Today, I had my first class of the new academic term. The course in question was Theory of International Relations and the lesson provided me with some - much needed - inspiration for this blog. People who read my first contribution to Blogger might start to see a pattern. ;-)
Anyhow, the first lesson wasn't the average introduction speech on which text book to use etc. Quite the contrary; the prof used his premiere to test our worth. We were asked to engage in a hundred person debate revolving around one given question: Why did the NATO intervene in Libya? As the exemplary students we are, many a valuable contribution was made. We stressed the importance of regional stability, the perceived threat of political Islam and of course the inescapable Libyan oil reserves. One explanation was remarkably absent from the debate, accidentally the official one. Can you by any chance remember French head of state Nicolas Sarkozy mentioning the violation of human rights by the Libyan regime? Or maybe you recall American president Obama saying something about the protection of Libyan citizens?
For some reason my fellow students didn't buy the noble motives NATO itself put forth. Is it naive to rejoice when I hear Belgian military planes will help to enforce the no-fly zone? Sure, the NATO members have their agenda, but a nationwide massacre was avoided. It came as a genuine shock to me how harsh and negative the people I socialize with sounded. My grandma portrays more joie de vivre than our entire theatre together and she's almost eighty! It is good to have a critical attitude, but most comments left a real bitter taste. Luckily the professor assumed the role of devil's advocate and pointed out the multitude of facets involved. He kept cool and made clear we are hypocrites out of necessity: we don't protect the Chechens because Russia has nuclear arms, we don't support the Syrian uprising since Assad has close ties with Iran, etc. Just like him, I believe that the political elite of the democratic west wants to address those issues. The price is however too high to pay and so we abstain.
The lesson I learned today is that idealism on it itself doesn't do much good, even though I often flirt with it myself. To all readers who just like me enjoy the occasional stay at Castle Sky: dreaming of a better world is a must, but reality is a bitch. Even idealists should take it into account if they seek a resolution. The blinding light of prefabricated ideologies - of whichever kind - can muddle our vision when dealing with REAL problems. Situations are often more complex than we tend to present them, so remember: it's all swings and roundabouts! :p
2 opmerkingen:
This indeed very much sounds like our generation. Optimistic, idealistic belief are more often ridiculed than not. (Rightfully or not, I don't know.)
Reality sure is a complex thing. Didn't a wise man once say:
"Elk nadeel heb z'n voordeel"
Dreaming is a good thing to do, I completely agree. All great men and great women have and had visions and dreams, some of which (or rather: most of which) seemed ridiculous at the time. History, in many cases, proved the cynics wrong, and the optimists, the dreamers, the idealists, right.
Een reactie posten