Sep 9, 2006 1:55:00 PM cite

Anthony Arnove: I am reminded here of the words of Frederick Douglas about the question of power relinquishing power, which as he said power never concedes its power without a demand, without struggle. Without struggle, he said, there is no progress and if you want to understand the limits of what people will accept, you will understand the limits power will go to subjugate them and repress them. I think that’s true and is particularly true of US power, US state power today that it will take a struggle to confront, to challenge and transform that power. And in that struggle, there will be resistance from those whose power is threatened, those who benefit from the existing system, those who gain from the existing framework of order. They will not peacefully give up their power. There is no example of that. There is no example of people walking away from their power without a struggle. Individuals may do so, individuals may renounce their power, but the power is much deeper in those individuals, it’s institutional, it’s material and it’s deep-rooted, it’s deep-seated. Now, question how that struggle takes place and the extent to which that struggle disrupts, creates violence, unnecessarily takes innocent life is a question of how that struggle is organized. And I believe it’s possible to organize in such a way as to involve the greatest number of people in the participation of the transformation of power that would minimize those effects. But, it is not possible for that to happen effortlessly or gracefully, it will involve conflict, it will involve struggle and it will involve violence inevitably.

by Anthony Arnove

Sep 9, 2006 1:55:00 PM cite

Anuradha Koirala:

by Anuradha Koirala

Sep 9, 2006 1:55:00 PM cite

Anuradha Mittal: Jodie, I think you are the best person to answer this question. I actually think the kind of change that I want and whatever little I know of you, I do know that the change that we want can only happen when it happens gracefully and without taking innocent victims with it. And secondly, the question that you asked “Is there a way for America to lose its standing as the most powerful nation on this planet without disrupting the entire planet,” I think the only way we can save the planet and not disrupt the planet is actually for America to relinquish the power that it has on this planet as a superpower. These unilateral actions that we have seen with the last administration, we know it’s disrupting this planet. So, the only way this planet can survive is not to have the kind of superpowers that we have seen, for example, America to become. And your third question about “Can power ever relinquish power,” I think it’s not for the power to relinquish power; it’s for the people to get the powerful to relinquish the power. The only way empires can be dismantled is by the grass root social movements, by the people who stand up. We are not waiting for the charity of dictators. We do not want benevolent dictators; there can be no dictators.

by Anuradha Mittal

Sep 9, 2006 1:55:00 PM cite

Ashok Gangadean: This question, I think is very timely in this moment of a shift in the culture of the planet, to a culture of global consciousness and mutual respect for all human beings across all of our own borders. And the question of power and relinquishing power, can it be done gracefully, is a real threat and a question at this time. Because in my sense, the drama of the planet, is a profound shift from an old way, an old model of power, an older dysfunctional model as ego-based. Where the ego arrogates to itself ultimate power or whether imputes power to a transcendent God. However sees power, it doesn’t really understand, what the great wisdom traditions have seen to be true power. The power that comes from being an awakened human being that empowers oneself to realize one's connectivity with the ultimate power. The power of reality, the power of truth, the power of the infinite spirit. To be connected with that spirit is true power. So the question is, how can you let go of ego-based power, to cross into true power and true empowerment? That is the question. Can it be done in a non-violent way? Our great teachers have taught us that when we awaken to true power and the higher power, there is a way, non-violently, without deep disruption to let go of the old model of a faulty deformed power, to enter into true power. And that can be true for governments and institutions as well. So the question here, can America, for example, let go of its perception of itself, which I think is ego-based, of being a dominant power on the planet, to giving up that power to become a true America. America that’s integral to the rest of the planet and to other people across all of our borders. That’s the question faced not only by America, but all governments and all regimes and all institutions and all individuals. So I like this question. And I believe that there are non-violent ways of making that power shift from one model to the other. But the question before is, will that be possible in today’s world? We will have to wait and see.

by Ashok Gangadean

Sep 9, 2006 1:55:00 PM cite

Audrey Kitagawa: Oftentimes major transitions come with huge disruptions, and it is a huge challenge to be able to know how to move through these great disruptions. But it doesn't mean that these disruptions have to have anyone fall victim to it. Every transition, every challenge is an opportunity to tap into ourselves to become better people, more aware people, stronger people. So it doesn't have to victimize anyone. It does mean that we all have to take personal responsibility to keep ourselves empowered to be able to face transition, to tap into our creative resources, to be able to rise above any challenge. But does power ever relinquish power? No. People can relinquish power, but people who are in powerful positions may be very loath to give up their positions of power. They will seek to maintain and perpetuate their power, but there is always the capacity for transformation that takes place, not only within the hearts and minds of people in power, but within the hearts and minds of those people who are round people in power. So transformations that occur are meant to occur, but they need not occur in ways that are violent. They can occur in ways that are positive.

by Audrey Kitagawa

Sep 9, 2006 1:55:00 PM cite

Avi Primor: Well, if one does think that America should be the world´s police force or can be the world´s police force, then I believe that those do not really understand the world. This world force America is not such an unlimited source of power that it can do everything or secure everything. Thankfully America is a democracy and not a dictatorship that wants to rule the world, although many want to see it just like this. But America cannot decide alone, and this is a good thing. Because everyone who makes decisions all alone, even in a democracy, will in the end cause catastrophes. Decisions need to be made within the community, democratic decisions. Lets compare the first Irak war 1991 and the second 2003 as an example. In 1991 America has prepared this war together with its allies, european and arabic. There was an international alliance against Irak and Saddam Hussein. Among the international allies were the Europeans, the Japanese and most arabic countries. It was a common decision. The second Irak war in 2003 was a decision of America without really discussing it with its allies. This just caused a gap between America and its allies, alienated them. And this lead to a catastrophe. Thus even America is not a force that can or should lead the world on its own. The world needs to be lead by a community, by common decisions. It is not so much of importance which nation is the leading force, and who´s second or third, but the main point is that all the decison making forces are democratic, and if they are democratic they will be able to make common decisions and cooperate.

by Avi Primor

Sep 9, 2006 1:55:00 PM cite

Benjamin Fahrer: Do America’s power, in exerting its power as a nation on this planet, it has disrupted the entire planet. To relinquish that power without disrupting it, I don’t know if that’s possible. This power has already disrupted so much. A way to change what is happening gracefully and not taken innocent lives with it. We can change but the principle of relinquishing power, of being able to go from a pyramid model where we have the top-down or even the bottom up to more of that of a circle where everything is coming from the whole. To make this transition is a long transition and it’s not to do an about-face but to do a long steady arching transition and every little step is a contributing to that shift of consciousness and shift of direction and through perseverance and steady dedication towards a common goal that we can hopefully agree upon that has the good of the earth and the people, and we stay committed to that course, and when innocent lives and victims are coming to opposition to we can adjust the course so that it's not just an arch. It’s not an about-face but it is a meandering path that can work its way and finally be like water again, the path of least resistance to find the solutions. That’s one way that change can happen. The ego doesn’t want a relinquish power. If we can, the leaders that are exerting this power through their ego, if they can humbly step aside and bow down to that which is, that is, not necessary them and perhaps it can relinquish itself in a shell.

by Benjamin Fahrer

Sep 9, 2006 1:55:00 PM cite

Benson Venegas:

by Benson Venegas

Sep 9, 2006 1:55:00 PM cite

Bianca Jagger: Answertext will be available soon.

by Bianca Jagger

Sep 9, 2006 1:55:00 PM cite

Bill Joy: I think we’re all heartened by the way in which the Soviet Block fell, the way in which Apartheid ended peacefully. In both cases empires collapsed or immoral systems collapsed. The British Empire collapsed as the thing that ruled the world and that also was done largely peacefully. Going forward most of the power in the world is I think economic, not military. The kind of collapse of the U.S., the loss of standing of the U.S. I don’t think would be from a military defeat, it would be from the rest of the world rising up from China getting stronger economically. Is that a bad thing for Americans? No, it’s a good thing for Americans. It’s the basis for a more peaceful world, it’s the basis for a more prosperous world. It’s the ego that wants to be sole determinant of the future of the world that is blocking and making Americans fear this kind of change. China is clearly going to be a global superpower, it’s going to be the strongest regional country in its part of the world. Nothing is going to change that. America’s ability to project economic or military power into the Pacific is going to be quite limited even later in this century. So it’s just something we’re going to have to, as Americans, get used to. It’s not a bad thing. Hopefully it will happen as gracefully as these other transitions.

by Bill Joy

Sep 9, 2006 1:55:00 PM cite

Brian J. Weller: Well, this is a really fine question from an amazing woman. She’s one of the founders of CODEPINK, and CODEPINK is a – talk about an act of courage; really standing for peace. So let’s look at this question together. There’s a key word in here which I think is very important. Is there a way when change is happening that it can happen gracefully? Let’s think about the word “grace.” The word grace, actually, I think comes from the same root as the word privatis, which means of course freedom. Also, you think of the word gratitude you know. Giving gratitude, which is really in a sense expressing our thanks for what it is even when that’s difficult. But doing that when we express gratitude, that generates an enormous amount of inner freedom. I think when that occurs, when we give ourselves up to grace, true gratitude, then I think true freedom is possible. I think through that real change is possible, too. The business of America losing its standing as the most powerful nation on the planet, what do we mean by powerful? To dominate the world, that’s not truly powerful. That’s not power at all. In fact, that’s the sign of the greatest weakness. True power is actually granting the other to be equal to you. That means creating an economics of partnership. It means creating a politics of partnership. I believe that’s the true power. I think America’s standing in the world now is at an all time low and I think to regain that standing it’s got to relinquish its domination, relinquish its control. Can power ever relinquish power? No. I think people can relinquish power and I think we do that by really getting beyond, literally getting beyond this crazy idea that power is – power over is domination. It’s a complete travesty. It’s a complete nonsense, actually, and it doesn’t create any kind of real standing. So, can America lose its standing? It already has. Can it regain it? Yeah, and that’s by doing that by coming back to a place of real power.

by Brian J. Weller

Sep 9, 2006 1:55:00 PM cite

Catherine David: I don't really understand the question because reality shows us that America isn't willing at all to give away its power and America is ready to destroy everything on its way without regret. So I think that it is clear that the transitions will cause damage. The cynics would say that you can't make an omelet without breaking eggs. And the Americans, well the American politics and administration don't care about a transition which is not soft but at least less violent and from the moment we realize that we have to be prepared and answer appropriately. And I think that it is a little bit naive to think that powerful regimes will abandon their power. And I'm surprised that everybody is alarmed when Iran which is an important country just moves a little bit and we let the Americans do whatever they want and we let them even think that it's their right to do so. That's why I would like to reformulate this question because it seems more than naive to me that all the super powers will share their power.

by Catherine David

Sep 9, 2006 1:55:00 PM cite

China Keitetsi:

by China Keitetsi

Sep 9, 2006 1:55:00 PM cite

Constantin von Barloewen: One has the impression that power is a self runner. The receipt of power does not relieve the self-righteousness, does not relieve a not-democratic rootedness, i.e. America stands today before the problem, to maintain ground in world politics, in an economy which turns unequal-weightily against America. One knows the statistics, India in the year 2050 and China are the largest industrial powers and America will drop back. The same for Europe, i.e. an utopia is to be believed that prominent industrial powers can decide today freely, which position in world politics they will have in the world economy in 20-30 years. They stand under a very strong competition pressure and an enormous competition. That is shown for instance in the automobile industry, if today Japanese automobile industry are building factories in America, more exportations into America in a way as the American government doesn't like to see. It shows up, if societies such as Ford, or like GM, Ford are threatened by the bankruptcy, jobs are lost, i.e. there is itself an world-economical competition, also becoming a situation total politically in a world-political competitive situation between America, Europe and the rising nations. It would be to be believed utopian that a self renouncement of power, Kennedy said that correctly, America will in the next 40 years no more be the number one in the world and technology, the summit course of the technology, is going to be used in the insdustial, military complex. This cannot be avoided, but it would be indeed necessary to consider whether we should not today develop a planetary consciousness, where these competitions around world hegemony but make space for a global planetary consciousness of a concentrated action of world politics.

by Constantin von Barloewen

Sep 9, 2006 1:55:00 PM cite

Cornel West: Well, I would thank my dear sister Jodie Evans for this question. I’d like to thank her for her own witness for justice and her willingness to put herself at risk over and over and over and again. We went to jail together just last year in Washington, D.C. I do believe that it’s possible to engage in social change without victimizing innocent human beings, but it has to be done out of a deep sensitivity to others. It has to be done out of deep compassion for others. And, if it does occur, it is done unintentionally and without in the name, without deliberate design. And, therefore, one tries to delimit and attenuate as much as possible any victimizing of innocent human beings. I think certainly, the United States will some day no longer be the most powerful nation in the world. All powerful nations come and go; all empires have been flown. The question is whether what comes after will be democratic and free. The question is what comes after whether in fact will allow human life to flower and flourish the way it ought. That’s the real challenge. Does power ever relinquish powers? Certainly, power comes in a variety of different forms, not just military power, but there’s political power, diplomatic power, there’s cultural power, there’s spiritual power. There are a lot of different kinds of power that we have to be cognizant of and recognize that they all play their role in transition from one era to the next, from historical period to the next. An important thing to keep in mind is that the values of justice and freedom and democracy transcend any historical period. And, that’s one of the reasons why they are so precious and worth living and dying for.

by Cornel West

Sep 9, 2006 1:55:00 PM cite

Dedi Baron: Answertext will be available soon.

by Dedi Baron

Sep 9, 2006 1:55:00 PM cite

Donato Bayu Bay Bumacas: I have a very short answer to this question. In our indigenous world view, there is what we call nature’s self destruction. We believe too much power that takes innocent victims will in the future get its own self-destruction by divine punishment. That’s what we call self-destruction. I have seen an actual scenario; in fact, we experienced an actual scenario. When President Marcus in the Philippines came to power, the people because of the abuses – sorry-- sort of having a power, gained momentum networks and they took him out; and now when he died in Hawaii after he was exiled in Hawaii, his body -- the people doesn’t like his body to be brought to the Philippines. And in the ‘90’s they were able to successfully brought his body to the Philippines, but until now the people doesn’t recognize he being a President for 30 years. And that’s the effect of, you know, having too much power that led to killings of innocent people and that is what we in this indigenous peoples call self-destruction. And beware; too much power might lead to self-destruction.

by Donato Bayu Bay Bumacas

Sep 9, 2006 1:55:00 PM cite

Dritëro Kasapi:

by Dritëro Kasapi