|
Archived Articles
Simeon Mitropolitski is a Canadian analyst, of Bulgarian origin, and a former syndicated columnist with the Bulgarian News Agency (BTA). He is the author of several hundred articles dealing with hot political and economic topics, both national and international.
He was part of the first group of Bulgarian intellectuals and students that began the opposition movement that finally put an end to the communist regime in this country in 1989, and in 1996-1997 participated in international observation teams during the elections in several Balkan countries - Romania, Albania and Bulgaria.
In 2002 Simeon and his family moved from Bulgaria to Canada where they live now in Montreal, province of Quebec. Simeon is a Master of Political Science from McGill University and a B.A. of Political Science and History.
Global Real Estate Project
|
 |
What for? What against? Remembering 9/11Foiled plot to blow many passenger planes, gruesome way for Al-Qaeda to commemorate its deeds of 9/11, is just a reminder we live in a world where we still don't understand the logic of all new events. Perhaps one day, I hope it'll come during my lifetime, we'll be able to look back and make sense of our present. Instead of political gurus and journalists our today's concerns will preoccupy only historians and social scientists. To have this cumulative knowledge however we need to start investigating right now. Without such initial examination now there will be no better knowledge tomorrow. Perhaps the knowledge of what's happening is our best chance that there will be any tomorrow to speak of.
What for? What against?There was a popular U.S. documentary made during the initial stages of World War II, named 'Why We Fight?' produced by Frank Capra. Partly with some naiveté but always with great conviction this movie series shows the public who's the real enemy and why he should be fought. Making enemy usually requires oversimplification of reality. I doubt however that any country could wage a successful war without turning ordinary people into enemies.If the West is at war, many rather prefer thinking that only the U.S. administration is at war, then we must understand what we are fighting for. More than that, we must understand what our enemies are fighting for. Without these basic notions it may be that our positions aren't so contradicting each other, and some may even say we've fallen into some sort of miscommunication. Is there then a place for coexistence after all, between the West and those who fight against it?
Values against interestsThere are at least two but mutually not completely excluding concepts about what this world war is fought for. According to one of them, we fight because at stakes are our core values, our democratic principles, our norms, our way of life in short. According to the second, the values have nothing to do with the war; it's about interests, about power, about money, and about oil. Democratic values aren't at stake, all our enemies want is to have fairer share of what we have, power, money, and oil. Thus we are accordingly either fighting for our ideals, or only protecting our egoist interests. Even when this war is over I doubt we'll have a definitive answer on this principle point. It has been almost two decades since the end of the Cold War, and western historians still discuss who started it and why in late 1940s. Thus the coming victory, hopefully for the West, won't necessary solve the question about why we fight, and why our enemies fight us.
Values and interestsMy understanding is that at the beginning of the war the point of discord was about interests and only gradually the field of battle had shifted toward some core values as ultimate frontline for protecting the one or another side's interests. Now it's too late to signal retreat without this being considered as capitulation. The stakes have become too high, almost like during the Cold War. It isn't now just who'll take control over territories, money or oil, it's as if at stake is the fate of the West and Islam.In this war the odds are on the side the West. Surprisingly enough this has nothing to do with its stronger economy, newest technologies, and better-trained military. As we can see the war against the West can be successfully fought with many low-tech weapons. It was then illustrated in the jungles of Vietnam; it's now illustrated in the deserts of Afghanistan. The strongest weapon the West has is its immunity against the absolute truth. This was the weapon it employed fighting consecutively against the Catholic Church, against the fascism, and against the communism. After so many centuries of ideological wars the West can handle yet another enemy claiming absolute truth. After the war is over this new enemy won't be an enemy anymore.
|
See also:
