|
Interview with Akram Elias, Febrary 27, 2003
We met with Akram the morning after he provided the Arabic translation of President Bush's speech addressed to the American Enterprise Institute. Akram's translation to the Arab world was simultaneous. A pretty heady experience to be speaking the President's words to such a volatile part of the world.
We began by reviewing parts of the speech, especially that it was necessary to disarm Hussein because WMD just don't belong in that part of the world and addressed the misconception that we occupy lands that we liberate. We enumerated countries such as Japan, Germany, France where we liberated the people but only requested for the United States enough soil to bury our fallen soldiers. We also spoke about the UN weapons inspectors and speculated that perhaps their task would have been easier if they were called "verifiers" rather than inspectors.
Peter: Were you given a text of the President's speech beforehand?
Akram: Nope. We usually like have a copy of it at least 15 minutes or a half hour beforehand. However, you know he was speaking at the annual dinner of the American Enterprise Institute and not all networks planned to cover it.
Peter: I suppose the text of his speech depends on the audience he's going to speak to, or more directly to the people who will hear it on TV or radio.
Akram: Some of the networks may have thought, "well, this is a conservative think tank." So, we don't know exactly how these decisions by TV networks are made. I'm not a media expert. C-Span, NBC and ABC covered it live.
Peter: We were at a meeting yesterday. It was the United States Public Diplomacy Advisory Commission being briefed by the State Department. They have an enormous job. Some of the points they touched on were what we were discussing, the UN Inspection team being called the wrong thing. The importance of a turn of phrase.
Akram: Yes, it's important because it sticks in people's minds.
Peter: Exactly, and it pulls along with it all of the associations initially used with it. This must be a fascinating challenge for you doing simultaneous translations; because a literal translation will have certain idiomatic connotations in one language and different connotations in another.
Akram: Absolutely. In fact, this is the reason why there was a vote of 15 to zero at the UN Security Council for Resolution 1441, because they were interpreting it differently. I mean, the United States was interpreting it as the final ultimatum. But, intentionally or otherwise, people were interpreting the Resolution differently.
Peter: We've been reading a book recently that addresses that subject. It addresses the idea of a categorical difference in belief structure that might lead to interpreting the same phrase or word differently. This could certainly apply to politics and foreign policy. This particular piece was by Michael Oakeshott. I don't know if you've read it, but he states that the most significant event in European history was the emergence of the individual and, at the same time, as a sort of counter-balance, the emergence of the anti-individual. And the anti-individual not being so much a throw-back, but representing a reluctance to strive for the rewards that come from successful individuality. This anti-individuality results in the mass man who results in socialist societies or communistic forms of government. It's a fascinating read. It's nice to have large- category concepts like that to evaluate what you were saying about the countries across the Atlantic. There seems to be that type of distinction.
Helen: The question of why we needed to come to a new country to establish a new form of government...
Akram: Maybe in our last interview when I said the word impossible, that may have been too strong a word because what is impossible today might be possible tomorrow. The range of possibilities keeps expanding. However, it was much easier to begin, to start, the Great Experiment in a new world.
This has to do specifically with the concept of the individual. Let me explain, history has a lot to do with this. Europe had to deal for centuries with the concepts of ethnic and religious conflicts; nations constantly struggling with themselves. The ideals of the Enlightenment, which was the 18th century, focused on the individual and the importance of the free man, the free human being. This is where the "Freemason" came into being, in fact it was a vehicle. If you're a free builder, then you are a free thinker, so it is based on the individual. Well, although these ideas came into being, the reality that Europeans had to deal with was the legacy of the past. So at the same time the concept of the individual emerged, so did another concept, which was the concept of the modern state.
But the narrow slice of all this would be to say that the notion of the powerful, centralized state would be the vehicle through which ethnic, religious or even minority groups would be able to transcend their conflicts, by giving allegiance to the State. The higher authority would be the modern State and I guess we can point to individuals such as Bismarck and Napoleon who gave structure to the importance of the State. Well, then the idea of the individual as the core obviously clashed, or there was an unease with the concept of dealing with the State. What the New World offered was the opportunity for those who believed strongly in the idea of the individual to take it somewhere else where they did not have this legacy to deal with. They could start fresh.
Of course, there was a cost. There were Native Americans and all sorts of difficulties to contend with. But from their perspective, it was a chance to start fresh. America was formed by immigrants. Individuals were very important. They still had baggage, but they were willing to leave behind a lot of things and willing to start new. So the focus was on the individual. Think of them even leaving behind family, extended family, friends, their old country; that in itself is a very powerful thing. This is the departure, this is where the country as the United States really took hold. Now, this doesn't mean the idea of the individual died in Europe; absolutely not. But it created a constant state of conflict or tension between the individual and the State. We can see the way the French Revolution and the American Revolution evolved differently, even though they were inspired by the same ideals. Given the realities on the ground they took completely different directions and the American Revolution remained centered on the individual. In the French Revolution, it evolved into the Reign of Terror and then they began to accept, first, the military genius of Napoleon to rid themselves of the Terror, and then he proclaimed himself Emperor and there they were, back where they started! All that because of their history and the way they had to deal with it.
So, it is not easy to engage in the Great Experiment. To me the ideal place is here, and my concern, personally, is not whether we and the Europeans are coming together. The reason that is not very important to me is that I believe there will always be different ways of experimenting with life and society. The world is so diverse and there are so many differences and views that this diversity will always exist. My conclusion is that should always be a place where the individual can experiment with individual growth should always have a safe haven, a place to do his experiment. So my concern is not for the United States to become like everyone else. But on the other hand, I don't mean everyone should become like the United States. What is important is to have the United States be the safe haven, so that regardless where someone is from, Europe, Asia, South Africa, etc., they can quest for their sovereignty. It won't be handed to them, they will have to work hard for it.
Peter: But at least there will be a minimum of restrictions and limitations.
Akram: Right. This is what is happening with the age of Globalization, and the way things have been changing in the world. Some people are saying that America is changing and developing in a way that is becoming closer to the European concept of the State. We're getting more international by following more international rules. Now the European Union is trying on some concepts adopted from the US, such as liberalizing some markets, and it seems we're coming closer . There is nothing wrong with coming closer together, but my concern is with the idea that we should be the same. In my opinion, becoming closer means having more direct dialogue, being able to cooperate and respect the differences we have, but not to adopt the same system.
Helen: Let me ask the question about the ICC, The International Criminal Court. We had watched someone in Europe interview someone from the State Department. The interviewer couldn't understand why we don't just fall in line with everyone else. The interviewer found it terrible that the US thought differently on this idea. Thinking differently becomes "arrogance" in their eyes.
Akram: Yes, we do think differently, and therefore people think differently from us. This is where I think the true spirit of exchange and dialogue should come into play. We should be able to talk to each other and say "look, we're different, perhaps no better or worse than you; on the other hand you're different than us, again perhaps no better or worse than us. We think differently, we operate differently and we have to live together on this planet so let's find ways to minimize conflict without either of us having to change to please the other. Neither of us should have to abdicate their beliefs. So how can we live together?" This is where I think we're failing internationally and there is a reason for that. Change is happening so rapidly and the human mind needs more time to process, to assimilate the changes and to draw lessons. Yet we are not given the time because we're being asked, as humans, as governments, as officials, to make decisions quickly, right now. Timely, immediate. This is the age we live in, everyone wants immediacy.
Helen: Let me put you on the spot. When you say, "I don't believe my systems are any better and yours or yours better than mine," then, why wouldn't you willingly give yours up?
Akram: Well, by introspection, or by whatever means, someone willingly chooses to change their beliefs, that's fine. But the idea is that transformation comes from within and should not be imposed. You can create, and this is what I was talking about earlier, referring to what the US did after WWII, which was to establish a certain set of circumstances, a certain set of criteria which helped the Europeans transform themselves into the types of democracies they wanted to evolve into. They could have gone in completely different directions. But the transformation has to come from within.
I would never impose a belief. And therefore, I wouldn't allow a belief to be imposed on me. Here's where we have a problem with the International system. I am in favor of International Institutions. They are very important. Why? Because they are where nation/states can come together in a civilized manner and try to debate, discuss and minimize conflict and cooperate where they is a need for cooperation. Now, these institutions which the United States played such a key role in establishing, are very important, from a national security interest. Because the more we have rule of law, the more that everyone else adopts certain criteria and standards which are compatible with our own standards, obviously, the better it is for us.
But here is the issue and I don't know if people are really focusing on it. It's that the International System has not been transformed. It has not evolved since it was established, while the world has changed dramatically. Let's take an example here. In our system we have three separate, equal branches of government. The Legislative Branch is very important, it is first among equals; but what do we have in the United Nations? We have the General Assembly and the Security Council which are basically governed by Executive Branches. So we are talking about government officials who are hired to talk about what the Executive Branch wants, and the Executive in the world represent huge differences. Yet each one has one vote. Where is the system of checks and balances in the International System? That has to be re-considered. So, yes, the world is becoming global. The United States is being asked to play an even greater role around the world. Yet, at the same time, people are saying we've got to submit to the same rules and regulations. OK, but we have to re-visit these rules and regulations that all countries should submit to. We have to look at what has worked for a specific period of time, in a specific set of circumstances. The concept of justice and the rule of law is not the same around the world. I'm not saying, therefore, that we should not think about these kind of institutions, but we should seriously start the debate to reform them to serve humanity better.
Helen: Let's talk about the concept of change. Some changes are simple; for instance, if I don't like 'down' I'll change to 'up.' But that's just an oppositional change. What's the difference between change and transformation?
Akram: OK, let's suggest that reform is a separate issue. I do think there is a difference though between change and transformation. Change could be anything. You know, "I'm sick and tired of the job that I'm doing and I feel like changing jobs." There's nothing wrong with that; it's not good or bad. It could be very trivial, it could be instinctive, it could be all kinds of things.
Transformation, on the other hand, is really more of a process and it has an internal dimension. I think transformation comes with wisdom. It is usually the process of internalizing changes that take place that we can perceive, experiences that we have dealt with as individuals. We internalize them, we process the information, the experience, we draw knowledge out of that and, guided by our wisdom, which will differ in intensity and level from one person to another, there is a transformation. We don't see the transformation overnight. It's a gradual process because it's coming out of an internal assimilation.
Peter: Is it fair to say that a change is something you do or something that you react to, and that transformation is something that happens to you? The caterpillar doesn't arbitrarily decide it's going to transform into a butterfly. It's rather running on it's own clock.
Akram: Yes, it's the external versus the internal forces. People change in doing things in the way they dress, in the way they eat, in the way they work, whatever, based on external actions or in reaction to certain stimuli, while transformation is always internally driven. Now, people don't necessarily transform, though. We can change forever without actually transforming.
Helen: In my own thinking, the Great Experiment is a transformation. I think of change as staying on one horizontal plane and moving about on that same plane. Sometimes, when we change by opposition on the same axis, for instance, changing from black to white, we lose all the good stuff inherent in black when we move to white. We become anti- whatever it was we were before; be it smoking, or religious, or any of a number of changes. However, transformation is moving one level up and including more than has ever been thought of before, including all the good things we want to keep from the previous level. It actually becomes a totally new system, or organism or government; or a New Order.
Peter: Transformation would be an integration, or reconciliation of the previous system.
Helen: It's rather difficult, if not impossible, to see transformation beforehand, and also difficult to interact with anyone else as the process is progressing.
Akram: That's true. That's usually what causes conflict.
Peter: If I can jump in for a minute? Transformation is an internal thing. We typically think of transformation as a personal, often a spiritual experience or development, or as a quantum leap in consciousness. Does it make any sense to talk about an organization transforming? Or does it make more sense to talk about changes happening?
Akram: For institutions and organizations it's best to talk of change. As far as I'm concerned institutions are nothing more than the individuals who comprise them. So it's the individuals who are going through the process of transformation. That transformation would reflect itself in actions that would bring about changes in the institutions. The transformation is not abstract in form, it's personal and individual. (Personally, I think it has to do with the Divine Spark which is in each individual.) You know we age, we grow old, and someone can say we change, but that's not transformation to me. That's the evolutionary process of change.
Peter: It's more like the filling out of a pattern.
Akram: Right, and I believe there is a free-will concept with transformation that you don't have with the process of growing and aging physically. Transformation has more to do with the internal process of decision making. By decision making, I mean as an individual. Well, let me take this approach. I close my eyes and try to connect with the Divine Spark that will drive me to transform myself, always trying to become a better person, for example. Becoming a better individual is a conscious process. It's not predictive, it's not because this is the way it has to happen, because it takes a conscious effort.
Helen: You have the free will to stop it. We all have the opportunity to transform, but many of us don't take advantage of it.
Akram: Yes.
Peter: We were recently reading Michael Oakeshott and it seems transformation can only happen to an individual and it doesn't happen to an individual who is a unit of the mass community. It happens to an individual who is responsible, self-consciousness, who is already enjoying making decisions for himself and aspiring for success as an individual.
Akram: Absolutely. I completely agree with that. There is a reason why meditation has always been very important in all beliefs. You don't meditate 'en masse.' You may be in a location where a lot of people are around you and you may be using the same techniques, but you are meditating within yourself. It's really very personal. It reflects itself in actions with others.
Helen: As we said in the first interview, we can think of government as a reflection of the people. Now, within the Great Experiment we've said that we have to deal with the paradox that we are, at the same time, the individual who influences the greater movement that moves toward an evolution in consciousness. So within the framework of the Great Experiment, do you see transformation or change?
Akram: It's always the transformation. It's got to be. Because, the way I look at it, the Great Experiment was based on ideals that came out of Europe as a result of centuries, centuries of thinking, of analysis, of assimilation... you name it, which culminated in the 18th century with the expression of Universal principals. These are very personal and they are based on the individual. They are based on the process of internalization of many individuals over many centuries, and they became the base for this Great Experiment. We got to keep it that way.
Peter: The Experiment was structured to permit as much freedom as possible to take advantage of transformation.
Akram: Well, if you take the word expression, instead of thinking that expression is just talking, if you take the word expression in its fuller meaning, meaning how does one express him or herself ; ie, an artist expresses through his work; in fact we all express ourselves through our work. In other words, the way you are expressing yourself is reflecting your state of personal transformation.
Peter: What is in you is being expressed, unfolded, developed into the world.
Akram: That's why freedom of speech is different than freedom of expression, in my view. Expression is much deeper than speech. My father used to say you don't pay taxes on the words you speak, but if you were to pay taxes you would think twice about the words you speak.
Helen: We've been talking about different viewpoints and let's try to pull them together. Let's look at conflict. I'll bring up Robert Kagan's book, "On Paradise and Power." Let's say we're both in Europe and then I move to America; that's a change. After that change, we might think of ourselves in terms of differences of power, culture, wealth, etc. But we can still understand each other. There is also another way that makes it harder to understand each other. Let's say you're the butterfly and I'm the caterpillar; we still see each other, but as different species, in some sense. I really can't understand you now in any meaningful sense of that word. Plus, if I don't know, or believe, that I have the potential to become a butterfly, I may become envious and fearful of you. How do you feel about this?
Akram: I think that's something we have to face. It is there and it will remain there. I personally believe our country has been endowed, blessed, if you will, and as a result of that there are certain things we ought to do. We should endeavor to transcend, to progress to different ways to handle conflict and, I think, the leadership should come from the United States. We believe we have created a certain environment where people can come to transform themselves.
Let me give you a very practical example. We believe in this country because of the internal transformation that has taken place within its people. Now, people transform differently and by various degrees but there is a general progression because of the open environment we have. It has become sort of contagious over the 200-plus-years of our history. It's contagious and it has spread. We have a generalized belief in this country that we can make a difference and that we can change things. We tend to say, "Well, I don't care if that's the way things are; we can change it; we can make a difference". And in most other places around the world, because of their evolution, there is more of a belief of, "Wait a second. You can't do that. There are too many unknowns, too many things that are unpredictable." It's like this Iraq thing, for example. Most of the world is saying, "What are you talking about? It's complicated. Sure you may win, but then how are you going to deal with the Sunnis, and Kurds and Iran? If you don't know the outcome don't go to war."
Helen: If we don't face the problem we can't have the possibility of a failure, they say.
Peter: Or from what they think is a superior point of view saying, "Look you Americans, you just can't come in here and 'do good.' It's way too complicated; you don't understand. There are ages and ages of tradition and animosity and, if you come in too, it will just be a big mess." I don't hold to that view myself; I believe that we should shape the world.
Akram: Let me tell you something else. Europe was much more complex than Iraq and its neighbors. Europe was the center of the world back then and it was always in conflict with every single one of its neighbors. Yet, the resolve and the commitment of the United States showed, proved... well, if there is a European Union today, it is because the United States laid the foundation, because the United States helped to establish the New Order there, that allowed them to transform themselves.
Peter: The United States after the end of WWII extended the nuclear umbrella over Europe, pulled them out of their own blood and stopped them from drowning and said, "OK, here you are; get yourselves back together again." We dumped billions of dollars on Germany and essentially imposed peace on them, which was relatively easy at the time, because they were virtually dead from killing themselves.
Akram: You know what I think was more important than imposing peace? This is where I think the United States has behaved in a way that has to do with the Great Experiment, the driving force of the Great Experiment. We don't always succeed; sometimes we make mistakes. I'm not telling you we're perfect, but there is a driving force that is very different. This driving force we have is very different because it is the result of that transformation we were talking about. We're human beings that have said we've got to do things differently, do them from a higher level of consciousness. Let me explain what I mean by that, we did not just establish peace. Throughout history countries have conquered and established peace; and to me peace is not the most important thing. To me what makes the Experiment here different is that, in addition to establishing peace, more importantly, we set up mechanisms through which individual nations and cultures where given the opportunity to transform themselves internally. People used to say, "No way can Germany be a democracy, just look at their history! Just forget it; they aren't ready for it and can't do it." The same attitude about the Japanese.
Peter: Yet, here we are.
Akram: What have we done? Well, I believe there are some Universal principles and those have to be internalized, and that process of transformation that will allow countries, nations to evolve into societies in one direction or another. What the United States has done in its leadership of the world has been to create the environment to allow the individuals who are thirsty after this quest to have the opportunity for fulfillment. Not just establish peace, but opportunity.
Helen: What is peace?
Akram: I don't personally like to talk about peace. Peace has all sorts of meanings to different people. For instance, the state of non-conflict might be a state of peace for some people.
Helen: Not always.
Akram: Exactly. For example, if I'm not fighting with my neighbor, it's called peace, but it's simply the absence of conflict. Peace has become void of meaning. Most times when people talk of peace, it's not the peace that Jesus or the Buddha spoke of. Now, unfortunately, we do have to deal with the use of terms, or words. Remember how we started this conversation about the misinterpretation of the word 'inspection'? Remember, "Peace in Our Time"? Well, that was just appeasement.
I strongly believe the United States has a mission, and this is not an expression of superiority or arrogrance; not at all. Let's make that very clear. But I do believe you are judged by what you've been endowed with. This country was started by individuals who were thristy and started a process, established institutions that allowed individuals the opportunity to transform themselves and also allow those institutions to go out there and have the same impact on others.
Helen: Let's move on to democracy and what it looks like in other parts of the world. For instance, people are saying that Afghanistan doesn't really have democracy. They forget it took us eleven years after the Revolution to establish a constitution. Democracy is not something that comes pre-packaged; it's not an appliance to be installed like a dishwasher; it has to evolve. Just as in Afghanistan now, with Kabul and the northern and southern provinces experiencing different ideas, so the colonies each had their own money and laws even after the constitution brought them all together.
Akram: Absolutely. People in our country forget it's a process. We declared our independence in 1776. We really didn't begin the Federal Structure until 1789. Not only that, seventy years later we had a civil war. People forget about that. The civil war was a major war, a very bloody war fought over the interpretation of what the Universal Principles were all about. If you judge Abraham Lincoln on purely objective terms, he was the closest thing we've had in the country to a dictator. But he had to act like that to save the Union. Now, I wonder if Gorbachev had used force to keep the Soviet Union together, what would have happened? But we had a golden, enlightened dictator. Do you see what I'm saying, we were blessed by this. That's why I feel we have a responsibility in the world to lead, not arrogantly, not by rhetoric, but by deeds.
Peter and Helen Evans, "http//peterandhelenevans.com". This husband and wife team - international teachers and authors - teach a philosophical approach to conservatism. They have helped thousands of adults in more than thirty countries realize more of the best of themselves through responsibility.
|
