Fragilecologies

Tag: bin laden

  • “Is ‘the enemy of my enemy Really my friend?’ Diplomats, corporate leaders, among others, don’t believe everything you think.”

    Mickey Glantz. April 8, 2010. Written in Mexico City.

    The phrase “The enemy of my enemy is my friend.” has always captured my attention for some unknown psychological reason. It has been used in military strategy, business affairs, in personal decisions and in many, many types of human interactions. It is one of those social adages that we can find in all societies like “Look before you leap,” “He who hesitates is lost,” and “Time and tide wait for no man”. Every society has such adages, stated in more form or another. To many they serve as “rule of thumb” principles that in a general way are meant to guide one’s behavior.

    “The enemy of my enemy is my friend” is just another one sounds good at first blush. It probably lends itself to being formulated mathematically as a human interactions game in game theory. Maybe that is why it captures my curiosity. I am sure I have used it as a guide in some situations at work and at play. However, I believe it is a flawed consideration or perhaps more correctly an incomplete, “un-thought-out “one.

    Historical evidence does suggest that this is as useful a guide to action as it is to inaction. As a result, one must see it in a more critical light. For example, the enemy of your enemy might not really be a friend in a different situation. Governments make deals with other governments or corporations under this guiding notion, even though they find them or their policies reprehensible. So, they end up having made, as they say, “a pact with the devil.” This is similar to what was said about the British Empire: it had no permanent friends. No permanent enemies; only permanent interests.”

    British trade deals during World War I
    British trade deals during World War I

    Today, the oppressive government of Kyrgyzstan fell to an uprising in the streets. A deal made with the unpopular president to allow for a US base of operation to support the war in Afghanistan is now at risk as a new president appears. The unpopular decision will likely be revoked and the US become less popular at a time it needs all the friends it can get. A similar situation occurred some years ago with our base in Uzbekistan.

    Make any deal with anyone to get what you want, But think about the likely longer term consequences more seriously. What may be true in the short run may turn out to have been a terrible decision in the longer run. Britain’s Chamberlain appeasement of Hitler in the late 1930s obviously failed. US support of bin Laden in Afghanistan against the Soviet invaders in the late 1970s and 1980s is another example. Pakistan’s catering to the Taliban, allowing them to operate from their territory also backfired, as we now see. The Taliban, like the British Empire, has no permanent friends or allies only permanent interests.

    Governments must think about this adage when they seek to make agreements with leaders of failed states, rogue nations, and other moves that they consider strategic but really turn out to be only tactical decisions with no longer term sticking power. The adage must be amended to read as follows: THE ENEMY OF MY ENEMY IS MY FRIEND…BUT ONLY FOR A WHILE. Diplomats, among others, beware of what you are getting into, when you make that pact with the enemy of your enemy. Your reputation as well as the stigma as a result of ‘guilt by association’ will have sticking power and you must live with the adverse consequences that often follow later on.

    I am not the only one I guess who feels this way!
    I am not the only one I guess who feels this way!

  • Is Osama Bin Laden going ‘green’? Mickey Glantz, 1 February 2010

    Associated Press writers (Keath and Nasrawi) reported that Osama bin Laden, the al-Qaida leader, blamed the United States and other industrialized nations for climate change and said the only way to prevent disaster was to break the American economy, calling on the world to boycott U.S. goods and stop using the dollar.

    The AP writers suggested that bin-Laden’s message on climate change was designed to show the world that he and the movement he started were focused only on one issue: destroying America.

    “The effects of global warming have touched every continent. Drought and deserts are spreading, while the other floods and hurricanes unseen before the previous decades have now become frequent,” bin Laden said in his most recent audio recording, aired on the Arab TV network Al-Jazeera.

    The terror leader noted Washington’s rejection of the Kyoto Protocol aimed at reducing greenhouse gases and painted the United States as in the thrall of major corporations that he said “are the true criminals against the global climate” and are to blame for the global economic crisis, driving “tens of millions into poverty and unemployment.” Well, we know that bin Laden does not like the United States and would like to see it pay for all the damages worldwide resulting from its greenhouse gas emissions.

    The above commentary is real. Bin Laden did release an audio tape. He did talk about climate change and about America needing to be challenged for saturating the global atmosphere. But my first reaction was “Who cares what bin Laden thinks about the Earth’s environmental problems?”

    I certainly don’t. I can’t image that many people do. I wonder why the media bothered to even report it. Would the media care what Charles Manson has to say about climate change?

    Why did he do it? It was the first message from bin Laden devoid of mention of support for al Qaida and attacks on the US and its allies. But let’s play along and fantasize about al-Qaida’s attempt to broaden its support by appealing to environmental groups (as if that would work, or environmentalists would want their support).

    Here’s the whimsical (not real) scenario.

    Bin Laden has decided that arresting global warming has become more urgent that dislodging what he sees as America, the evil empire. He calls off the jihad again the USA and Europe. He issues a secret order to al Qaida operatives demanding that they prepare climate change risk disclosures (CCRDs) for their operations. He orders them to reduce their greenhouse gas emissions by 20% by 2015. Al Qaida then is asked to participate in carbon cap and trade and to shift its energy dependence from fossil fuels (including Saudi Arabian oil) to renewable energy sources including solar and wind. He then demands that American engineering concerns provide new clean technologies to al Qaida cells and that the U.S. Treasury pay compensation for global warming related damages that have already occurred.

    Let’s take this tongue-in-cheek scenario a step further: might we soon be hearing headlines like, “bin Laden calls on al Qaida to field a football (soccer) team for FIFA,” or “al Qaida to participate in gymnastics competition at the 2012 Olympics,” or, perhaps, “bin Laden picks Saints to win Super Bowl”?

    More seriously, one has to wonder what prompted Osama bin Laden to speak out on global warming. Does he want to be remembered as a 21st century Gandhi? Is his health failing? Is he seeking to broaden his support among environmentalists? Is he striving for a Nobel Peace Prize? Or, is he feeling neglected?

    Only time will tell what motivated him to talk now about global warming. I think that whatever it was it was more personal and psychological than political.