Reciprocity

Why did the United Nations fail?

When President Woodrow Wilson conceived of a League of Nations he did not anticipate a universal group of rogue Democracies. When democracy does not contain a foundation of shared values, then self interest is likely to prevail. Wilson’s vision was one of trading blocks who had a vested interest in sharing resources or protection. To widen that net to fledging democracies which are really extensions of economic conquest will not lead to world peace. Neither will it lead to non-predatory trading practices. Self interest proceeds from this kind of jury rigged nation building. This is because the origin of these nations can be found in the special interest of an imperialistic initiative. Despite the proclamation of liberty and equality the founding fathers of these fledgling countries ultimately follow the example and not the propaganda of their conquerors.
I do not say this because I feel that the United States is an imperialistic power to be hated. The ideals of the United States are universal in acceptance but only truly embraced when self sacrifice is chosen over selfish interest. A self determined government without sacrificial participation by the population will produce an apathetic citizenship. Recently I visited Tiananmen Square in Beijing China. On one side of the square stands the entrance to the Forbidden City bearing Mau’s famous portrait. To the left of The Square as you face Mau’s portrait there is the hall of the people. I really wanted to see the hall of the people, but our tour guide had very little interest in it. In the hall of the people the representatives from various Chinese provinces caucus every year to set in place five year central planning. He could not tell me the name of his provinces representative, nor did he want to find out who he was. The lack of participation in government and the sacrifices associated with self determination can disconnect people from interest. The foundation of American freedom has components of liberty balanced against equality. The two great minds of Adams and Jefferson were in conflict over this paradox most of their lives. Madison was able to balance these values with a synthesis of freedom. His constitution balanced powers of self interest as well as unequal populations comprised of both the strong and the weak.

The foundation of peace is to protect the weak and innocent from the strong and powerful. When a person takes a stand for someone weaker he has invested moral capital into action that is not in his own self interest. A person who can push a selfish agenda and participate in this kind of action is living in personal conflict. This is why the United Nations must work at much more foundational level to implement change. Only when leaders create structures for people to participate in selfless sacrifice can the freedoms of democracy be embraced.

So how do we create these structures? The failure of both the United States and The United Nations has been to rubber stamp the already complete structures of United States Government. It is in the process of creating these structures that selfish interest can be discarded for the intangible value of self sacrifice. Short cutting this process is destined to produce self interest on the part of special interests. Of Rudyard Kiplings six honest serving men perhaps the most appealing is; “When” can we cheat the process? When has the population embraced the process long enough that we can begin to short cut the sacrifices necessary to embrace democratic principals? This is the wrong question because this question is a testimony to the instant society that we currently live in. In the days of text messaging and fast food instant gratification there is little patience for slow solutions to problems.

This is not to say that the dynamics of change are absolute. Process is certainly a continuum. What are the stress points of conflict resolution? Peace can not be achieved with out participation in resolving conflict. When government invents structures to build this kind of participation it has backfired on them. The self interest of the people running the initiative can get in the way of the true democratic principals. When non-government organizations take these kinds of initiatives there have been more favorable results. When outside forces like the United States or United Nations support the weak to create non-government structures, then the process instills the kind of values that make the virtues of democracy consistent and permanent. So one stress point that has been successful to outside manipulation has been the creation of non-government organization by the weak or oppressed. An example could be the women in India who benefited from micro loans to start their own businesses. This has served to equalize two different populations that have been unequal. When women in India are empowered to become self sufficient, then they can exercise greater liberties of choice over traditional male dominance.

Another strategy that has been effective is to employ technology as a bridge of resolution. The process of exercising greater choice can come from a technological break thorough. For example a new optical breakthrough can give people with poor eyesight the ability to read. Technology could also be used to protect. For example a new burglar alarm system could be used to protect a senior citizen who could be exploited by a younger foe. In both of these cases technology has served people by bridging conflicts or increasing opportunity. When I was in China I attempted to purchase a new pair of reading glasses. Because my prescription is only 1.5 I could not find any. I have made the judgment that the Chinese believe that if my eyesight is that good, then I should not require glasses. This is not the case. I can assure you that I need glasses as I type this essay in the shadows of the Greater Philadelphia International Airport. My point is this. So far in China, technology has not been necessary for people like me to participate on an equal footing with others when it comes to reading. In the future when individuals like my self to choose to read or a labor need with reading ability increases, then a new optical technology can help to resolve the potential conflict.
Democracy is a word that means different things to different people. If this concept implies self determination, then it can be confounding to see that the values that some people selfishly cling to may be defined by some as an abuse of human rights. An example will help clarify my point. When I was in Panama I noticed that the government had given aid to indigenous people which did not produce its expected results. The indigenous chieftain used the aid for selfish purposes, like expensive automobiles and did not distribute the wealth in the way that they expected. The balance of liberty and equality with freedom is universally perceived as good as long as time and effort are applied to instill values. This effort will require indoctrination at young ages and the cycle may not be broken for two generations. So if we break apart the word liberty and equality there may be value in attempting to introduce change on more primitive levels. The foundation of liberty is choice and change. When change becomes too uncomfortable we look for equality to bring these forces back into equilibrium. Equality can also be broken down into primitive forces. Equality is a complex word, and for the purposes of this essay it can be defined as protection from disorder. It is this protection from change that makes the process of instilling democratic ideals such a resistant task. Everyone embraces choice but change happens unequally across diverse populations of people.

When sacrifice is introduced as in the sacrifices of the American Revolution, then the process of conflict can instill values more quickly. This is because in the midst of conflict the desire and need for protection from change is increased. Choice is more desirable when all of our basic needs are met and we look to meet needs that are higher up on Abraham Maslow’s hierarchy. These values are on a continuum. The greater the desire for change and choice the less there is need for protection and order. So sacrifice is a way to introduce equality into a country just as technology can introduce choice. Are sacrifice and technology the only processes that instill democratic values? These processes are located in Western thought. Eastern thought may have a different process to accomplish similar ends.

I have found emotion to expedite change in my recent visit to China. I visited Shijiazhuang, a moderate sized city by Chinese standards of ten million people. Our students stayed with Chinese residents in their homes. They had the rich experience of cultural and language immersion. I was able to get to know some of the parents that were housing our students. I witnessed one Chinese man break down into tears to get his way. He was manipulating his emotion to keep the current order of home stay he had with one of our students. I could only imagine how he might also do this in a board room of a business meeting that he attended. His emotion was a kind of self inflicted sacrifice that showed people that he was openly suffering. Whereas in the west sacrifice was used when protection was increased here choice was expanded by implementing this strategy. One man actually cried when we decided that the home stay was not working out. These emotional outbursts were choreographed to reach selfish ends. In the US this type of outburst would be thought of as effeminate and he would lose the respect of other men. In China this strategy was used with quite opposite effects. The dynamic process of increasing choice by self sacrifice was similar to sacrifice that increased order and protection in the West.

Cooperation is a trait that I have found prevalent in the indigenous American tribes. School teachers on reservations have found that typical competitive strategies to motivate students can have reverse outcomes when implemented with indigenous school children. The desire to cooperate was much higher than to compete against one another. For example a student would choose a lower grade rather than willingly make a fellow student lose face. When a population would place a strong value on the land and its creatures it is natural for them to imitate what they observe. The vast majority of dogs, wolves and horses are known to follow more than they choose to lead. To be a leader it takes strong competitive skills. To be a follower it takes superior cooperation skills. Does it make sense when so much emphasis is placed upon fitting in to their surroundings that indigenous children would also choose to fit in?

The strategy to increase collaborative skills among the school children of the West is an example of a practical way to groom cooperative values in competitive culture. Perhaps if the Native American and Chinese students place a stronger emphasis on individual achievement strategy in a competitive environment this will serve them well. The global connectivity of the world has produced a by product of shared diversity that can lead to better strategies in conflict resolution and education. It is my hope to take this diversity dividend and use it to learn new skills of conflict resolution.

This is all wonderful rhetoric, but a practical example could be helpful here. I currently serve as the adviser for the Student Government organization at our high school. The Council is an advisory body. They can only make school policy decisions when the administration of the school empowers them. When our organization was created I was careful to not spoon feed existing structures for the students to duplicate. What they did was invent an organization that is very similar to our country’s government through trial and error learning. This process of learning allowed our students to embrace self sacrifice in creating structures to regulate speech, create initiatives, and establish rules by which they made decisions. Many student councils are just popularity contests and not representative of the student body’s opinion. Many times the election process is dominated by popular student body cliques. I teach at a cyber school. Most of our students do not interact socially. For this reason we have had fewer problems with our students creating initiatives dominated by a special interest group’s private agenda. The individual emphasis of our students learning platform has contributed to apathy and also made it harder for one or two students to dominate the organizations election process. This apathy however is also the most destructive determent to student directed collaborative learning.

A keystone of self directed learning is for students to feel as if they are making a difference by applying the lessons that they have learned. Apathy can make a student feel like their input will not contribute to anything or make a difference. A more hybrid model of learning could also include project based learning and seasons of face to face interaction. This face to face interaction can minimize the damage of apathy. The leadership center at our school has introduced, individual and group projects retreats, international and domestic trips, and conferences to increase the face to face interaction with students. When education becomes experiential then it is very difficult for students to feel that what they have learned does not matter. Experience also includes those from diverse backgrounds because they work out the solution to project problems in a specific way that reflects their past experience.
A peace conference could be one exercise that could directly examine the issue discussed in this essay. The preparation, planning and implementation of this event present a wonderful opportunity of applied learning along the way. Even one teacher and their students can make a difference on a subject like world peace. The alternative may be to have our students read a critical thinking book like “Making Peace” and be tested on comprehension as well as some problem based scenarios. Can education be directly connected to the problems that it addresses? Why not?