All Shoock Up

As a nation, we rely on other nations and on other people to better ourselves.

When former president Bill Clinton came to UB last spring, he emphasized that "We live in a world without walls" and that it was our generation's task to live in that world. In doing so, we must, as the most powerful nation on the planet, lead by example and attempt to affect a positive change in the world.

Why? The United States is the single most powerful country in the history of the Earth. It's really no wonder there are those in the U.S. government who do not believe that we need allies or even the consultation of other governments before we act.

The most encouraging part of President George W. Bush's State of the Union Address on Jan. 28 was when he stressed the need for U.S.-sponsored humanitarianism. He made a point of highlighting American goodwill throughout the world; he said we were helping Afghanis educate their boys and girls; he pledged AIDS relief to Africa; and he assured us that we were working to facilitate peace between Israel and Palestine.

In spite of these overtures of "top-down" interdependency, the president, in a Jekyll and Hyde-like performance said, "The course of this nation does not depend on the decisions of others" - a troubling sign for a nation and a globe threatened by maverick states and suicide bombers.

For the good of us all, his first sentiments must be the sincere reflections of our actions to come, building on the steps that we've taken already.

Our nation's military marches off to war soon, and with that, many college students, including UB students and alumni, will be sent to die in far away deserts. What for?

We want to believe the president was being honest when he said we were going to liberate Iraq. We also want to believe that his intention is not to partition that country into corporate oil fields, installing a puppet government loyal more to the United States than to the Iraqi people.

Our task is to free Iraq while bringing Saddam to his own personal Nuremburg, not to put the corporate logo of Texaco on their flag.

Our nation should lead the way in this liberation, but if we are to go, we should not march into the valley of the shadow of death alone. Of course, there will be the British, Canadians and Australians - our traditional, loyal allies - and Bush will be sure to recognize their support.

Yet there have been gestures of many governments indicating a desire to stand beside America in the pursuit of liberty. These countries have seen what American diligence and idealism can bring. Poland, the Czech and Slovak Republics, Italy and others who see their country's freedom from totalitarianism as a gift from the United States. Because of this, we cannot abandon our own legacy in search of the bottom line. Ultimately, this is about responsibility and honor.

Interdependence is not about America saving the world, though. It is about national maturity and fairness. We can buy oil from a liberated Iraq, instead of leasing parcels of that country to the president's greed-minded cronies (see also: Enron).

The next step in becoming a responsible interdependent superpower is going to run counter to the inertia of our government, but is an area of contention the world over.

In this country we pay farmers not to grow and harvest crops to keep prices up for agricultural products. Now, pay those farmers the same subsidies to grow massive numbers of crops and then ship them to the most starving people in the world - including Iraq - for free, no strings attached.

Allow this rosy picture to develop: a well-fed, prosperous and independent nation like Iraq serving as an example to the people next door in countries like Iran and Syria, where oppression is found daily and hunger is constant. Instead of a group of Islamic extremists like Hezbollah, let them seek civic life for meaning.

Two questions should now form: Why should we care? And how are we, the great United States of America, dependent on them?

The answer is simple. Educated people with hope and full stomachs, operating with a mind for liberty, do not become suicide bombers. They do not strap on explosives and walk into markets. They do not go to terror training camps. They instead become doctors, teachers, bankers and diplomats.

The United States must be a mature liberator. Freeing a group of people does not mean they are prohibited from disagreeing with us.

A friend, as Bush must learn, is not someone who always nods his head. A friend sometimes has to give us another way of going about what we do.

France and Germany, long bitter rivals themselves, do not believe that going to war is the best option. Perhaps they do not want to appear as irrelevant on the world stage, so they oppose the "big kid on the block." The psychological motivation almost does not matter. Simply put, they believe that another way must be sought. They are not disloyal for suggesting such an idea. In fact, they should be looked upon as crucial in the decision to go to war. That's another part of interdependence.

Interdependence teaches us that a free-flowing, non-antagonistic exchange of ideas is necessary for the proper functioning of any community.

If we have to act with our men in uniform to achieve these ends, then we had better do it with the best of intentions, because the last, and perhaps most important part about a world with no walls, is that we cannot hide.