What is the work flow software?
It crystallized in the mid - to late 1990s and, when it did, it had as profound an impact on the world as the first two flatteners. It enabled more people in more places to design, display, manage, and collaborate on business date previously handled manually. As a result, work started to flow within and between companies and continents faster than ever.
Through this work flow software, we are enable to do everything(like shape things, design things, create things, sell things, buy things, keep track of inventories, etc) from anywhere to anywhere and from any computer to any computer.
앞서 보았던 것 처럼 open protocols는 개개인이 자유롭게 정보교환 및 공유를 할 수 있게 하였다. 그러나 세상은 더 많은 것을 기대했다.
"But then, "added Microsoft's Mundie, "we said to ourselves, 'Geez, if we really want to automate everything, then we need to make it much easier not just for people to talk to people, but for machines to talk to machines - for machines to interact with other machines about any subject without any humans involved at all or any a priori relationship between the different companies whose machines were communicationg.'"
그래서 등장한 것이 XML(extensible markup language)와 SOAP(simple object access protocol)이다. 이것을 통하여 다른 컴퓨터 프로그램들끼리, 사람의 중재할 필요 없이, 어떤 정보라도 교환할 수 있게 되었다.
"And finally, today, we have reached a point in work flow that machines are talking to other machines over the Internet using standardized protocols, with no humans invloved at all."
작가는 그 예로 eBay와 PayPal을 들었다. eBay에서 직접 상품을 구입해 본적은 없었지만 그것의 규모가 어마어마하단 것은 익히 들어서 알고 있었고, PayPal을 통해서는 직접 결제를 해 본 적이 있었기 때문에 작가의 예시가 더욱 친숙하게 다가왔다.
작가는 eBay가 PayPal을 통합시키면서 그 폭발력을 가지게 되었다고 말하고 있다.
"but what really made the eBay marketplace explode was when it adopted PayPal, a standard that enabled the buyer to pay the seller very easily."
PayPal 시대 전에는 모든 물건의 결제는 사람의 중재가 필요한 "문서"로 이루어졌다. 그 시대만 해도 돈을 보낼 수 있는 전자적 방식이 없었던 것이다. 그러나 PayPal은 이를 가능하게 했다.
"What PayPal did was enable people, individuals, to accept credit cards. I could pay you as an individual seller on eBay with a credit card. "said eBay CEO Meg Whitman.
점진적으로 이렇게 사람과 사람, 컴퓨터와 컴퓨터를 연결시키는 protocol 및 standard가 개발되었고, 결국 웹 상에서 작업을 가능케 하는 도구까지 만들어졌다. 이름하야 AJAX(asynchronous JavaScript and XML).
예를 들어 회사 경영과 관련하여 이야기 해보면,
Business Web site에서(우리 개인 또는 각 회사의 컴퓨터가 아니라), 우리는 AJAX를 통해 모든 경영 정보(buy, load, update, upgrade, and integrate with other systems.) 작업을 할 수 있게 된 것이다. 컴퓨터 내에서 작업할 수밖에 없었던 것들이 웹 상에서도 가능해진 것이다!! 결국 Software의 개념이 "보유한다" 에서 "빌린다." 로 바꼈다고 할 수 있겠다.
심지어 이러한 Web 내의 software는 더 나은 방식을 계속적으로 수용함으로서 upgrade되고, 그 방식을 채택하여 경영을 하는 사람들은 계속적으로 발달된 방식을 공급받게 되는 것이다. (이 분야에서 유명한 software 제공 회사는 salesforce.com이다. ) 생각만해도 경제적이고 상호 교환 및 접근이 상당히 쉬워질 것 같다!!!
이러한 새로운 software의 개념을 보면 Microsoft사는 그 입지가 줄어들 것만 같았다.
"Microsoft wants you to buy more software. We want to see the end of software." said Salesforce.com's CEO, Benioff.
그러나 Microsoft는 역시 거대했다. 얼마 지나지 않아서 Microsoft는 Window live와 Office live를 제공하기 시작한 것이다. Window와 Office의 Business Web version이라고 할 수 있다. 역시 무서운(?) Microsoft.
어쨌든 이러한 Business Web을 통하여 몇년전만 해도 강력한 경영 도구를 갖지 못했던 작은 중소기업들까지도 훌륭한 도구에 접근 가능, 사용 가능하게 되었다. 그러나 작가는 우리에게 이와 같이 상기시켜주었다.
"When you have these standardized work flow tools, so does everyone else. You still have to have a unique product or service to offer. And for that you often need to develop a unique way to apply information technologies to your core value proposition, whatever it is."
지금까지 세상을 편평하게 한 3 단계의 flattener를 보았다. 작가는 이번 장의 마지막에 지난 역사를 이와 같이 기가막히도록 깔끔하게 정리해주었다.
"We need to stop here and take stock, because at this point the platform for the flattening of the world has started to emerge. First, the falling of the walls, the opening of the Windows, and the rise of the PC all combined to empower more individuals than ever to become authors of their own content in digital form. Then the spread of the Internet and the comming to life of the Web, thanks to the browser and fiber optics, enabled more people than ever to be connected and to share their digital content with more other people for less money than any time before. Finally, the emergence of standardized transmission pipes and protocols that connected everyone's machines and software applications, and also encouraged the development of standardized business processes for how certain kinds of commerce or work would be conducted, meant that more people were not just seamlessly connected but also were able to seamlessly work together on one another's digital content more than ever before."
"It is always dangerous to declare a turning point in history. We always tend to feel that when we are alive something really major is happening.But I am convinced that the genesis of this new flat-world platform and the six new forms of collaboration it has spawned will be remembered in time as one of the most important points in the history of mankind - one no less significant than the invention o f the printing press or electricity. Someone had to be alive when it happened - and it happens to be you and me. "
나는 작가의 이러한 시대에 대한 통찰력을 이 시대를 직접 살아온 나로선 인정할 수 밖에 없었다. 그리고 이러한 통찰력의 언어적 정리는 나로하여금 마치 이 급변하는 시대를 가려놓은 베일을 들춰보게 하는 것만 같아서 새로운 보물과 같은 비밀을 알게 된 것 마냥 흥분하게 만들었다.
세상을 살면서 내가 어디에서 살고 있는지를 알고싶었던 나, 조금은 지남력을 가지게 된 것 같은 느낌이 든다. 물론 지금 내가 이 책을 통해 얻고 있는 지남력의 영역은 이 큰 세상에서 일부에 지나지 않는다는 것을 알고 있지만, 이 영역의 영향력이 지금까지 굉장히 컸으며 앞으로도 무시할 수 없단 것 또한 알기에 나로서는 많은 것이 또렷해진 것 같은 느낌이다.
앞으로는 이와같이 형성된 new flat-world platform을 기초로 하여 새롭게 생겨난 6종류의 new forms of collaboration을 보게 될 것이다. 그리고 이러한 편평한 세계와 미국, 개발도상국, 기업, 그리고 나의 관계에 대해 점차적으로 살펴보며 적용시켜볼 것이다. 그 여정이 기대된다. 그리고 동시에 두렵기도 하다. 이러한 편평한 세계의 도래로 인한 악영향까지 조금씩 감지되고 있기 때문이다. 그리고 그리스도인으로서 이러한 시대에서 어떻게 서야할지에 대해서도 지혜롭게 분별해야할 것 같다. 어쩌면 이는 그리스도인들 또한 무시해서는 안될 과제일지도 모르겠다. 인터넷으로 편평해진 세상, 가상공간, 그 가운데서 하나님은 어디에, 그리고 우리의 지상과제인 선교는 어떻게..? 점차적으로 확장시켜서 생각해보고 싶은 주제이다. 어쨌든 앞으로의 여정이 기대된다. 야호!! :)
Tuesday, September 9, 2008
Thursday, September 4, 2008
Working for health.
The World Health Organization(WHO) is the directing and coordinating authority on international health within the United Nations' system. WHO experts produce health guidelines and standard, and help countries to address public health issues. WHO also supports and promotes health research. Through WHO, governments can jointly tackle global health problems and improve people's well being.
WHO in action : How do they get the job done?
Enhancing global health security
A disease outbreak can cause a crisis for a country, for an entire region or even the world. Conflicts or natural disasters can also have repercussions that affect millions of people. WHO works through relief and restoration to save lives and reduce the impact of crises on people's health.
As many as two billion people around the world face health threats every day.
2 billion? 2,000,000,000!!! Shoot!!!
The total population of S.Korea is 48,050,000(2008).
2 billion is more than 20 times more than 48,050,000.
The number of people who face health threats every day is more than 41 more times than population of S.Korea's.
매일, 한국 총 인구의 41배가 넘는 사람들이 심각한 건강의 위협을 마주 대하고 있다.
People in more than 45 countries are currently experiencing emergencies as a result of natural disasters, economic crises, or conflict.
전 세계적으로 45개국 이상의 나라의 사람들이 자연 재해, 경제위기, 분쟁 등으로 인하여 고통받고있다.
Preventing Chronic Diseases.
Changes in diets, physical activity, and tobacco use in both rich and poor countries have dramatically increased the risks of chronic diseases such as heart disease, stroke, cancer and diabetes. More than half of all deaths worldwide each year - about 35 million out of 59 million - are caused by chronic disease.
35 million? 3,500,000!!!
The number of population of Seoul is 10,422,000. About the number of one third of Seoul citizens are dying because of chronic diseases throughout of the world.
전 세계적으로 서울시 인구의 1/3 이상의 사람들이 매년 만성질환으로 인하여 죽고있다.
New issues of today are Diet, Physical Activity and Tobacco Control.
Health at the Heart of the Millennium Development Goals.
At the United Nations Millennium Summit in 2000, 191 countries set themselves the ambitious task of tackling poverty and ill-health and improving people's lives by 2015. Derived from the Millennium Declaration, these task are what became known as the Millennium Development Goals(MDGs). Health is at the heart of this agenda. Three of the eight goals - cutting child deaths, improving maternal health, and combating HIV/AIDS, malaria and other diseases - are directly about health. Better health is also key to the other goals, such as eradicating extreme poverty and hunger and achieving environmental sustainabilty.
Health Care For Everyone : People Working In Health Globally.
Today, there are 1.3 health worker for every 1000 people living in sub-Saharan Africa. To achieve the Millennium Development Goals, WHO recommands 2.5 health workers per 1000 people.
Europe : 10 health workers / 1000 people.
Sub-Saharan Africa : 1.3 / 1000
Reference
Working for health : an introduction to the World Health Organization.
(WHO Library Cataloguing-in-Publication Data)
WHO in action : How do they get the job done?
- Country teams(147 countries)
- Regional teams(6 regions : The Americas, European, Eastern Mediterranean, African, South-East Asia, Western Pacific.)
- Headquarters team
- People : Last but not least, WHO is people. Over 8000 public health experts including doctors, epidemiologists, scientists, managers, administrators and other professionals from all over the world work for WHO in 147 country offices, six regional offices and at the headquarters in Geneva, Switzerland.
- Korea office : The Office of the WHO Representative The 2nd Government Unified Office Building - Room N°306 Central PO Box 540 Seoul
What can I do?
Enhancing global health security
A disease outbreak can cause a crisis for a country, for an entire region or even the world. Conflicts or natural disasters can also have repercussions that affect millions of people. WHO works through relief and restoration to save lives and reduce the impact of crises on people's health.
As many as two billion people around the world face health threats every day.
2 billion? 2,000,000,000!!! Shoot!!!
The total population of S.Korea is 48,050,000(2008).
2 billion is more than 20 times more than 48,050,000.
The number of people who face health threats every day is more than 41 more times than population of S.Korea's.
매일, 한국 총 인구의 41배가 넘는 사람들이 심각한 건강의 위협을 마주 대하고 있다.
People in more than 45 countries are currently experiencing emergencies as a result of natural disasters, economic crises, or conflict.
전 세계적으로 45개국 이상의 나라의 사람들이 자연 재해, 경제위기, 분쟁 등으로 인하여 고통받고있다.
- International Health Regulations : One critical too in the fight against the global spread of infectious disease is the international Health Regulations(IHR)
- Strategic Health Operations Centre : Using the latest technology, the centre is used during disease outbreaks and humanitarian emergencies to coordinate information and response between countries, WHO and other partners.
Preventing Chronic Diseases.
Changes in diets, physical activity, and tobacco use in both rich and poor countries have dramatically increased the risks of chronic diseases such as heart disease, stroke, cancer and diabetes. More than half of all deaths worldwide each year - about 35 million out of 59 million - are caused by chronic disease.
35 million? 3,500,000!!!
The number of population of Seoul is 10,422,000. About the number of one third of Seoul citizens are dying because of chronic diseases throughout of the world.
전 세계적으로 서울시 인구의 1/3 이상의 사람들이 매년 만성질환으로 인하여 죽고있다.
New issues of today are Diet, Physical Activity and Tobacco Control.
- WHO's Global strategy on diet, physical activity and health is meant to help fight heart disease, stroke, diabetes, cancer and obesity-related conditions. The strategy encourages people to be more physically active and eat healthier diets.
- WHO Global Treaty on Tobacco Control : the first ever global health treaty negotiated by WHO.
- Chronic disease and health promotion : Global Strategy on Diet, Physical Activity and Health.
- WHO Framework Convention on Tobacco Control.
what can I do?
Health at the Heart of the Millennium Development Goals.
At the United Nations Millennium Summit in 2000, 191 countries set themselves the ambitious task of tackling poverty and ill-health and improving people's lives by 2015. Derived from the Millennium Declaration, these task are what became known as the Millennium Development Goals(MDGs). Health is at the heart of this agenda. Three of the eight goals - cutting child deaths, improving maternal health, and combating HIV/AIDS, malaria and other diseases - are directly about health. Better health is also key to the other goals, such as eradicating extreme poverty and hunger and achieving environmental sustainabilty.
- Goal 4. Cut children deaths : Almost 90% of all child deaths are attributable to just six conditions : diarrhoea, HIV/AIDS, malaria, measles, neonatal causes and pneumonia.(Close to 11 million children under-five die every year.)
- Goal 5. Improve maternal health : Most of them die because there is not enough skilled regular and emergency care.. In sub-Saharan Africa, 1 in 16 women have the risk of dying during pregnancy or childbirth over a lifetime. (More than half a million women die each year in pregnancy and childbirth.)
- Goal 6. Combat HIV/AIDS, Malaria and other diseases.
HIV/AIDS : This year, five million people will be newly infected with HIV and more than three million people will die of HIV/AIDS-related illnesses. Today, just one in five people at risk of HIV has access to the information and tools they need to prevent itand millions are in urgent need of antiretroviral medicinen.
Tuberculosis : The global TB epidemic causes nearly nine million case of disease and kills about two million people each year.
Malaria : Malaria kills more than one million people a year - most of them children under five in Africa. In fact, on average a child in Africa dies every 30 seconds from a malaria infection caused by the bite of a mosquito.
What can I do?
Health Care For Everyone : People Working In Health Globally.
Today, there are 1.3 health worker for every 1000 people living in sub-Saharan Africa. To achieve the Millennium Development Goals, WHO recommands 2.5 health workers per 1000 people.
Europe : 10 health workers / 1000 people.
Sub-Saharan Africa : 1.3 / 1000
What can I do?
Reference
Working for health : an introduction to the World Health Organization.
(WHO Library Cataloguing-in-Publication Data)
Republic vs Democratic
어제 Republican National Convention을 시청했다. 지난 주에는 Democrat National Convention을 시청했었다. 정치의 '정'자도 모르는 나이지만, 약 4시간에 걸친 RNC와 DNC를 한번씩 시청해주는 것만으로도 이 두 정당의 상반된 분위기를 확실하게 느낄 수 있었다.
개인적으로 난 이 각각의 정당에 대해 이렇게 느낄 수 있었다.
Democrats.
그들은 희망을 말했다. 그들 가운데 있는 열정과 소망들을 이야기 할 때에는 나까지 마음이 설렜다. 심지어는 그렇게 희망과 이상을 말하는 이들이 존재한다는 사실이 너무나도 반갑기까지 했다. 나는 지금까지 소망과 희망, 열정을 가지고 있는 나를 Dreamer 또는 Idealist 라고 부르는 많은 사람들을 겪어왔기 때문이다. 그들은 나보고 세상을 모른다고 했다. 좀 현실을 직시할 필요가 있다고 했다. 그래서 나는 내가 이런 부분에 있어서만큼은 바보인줄만 알았다. 그런데 나랑 비슷하게 꿈과 희망을 외치고 있는 똑똑한 바보들이 또 있는 것이었다. 그것도 많은 사람들의 지지를 받으며. 그래서 나도 희망이 생겼다. 나도 나 자신을 연단시키고 준비시켜 능력이 입증된다면, 나의 꿈과 희망, 소망이 결코 헛된 것으로만 비춰지지 않을 수 있게구나 하고..
Republicans.
그들은 그들의 준비된 능력을 말했다. 지금까지 험란하고 치열한 과거를 경험해왔기에, 그리고 그 결과 연단되어 준비될 수 있었기에 그들은 자신이 있었다.
그리고 확실한 의사 결정력이 있었다. 어리버리 고민하는 것이 아니라, '선은 선', '악은 악' 이라는 분명한 기준을 가진 채 확실하게 결론을 질 수 있는 의사 결정력이 있었다.
그리고 근성이 있었다. 더 나은 나라를 만들기 위해서는 공사판에 나가서 막노동이라도 할 근성이 있었다.
DNC만 시청했을 때는 몰랐는데 RNC를 시청한 후에는 마음이 좀 불편해 진 것이 사실이다. 두 당의 색깔이 너무 달랐기 때문이다. 마치 청색과 홍색 같았다. 특히 홍색은 아주 진한, 새빨간색 같았다.
나를 불편하게 한 것은 이것이었다.
Democrats들은 희망을 외쳤다. 그런데 그 희망을 이루어 낼 수 있는 근거가 되는 저력을 보여주지 못했었다. DNC를 시청하며 느낄 수 있었던 것은 그들이 한결같이 '희망'만 외쳤다는 것이었다. Obama를 지지하는 모든 사람들은 한결같이 그의 안에있는 희망과 잠재력만을 이야기 할 뿐이었다. 난 그가 무엇을 이루었는지, 어떤 공약들이 있는지 궁금해서 많은 사람들의 연설을 주의깊게 들었지만, 4시간동안 한번도 듣지 못했던 것이 사실이었다. 그래도 뭔가 있겠지 하고, 내가 모르는 어떤 저력과 공략들이 있겠지 하고 있었는데, 아니나 다를까, 어제 Republican들은 그 내실 없는 희망을 비꼬았다. "Zero!! Zero!!" 를 외치며 야유하면서(그들이 말하길 Obama는 Community Organizer 의 역할만 해 보았을 뿐 실질적 정치 경험은 없으며, 중요한 의사결정 순간을 경험해본적이 단 한번도 없다고 계속해서 강조하였다.) .
걱정이 되기 시작했다. 혹시 정말 빈 수레인걸까?? 정말 말만 잘 했던걸까?? 정말 경험이 한번도 없는 것일까?? 만약 정말 그들이 빈수레라면 Obama나 그를 지지하는 Democrats나 나와 똑같이 바보밖에 안될 것이다. 꿈과 희망, 소망.. 정말 필요하다. 그것이 우리를 움직이는 동력이 된다. 그러나 그것들을 이루어 낼 수 있는 저력이 우리에게 준비되어야 있어야 한다. 난 그것을 Democratic에서 발견해내고 싶어졌다. 그들의 존재로 희망을 가졌었는데, 그들이 만약 빈 수레에 이상주의자로 판명된다면, 나는 정말 갈 곳을 잃어버릴 것 같다. 그냥 바보로 남아있게 될 것 같다. 그래서 꼭그들이 그들의 저력을 보여줬으면 좋겠다.
Republican들의 자신감은 나에게 굉장히 자극이 되었었다. 그들이 지금까지 해 온 것들과 그 결과에 대한 자신감을 구체적으로 표현하고, 그리고 앞으로 나아 갈 방향에 대해 분명하게 제시한 것은 참으로 인상적이었다. 그런데 그들의 고집스러움이 시간이 지날 수록 날 불편하게 했다. 심지어는 두려워지기까지 했다.
가장 먼저 날 불편하게 만든것은 그들이 Obama를 대놓고 무시하고 비꼬았다는 것이었다. DNC에서는 보지 못했던 광경이었다. DNC만 보았을 때는 상대편 후보자를 거론하지 않고 자신의 잠재력만을 이야기 하는 것에 "이것이 선진화된 선거운동이구나" 하고 감탄을 했었는데, 그게 아니었다. 그것은 Democratic의 색깔이었던 것이다. Democrats는 자신의 강한점을 내세우지도 않았지만, 상대방의 약한점을 꼬집지도 않았었다. 그런데 Republicans는 달랐다. 어제 연설한 모든 McCain지지자들은 Obama를 비꼬았다. 선거 광고를 보니 심지어 McCain까지도 그의 지지자들이 Obama를 비꼬는 것을 대놓고 허용하고 있었다. 이런 선거운동을 보면 볼 수록 그들의 성격을 조금씩 파악해갈 수 있었다. 그들에게 흑은 흑, 백은 백인 것 같았다. 그리고 그것이 정말 분명해진것은 그들이 중동에 대해 거론할 때었다. "Evil Extremist!!" 이것이 그들이 중동을 보는 눈이었다. Republic의 vice president후보인 Sarah Palin은 McCain에 대해 이렇게 말했다. "McCain은 전쟁을 좋아하지 않습니다. 그러나 두려워 하지도 않습니다!!" 그리고 지지자들로부터 엄청난 환호를 받았다. 나의 마음이 "극단적"으로 불편해지기 시작한 시점이었다. 그리고 그들이 제시한 공략중에 대표적인 것중 하나는 Oil에 대한 것이었다. 이제 더이상 중동, 러시아에 의존하지 않고 미국 스스로 자신의 땅 안에서 파서 완전히 독립하겠다는 것이었다. 그들은 계속해서 "Dig!! Dig!! Dig!!"을 외쳤다.
조금씩 두려워졌다. 처음엔 그들의 자신감과 분명한 의사결정에 자극이 되었던 것이 사실이지만, 그들이 "God bless America."를 외치면서, 그들의 가치와 맞지 않는 모든 것들을 Evil로 규정시키며, 세상과 미국을 분리시키려는 그들의 성격이 너무나도 극단적으로 비춰졌기 때문이다.
한국인으로서, 그리고 또한 그리스도인으로서, 그리고 또한 세계인으로서 Republic의 공약과 태도는 미국의 국가 이기주의로밖에 보이지 않았다.
얼마전에 읽은 Rice의 글이 다시 생각났다. 그녀의 글을 읽고 마음이 무거워졌던 것도 생각났다. 난 그 글을 읽고 "미국"이 세계를 통치하는 미국 왕국을 만들려고 한다고 생각했었다. 그런데 지금 알겠다. 미국이 아니라 "Republic Party"가 세계를 정복하는 미국 왕국을 만들려고 한다는 것을.
무섭다. 걱정된다. 미국 대선이 한국인으로서, 그리스도인으로서 얼마나 중요한 것이었는지 절감했다.
솔직히 나는 단지 이 두 당의 서로 다른 색깔을 스쳐 지나가듯 볼 수 있었을 뿐이다. 여러가지 이슈 - 경제, 문화, 종교, 외교정책 등- 에 대한 이 두 당의 입장을 더 알고보면 이 두 당 각각의 색깔을 더욱 더 분명하게 볼 수 있을 것 같다. 두 당의 색깔이 내 안에 분명해질수록, 나 자신은 정치로부터 멀어질 것 같다.
두 당의 convention을 보면서 생각난 것이 있었다.
미국에서 봉사활동 오리엔테이션을 들을 때마다 들었던 것인데, 상대방과 정치와 종교에 대해서는 이야기 하지 말라고 하던 것이었다. 내심 종교에 대해서 이야기 할 수 없다는 것은 아쉬웠지만 오리엔테이션 담당자가 이것을 금하는 이유는 충분히 이해할 수 있었다. 그런데 정치에 대해서는 아니었다. 그것이 도대체 무슨 상관인가라는 생각이 들었었다. 그런데 어제 깨달았다. 정치는 종교와 마찬가지로 우리의 가치관과 삶을 좌우하는, 민감한 "신념"의 문제임을.
솔직히 DNC, RNC를 보면서 너무 놀랐었는데, 왜냐하면 관중들이 연설자에게 환호를 하며 지지를 보내는 모습이 상상을 초월할 정도였기 때문이다. 정말 당황스러울 정도었다. 마치 Obama나 McCain이 그들의 신이자 구세주인양 그들을 환호하며 높혔다. 마치 그리스도인들이 하나님을 찬양하는 모습과 같았다. 아니, 정말 흡사했고, 심지어는 더 뜨거워보이기까지 했다. 불안해졌다.
그리고 깨달았다. 나의 삶의 주인이 하나님이신것 처럼, 세상에는 정치이념을 자기 삶의 주인으로 삶는 많은 사람들이 있다는 것을.
난 세상을 알기 원했다. 그래서 정치를 알기 원했다. 그런데 한가지 너무나도 분명한 사실이 있다. 난 하나님의 자리에 정치이념을 두지 않을 것이라는 것이다. 그건 있어서도 안될 일이고 있을 수도 없는 일이다. Convention Center에 모인 이들은 마치 정치이념이 그들의 가치관과 삶을 좌우하도록 하게 하는 것 같았다.
여전히 나는 그들이 어떻게 세상을 움직여나가는지에 대해 관심이 있지만, 정치세계에 발을 담궈보고싶다는 생각은 싸악 사라졌다. 사람들이 정치를 단순히 "정치"라고 부르지 않고 "정치 이념"이라고 부르는 이유를 약간이나마 알고 느끼게 된 이상, 나는 정치와 나 사이에 일정거리를 유지해야겠다는 다짐하게되었다. 그리고 나의 전공분야가 다른 이념의 문제가 아닌 "건강"에 관한것이라는 것에 감사하게 되었다. 그리고 나의 관심의 방향이 대한민국 정치도 아니고 UN도 아닌, WHO(World Health Organization, 비록 UN산하기관이긴 하지만 독립적인 건강 기구이다)으로 옮겨지기 시작했다.
개인적으로 난 이 각각의 정당에 대해 이렇게 느낄 수 있었다.
Democrats.
그들은 희망을 말했다. 그들 가운데 있는 열정과 소망들을 이야기 할 때에는 나까지 마음이 설렜다. 심지어는 그렇게 희망과 이상을 말하는 이들이 존재한다는 사실이 너무나도 반갑기까지 했다. 나는 지금까지 소망과 희망, 열정을 가지고 있는 나를 Dreamer 또는 Idealist 라고 부르는 많은 사람들을 겪어왔기 때문이다. 그들은 나보고 세상을 모른다고 했다. 좀 현실을 직시할 필요가 있다고 했다. 그래서 나는 내가 이런 부분에 있어서만큼은 바보인줄만 알았다. 그런데 나랑 비슷하게 꿈과 희망을 외치고 있는 똑똑한 바보들이 또 있는 것이었다. 그것도 많은 사람들의 지지를 받으며. 그래서 나도 희망이 생겼다. 나도 나 자신을 연단시키고 준비시켜 능력이 입증된다면, 나의 꿈과 희망, 소망이 결코 헛된 것으로만 비춰지지 않을 수 있게구나 하고..
Republicans.
그들은 그들의 준비된 능력을 말했다. 지금까지 험란하고 치열한 과거를 경험해왔기에, 그리고 그 결과 연단되어 준비될 수 있었기에 그들은 자신이 있었다.
그리고 확실한 의사 결정력이 있었다. 어리버리 고민하는 것이 아니라, '선은 선', '악은 악' 이라는 분명한 기준을 가진 채 확실하게 결론을 질 수 있는 의사 결정력이 있었다.
그리고 근성이 있었다. 더 나은 나라를 만들기 위해서는 공사판에 나가서 막노동이라도 할 근성이 있었다.
DNC만 시청했을 때는 몰랐는데 RNC를 시청한 후에는 마음이 좀 불편해 진 것이 사실이다. 두 당의 색깔이 너무 달랐기 때문이다. 마치 청색과 홍색 같았다. 특히 홍색은 아주 진한, 새빨간색 같았다.
나를 불편하게 한 것은 이것이었다.
Democrats들은 희망을 외쳤다. 그런데 그 희망을 이루어 낼 수 있는 근거가 되는 저력을 보여주지 못했었다. DNC를 시청하며 느낄 수 있었던 것은 그들이 한결같이 '희망'만 외쳤다는 것이었다. Obama를 지지하는 모든 사람들은 한결같이 그의 안에있는 희망과 잠재력만을 이야기 할 뿐이었다. 난 그가 무엇을 이루었는지, 어떤 공약들이 있는지 궁금해서 많은 사람들의 연설을 주의깊게 들었지만, 4시간동안 한번도 듣지 못했던 것이 사실이었다. 그래도 뭔가 있겠지 하고, 내가 모르는 어떤 저력과 공략들이 있겠지 하고 있었는데, 아니나 다를까, 어제 Republican들은 그 내실 없는 희망을 비꼬았다. "Zero!! Zero!!" 를 외치며 야유하면서(그들이 말하길 Obama는 Community Organizer 의 역할만 해 보았을 뿐 실질적 정치 경험은 없으며, 중요한 의사결정 순간을 경험해본적이 단 한번도 없다고 계속해서 강조하였다.) .
걱정이 되기 시작했다. 혹시 정말 빈 수레인걸까?? 정말 말만 잘 했던걸까?? 정말 경험이 한번도 없는 것일까?? 만약 정말 그들이 빈수레라면 Obama나 그를 지지하는 Democrats나 나와 똑같이 바보밖에 안될 것이다. 꿈과 희망, 소망.. 정말 필요하다. 그것이 우리를 움직이는 동력이 된다. 그러나 그것들을 이루어 낼 수 있는 저력이 우리에게 준비되어야 있어야 한다. 난 그것을 Democratic에서 발견해내고 싶어졌다. 그들의 존재로 희망을 가졌었는데, 그들이 만약 빈 수레에 이상주의자로 판명된다면, 나는 정말 갈 곳을 잃어버릴 것 같다. 그냥 바보로 남아있게 될 것 같다. 그래서 꼭그들이 그들의 저력을 보여줬으면 좋겠다.
Republican들의 자신감은 나에게 굉장히 자극이 되었었다. 그들이 지금까지 해 온 것들과 그 결과에 대한 자신감을 구체적으로 표현하고, 그리고 앞으로 나아 갈 방향에 대해 분명하게 제시한 것은 참으로 인상적이었다. 그런데 그들의 고집스러움이 시간이 지날 수록 날 불편하게 했다. 심지어는 두려워지기까지 했다.
가장 먼저 날 불편하게 만든것은 그들이 Obama를 대놓고 무시하고 비꼬았다는 것이었다. DNC에서는 보지 못했던 광경이었다. DNC만 보았을 때는 상대편 후보자를 거론하지 않고 자신의 잠재력만을 이야기 하는 것에 "이것이 선진화된 선거운동이구나" 하고 감탄을 했었는데, 그게 아니었다. 그것은 Democratic의 색깔이었던 것이다. Democrats는 자신의 강한점을 내세우지도 않았지만, 상대방의 약한점을 꼬집지도 않았었다. 그런데 Republicans는 달랐다. 어제 연설한 모든 McCain지지자들은 Obama를 비꼬았다. 선거 광고를 보니 심지어 McCain까지도 그의 지지자들이 Obama를 비꼬는 것을 대놓고 허용하고 있었다. 이런 선거운동을 보면 볼 수록 그들의 성격을 조금씩 파악해갈 수 있었다. 그들에게 흑은 흑, 백은 백인 것 같았다. 그리고 그것이 정말 분명해진것은 그들이 중동에 대해 거론할 때었다. "Evil Extremist!!" 이것이 그들이 중동을 보는 눈이었다. Republic의 vice president후보인 Sarah Palin은 McCain에 대해 이렇게 말했다. "McCain은 전쟁을 좋아하지 않습니다. 그러나 두려워 하지도 않습니다!!" 그리고 지지자들로부터 엄청난 환호를 받았다. 나의 마음이 "극단적"으로 불편해지기 시작한 시점이었다. 그리고 그들이 제시한 공략중에 대표적인 것중 하나는 Oil에 대한 것이었다. 이제 더이상 중동, 러시아에 의존하지 않고 미국 스스로 자신의 땅 안에서 파서 완전히 독립하겠다는 것이었다. 그들은 계속해서 "Dig!! Dig!! Dig!!"을 외쳤다.
조금씩 두려워졌다. 처음엔 그들의 자신감과 분명한 의사결정에 자극이 되었던 것이 사실이지만, 그들이 "God bless America."를 외치면서, 그들의 가치와 맞지 않는 모든 것들을 Evil로 규정시키며, 세상과 미국을 분리시키려는 그들의 성격이 너무나도 극단적으로 비춰졌기 때문이다.
한국인으로서, 그리고 또한 그리스도인으로서, 그리고 또한 세계인으로서 Republic의 공약과 태도는 미국의 국가 이기주의로밖에 보이지 않았다.
얼마전에 읽은 Rice의 글이 다시 생각났다. 그녀의 글을 읽고 마음이 무거워졌던 것도 생각났다. 난 그 글을 읽고 "미국"이 세계를 통치하는 미국 왕국을 만들려고 한다고 생각했었다. 그런데 지금 알겠다. 미국이 아니라 "Republic Party"가 세계를 정복하는 미국 왕국을 만들려고 한다는 것을.
무섭다. 걱정된다. 미국 대선이 한국인으로서, 그리스도인으로서 얼마나 중요한 것이었는지 절감했다.
솔직히 나는 단지 이 두 당의 서로 다른 색깔을 스쳐 지나가듯 볼 수 있었을 뿐이다. 여러가지 이슈 - 경제, 문화, 종교, 외교정책 등- 에 대한 이 두 당의 입장을 더 알고보면 이 두 당 각각의 색깔을 더욱 더 분명하게 볼 수 있을 것 같다. 두 당의 색깔이 내 안에 분명해질수록, 나 자신은 정치로부터 멀어질 것 같다.
두 당의 convention을 보면서 생각난 것이 있었다.
미국에서 봉사활동 오리엔테이션을 들을 때마다 들었던 것인데, 상대방과 정치와 종교에 대해서는 이야기 하지 말라고 하던 것이었다. 내심 종교에 대해서 이야기 할 수 없다는 것은 아쉬웠지만 오리엔테이션 담당자가 이것을 금하는 이유는 충분히 이해할 수 있었다. 그런데 정치에 대해서는 아니었다. 그것이 도대체 무슨 상관인가라는 생각이 들었었다. 그런데 어제 깨달았다. 정치는 종교와 마찬가지로 우리의 가치관과 삶을 좌우하는, 민감한 "신념"의 문제임을.
솔직히 DNC, RNC를 보면서 너무 놀랐었는데, 왜냐하면 관중들이 연설자에게 환호를 하며 지지를 보내는 모습이 상상을 초월할 정도였기 때문이다. 정말 당황스러울 정도었다. 마치 Obama나 McCain이 그들의 신이자 구세주인양 그들을 환호하며 높혔다. 마치 그리스도인들이 하나님을 찬양하는 모습과 같았다. 아니, 정말 흡사했고, 심지어는 더 뜨거워보이기까지 했다. 불안해졌다.
그리고 깨달았다. 나의 삶의 주인이 하나님이신것 처럼, 세상에는 정치이념을 자기 삶의 주인으로 삶는 많은 사람들이 있다는 것을.
난 세상을 알기 원했다. 그래서 정치를 알기 원했다. 그런데 한가지 너무나도 분명한 사실이 있다. 난 하나님의 자리에 정치이념을 두지 않을 것이라는 것이다. 그건 있어서도 안될 일이고 있을 수도 없는 일이다. Convention Center에 모인 이들은 마치 정치이념이 그들의 가치관과 삶을 좌우하도록 하게 하는 것 같았다.
여전히 나는 그들이 어떻게 세상을 움직여나가는지에 대해 관심이 있지만, 정치세계에 발을 담궈보고싶다는 생각은 싸악 사라졌다. 사람들이 정치를 단순히 "정치"라고 부르지 않고 "정치 이념"이라고 부르는 이유를 약간이나마 알고 느끼게 된 이상, 나는 정치와 나 사이에 일정거리를 유지해야겠다는 다짐하게되었다. 그리고 나의 전공분야가 다른 이념의 문제가 아닌 "건강"에 관한것이라는 것에 감사하게 되었다. 그리고 나의 관심의 방향이 대한민국 정치도 아니고 UN도 아닌, WHO(World Health Organization, 비록 UN산하기관이긴 하지만 독립적인 건강 기구이다)으로 옮겨지기 시작했다.
Wednesday, September 3, 2008
The New American Realisam - Condoleezza Rice
I read an article titled "Rethinking the National Interest - American Realism for a New World " by Condoleezza Rice. During I read this article, I wondered who Condoleezza Rice is. Throughout the article, she showed her strong belief of her nation, America, and her belief even made me stunned. I didn't get only her belief, but also American's. It was confidence, strong strong confidence. And I realized the confidence has been defining what America is and has been leading the whole world. Sometime, I read this article skeptically(I couldn't help it. I am Korean.) But other time, I read it with admiration.
Before I started this blogging, I searched who Condoleezza Rice is.
She is a famous feature as I've expected . She is the 66th United States Secretary of States, and the first black women, the second African American, and the second woman to serve as Secretary of States. She is not a common smart woman. She has influential power in America, and the world. Actually, she also serves the states as 20th United States National Security Adviser. After I got these, I could understand why her article was chosen as the cover story of FOREIGN AFFAIRS.
Actually, I had not had any concept of the world affairs. I had got lots of interest in the world affairs but I hadn't known what can I start with. Actually, this article was rather difficult to understand as beginner, but it covered what I've wondered about. So it encouraged me to keep reading this article and organizing the new concepts that I got newly.
"What is the national interest?"
Rice starts this article with this simple question, but truly, it's not that simple. But the answer in her mind is getting clear whenever I turn a page.
As most people agree, she also agrees that September 11 is the biggest turning point. Since then, two aspects of change has been emerging. One is that has not changed and another is that has changed.
"What has not changed is that United States' relation with traditional and emerging great powers still matter to the successful conduct of policy."
"What has changed is, most broadly, how we view the relationship between the dynamics within state and the distribution of power among them."
Indicating these two aspects of change, she insists U.S. has responsibility to take care of states those too weak or poorly governed and don't have enough power, especially Afghanistan and Iraq. (Actually I started to feel uncomfortable after I read this thought. I guessed what she wanted to say was America's political power throughout of the world. I can't deny, but I can't be comfortable, either.)
Great Power, old and new.
: Russia, China, India, Brazil.
This chapter covers the relationship between U.S. and these states. These states belong the side that doesn't have a same value as America ; Especially the value of democracy.)
1. Russia
3. India
And she says United States has a vital interest in the success and prosperity of these and other large multiethnic democracies.
Shared values and shared responsibility.
: Canada, Mexico, Colombia, Brazil, Chile, Europe, Australia, Southeast Asia with Japan, South Korea, Africa(Ghana, Liberia, Mali, Mozambique, etc)
There are a lot of states who already share almost same value with U.S. And Rice insists that with those countries, U.S. should cooperate and this cooperation should be judged by the work they do together to defeat terrorism and extremism, meet global challenges, defend human right and dignity and support new democracies, not just only be judged by how they related to one another.
And she points South Korea here.
"South Korea has become a global partner whose history can boast an inspiring journey from poverty and dictatorship to democracy and prosperity."
As South Korean, I can't deny an importance of cooperation with United States. Literally almost all of our identities are influenced by United States'. ; Policy, Culture, Economy, etc.
A democratic model of development.
: Columbia, Lebanon, Liberia, Afghanistan.
She says that U.S. has power to enhance th peaceful political and economic development of weak and poorly governed states. She insists that U.S. must be willing to use her power for this purpose. She points out that U.S. hasn't had strong willing for this. (even though many others have thought U.S. already has used her power too much, include me.)
She also says that it is increasingly clear that the practices and institutions of democracy are essential to the creation of sustained, broad-based economic development - and that market - driven development is essential to the consolidation of democracy.
(As she says, I also agree we can't separate democratic with economic issue. )
She also says democratic development is also the best way to ensure that these benefits are shared justly across entire societies, without exclusion, repression, or violence.
So she insists promoting democratic development must remain a top priority of U.S. But thankfully, she agrees that democracy cannot be imposed, particularly by a foreign power. But she insists that it is strongly in United States' interest to help sustain weak state's leader, support their countries' democratic institutions, and ensure that their new governments are capable of providing for their own security, especially when their nation have experienced crippling conflicts.
United States has recently built long tern partnership based on mutual responsibility and integration of her power(political, diplomatic, economic, and military) with Colombia, Lebanon, and Liberia. Now U.S. thinks that U.S. must now build such partnership with Afghanistan.
In Afghanistan, conflict between the Taliban and the new Afghan government is still severe. We all know that Afghan people has suffered from this conflict.
Here is my question. She says that Afghan people do not want U.S. to leave until U.S. has accomplished their common mission in Afghanistan. I think it's totally "Believe or Not." I really wonder the true of Afghan people's thought and feeling of U.S. I've thought themselves as sacrifices of war between U.S. and Afghan. Anyway, she is believing this way.
She also insists that one of the best ways to support the growth of democratic institution and civil society is to expend free and fair trade and investment. FTA was ans is a big issue in Korea. The government finally agreed FTA but many Koreans are still resisting about it. I want to know more about FTA. But the clear fact is we couldn't deny United States' power and we wouldn't deny it. I'm sorry to say this, "We can't help it. "
The changing Middle East.
In Middle East, al Qaeda is the best-organized political forces, more straightly, extremist group. Since September 11, a relationship between U.S. and Middle East has been more complex than before. But Rice tries to see bright side, saying that "the situation is not that really worse than before." Truly, there were severe problems such as Lebanon's suffering under the Syrian occupation.
After she tried to see bright side, she says that U.S. should increase their interest toward this area to get their ideal : freedom, human right, open markets, democracy, and the rule of law, even though it will be a difficult generational task.
Here are the questions Middle East are searching now for answers. Rice mentions these questions to think what U.S. should consider.
Anyway, she says these answers cam come only from within the Middle East but U.S. has responsible to support and shape these difficult processes of change and to help the nation of the region overcome several major challenges to their emergence as modern, democratic states. Ans she mentions three challenges to do this work.
But I wonder whether U.S. has really used peaceful way.
But I start to wonder again that why she believes her nation's nuclear weapon or technology would not be a grave threat to international peace and security.
Anyway she is adding this sympathetic sentences ; "But there is also another Iran. It is the land of a great culture and a great people, who suffer under repression." She insists that the Iranian people deserve to be integrated into the international system, to travel freely and be educated in the best universities.
After that, she asserts Iran must make a strategic choice about how and to what end it will wield its power and influence and should also know that the United States will defends and its interests vigorously until the day that change comes.
Finally, Iraq is appeared in her article. She says the Iraqi people's struggle to build a democracy after the fall of Saddam Hussein is shifting the landscape of the broader Middle East. Even though the cost of war for Americans and Iraqis has been greater than they ever imagined, she believe removing Saddam from power was right decision because she is sure that Saddam was ready and willing to reconstitute his weapons of mass destruction programs as soon as international pressure had dissipated. I absolutely wonder what made her to be sure. Anyway she enforces her insistence with this sentence.
"The U.S. overthrow Saddam to remove a long-standing threat to international security."
A uniquely American realism.
She finally tries to make a conclusion. She believes that the U.S. possesses the unique ability to assimilate new citizens of every race, religion, and culture into the fabric of her nation and economic life. She claims what the United States must keep is will to help weak and poorly functioning states.
She shows her pride of her nation's power and value, not because of these being, but their marrying. She believes that marring power and value of U.S. has helped U.S. to help friends and allies to expend the boundaries of what most thought realistic.
She called this disposition of United States' as her uniquely American realism, adding this humble messages ; "Our uniquely American realism also makes us deeply patient. We support democracy not because we think ourselves perfect but because we know ourselves to be deeply imperfect." It's irony.
I tried to summarize this article and to judge it by myself. Both of these were so difficult. Because, as I said before, this political concept was quite new to me. But I believe if I keep trying to read and think about political issues, I will have my own opinion toward and get an insight.
But at least,as the first traveler of U.S. political world, I could experience United States Kingdom. Yes. It is the kingdom. It truly is the kingdom of democracy and tries to conquer the whole world with a weapon named democracy. Actually, I like democracy. I can't imagine communism society and I even don't want to put my self at the communism side. But Rice's opinion was so strong. It has clear color. So it makes me to think and question what democracy really is. It is good stimulation.
Even though I've been keeping this skepticism, I've got what I want learn more forward.
1. Differences between Democratic and Republic.
2. The other point of view of 9/11.
3. The relationship between Afghanistan with United States.
4. The relationship between Afghanistan with Iraq.
After I read
"Rethinking the National Interest" by Condoleezza Rice.
Before I started this blogging, I searched who Condoleezza Rice is.
She is a famous feature as I've expected . She is the 66th United States Secretary of States, and the first black women, the second African American, and the second woman to serve as Secretary of States. She is not a common smart woman. She has influential power in America, and the world. Actually, she also serves the states as 20th United States National Security Adviser. After I got these, I could understand why her article was chosen as the cover story of FOREIGN AFFAIRS.
Actually, I had not had any concept of the world affairs. I had got lots of interest in the world affairs but I hadn't known what can I start with. Actually, this article was rather difficult to understand as beginner, but it covered what I've wondered about. So it encouraged me to keep reading this article and organizing the new concepts that I got newly.
Rethinking the National Interest
American Realism for a New World
American Realism for a New World
"What is the national interest?"
Rice starts this article with this simple question, but truly, it's not that simple. But the answer in her mind is getting clear whenever I turn a page.
As most people agree, she also agrees that September 11 is the biggest turning point. Since then, two aspects of change has been emerging. One is that has not changed and another is that has changed.
"What has not changed is that United States' relation with traditional and emerging great powers still matter to the successful conduct of policy."
"What has changed is, most broadly, how we view the relationship between the dynamics within state and the distribution of power among them."
Indicating these two aspects of change, she insists U.S. has responsibility to take care of states those too weak or poorly governed and don't have enough power, especially Afghanistan and Iraq. (Actually I started to feel uncomfortable after I read this thought. I guessed what she wanted to say was America's political power throughout of the world. I can't deny, but I can't be comfortable, either.)
Great Power, old and new.
: Russia, China, India, Brazil.
This chapter covers the relationship between U.S. and these states. These states belong the side that doesn't have a same value as America ; Especially the value of democracy.)
1. Russia
- United States' relationship with Russia has been rooted more in common interests than common values.
- Now Russians enjoys greater opportunity and personal freedom than at almost any other time in their country.
- Russia is great power & Russia is the land and culture of a great people. Their technological and economical development define their greatness in the 21 C.
- So, even though the bitter memories of relationship between U.S. and Russian, they could have been keeping the balance.
- United States' relationship with China also has been rooted more in common interest than common values.
- She mentions that China has not used their power responsibly and it has caused United States has been challenged. But she also mentioned that China's leader incresinglly realize the necessary of responsible.
- Transnational terrorism
- Proliferation of weapon
- Climate change
- Instability stemming from poverty and disease
3. India
- "This democratic nation promises to become a global power and an ally in shaping an international order rooted in freedom and the rule of law."
- Brazil has also success at using democracy and market
And she says United States has a vital interest in the success and prosperity of these and other large multiethnic democracies.
Shared values and shared responsibility.
: Canada, Mexico, Colombia, Brazil, Chile, Europe, Australia, Southeast Asia with Japan, South Korea, Africa(Ghana, Liberia, Mali, Mozambique, etc)
There are a lot of states who already share almost same value with U.S. And Rice insists that with those countries, U.S. should cooperate and this cooperation should be judged by the work they do together to defeat terrorism and extremism, meet global challenges, defend human right and dignity and support new democracies, not just only be judged by how they related to one another.
And she points South Korea here.
"South Korea has become a global partner whose history can boast an inspiring journey from poverty and dictatorship to democracy and prosperity."
As South Korean, I can't deny an importance of cooperation with United States. Literally almost all of our identities are influenced by United States'. ; Policy, Culture, Economy, etc.
A democratic model of development.
: Columbia, Lebanon, Liberia, Afghanistan.
She says that U.S. has power to enhance th peaceful political and economic development of weak and poorly governed states. She insists that U.S. must be willing to use her power for this purpose. She points out that U.S. hasn't had strong willing for this. (even though many others have thought U.S. already has used her power too much, include me.)
She also says that it is increasingly clear that the practices and institutions of democracy are essential to the creation of sustained, broad-based economic development - and that market - driven development is essential to the consolidation of democracy.
(As she says, I also agree we can't separate democratic with economic issue. )
She also says democratic development is also the best way to ensure that these benefits are shared justly across entire societies, without exclusion, repression, or violence.
So she insists promoting democratic development must remain a top priority of U.S. But thankfully, she agrees that democracy cannot be imposed, particularly by a foreign power. But she insists that it is strongly in United States' interest to help sustain weak state's leader, support their countries' democratic institutions, and ensure that their new governments are capable of providing for their own security, especially when their nation have experienced crippling conflicts.
United States has recently built long tern partnership based on mutual responsibility and integration of her power(political, diplomatic, economic, and military) with Colombia, Lebanon, and Liberia. Now U.S. thinks that U.S. must now build such partnership with Afghanistan.
In Afghanistan, conflict between the Taliban and the new Afghan government is still severe. We all know that Afghan people has suffered from this conflict.
Here is my question. She says that Afghan people do not want U.S. to leave until U.S. has accomplished their common mission in Afghanistan. I think it's totally "Believe or Not." I really wonder the true of Afghan people's thought and feeling of U.S. I've thought themselves as sacrifices of war between U.S. and Afghan. Anyway, she is believing this way.
She also insists that one of the best ways to support the growth of democratic institution and civil society is to expend free and fair trade and investment. FTA was ans is a big issue in Korea. The government finally agreed FTA but many Koreans are still resisting about it. I want to know more about FTA. But the clear fact is we couldn't deny United States' power and we wouldn't deny it. I'm sorry to say this, "We can't help it. "
The changing Middle East.
In Middle East, al Qaeda is the best-organized political forces, more straightly, extremist group. Since September 11, a relationship between U.S. and Middle East has been more complex than before. But Rice tries to see bright side, saying that "the situation is not that really worse than before." Truly, there were severe problems such as Lebanon's suffering under the Syrian occupation.
After she tried to see bright side, she says that U.S. should increase their interest toward this area to get their ideal : freedom, human right, open markets, democracy, and the rule of law, even though it will be a difficult generational task.
Here are the questions Middle East are searching now for answers. Rice mentions these questions to think what U.S. should consider.
- What are to be the limit on the state's use of power, both within and beyond its borders?
- What will be the role of the state in the lines of its citizens and the relationship between religion and politics?
- How will traditional values and mores be reconciled with the democratic promise of individual rights and liberty, particularly for women and girls?
- How is religious and ethnic diversity to be accommodated in fragile political institution when people tend to hold on to traditional associations?
Anyway, she says these answers cam come only from within the Middle East but U.S. has responsible to support and shape these difficult processes of change and to help the nation of the region overcome several major challenges to their emergence as modern, democratic states. Ans she mentions three challenges to do this work.
- "The fist challenge is the global ideology of violent Islamist extremism, such as al Qaeda, that throughly reject the basic tenets of modern politics, seeking instead to topple sovereign states, erase national borders, and restore the imperial structure of the ancient caliphate."
But I wonder whether U.S. has really used peaceful way.
- "A second challenge to the emergence of a better Middle East is posed by aggressive states that seek not to peacefully reform the present regional order but to alter it using any form of violence - assassination, intimidation, terrorism."
- "The real question is, what land of influence will these states wield - and to what ends, constructive or destructive?"
But I start to wonder again that why she believes her nation's nuclear weapon or technology would not be a grave threat to international peace and security.
Anyway she is adding this sympathetic sentences ; "But there is also another Iran. It is the land of a great culture and a great people, who suffer under repression." She insists that the Iranian people deserve to be integrated into the international system, to travel freely and be educated in the best universities.
After that, she asserts Iran must make a strategic choice about how and to what end it will wield its power and influence and should also know that the United States will defends and its interests vigorously until the day that change comes.
- "A their challenge is finding a way to resolve long-standing conflicts, particularly tha between the Israelis and the Palestinians."
Finally, Iraq is appeared in her article. She says the Iraqi people's struggle to build a democracy after the fall of Saddam Hussein is shifting the landscape of the broader Middle East. Even though the cost of war for Americans and Iraqis has been greater than they ever imagined, she believe removing Saddam from power was right decision because she is sure that Saddam was ready and willing to reconstitute his weapons of mass destruction programs as soon as international pressure had dissipated. I absolutely wonder what made her to be sure. Anyway she enforces her insistence with this sentence.
"The U.S. overthrow Saddam to remove a long-standing threat to international security."
A uniquely American realism.
She finally tries to make a conclusion. She believes that the U.S. possesses the unique ability to assimilate new citizens of every race, religion, and culture into the fabric of her nation and economic life. She claims what the United States must keep is will to help weak and poorly functioning states.
She shows her pride of her nation's power and value, not because of these being, but their marrying. She believes that marring power and value of U.S. has helped U.S. to help friends and allies to expend the boundaries of what most thought realistic.
She called this disposition of United States' as her uniquely American realism, adding this humble messages ; "Our uniquely American realism also makes us deeply patient. We support democracy not because we think ourselves perfect but because we know ourselves to be deeply imperfect." It's irony.
I tried to summarize this article and to judge it by myself. Both of these were so difficult. Because, as I said before, this political concept was quite new to me. But I believe if I keep trying to read and think about political issues, I will have my own opinion toward and get an insight.
But at least,as the first traveler of U.S. political world, I could experience United States Kingdom. Yes. It is the kingdom. It truly is the kingdom of democracy and tries to conquer the whole world with a weapon named democracy. Actually, I like democracy. I can't imagine communism society and I even don't want to put my self at the communism side. But Rice's opinion was so strong. It has clear color. So it makes me to think and question what democracy really is. It is good stimulation.
Even though I've been keeping this skepticism, I've got what I want learn more forward.
1. Differences between Democratic and Republic.
2. The other point of view of 9/11.
3. The relationship between Afghanistan with United States.
4. The relationship between Afghanistan with Iraq.
After I read
"Rethinking the National Interest" by Condoleezza Rice.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
