A world towards its end?
November 13th, 2007 by constantseekingPeople like to go overseas for holidays. Some like to see the beautiful sceneries that are absent in their own nation, some like to get a taste of other culture, while other purely like to spend their time relaxing in a foreign land.
There are popular countries or states to go to, like Japan, Australia, Britain, US, France, Italy, Venice and Haiwaii, often chosen for the various reasons stated above. Would you want to go to places like Iraq, Afganistanistan, Myanmar and Sri Lanka. Maybe you would, but often after thinking thrice. I do not have to elaborate the reason here.
Humans always glamorise and seek for the better side of world, and ignore the more chaotic, more troubled side of the world. We have become so indulged in it that we often discuss about chaos in peace. For example, debating among high school students about who’s right and who’s wrong in an armed comflict within an air-conditioned theatre, learning about reasons behind wars in a classroom nicely decorated with festive wishes like ‘merry christmas and happy new year’, and holding international summits, conferences and mulitlateral talks in posh, 5-star hotels.
I was also particularly stunned with the way many high-ranking military personnel behaved in the organising of certain South-East Asia nations alliance’s defence ministers meeting. OK, it was obvious the topic of the meeting was about defence issues. It puzzled me when it was held in a well known local 5-star hotel. Yes it was natural that the organisation of this meeting was taken charge by the local military, but it stunned me when high-ranking military officers were not very concerned about what were the issues that were going to be brought up during the meeting, but rather they were more concerned about how the environment was being set up. They even went down to checking on nitty gritty details like how the fonts of certain displays were supposed to look like, how certain curtains should be placed, and how certain cutlery settings should be adjusted. I mean these things should be taken care of by lower ranking officers and personnel. Why should these high ranking personnel be bothered by these details when they should be more concerned with the military issues brought up during the meeting? These issues could very well influence the direction of command of the armed forces at least for the next few years! I am really puzzled when it looked as though they were not at least concerned when all they speak of were the running of the event. I am even more puzzled when they looked more nervous when discussing about the details than making public speeches, as though their heads will literally roll if any VIPs were to make bad comment on any of these details. I think that heads WILL literally roll instead if they are not concerned about the military issues discussed! Is face value more important than the military issues discussed which warrants more immediate attention?
I am also baffled when I realised it is becoming a trend to involve golf games and spouses in multilateral military meetings. I got a glimpse of the video that was to be shown before a dinner attended by the defence ministers, and I saw shots taken during the golf games played by the ministers as part of the meeting event. I find it a joke and disgrace to include the golf games photos in the video! Why should people be so proud of playing games of golf during a DEFENCE minister meeting? And what had spouses got to do with DEFENCE???
Maybe you might say that I am too serious -or even naive- for feeling this way, as you might tell me that all these games and dinners which are organised on top of the main meeting are in attempt to enhance multilateral relationships and foster stronger multilateral ties, which in the larger picture, benefit the countries in the long run. But I believe there should be more active ways to do achieve this aim, rather than holding meeting in a 5-star posh hotel, in midst of gala dinners, golf games, spouses and wines. A more realistic view should be taken in such summits when there are STILL very real problems of unrest in countries within the region, like in Myanmar and Southern Thailand.
Do you think this is ironic? I find it very much so. If you were to ask me how such meetings should be done then, I would say that it should be held in the countries facing unrest itself, free from the comfort zone. I believe better solutions could be formulated when the top people get to see buckets of blood splashed on the streets instead of glasses of wine held in their own hands.
Of course people are more unwilling, and lot more coordination needs to be done, like getting the governement of the subject nation to agree to the holding of the meetings on their land. But wouldn’t this be more worth it if better solutions could be found to solve the unrest and conflicts, and to stop even more blood and lives lost?
Maybe it all boils down to the workings and effectiveness of multi-national associations. If this is really the trend and the mutually-agreed way of working, I really do not have confidence that such alliances and associations can really stop the next world war from happening.
With even more deadly nuclear weapons present now, which destructive power and quantites were unheard of during the last world war, the world will definitely be destroyed faster by a WWIII than Global Warming.