The most important issue in World Politics currently is the necessity of tolerance in all aspects of global policy. Whether in regards to religion, race, political ideology, international conflict, or a plethora of other instances, exhibiting acceptance for ways of life and cultures other than our own can aid in solving a variety of current problems.
A prime example of implementing global tolerance is in regards to the proposed mosque near the site of the twin towers. Although the building will primarily serve as a community center for the neighborhood, and religious leaders of many faiths have expressed their support of the structure, the main point brought up in opposition to the building is insensitive to the tragedy of September 11th. To ameliorate the strained relations between America and the Muslim world, exhibiting tolerance for the religion of the Middle East, and thus the United States’ forgiveness of the innocent individuals sharing the same religion as a select group of terrorists is the best method. This minor construction issue has subsequently been transformed into a significant political point, addressed by almost all politicians, both criticized and supported, and far from resolved.
Tolerance can be employed within America, in regards to ground zero, and throughout the world, being utilized by nations in order to mediate conflicts before they become battles. While there is no realistic way to currently extinguish the need for war altogether countries can practice temperance to come to an agreement and compromise before firing bullets.
Although it is an easy concept to grasp, tolerance is more difficult to put into practice then it first seems. World Politics should place more emphasis on this overlooked method of both preventing and mediating conflict amongst nations.
Although I agree that a policy of tolerance can solve a number of ideological conflicts and strengthen bonds between nations and states, I do not think tolerance should be used as a strategy to mediate conflict in general. When practicing broad acceptance to avoid conflict, I think that it becomes too easy to tolerate, and in essence ignore, potentially dangerous situations that could grow into much larger and more destructive conflicts. The events leading up to the second World War are perfect examples of turning a blind eye to and tolerating small acts of aggression that increase in severity and vehemence until they become large scale and deadly conflicts. Therefore, I agree that in cases of peaceful expression of ideology or political views a policy of tolerance is acceptable, but when confronted with a potentially violent situation, world politicians must take a stronger stance.
ReplyDeleteColin, I agree partially with what you feel is valid, but I agree more with Dayna's overall view. To go a bit deeper, I also feel that what we lack is an understanding of where another race, religion or nationality is coming from. On the surface level, we feel that the mosque near Ground Zero is a "threat" to national security and the well being of the locals. But in reality, these "threats" are merely our lack of understanding being exhibited in a negative way. Put another way, a little child refuses to try a new type of vegetable. When s/he hears his/her friends complaining about that specific sort of food, s/he starts complaining as well without ever trying the new sort of food. If we, as individuals and a nation, dip our feet into different pools of water, we will be able to build up a greater tolerance for lifestyles different from ours. We then wouldn't feel the need to act negatively towards others. This in turn would lead to a greater tolerance.
ReplyDeleteI would agree with what Colin said also. What Elana said might apply to the people's attitude toward another nation and allow building a healthier relationship, but in the world of politics and negotiation, tolerance can be a very damaging poison. Tolerance can be seen as a sign of weakness where a nation is seen as being unable to strongly present its position, which in turn undermines that country's status. So tolerance is a good idea in general, pushing for tolerance in politics and in negotiations is a risky venture.
ReplyDelete