www.ErikSvane.com

The bilingual weblog that dares to go
beyond "ideas" and "opinions"
to see what lies hidden underneath

Lincoln and His Vision

When the leadership of Malaysia, China, Singapore, Burma, Indonesia, Vietnam, [Iraq, Afghanistan, Iran, Syria,] et al speak out against democracy for their peoples, they propound racial, cultural, and economical arguments that are intelligent and make sense. But they have this in common: none of those leaders thinks of asking the disfranchised common citizen for his opinion.

In the 19th century, many people favored slavery in America, citing ostensibly sound racial, economical, and religious arguments, which concluded that slavery was "good" for the black man. Abraham Lincoln readily acknowledged the sound reasoning in several of his speeches. But then he noted the fact that — for some strange reason — those who spoke in favor of slavery always happened to be the masters. They were never the slaves themselves.

Whether they concern America of yesteryear or Asia of today, whether they describe "real" slavery or another type of vassalage (although jailed dissidents Harry Wu and Wei Jingsheng would hardly agree the Chinese type is milder), Lincoln's words ring as true as ever:

As a good thing, slavery is strikingly peculiar, in this, that it is the only good thing which no man ever seeks the good of, for himself.

Published: "Slaves Aren't Asked"
International Herald Tribune
# 35291, 16 August 1996, p 7

"What No Man Seeks for Himself"
The Washington Post
21 August 1996, p A24

Father Abraham's Words Alive Today

[Letter to Foreign Affairs, February 11, 1997]

I have found that in politics there are few situations in which a Lincoln quote cannot be applied. Consider the following statement in light of your November/December 1996 (Vol 75 # 6) issue devoted to the advantages or lack thereof of democracy in other cultures, notably in Asia.

The basic conflict among human beings, the future president said in the 1850s, is and has always been

the eternal struggle between these two principles — right and wrong — throughout the world. They are the two principles that have stood face to face from the beginning of time; and will ever continue to struggle. The one is the common right of humanity and the other the divine right of kings. It is the same principle in whatever shape it develops itself. It is the same spirit that says, "You work and toil and earn bread, and I'll eat it." No matter in what shape it comes, whether from the mouth of a king who seeks to bestride the people of his own nation and live by the fruit of their labor, or from one race of men as an apology for enslaving another race, it is the same tyrannical principle.

When the leadership of China, Vietnam, Singapore, Burma, Iran, Congo, [Iraq, Afghanistan, Syria,] et al speak out against democracy for their peoples, they propound racial, cultural, and economic arguments that sound intelligent and make sense. But they have this in common: none of those leaders thinks of asking the disfranchised common citizen for his opinion.

Ask the average person in China, Zaire, or the Arab countries whether, like his country's political, spiritual, and business leaders — i.e., the nomenklatura, the people in power — he also thinks that a body of personal liberties on the western model (open elections, free speech, civil rights, etc) is a thing his country and people can do without, and — provided the secret police isn't listening — the odds are that the answer would be quite different.

In the 19th century, many people favored slavery in America, citing ostensibly sound racial, economic, and religious arguments, which concluded that slavery was "good" for the black man. Lincoln readily acknowledged the sound reasoning in several of his speeches. But then he noted the fact that — for some strange reason — those who spoke in favor of black slavery always happened to be white and they somehow always were the masters. They were never the slaves themselves.

Whether they concern America of yesteryear or Asia of today, whether they describe "real" slavery or any other type of vassalage (although dissidents Harry Wu and Wei Jingsheng would hardly agree the Chinese type is milder), Lincoln's words ring as true as ever:

As a good thing, slavery is strikingly peculiar, in this, that it is the only good thing which no man ever seeks the good of, for himself.

And in case any ambiguity remains, on another occasion (less than a month in fact before his assassination) the 16th president put it even more clearly:

Whenever I hear any one arguing for slavery I feel a strong impulse to see it tried on him personally.

In his earlier house divided speech, Lincoln predicted that America could not endure, permanently half slave and half free. It would have to, he said, become all the one or all the other. Today, that prophecy about one people in one country has expanded to envelop all of humanity on the entire planet. Let us be grateful that this has been understood from places as varied as Russia, Poland, and Romania to Sierra Leone, Ghana, and South Africa in passing by Japan, South Korea, and Taiwan.

February 11, 1997 [unpublished
(to the best of my knowledge)]

Let Nothing Break 'Our Bonds of Affection'

The potential implosion of Canada is saddening. Its quarter-century of squabbles reminds me of the 40-year-long feud between North and South in the United States over slavery, because, in the end, neither section wanted to compromise with the other. The difference between nineteenth-century America and modern-day Canada is that the sources of conflict in the latter case appear infinitely less significant. Don't Canadians realize that the best agreement is not the one that satisfies everybody, but the one in which no one is satisfied, thereby demonstrating that each party has made a sacrifice to the other?

I would ask that Canadians, whatever their language and persuasion, consider Abraham Lincoln's first inaugural address, urging compromise by North and South:

Physically speaking, we cannot separate. We cannot remove our respective sections from each other, nor build an impassable wall between them .... Is it possible [to make contact] more advantageous, or more satisfactory, after separation than before? Can aliens make treaties easier than friends can make laws? Can treaties be more faithfully enforced between aliens, than laws can among friends? .... If it were admitted that you who are dissatisfied, hold the right side in the dispute, there still is no single good reason for precipitate action .... We are not enemies, but friends. We must not be enemies. Though passion may have strained, it must not break our bonds of affection.

Published: "Secession Then and Now"
International Herald Tribune # 34124,
13 November 1992, p 7

"Let nothing break 'our bonds of affection'"
The Globe and Mail 25 October 1995, p A17

All the One Thing or All the Other

Some 130 years ago, Abraham Lincoln predicted that America could not endure permanently half slave and half free. It would have to, he said, become all the one thing or all the other. Today, that prophecy about one country has expanded to envelop the entire planet. It is to the credit of the U.S.S.R. and Eastern Europe that many of their leaders have come to understand this and have opted for freedom rather than the continued practice of their form of slavery.

"Collapse of Communism"
U.S. News & World Report
Vol 108 # 4, 29 January 1990, p 4

Criminal Blackmail

Some people have castigated NATO for being, however much indirectly, responsible for the humanitarian tragedy in Kosovo, saying that the alliance's attacks precipitated the exodus and the brutality being visited upon the Kosovar Albanians. For Slobodan Milosevic to do that is akin, to paraphrase Abraham Lincoln, to a murderer holding a gun to somebody's head and saying if we don't do as he says, he will shoot his hostage, and then, he warns us, we will be called the assassin. What is even more astonishing is that there are people in the West who take at face value what is nothing less than criminal blackmail.

As far as the Serbs' misinformation campaign is concerned, we should recall that during World War II, a massive effort was undertaken by the allies to provide occupied Europe with accurate news reports countering the Nazis' crude propaganda. Can't NATO do the same in the Balkans, which would include bombarding TV sets in every Yugoslav home with images of the Kosovar exodus and of weeping refugees telling of the thefts, massacres, and ethnic cleansing perpetrated upon them by Serbian troops? And while NATO is at it, couldn't they add footage from the conflict of the early 1990s, focusing on the destruction of Sarajevo and the mass graves throughout Bosnia?

"Responsible NATO"
The Economist
Vol 351 # 8117
1 May 1999, p 6

Soviets Repent

Apparently, Mikhail Gorbachev thinks that "uncovering the dark spots of Soviet history" means acknowleging past "mistakes" and letting it stand at that. This is a step in the right direction, of course, but an empty-hearted one if it only involves talk. It must also be necessary to make amends. In the case of the 1940 Katyn Forest massacre, it is not sufficient that the Soviet Union admit responsibility for the slaughter of Polish officers, it must also, at the very least, pay reparations to the victims' families. As far as the annexation of the Baltic republics is concerned, admitting the illegality of the 1939 Ribbentrop-Molotov pact is not enough, it must also take the next logical step and let the Baltics recover their prewar independence.

Mr. Gorbachev has warned that unless he, i.e., the Kremlin, takes drastic measures, nationalistic-minded individuals will cause a major internal conflict. President Gorbachev, it is in your hands and not in those of your dissatisfied countrymen that lies the momentous issue of civil war. You can have no conflict without being yourself the aggressor. The people will not assail you. They only wish to be left in peace. They are but men and women who have faith that might makes right; who believe that what is decided by the ballot should not be reversed by the sword; and who fervently hope that the peoples in the U.S.S.R. shall have a new birth of freedom.

"Soviets Repent"
Wall Street Journal
Vol 9 # 9, 12 February 1991, p 9