Let's talk about a real-life example. No matter what one thinks of the war in Iraq, most people would consider the recent election there a good thing. Is there a way this could have been achieved peacefully?
There are many things here that are very important to address. One is: Does the means justify the end? We read every day in the newspaper about how many Americans have died, but have you ever heard an estimate of Iraqi deaths in our media? The answer is ‘No.' And that's a shame, absolutely. If you go to the Internet and find estimates that in some cases—for example from The Lancet, which is a reputable medical journal in Britain, over 100 years old, estimates go to about 100,000 Iraqi deaths. Does our claiming success in an election justify the sacrifice of all these people?
The second point is that if we as a nation are so interested in democracy and say that elections are a good thing, then why don't we do that in Pakistan? And the reason we don't do that in Pakistan—we know that public opinion is so against the dictator over there—is because the dictator over there follows our instructions. He does what we tell him to. So in our own self-interest, we don't want elections in Pakistan. Self-interest always overshadows and overwhelms our desire, or rather, our so-called desire [for democracy]—it's total hypocrisy.
One of the obstacles toward peace you refer to is the uneven distribution of wealth. You point out that 5% of the world's population uses one third of the world's resources. It seems to me the New Age movement is based in this 5%. How do you motivate "the richest and most comfortable people in the world" to make a personal transformation toward peace?
I think it will start with self-interest. Right now, the way technology is moving, weapons of mass destruction can be miniaturized and made inexpensively. And that will render the military irrelevant. You could be sitting somewhere, in a remote part of the world with a computer and shifting electrons to basically destroy a city by cutting off its electricity and poisoning the food chain and interfering with the water supply and air traffic signals.
So if we understand that there's no way to fight stateless terrorism, then we might start to spend some significant amount of energy and effort and resources in understanding human behavior, in making friends, in understanding other people and cultures, in understanding that economic factors or disparities in social justice are all part of this tangled hierarchy. If we do that, then we could hope for a more secure and safe world. Right now, we have a myth of security and that myth says that security measures: nuclear shields, anthrax vaccines, and military make us secure. But we have all of that and we're still very insecure. In fact, the more we have, the more insecure we become.
For more visit: http://www.beliefnet.com/story/160/story_16071_1.html
My Opinion: Here its not important that elections should be held in Pakistan or not. Mr. President has proved himself worthy of the post to a great extent. You can't judge the theme; by only reading half of the story. The malicious issue is of hypocrisy done by nations to fulfill their own needs and desires in order to develop and sustain their powers. I agree, all nations should devote maximum energy and resources in future long-term developments like education, economic stability, technology, arts etc. How true he is when he says: the more we have, the more insecure we become.