Be The Change

North Korea tested a nuclear device on Sunday to the condemnation of the entire world.

I haven't done extensive cultural studies of North Korea. They have isolated themselves from the rest of the world however, there are lots of indications that they've actually wanted to engage the world for a while.

In fact, some have proposed that their dangerous escalation of the conflict has a lot to do with them trying to get the US to come to the negotiating table. There have been 6 party talks involving China, Russia, South Korea, Japan and England ... but no US.

Why? As Donald Gregg writes in this blog on Washington Post, apparently the Bush administration policy is to only engage in diplomacy with the good guys. Whenever you exclude a party from the table, blowing something up (either literally or figuratively) seems to come with the territory.

The question now is, what do we do now that North Korea has just leveled the playing field? Will sanctions work? Will Iran be emboldened?

Wonderful op-ed in the Washington Post on Sunday entitled "Are We Really So Fearful?"

Then they follow it up on Monday morning with a number of other opinions from retired Generals to human rights activists.

The torture debate currently going on in the US is fascinating.

One of the rationales that Americans have had in going in and helping topple dictators is that they break international norms.

They torture. They're corrupt. They flaunt international law (or sometimes referred to as "the will of the international community"). They don't act like global citizens, but like global renegades.

Doesn't every torture argument really invoke those images about the U.S. -- that we'll do anything we want if it's in our self interest?

Do we spoil long standing celebrated American values when we apply different laws to ourselves than they do to others?

Torturing Americans is wrong and America would attack any international force that did it. Torturing others, apparently, isn't wrong if we suspect that they might be trying to harm the US. That hypocrisy, which is natural, is at the heart of why the Geneva Convention was adopted.

We are so far along on a destructive conflict spiral that we no longer see the "other" is human.

The problem, of course, is that the "other" are human beings too. They may not be American, but they are human. Torture destroys lives. Destroys them. It doesn't win the hearts and minds of the people you're trying to convince that "our" way is better than "your" way. It's only after the torture that you may come to find that the person was innocent.

Arguments that it's in the US's best interest to torture so that we can gain important intelligence to prevent an attack is short sighted. There will be other attacks. We can't stop them all. The attacks are responses to US behavior overseas. Torture doesn't somehow deter that. But what it does do is enbolden that various extremist groups around the world who believe that America is somehow, the "Great Satan"

In the meantime, the US has lost its moral position in the world as long as it continues to try to "clarify" the Geneva Conventions and justify certain practices like waterboarding. Even our closest allies have recoiled. Our moral messages are falling on deaf ears around the world. The fear the US invokes to convince US citizens that torturing others is in their best interest is now being questioned.

It reminds me of Bruce Springsteen's song "Devils and Dust"

I got my finger on the trigger
But I don't know who to trust
When I look into your eyes
There's just devils and dust

I got God on my side
And I'm just trying to survive
What if what you do to survive
Kills the things you love
Fear's a powerful thing, baby
It can turn your heart black you can trust
It'll take your God filled soul
And fill it with devils and dust

... What if what we do to survive, kills the things we love?

Washington Post columnist Charles Krauthammer writes on Friday about the hypocrisy of Islamic leaders threatening to kill the Pope for supposedly claiming (if you read his speech it's pretty clear he's not) that Islam is a violent religion.

Krauthammer goes on to point out that both Judaism and Christianity have had their bouts with violence in the past, but that they "long ago gave it up"

What I find interesting about the piece is how it goes to the heart of why groups fight.

As each side builds it's identity, especially in opposition to the "other", the group begins to only see the "good" qualities it possesses and only sees the "bad" qualities of the enemy.

Muslims burning down churches because of the Pope's statement can't see that somehow they are reinforcing the stereotype that the religion is violent. Because they believe the stereotype is untrue, and the Christians and Jews are the ones trying to destroy them, they look at their actions as self defense. Yes, the Pope didn't physically attack them. But they perceived that he attacked their core identity and psychologists such as Vamik Volkan believe that's enough to provoke a violent response.

Christians and Jews can't see that somehow they are reinforcing the stereotype that their religion is the violent one with the countless brutal attacks on Islamic countries and factions. Rumors (and it looks like that's all they are) about flushing the Koran down the toilet or allusions to 'crusade' reinforce the feeling in much of the Islamic world that it is America, through the guise of capitalism and democracy that is secretly spreading it's faith by the sword. Americans see their actions as self defense. A small group of Muslims attacked them. A much larger group of Muslims support Osama bin Laden who ordered the attacks. Their reaction is justified and therefore they can claim, that somehow Christianity gave up violence a long time ago. But as long as Bush continues to claim that America is a Christian nation and as long as he actively prays for the support of his God as he goes to battle, are Muslims really that crazy to believe that their religion is under attack?

To what extent is the War on Terror actually the War on Islam that many in the Middle East feel?

President Bush's rhetoric in public speeches have angered many moderate Muslims who believe that Bush's use of terms like Islamofacism (referring to Islamic fundamentalists or extremists groups) unneccissarily equate the religion of Islam with terror. Since all religious groups have had their bouts with terrorism, why single out Islam?

Most mainstream moderate Muslims will argue that Islam is peaceful and Osama Bin Laden's view of Islam is distorted and well outside the mainstream much the same way Mormon's don't want to be lumped together with polygamists sects that live out on the fringe of society.

The latest uproar took place this week as Muslim leaders strongly denounced comments Pope Benedict XVI made this week about Islam, calling them ignorant and divisive.

Here's a link to the news story at the Washington Post. To read the full text of the Pope's comments, click here.

Update: The Pope has reportedly apologized for his comments amidst a sea of protests and attacks on Christian churches in the West Bank. The question is, was what he said actually an apology? And was it followed up with the other steps in reconcilliation process to make things better. The answer is probably no, which is why so many are rejecting what he said. If the Pope doesn't know how to ask for forgiveness ... who does?

It's time to resurrect the We Must Be The Change blog ... I'll try to give weekly updates on the blog. Until then, here's what I've been up to this summer.

I spent the summer working on a project called Playing for Peace. Founded by the Tuohey brothers in 2001, PFP's goal is to bridge divides in polarized communities through the game of basketball. PFP started work in Northern Ireland and South Africa in 2001, then launched a program in Israel in 2005. Since its inception, PFP has coached 12,000 10- to 14-year-old Catholic and Protestant children in integrated settings in Northern Ireland, and taught basketball to 25,000 children in Durban, South Africa. In Northern Ireland and South Africa, basketball training is supplemented with programs that promote tolerance, ethnic sensitivity and community leadership training.

Here's an article I wrote for ESPN's E-Ticket called Hooping With The Enemy. If you look in the top right hand corner under the article banner you'll also find a 6 minute video shot by ABC news on my trip to the Middle East. Just click play.

Also, there's an adapted excerpt of a forthcoming academic journal article I've written on the subject called Peace and Hoops: Basketball as a Role Player in Sustainable Peacebuilding. It will appear in the Willamette Law Review, volume 42, issue 4 2006 this fall.

Having a conflict style is a lot like having a cultural worldview ... it becomes the way by which we filter everything we see about a conflict and how we respond. The idea of "nunchi" -- a Korean term -- explains this quite well.

YoungHi Seo is a communication specialist and writer, explains:

"Within Korean culture, there's a concept known as 'nunchi,' which is essential to understanding the people as well as relationships. Nunchi is the subtle art of listening and gauging another's mood (emotions, needs, etc). Having nunchi is a kind of skill, and it is the basis of good communication, which is important in fostering strong relationships. By communication, most people think only of the verbal. And since we from the Western cultures are used to verbalizing everything (even the most mundane and inane thoughts), we have an advantage. We are taught early to express our thoughts as well as to talk through problems. In Korea, though, there is a very different perspective and approach. Emphasis in relationships is not so much placed on expression in words, but showing consideration and understanding in action. That comes from active listening or "reading" the counterpart's non-verbal cues, or having nunchi. It requires one to be aware/attentive. Actually, almost any two year-old infant has nunchi and is sensitive enough to pick up on the emotional vibes of loved ones. That is why it can often be frustrating from a Korean female's perspective when her Western, or even Korean, partner doesn't seem to understand her. When he insists she verbalize her thoughts and feelings, he is saying that she needs to communicate on his terms, the method by which he is most comfortable. While this may be the easiest way, it is not meeting her half-way. Instead of relying only on words and rationalization to understand, I believe he has to try to be a patient listener as well as learn to increase his power of intuition. After all, in a cross-cultural setting as well as relationship, the meaning of communication needs to be broader and more flexible."

Here's a link to an intersting blog that explains a "nunchi" conflict.

http://mark.tetto.org/log/archives/2005/02/got_nunchi.html

There is an apocryphal story about Mahatma Gandhi that comes to mind when thinking about peacemaking and our responsibility to it.

Gandhi was not just a political and spiritual leader, he was also quite wise and people traveled from all over to ask his help with problems both small and large.

One day a peasant woman came to visit Gandhi. She brought with her young son. She told Gandhi that her son was addicted to sweets. The sugar made him hyper and too wild to attend school. She hoped Gandhi would tell her son to stop eating sugar. She was sure that her son would listen to him.

Gandhi paused and then told the woman to come back in one week.

She came back one week later. Gandhi took the little boy, sat him on his lap and said simply, “Please do not eat sugar. It is bad for you.”

The boy smiled, promised to stop and returned back to his mother. His mother was understandably stunned. She had traveled over 100 miles. It was a difficult journey. Bewildered she approached Gandhi and asked,

“Why didn’t you just tell him to quit eating sugar last week when I first approached you?”

Gandhi smiled and said patiently, “Last week, I too, was still eating sugar. … We must be the change we wish to see in the world.”

That story inspired me to get into the field, to come to BYU-Hawaii and will be the guiding compass for me as a teach the class.

Love this logo with the symbols for the three major world religions -- the crescent for Islam, the star of David for Judiasm, and the cross for Christianity -- all fit into the same world.

All three religions sons and daughters of the same founder -- father Abraham.