The former ambassador to the United States from Saudi Arabia, Prince Turki Al-Faisal, has written a piece that is critical of American talk about energy independence. Of course, it is in his interest to talk us out of our search for alternative sources of energy. The less we rely on oil, and therefore Saudi Arabia, the harder it will be for the Saudi royal family to retain their authoritarian and oppressive reign.
Al-Faisal does a good job of describing all the ways Saudi helps stabilize oil prices, and I do not doubt what he says. However, he clearly ignores the other aspects of the Saudi government. He does not defend the way they have spread a violent and hateful form of Islam, one that is intolerant of Shias and western ideology. And he does not defend a government with serious human rights violations and no democracy whatsoever.
The prince says that energy independence is mirage. He clearly means complete independence, and in that he is right. However, the less oil we need, the less dependent we are. We will not completely rid ourselves of oil anytime soon. But we can find ways to insulate ourselves from oil's volatility and from the often corrupt, inhumane, and dangerous governments that export it.
We have a choice coming up. We can do as the Prince says, and remain interdependent with Saudi Arabia and all the baggage that comes with that. Or we can pursue alternatives, giving us the ability to tell Saudi Arabia the truth, and to maybe one day put pressure on the government to provide real change, even if that means having a free government that does not like the US.
Sunday, August 30, 2009
Missionary Work
I have to say, I have become increasingly conflicted these days about missionary work. I find it very difficult to balance the good that is done when missionary workers are able to provide food, health care, housing, and training against the way they blithely go in trying to change the existing cultures.
The best meditation on this topic is Things Fall Apart by Chinua Achebe. (Barbara Kingsolver's Poisonwood Bible deals with similar themes but is not as balanced as Achebe's book.) What is so powerful about the book is that Achebe, in showing the conflict between the existing tribal culture and religion in Nigera and the christian missionaries and colonialists that come in, does not hide either side's flaws. However, as a reader, I definitely feel that something is lost when Christianity supplants the existing culture and beliefs. (I often feel the same way about Celtic culture and practices, which were also replaced by Christianity.)
On the other side of course is the immense good that is done by missionaries. I need only read an article like this about college football star Tim Tebow or think about the work my Dad's church does in Mozambique to realize that there are a lot of people doing amazing things in the name of religion.
For now, the way I have reconciled this debate in my head is that the good that is done outweighs the bad. But we do need to realize that each culture has its own inherent beauty, and all aid workers need to respect that. There should be policies that prevent groups from requiring conversion to receive help (although I do not think many groups stoop to this). This of course does nothing about the coercion that is inherent when aid is distributed by people with a religious goal. And that I do not have any solutions for - at least at the moment.
The best meditation on this topic is Things Fall Apart by Chinua Achebe. (Barbara Kingsolver's Poisonwood Bible deals with similar themes but is not as balanced as Achebe's book.) What is so powerful about the book is that Achebe, in showing the conflict between the existing tribal culture and religion in Nigera and the christian missionaries and colonialists that come in, does not hide either side's flaws. However, as a reader, I definitely feel that something is lost when Christianity supplants the existing culture and beliefs. (I often feel the same way about Celtic culture and practices, which were also replaced by Christianity.)
On the other side of course is the immense good that is done by missionaries. I need only read an article like this about college football star Tim Tebow or think about the work my Dad's church does in Mozambique to realize that there are a lot of people doing amazing things in the name of religion.
For now, the way I have reconciled this debate in my head is that the good that is done outweighs the bad. But we do need to realize that each culture has its own inherent beauty, and all aid workers need to respect that. There should be policies that prevent groups from requiring conversion to receive help (although I do not think many groups stoop to this). This of course does nothing about the coercion that is inherent when aid is distributed by people with a religious goal. And that I do not have any solutions for - at least at the moment.
Fan of Krugman
I have to say, I am becoming a really big fan of Paul Krugman. I really disliked him in the past because I found him to be another partisan hack lacking in objectivity. This was especially the case during the Obama / Hillary primary. In fact, so many of his columns were not about his specialty - economics - but about politics.
But ever since the economic melt-down and Obama taking office, I have found his voice to be extremely important. First, his economic perspective on the financial crisis has been invaluable. He has been able to explain what is going on as well as fight back against conservative attacks blaming the crisis on liberal policy. Second, his economic analysis of the health care debate is also extremely important since so much of the debate revolves around incentives and markets.
Finally, Krugman has been a good check on the Obama administration. While Republicans have been decrying Obama's moderately liberal solutions to the financial crisis, Krugman has reminded us that options that are farther to the left may be the even better option. This is extremely important since the tendency can be to assume that a policy is sufficiently liberal if conservatives hate it. It's good to have someone telling us that this isn't necessarily the case.
But ever since the economic melt-down and Obama taking office, I have found his voice to be extremely important. First, his economic perspective on the financial crisis has been invaluable. He has been able to explain what is going on as well as fight back against conservative attacks blaming the crisis on liberal policy. Second, his economic analysis of the health care debate is also extremely important since so much of the debate revolves around incentives and markets.
Finally, Krugman has been a good check on the Obama administration. While Republicans have been decrying Obama's moderately liberal solutions to the financial crisis, Krugman has reminded us that options that are farther to the left may be the even better option. This is extremely important since the tendency can be to assume that a policy is sufficiently liberal if conservatives hate it. It's good to have someone telling us that this isn't necessarily the case.
Afghanistan's Future
The news out of Afghanistan is troubling. There appears to have been some fraud in the election, Karzai has chosen to align himself with war lords and people involved in the drug trade, and the violence is not decreasing. Now, things could certainly turn around. After all, Iraq was much worse at one point and has improved significantly. The question though is what if it does not and what is our responsibility there.
I used to feel very strongly about our presence in Afghanistan, but over time I have started to have my doubts. Basically, my doubts stem from my more recent belief that real change takes a long time. I do not believe that democracy and stability can happen overnight. Instead, I believe that it requires many factors that take time to develop. I believe you need a strong middle class to be effective participants in democracy - a middle class that has enough leisure time to be involved in democracy. And debates about how democracy works in the culture that is attempting it also takes time.
If that is the case, then what should we do with Afghanistan? I still believe that we have a responsibility to help Afghanistan recover from decades of civil war - especially since we are partly responsible for the war by arming the Mujahideen and then turning our backs on the country once the USSR left. At the same time, I am not sure that our troops will really be able to pacify the country in the short term. I also think the longer our troops are there, the more they will be resented and resisted.
I think then the solution will be to keep the troops there for a while longer hoping we can improve security to some reasonable level. But more importantly we need to do more to improve the infrastructure and improve the lives of the people in the country. Granted, these two often work hand in hand, and achieving the right balance is key. However, I think in the long run our best bet will be more funding for non-military efforts and slowly decrease our troop levels.
I used to feel very strongly about our presence in Afghanistan, but over time I have started to have my doubts. Basically, my doubts stem from my more recent belief that real change takes a long time. I do not believe that democracy and stability can happen overnight. Instead, I believe that it requires many factors that take time to develop. I believe you need a strong middle class to be effective participants in democracy - a middle class that has enough leisure time to be involved in democracy. And debates about how democracy works in the culture that is attempting it also takes time.
If that is the case, then what should we do with Afghanistan? I still believe that we have a responsibility to help Afghanistan recover from decades of civil war - especially since we are partly responsible for the war by arming the Mujahideen and then turning our backs on the country once the USSR left. At the same time, I am not sure that our troops will really be able to pacify the country in the short term. I also think the longer our troops are there, the more they will be resented and resisted.
I think then the solution will be to keep the troops there for a while longer hoping we can improve security to some reasonable level. But more importantly we need to do more to improve the infrastructure and improve the lives of the people in the country. Granted, these two often work hand in hand, and achieving the right balance is key. However, I think in the long run our best bet will be more funding for non-military efforts and slowly decrease our troop levels.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)