What About North Korea?
What responsibility do I have for the actions of my government? I believe that I am personally responsible for the actions of President Bush and formerly of presidents Clinton, Regan, and Nixon; each of whom was in office after I could vote. Sean Hannity likes to say that we deserve the government we get. If I don’t approve of my leader’s actions, I have a responsibility to do something about it and I can’t escape responsibility for his actions. So what! In the United States of America, it is relatively simple. I can vote and if I feel strongly enough, I can become politically active or even run for public office. We have a mechanism in place whereby I can take action without the danger of anything more serious than embarrassing myself. Dietrich Bonhoeffer, a German Lutheran pastor during Adolph Hitler’s term of office and a thoughtful theologian, participated in a plot to assassinate Hitler, was caught and executed for his action. Most people today respect him for his actions.
What of a nation or culture? Does a culture or nation bear responsibility for the actions of its national leaders? It seems to me that it does and it follows that a culture will produce leaders who are a product of that culture and it can be argued that a nation that produces a bad leader deserves that leader. I would also say that the people of any nation in a sense deserve the government it has. For example, the monarchs and aristocracy of Russian and France were so onerous to the people of those nations that eventually they in a very bloody way replaced the entire governing structure. England and the Netherlands for similar reasons restructured their governing bodies in a more moderate way. Africa threw off colonialism; unfortunately they have often replaced the onerous colonial governments with tribal structures now augmented with more efficient weapons with disastrous consequences in too many instances. I have an acquaintance from Nigeria who believes there is no hope for Africa until they abandon tribalism and he sees little hope for that to happen in the near future.
If a culture believes that the leadership is acting in a way that is inconsistent with the values of the culture, it is incumbent upon the people of that culture to remove the offending leadership. Enter North Korea; a nation with a despotic leader whose policies have produced a nation perennially on the edge of starvation and a threat to the Pacific Rim nations.
It could be postulated that we – the free (and rich) nations – have a moral responsibility to feed the starving people of North Korea because they are not responsible for the actions of their crazy leader. However, if in fact the people of a nation deserve the government they have (even under the rule of a homicidal tyrant), they are responsible for the actions that leader. It follows then if we provide material support to the people of that nation; we remove some of the pain of a difficult choice and are the cause of continued pain.
This is the conundrum of every parent. Under what conditions do we allow a child to suffer the consequences of a poor choice versus vetoing a choice for the child’s good? Which action is best for the child? This is the conundrum of every nation. Which actions are best for North Korea and secondarily for the rest of the world?
What of a nation or culture? Does a culture or nation bear responsibility for the actions of its national leaders? It seems to me that it does and it follows that a culture will produce leaders who are a product of that culture and it can be argued that a nation that produces a bad leader deserves that leader. I would also say that the people of any nation in a sense deserve the government it has. For example, the monarchs and aristocracy of Russian and France were so onerous to the people of those nations that eventually they in a very bloody way replaced the entire governing structure. England and the Netherlands for similar reasons restructured their governing bodies in a more moderate way. Africa threw off colonialism; unfortunately they have often replaced the onerous colonial governments with tribal structures now augmented with more efficient weapons with disastrous consequences in too many instances. I have an acquaintance from Nigeria who believes there is no hope for Africa until they abandon tribalism and he sees little hope for that to happen in the near future.
If a culture believes that the leadership is acting in a way that is inconsistent with the values of the culture, it is incumbent upon the people of that culture to remove the offending leadership. Enter North Korea; a nation with a despotic leader whose policies have produced a nation perennially on the edge of starvation and a threat to the Pacific Rim nations.
It could be postulated that we – the free (and rich) nations – have a moral responsibility to feed the starving people of North Korea because they are not responsible for the actions of their crazy leader. However, if in fact the people of a nation deserve the government they have (even under the rule of a homicidal tyrant), they are responsible for the actions that leader. It follows then if we provide material support to the people of that nation; we remove some of the pain of a difficult choice and are the cause of continued pain.
This is the conundrum of every parent. Under what conditions do we allow a child to suffer the consequences of a poor choice versus vetoing a choice for the child’s good? Which action is best for the child? This is the conundrum of every nation. Which actions are best for North Korea and secondarily for the rest of the world?
posted by complexspecificity | 4:01 PM
|
4 comments
