The 21st century needs for new type of political figures
For the beginning, let’s cite the recent speeches of the two world leaders.
Barack Obama, a message to the Congress, January 20. “I believe in a smarter kind of American leadership. We lead best when we combine military power with strong diplomacy… we don’t let our fears blind us to the opportunities that this new century presents… In Iraq and Syria, American leadership – including our military power – is stopping ISIL’s advance (“the Islamic state of Iraq and the Levant”). Instead of getting dragged into another ground war in the Middle East, we are leading a broad coalition, including Arab nations, to degrade and ultimately destroy this terrorist group,” Obama said, explaining that his country may have air attacks where and when he wants without guaranteeing any positive result.”
Vladimir Putin, a speech at the Security Council meeting, January 23. “Ukrainian authorities are using artillery, multiple rocket launchers and aircraft, in fact, indiscriminately and directly at densely populated areas…. The responsibility is borne by those who issue such criminal orders. The people who do this should know that there is no other way to solve such conflicts but through peace negotiations and political means,” said Putin, explaining the attack of his sponsored “Donetsk” army on Mariupol.
Read also
Translated from political-diplomatic language, these two citation mean, “We will continue conducting war in the territories “trusted to us”, without considering the national interests of our countries, nor the right of the people residing in these territories to live. Conducting and instigating wars in different countries around the world, we eventually are fighting against each other to prove who is stronger and leading.” Unlike some commentators, I do not think that these people are crazy. It seems to me that they simply cannot but to fulfill the will of the forces standing above them. Rather, I think that these forces are crazy because their only motivation to provoke fires is the money. (A couple of pennies, of course, is reached to the “world leaders”).
What is the threat of this and the wars in general? They leave a terrible trace in people’s memory. Imagine, pro-Russian rebels are disarmed in Donetsk, and the territories are passed to Kiev, under its complete control. How is the Russian-speaking population going to live there? If not for the pressure, won’t they suffer in the atmosphere of fear and mistrust? Suppose that the war in Iraq and Syria ended, who are Kurds, Yezidis, Alawites, Christians, Shiites and Sunnis going to live with each other? Such a wound is caused to people for the sake of oil, gold or other minerals that several generations will be required to assuage them.
It seems to me that the 21st century needs for new types of global and non-global leaders, generally, political figures. They must be carriers of high spiritual values. I know that you smile on reading this, but we had such figures in the 20th century: Gandhi, Havel, Mandela, and Sakharov. Only people with such inner strength can resist the real insane men who think entirely by the categories of money. What can make this big-and-small leaders changed or cede their places to statesmen with other mindset? Naturally, their peoples’ pressure. But, so far, the signs for it are seen, most of these peoples’ brains are washed with false ideas.
Aram ABRAHAMYAN
