France – Engaging Peace

All the light we must learn to see, Part 2

Posted on January 5, 2017March 11, 2021 by kathiemm

All Quiet on the Western Front is a masterpiece for many reasons: the story is mesmerizing; it refrains from glorifying war while understanding that young men sometimes do just that; it demonstrates the author’s empathy toward his characters, some of whom learn in turn to feel empathy towards others; and it “tells it like it is” (a form of moral engagement), demonstrating the harm inflicted on all the hapless people trapped in warfare.

A more recent novel stimulating empathy for characters on opposite sides of a horrendous war is All the Light We Cannot See, winner of the 2015 Pulitzer Prize for Fiction; this novel weaves together the stories of a young German boy and a young (blind) French girl, as Europe moves into and struggles bloodily through a devastating second World War.

Regarding his motivations for writing the book, Anthony Doerr tells Scribner Magazine that he asked himself, “Could I tell a story about how a promising boy got sucked into the Hitler Youth and made bad decisions that led to terrible, unforgivable consequences, yet still render him an empathetic character? And could I braid his story with the narrative of a disabled girl who in so many ways was more capable than the adults around her?”

He also explains, “My attempt in this novel is to suggest the humanity of both Werner and Marie-Laure, to propose more complicated portraits of heroes and villains; to hint at, as World War II fades from the memories of its last survivors and becomes history, all the light we cannot see. [See more here, and here. A mostly positive review in The Guardian asserts, “There is a worrying even-handedness in Doerr’s treatment of the Germans and the French.” I disagree. There are horrendous passages on cruelty by German officers and nothing comparable for French characters. It is true that one can empathize equally with the German boy and the French girl, which is, I believe, one of the gifts of the book.

I suggest that while reading the novel or shortly thereafter, you participate in the following exercise. Reimagine the basic story in today’s world, with the technology updated and the warring powers being the United States and say, Syria, Iraq, or Afghanistan.

Remember that in the book, Germany was the aggressor and France the occupied country; thus, in your reimagining, the Werner character must be an American boy, and the Marie-Laure character a Middle Eastern girl. Can you do this? Can you see these characters? Can you envision feeling empathy for individuals on both “sides” of the conflicts in which the US is embroiled today?

Self-evident or reserved for the power elite? Part 2.

Posted on July 7, 2016 by kathiemm

by Kathie Malley-Morrison

For our July 4, 2016, post, we asked whether Americans have honored and promulgated the principles stated in our Declaration of Independence. Our answer: Not unless it suited the interests of the ruling powers within the nation to do so. Which is, relatively speaking, almost never.

The grievous failure of successive US governments to promote life and liberty (let alone the pursuit of happiness) is appalling not only in relation to their tolerance of slavery (officially “legal” in this country until the Emancipation Proclamation, illegal but continuing in various forms ever since) but also in their violent opposition to such pursuits in peoples trying to overthrow vicious and unjust governments elsewhere.

The failures to support liberation movements are numerous but here are two ignominious examples that at least some Americans know about:

The Philippines Over 100 years ago, the United States replaced Spain as the foreign power occupying the Philippines. American forces went to the Philippines in 1898 purportedly to help Filipino rebels achieve independence from the yoke of imperial Spain; instead, the US government, pursuing its own imperialistic goals, initiated a vicious war against the rebels, took over control of the Philippines, and occupied the islands for decades, not until July 4, 1946, did it finally recognize Philippines independence.

Vietnam: Over 50 years ago, the United States replaced France as the imperialistic power occupying Vietnam, purportedly to save “South Vietnam” from the “ruthless Communists” of “North Vietnam” (the Vietminh). A lot of good books and articles have been written concerning this particular crushing of an indigenous people’s efforts to gain liberty and justice from foreign occupiers, but Noam Chomsky summarizes it well in this interview with Paul Shannon.

To understand what all those fireworks on the Fourth of July really signify, just check out this Global Policy Forum summary of US military activity since, in the course of events, the early colonialists declared their independence from Great Britain. Perhaps it is time for the US to pursue a new path, truly honoring life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness with a new holiday and a new symbol (Flag of Peace (Proposal). Author: Julius C. Licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 Unported license. https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Flag_of_Peace_(Proposal).PNG).)

Nothing but a euphemism (Imperialism still stinks, Part 3)

Posted on August 12, 2013August 11, 2013 by kathiemm

Third in a series by guest author Dr. Dahlia Wasfi

Image in public domain.

At the end of World War I in 1918, the Arab peoples (including Iraqis, Syrians, and Palestinians) triumphantly declared their liberation from colonial rule according to their pre-war agreements with the Allied powers. However, as a result of the Sykes-Picot pact, the Balfour Declaration, and the newly formed League of Nations, these lands remained under foreign control (albeit a different foreign power).

The League of Nations was created in 1919 for the purpose of preventing another world war. Even though one of its founding principles was the concept of national self-determination, the League rejected Arab declarations of sovereignty. Subsequently, at the 1920 Conference of San Remo[1], France obtained mandates over Syria and Lebanon, while the British gained Palestine, Trans-Jordan, and Iraq[2].

The “mandates” in the Arab World were commissions from the League of Nations that authorized France and Great Britain to govern over each region. From the British perspective, the mandates were distinct from the exploitative colonialism of the previous era because of the League’s requirement for a local constitutional government. The Crown considered the mandate concept as a transitional stage towards Arab autonomy, reflecting “the spirit of the age” of national independence[3].

For the indigenous peoples, however, the term “mandate” was nothing more than a euphemism for imperialism—and their continued subjugation.

The peoples’ anger spawned massive independence movements against their new rulers. They had bled and died fighting the Ottomans for their liberation. Through the mid- and later 20th century, they would fight the British, French, and other colonial powers who had betrayed them.

[1] Munier, Gilles. “Iraq: An Illustrated History and Guide.” Interlink Books, Northampton. 2004. p.32

[2] Owen, Roger. “State, Power and Politics in the Making of the Modern Middle East, 3^rd Edition.” Routledge, New York. 2004. p.6

[3] Ibid

Libya: A “just” war? (Just war, part 4)

Posted on March 21, 2011March 21, 2011 by kathiemm

Benghazi, Libya. Photo by Dennixo, licensed under Creative Commons Attribution Share-Alike 3.0 Unported (from Wikimedia Commons)

[Note from Kathie Malley-Morrison: Today we once again welcome guest contributor Dr. Michael Corgan, for his ongoing series on just war.]

How does the war in Libya, for such it is, measure up to the principles of just war?

First impressions are that it is just, so far. War was “declared” by competent authority; the U.N. Security Council Resolution and France, at least, had recognized the Benghazi rebels as a legitimate government. Qaddafi’s threat to hunt down enemies in their closets, apparent shelling of civilian areas, and promises to show no mercy indicates war was a necessary means when other dire warnings had failed. So far only military targets seem have been hit by the anti-Qaddafi forces which satisfies proportionality.

However a couple of serious questions remain. First, what sort of peace will be had? It’s not a just war until a just peace has been instituted. Lincoln’s “malice toward none, with charity for all” was prescient in this regard.

An even more troubling question is “Why don’t all the same (essentially Western) conditions apply to Bahrain?” The anti-demonstrator crackdown there has been as nasty as Qaddafi’s. And the Saudis have pitched in to help authorities suppress the demonstrations. Both Libya and Bahrain have oil but Bahrain has a U.S. Naval base.

If the Libyan war is just, then what are the same participants doing about Bahrain? This Bahrain inaction undercuts the “justness” of the Libyan action.

Michael T. Corgan, Ph.D., Associate Chair and Associate Professor of International Relations, Boston University