Conflict for the Good of Change

Privet vsem!

Reading the Sunday papers this morning I was once again struck by the volatility shaking much of the world today. Of course, one could argue that there's never been a time when the world hasn't been riven by conflict--both petty and catastrophic. As humans, we seem to thrive on it. If we don't have enough drama in our lives we seek it out on television, in our relationships with friends, family, co-workers, in the daily news... But some conflict is good. Some conflict is necessary. Conflict is what forces and drives change...for better and for worse, though ideally it is for the better.

Take, for example, the top story in today's New York Times. The main headline reads: "Libya's Civilian Toll, Denied by NATO: Scores of Unintended Casualties, and a Reluctance to Investigate." It seems that while NATO was helping to bomb the hell out of Qaddafi's loyalist forces on behalf of the rebels, NATO pilots made egregious errors that resulted in anywhere from 40 to 70 civilian deaths, in some instances, wiping out whole families. Granted, there was at least one case where Qadaffi's top brass deliberately met in civilian areas and this is an area of the world where civilians have been used more often that anyone would care to admit as human shields: just look at the staggering number of civilian deaths in the Iran-Iraq War. A margin of error is to be expected. And while no one likes to read about innocent people being slaughtered in the name of a good cause (as I believe the overthrow of Qadaffi and his family to have been), collateral damage is almost unavoidable. It remains to be seen what the outcome in Libya will be, what with reports of rival rebel groups shooting it out in the streets of Tripoli while U.S. Defense Secretary Leon Panetta met with Libya's interim government (which also happened to be the first time a U.S. Defense Secretary has ever visited Libya), but hopefully Libya will right itself after surviving for years as a pariah state under Qadaffi. So...out of conflict--fingers crossed--comes good.

In nearby Egypt, Cairo was rocked by yet another day of violence as the military continued to crack down on protestors occupying Tahrir Square and nearby government buildings. While the moral advantage is definitely with the protestors, an article I read today said that many average Cairenes are getting fed up with the upheaval as it increasingly interferes with their daily lives. People can't get to work because of the protests and subsequent government crackdown, and there were reported cases of non-protestors being rounded up and beaten by the military police in a case of merely being in the wrong place at the wrong time. One Egyptian blogger posted a particularly ominous Tweet this morning that said something along the lines of Tahrir Square being eerily quiet and dark tonight, with an impending sense of blood about to be shed soon. But again, we have conflict out of which--judging by the relatively peaceful elections--good is coming.

And then finally in Russia yesterday in an address to the United Russia party, for the first time President Dmitri Medvedev spoke out almost in support of the 50,000 protestors who came out en masse last weekend against the recent fraudulent elections there. Mr. Medvedev said it was time to start listening to the voices of the people on the street, as those voices represented the true desires of the Russian people. Putin, of course, was nowhere to be seen. Could this be a sign of a rift between the top Russian powers-that-be? Medvedev has always come across as a reasonable sort. The question is, if he continues to endorse the protestors, is his job as prime minister once Putin takes over the presidency in jeopardy? But then, maybe that wouldn't be such a change as it's clear Putin has always been top brass despite the job title.

So, we have three scenarios here where conflict has the potential to resolve itself in favor of good. A lot remains to be seen. But I'd like to think the world as a whole is taking a step in the right direction.

Ciao.

QUESTION OF THE DAY: "Is collateral damage to be expected in the pursuit of positive change? Why or why not?"