Love your enemies

I have been considering how I would respond to the following scenario: tomorrow the United States bombs Iraq. Sensing his impending death, Saddam Hussein, in an act of desperation, uses whatever weapons he does have on his neighboring Middle Eastern countries. Ignited, these nations respond, while at the same time, India sees the unstable situation as an impetus to use nuclear force against Pakistan. Pakistan responds, and while US turns its gaze towards North Korea, that country invades South Korea with backing from China. China also supports Pakistan in fighting India. We step in and, seeing our enemy's enemy as our friend, support India and fight Pakistan, China, and North Korea. The probability of all of these events occurring in this order is very low. Then again, nobody suspected World War I.

Why do I look at the world and feel that very little has changed? I believe that a fundamental human distortion is at work in the above situation: the idea that responding with anger and aggression will have any lasting positive effect. We can see that this response fails to work in our personal relationships as well as in matters of international diplomacy.

Anytime we feel we have a monopoly on the truth, we feel that we are given the right to breach our typical moral and ethical conduct in an effort to liberate others from their wrong views. Even if we did have a monopoly on the truth, such action would not be particularly skillful. Any friend or romantic partner would have a difficult time hearing what we had to say if we were yelling at them or beating them, and likewise our foreign friends would probably have difficulty understanding our message of peace if we bombed them.

At the same time, were we to respond to the actions of our country with anger and resentment, I could understand how others would have a difficult time hearing us out. Assuming that our belief in world peace gives us the right to take offensive action in communicating our message is not so dissimilar from our President Bush believing that his vision for a safer world gives him the right to harm others. Taking out our personal frustration through protest is, again, not particularly skillful. Sometimes we enter in with the attitude of assuming we are right, and therefore have the right to impose our views by any means necessary. Such an attitude is detrimental: no matter how well-intentioned we are, we are not right all of the time.

We must lead by example, not anger. Mohandas Gandhi once said, "You must be the change you wish to see in the world." How can we protest an attitude if we don't provide an alternative to that attitude? We must represent the peaceful manner in which we hope to see our leaders behave. Our government has labeled three countries as an "Axis of Evil."

Some of us have twisted such rhetoric and named three top officials to be the "Axis of Evil." We, too, have turned our fellow man into an enemy. While it may be necessary to take an oppositional stance, I would never want to give up on another human being.

Another great peace martyr, Dr. Martin Luther King, once said "Love is the only force capable of transforming an enemy into friend." We cannot hate our leaders for their actions. We must seek to understand and embrace our political opponents _ if we want unity and respect, we cannot wait until a later date to begin implementing such measures. I am against war. I do not wish to wage war against those who are not against war. I do believe that our President Bush is an ignorant, xenophobic man. Ridiculing him is unlikely to change that. His fear and anger gives me all the more reason to love him. He is a simple man and quite easy to understand; why should I be angry with him when I know why he acts in his harsh way?

The man is in a very difficult position; if he is as stupid as many make him out to be, then he needs our help, not our mocking. We must provide a welcoming example for him to consider. Across the country there are a great many people opposed to a war with our friends in Iraq. Often the attitude taken is that "nobody will listen to us, so we might as well be as radical as possible."

I do believe that there are ways to get people to listen. Nobody listens to advice for which they did not ask _ they have not opened themselves to it. If we were to implement such measures as, say, a national day of silent reflection, people would be more inclined to ask our opinions than if we forced those opinions on them through confrontational opposition.

Opposing one's government is not radical. Responding to hatred with love is radical. Few people, historically, have done so. Before we can hope to help others, we must be clear in ourselves. We must calm the anger within before we will be able to begin making any lasting change. And when we do take action, we must not forget the skillful suggestion of Oscar Wilde: "Always forgive your enemies _ nothing annoys them so much."

Brian Roiter is a Sophomore majoring in English.