Book burning: No simple answer

Debunking absolutes in search of a solution.

In recent months, activists in Denmark and Sweden have staged a number of burnings of the Qur’an, successfully bringing down the ire of most of the Muslim world, and more.

Never mind the insensitivity and stupidity of the actions –or the fact that Russia is actively fanning the flames (pun intended) to sow discord in the rest of the world. This is a crisis that should be resolved – but the first step towards a solution is to acknowledge that there is no simple answer.

You will find people on both sides with very strong opinions, often speaking in absolutes. But it’s not that simple. In this case, opposing views create not just conflict, but also paradoxes, and any attempt at reconciliation will require humility, and recognition that there cannot be absolutes.

So let’s look at some of the typical responses, and explain where they have merit, but cannot stand alone.

“Don’t offend us, ever”
Yes, but: It sounds admirable to not offend people for fun. But to enable a free society, criticism must be allowed, also in shapes and forms that you may not like or understand. And you can’t just dictate what others get to say, or claim that nobody can say anything against you.

“Free speech trumps all, and caving now is a slippery slope towards censorship”
Yes, but: There are always limits and boundaries. Most countries have banned child porn, for example, and we have various protections in place to combat defamation, hate speech, racism, and so on. Try saying something derogatory towards Jews in public in Germany, and you will be prosecuted. For good and obvious reasons – there are other slippery slopes we would like to avoid (repeating).

“Don’t desecrate holy books”
Ok, but: What then classifies as a holy book? The three main religions of the book (Judaism, Christianity, Islam) each have one, but what about everyone else? And is it only Scripture itself that counts, or what about commentaries? A simple political solution here would quickly run into obstacles of definition that become theological and have no simple answer.

“Burning a holy book is vandalism”
Yes, this statement has some merit, and you can argue that the activitsts are not in fact contributing to dialogue. But then again, it’s not technically vandalism, is it? It’s simple enough to judge people who vandalise art to make a statement or spray-paint trains for fun: they are clearly damaging somebody else’s property. But in this case they probably just bought a copy of the book somewhere.

“Book burnings are free speech”
Yes, but: Are they really? Sure, as an example of avant-garde art, perhaps. But you might just as well argue that they are the antithesis of free speech. Books spread knowledge (even holy ones) – just consider the book burnings in Nazi Germany, book bans in U.S. libraries, and censorship in Asian and other dictatorships. Is that really the way we want to go?

“Violence is never a good solution”
Yes, but: No but, just yes.

So to summarise: A good solution is not one where one side wins through force, or another side caves completely. A good solution will need some sort of synthesis or compromise that successfully transcends deliberate provocations, absolute positions, and escalation in order to find common ground.

Protests are a necessary part of life in free countries

Spring is here, yes, and daylight saving time. But so, it seems, is a wave of protests across the world. The free world, that is.

In Germany, there is a general strike, connected to union negotiations and the cost of living for ordinary citizens.

In France, following their traditions of very vocal and visible demonstrations, citizens showing the world that they are not in favour of plans to raise the pension age by two years.

In Israel, people are protesting Netanyahu’s proposals for a judicial reform which many (including allies) are callign out as backtrack on democracy.

In the U.S., Trump is stirring the pot again. We don’t know how big a mess he will create this time, but there are still hordes of supporters out there who subscribe to his version of history, and the longing for what you might call an Apartheid utopia.

Even in Denmark, although true to form we’re rather peaceful about it. The potential for strikes was there in recent union negotioations, but agreements all round put an end to those worries. And many of us were disgruntled that the new government moved to take away a national holiday; there was some protest, but in the end peaceful acceptance (for now).

Is the world going awry? Not necessarily. While some of these protests are connected to similar topics, such as the impact of the inflation crisis, others are more local, and are part of the usual checks-and-balances of those in power.

Consider, once again, Hong Kong: the first authorised protest in years saw less than a hundred people, registred with ID tags, protesting something as mundane as a land reclamation project. A mere shadow of the widespread democracy rallies of 2019.

Or you might ask, where are masses of Russians protesting the war? Sure, many Russians likely support it. But the rest probably just keep their heads down, in fear of government retributions.

Just compare this to the peace rallies against the war in Vietnam in the U.S. in the 70s in US. These were peaceful and seen as an essential part of society, part of “what we’re fighting for”.

So if you’re stuck on a French motorway, waiting for a train in Germany, or find your flights to Tel Aviv cancelled – you should praise yourself lucky that you’re not stuck and displeased in Shenzhen, Tehran, or Moscow.

True leadership is not about power

Ironically, public criticism only strengthens Mette Frederiksen’s obsession with herself.

The aftermath of the mink scandal is getting closer, with a damning report released yesterday. The commission has issued massive criticism of many leading government officials, including in the Danish Prime Minister’s inner circle.

The PM herself has no smoking gun, and may just get away with feigning ignorance.

The irony is that her people did exactly what she had wanted them to do. The prime minister’s office pushed and pushed, not respecting usual boundary lines of other minister’s responsibilities. Nobody thought to check if what they were doing was legal, and those who did know didn’t react quickly enough.

Most likely, she will now hide behind scapegoats once again, saying it was someone else’s fault, smiling to the public, saying that it was a crisis, mistakes would be made, but come let’s all be happy that I saved the day.

And a lot of people are going to buy it. They will be comforted by the projected statesmanship and forgive the lapses that were necessary to helped us through the COVID crisis.

We did manage well through the crisis, sure, but that’s not the point here.

The point is leadership.

The point is the problematic situation where the PM doesn’t trust her legal team or government ministers, but wants to dictate everything to the point of bullying. She’s smart enough to hire people like Barbara Bertelsen to do the dirty work so she can keep her own hands clean. And if she ends up sacrificing BB, she’ll just hire a new bouncer to replace her.

Mette Frederiksen comes across as the type of leader who tries vehemently to show a pretty face in public, but behind the scenes and to the people working for her, she’s a power-craving egomaniac who would rather throw her own people under the bus so she can post nice pictures on Facebook as the mother of the nation.

Many politicians do this. The current UK Prime Minister and the former U.S. president come to mind. And business leaders are no different – I’ve seen good and bad leaders, also behind the scenes.

But there is an alternative. It is possible to be a leader without being an insufferable know-it-all. It is possible to think before you speak, listen to expert opinions, invite to an open dialogue, and be nice to the people around you. My own current CEO is one example.

When the election comes later this year or next, I hope the voters will see through this. Because in order to maintain a well-functioning democracy, we need leadership not just in substance, but also in style.

The legacy of 9/11, and an end to American interventions?

Photo credit: Wally Gobetz

20 years on, the Taliban is less important on the world stage. But so is America. How will that shape war and peace in the decades to come?

The events of that September morning 20 years ago were of course horrible for their inhumanity, their visual horror, and the universal spread of fear that ensued. Everyone who was alive on that day will forever remember where they were.

But after 20 years, it has also beceome history.

9/11 was an attack on the U.S., and on the Western Civilization (in Samuel Huntington’s definition). So obviously, we struck back to neutralize the threat. The following war in Iraq has been rightfully debated, but the intervention in Afghanistan had pretty strong support across most of the West.

Did we overract? The events of the past weeks in Afghanistan have reminded us of the staggering cost (in dollars and human lives) of continuing a war that was effectively lost in 2003, according to Former FBI agent Ali Soufan.

In that light, Biden’s reflections are not half-hearted attempts to justify the withdrawal. On the contrary, he makes a compelling case that the withdrawal should have happened many years ago.

“We did not go to Afghanistan to nation-build. And it’s the right and the responsibility of the Afghan people alone to decide their future and how they want to run their country,” he said in July.

For all the fears that the images from Kabul Airport may have invoked, this does seem reasonable: why should we continue fighting a war they don’t want?

On the other hand, Senator Lindsay Graham has commented that U.S. troops may have to go back, because the security threat is too large – which was the original reason for the intervention.

What would China do?

And so the world moves on. But the world has also changed since 2001.

I’m not talking about the rise of the internet, the reduction in world poverty, the growing threat of climate change or even the corona pandemic, although all of these are important.

The main change is China. In 2001 the world was still uni-polar (following the collapse of the Soviet Union ten years before), with one Civilization (the West) ahead of the rest of the world on practically all measures.

The West will still dominate militarily for a while, but in other areas the rest of the world is catching up, as has been reported repeatedly by Fareed Zakaria and others, and which is also becoming more and more evident to all of us.

What are the geopolitical implications of this change? President Biden is moving towards less U.S. involvement in the rest of the world. That has been tried before, however. Both Franklin D. Roosevelt and George W. Bush were forced out of their initial isolation by foreign attacks on American soil, leading to U.S. involvement in WWII and the War on Terror, respectively.

China has not been forced to choose – yet. They are still hesitant in playing world police (although not so hesitant in opressing minorities in Xinjiang or violently repressing freedom in Hong Kong).

This article from The Guardian gives a recent speculation on China’s reaction to failed states on their borders. But what if someone were to force their hand?

Will the West remain the enemy-of-choice for failed peoples like the Taliban, or will they eventually direct their ire elswhere? In a multi-polar world, how big a share in the global pool of hatred can China expect to attract? Border clashes and disputes are common with many of China’s neighbors. So far this hasn’t led to outright terrorism, but is it just a matter of time?

How would China react to a terrorist attack on their own soil in the magnitude of 9/11? Would they go to war in Afghanistan, like the Americans and the Russians (third time’s a charm)? And how would a Chinese-led war of intervention look? I’m guessing not pretty (wars never are).

Speculation? Sure. But we’re only 1/5 through this century – I don’t think we’ve seen the last surprise yet.

Controlled inequality or corruption

A corona passport is a good idea, but paying to jump the queue is not.

In the last day of his presidency, Donald Trump is expected to pardon a large number of people servicing time for their crimes. For once, he is not acting rogue – this is a tradition that his predecessors have helped uphold, even if he may take it to new extremes. We’ll see.

But this obscure tradition is a prime example of how lobbyism should not work, and how people in power should not act. Your life and destiny should not rely on somebody’s efforts to help you jump the queue. This is tantamount to corruption.

The same goes for the corona vaccine, where the scramble to get ahead is on. A black market is expected, probably more so in some countries than in others.

Even in Denmark, the public debate is on as to who should get the vaccine first. The elderly and sick? Health-care workers? Child-care workers? Important businesspeople?

Fortunately, the Danish government stands firm, as they should, and many large companies have refrained from trying to secure vaccines for their employees ahead of their fellow citizens.

We’re all in the same boat. We’ve waited for a year, I’m sure we can wait for another few months.

Passport to freedom

The question of a corona passport, however, is a different one, also filling the public debate. The opponents pull the solidarity card once again: We don’t want anyone to get special privileges.

But this is classic socialism at its very worst. The idea that if somebody runs faster than you, they should slow down. Anyone ahead should slow down and wait for the last.

If we agree on the order of vaccines, let’s for heaven’s sake allow those fortunate to be first in line some extra freedoms. It will be good for them, and good for business. And we will all get there, eventually.

Yes, we’re all in the same boat. But in this case, let’s not slow down things unduly. We need to get society moving again. Vaccine passports are a splendid way of doing that.

In stead of everyone holding back, let’s have a staged approach – a controlled inequality, where we celebrate the slow spread of normality instead of being jealous that I’m not first in line.

Back to the United States, that would compare to receiving a pardon on your jail sentence – but being told: you can’t leave the prison until everyone else is getting one, too.