain faith; is this persecution?
In Islamic culture, women are frequently mistreated, and unfortunately so. Is the idea of 'who are we to judge them?' even applicable, is it morally right to make judgments against the religious tendencies and if necessary arbitrate? In terms of human wellbeing it is absolutely necessary of us to arbitrate on behalf of these women. Morals applied in the scientific sense tell us that being forced to wear the equivalent of a cloth bag in desert temperatures, is not helpful to a human body, and is actually detrimental, so if these women are being forced into wearing these garbs, it is in fact morally wrong? The truth is that we need to make these judgments; we need to break down this notion that tradition can overtake human wellbeing. There are stories of women who refuse to where their burqa being stoned or beaten to death. There are also stories of fathers being instructed to kill their daughters out of shame in the case that they are raped. Can we as a society that knows so much about human health, really accept this as being ok? Can we allow this to happen?
This brings me back to my question, is it morally acceptable for us to arbitrate in the case of a theocracy undergoing revolts? We need to question, what is more important; the religious qualities of a government we may need to arbitrate upon, or the wellbeing of its citizens. Government can be reconstructed by the citizens without third party arbitration, but what if the people lack the means to depose the government themselves? Does the maintenance of the integrity of the government supersede the happiness of the population? Rousseau contends that the will of the people must guide and have control over the actions of the government, this clearly outlines that the people are the power.
So, if the protests of the Iranian people are met with violence, and citizens are harmed or killed, what is our duty as a higher standing country on the moral landscape?
Well, what SHOULD be done is obvious, any violence should be condemned and the would-be tyrant should be deposed by international forces to help instate a real government.
What will happen though? We just simply won't do anything because of this attitude all of western civilization has that if it's not your place to do something, you shouldn't do anything at all. Just look at the genocide in Riwanda or Darfur if you need proof.
No, if we Canadians, as an able member of the international community, had any compassion or sense of right and wrong, we would feel obligated to step in and offer assistance to any revolutionary movement against any form of dictatorship. Instead however, we are a country full of cowards too afraid to see the blood of others spilled on their hands, and we'll just stand to the side.
But was the mission in Kuwait not called to "Not leave international aggression unchecked?" By extension, wouldn't you be inclined to believe that deposing the government as a third party power is in fact; international aggression? I understand where you're coming from but given the global climate, is it a good idea to depose a theocracy who's extremists already hold bitterness toward us. What I am saying is, do we need to breed malcontent from any more Muslims? What I am trying to get at is the delicacy brought on by the unification of church and state. But you are right, the government definitely needs to be deposed.
Well, what SHOULD be done is obvious, any violence should be condemned and the would-be tyrant should be deposed by international forces to help instate a real government.
ReplyDeleteWhat will happen though? We just simply won't do anything because of this attitude all of western civilization has that if it's not your place to do something, you shouldn't do anything at all. Just look at the genocide in Riwanda or Darfur if you need proof.
No, if we Canadians, as an able member of the international community, had any compassion or sense of right and wrong, we would feel obligated to step in and offer assistance to any revolutionary movement against any form of dictatorship. Instead however, we are a country full of cowards too afraid to see the blood of others spilled on their hands, and we'll just stand to the side.
But was the mission in Kuwait not called to "Not leave international aggression unchecked?" By extension, wouldn't you be inclined to believe that deposing the government as a third party power is in fact; international aggression? I understand where you're coming from but given the global climate, is it a good idea to depose a theocracy who's extremists already hold bitterness toward us. What I am saying is, do we need to breed malcontent from any more Muslims? What I am trying to get at is the delicacy brought on by the unification of church and state. But you are right, the government definitely needs to be deposed.
ReplyDelete