Sep 9, 2006 1:30:00 PM cite

Bianca Jagger: Answertext will be available soon.

by Bianca Jagger

Sep 9, 2006 1:30:00 PM cite

Bill Joy: I think dictators tend to use the media and other methods to rile up their population to distract the people from the miserable consequences of their policies, from their failures. And I think unfortunately even in the west and recently especially in the United States we’ve seen an administration focused on using fear to maintain its power. This kind of polarizing of things so that you try to see everything as black and white so that there’s no middle ground, the demonizing of the other clearly works. People respond to this kind of nationalistic racist economically motivated politically motivated talk. But the long term consequences of it are poisonous. And both in the west where we are manipulated by this and also in the dictatorships I think people just have to look past the present situation to see what’s really going on, to think longer term, to think generationally, think about their kids and the world they’re going to inherit. And see the common humanity in others whether it’s people in the other political side of the argument or people in other countries, if we can’t see that these people aren’t our enemies maybe we’re at different stages of development, we’re in different countries but I think-- in the west we also have to be sensitive to the people feeling bad about the way in which their cultures are eroded by western pop culture distributed by the mass media. Perhaps they should just turn off their televisions, that’s what I did. Keep the pop out of our lives to the extent that we can. Because I think it’s those images of the western lifestyle that are the most corrosive of them all.

by Bill Joy

Sep 9, 2006 1:30:00 PM cite

Bora Cosic: In this question to me is this phrase "our way of life” suspicious, as if our way of life were so ideal that we can’t talk about it with reserve. Off course the pundits from non democratic countries must understand where they live, but this shouldn’t keep them from the seeing some bad sides of free world. Critical view on the every point in this world should be one of the basic human rights. How an individual comes to the ability of this kind of looking upon the things depends also on the level of his own maturity.

by Bora Cosic

Sep 9, 2006 1:30:00 PM cite

Brian J. Weller: Well, let’s look at this question a little more deeply. The Western World, which allegedly wants to spread our way of life (i.e. not living in fear all the time), I don’t buy that. That would suggest that the so-called Western World does not live in fear. I think it does. I think that’s the heart of a lot of our behavioral problems. But coming to the question, I think many countries, especially Islamic countries they don’t want Western consumer values. They don’t want secular values, or at least a lot of people don’t, and they also don’t want foreign religions taking root in their cultures. Western economic imperialism under the guise again of democracy, it’s often being perceived as the – it’s just a cover-up for so many other agendas. Particularly again – particularly in the Middle East anyway of extracting resources; oil and gas, minerals and so on. You know that’s what’s really going on here, I think. But yeah, living in fear is a relative condition. I think people are yearning; they’re really yearning for true peace, which I think can be possible when we’ve really transcended our own fear. But I think the aggression from people in foreign countries comes because they really understand what’s going on with the West and that’s often basically the strategies of domination by another word. I think, because I remember just after this last crazy adventure going into Iraq, I think there were hundreds of Western “missionaries” attempting to convert the infidel into the “real religion.” I mean what a travesty. What errant nonsense, ignorance. It makes me sick actually; but anyway.

by Brian J. Weller

Sep 9, 2006 1:30:00 PM cite

Catherine David: This is a quite typical question of mentality. It seems to me that democracy, again, is not yet a magic cure, and that each nation, each culture has the right to accomplish democracy by its own means, its own way, and that the world's populations who live under authoritarian or dictatorial regimes are not stupid enough for not seeing (1) that the so-called transfer of democracy can sometimes be accomplished in total parallelism to the most serious economic repression, are not idiot enough (2) to have noticed that our huge western democracies accomodate quite well to authoritarian and dictatorial regimes, and (3) are not stupid enough not to see what our so-called 'way of life' can include. And I think that, once again on the side of populations who live under authoritarian and dictatorial regimes [they are relatively numerous], there is no contradiction between the refusal of the dictatorship or the missing freedom and the desire that democratic transition is accomplished for the best of local interests, of its populations, and that the 'way of life' is not necesarily desirable. One can easily be democrat in Iran and not feel like having Starbucks or having any relations [to the tone], e.g. relations to Western economic [tone]. I think it would be important that the west, even if I don't like a lot the generalizations because there are many people and many situations in the west, but that people can understand that.

by Catherine David

Sep 9, 2006 1:30:00 PM cite

China Keitetsi: I think that it's not the people who are making noise. I think it is the very dictators who make the noise against the Western world because they know very well that with democracy their chance of becoming long President will be less, will be small. I am sure that no person, no human being, will say no to democracy, to freedom. And I'm sure nobody wants to live in fear. I think everyone want to be totally free. I think everybody welcomes these ideas, but because they are pushed away by those very dictators before they could fall on the ears of those people, but it is not the people chasing away democracy and it is not the people choosing to live in fear. And I think we should not stop. I think we should continue trying to share with Democrats, with everybody who don't have any. And I think it's our responsibility to challenge the dictator who is making noise and say it is the people making noise. And also, I think that is very important for the Western world who are trying to bring the democracy to know that many people under dictatorship have very less voice, have very less technology and knowledge, less computer, less reading materials, less information; and therefore, they should press a little bit harder.

by China Keitetsi

Sep 9, 2006 1:30:00 PM cite

Constantin von Barloewen: In the last decades, with the economic hegemony of north america and the western states the fact has occured that dictators take the freedom, under excuse to fight western states, which they do not owe their own people. China still justifies its superior dominance in relation to its population with a anti-western course. In Russia it is the same. Russia today, the russiche orthodoxy in the policy, affirms the Chinese model, looks to China, because one believes a model of a non western, a non-democratic culture which can keep up economically nevertheless, is prominent in world-economical concert. I.e. Russia sees China as a political exception, which strikes the west with large economic dynamics and success and nevertheless no carrying out of western human right and liberty criteria. Russia seems to appoint itself today ever more strongly to this, I would like to say, Chinese special way, not western and nevertheless economically successfully. That is a large danger, which undemocratic systems unfortunately bring with themself and Russia is today, naturally under the Putin government, only a limited democracy. It is at most an authoritarian democracy with questionable methods of an not integrated civil society.

by Constantin von Barloewen

Sep 9, 2006 1:30:00 PM cite

Cornel West: Well, we have to raise the question again of what we mean by our way of life, not living in fear all the time. I would think that all people do not want to live in fear; and the problem is, is that for so long the affluent peoples in the Western world were able to live in such a way that their lifestyles were not only at the expense of others living in fear, be they enslaved in the States or be they under colonial oppression in Asia and Africa or Ireland or the Caribbean, but there was indifference here. And these kinds of seeds come back to haunt one. And, therefore, yes, as many fellow human beings in foreign countries who live under autocratic rule but who still have the right to engage in criticism of the hypocrisy of the West, just as we in the West have a right to engage in criticism of the hypocrisy in various foreign governments. It is a matter of Socratic integrity and intellectual consistency that we are able to criticize each other based on principles and standards that transcend or are higher than either one of our nations and either one of our social experiments. Hypocrisy, no matter where it is needs to be teased out, criticized, and we hope overcome it.

by Cornel West

Sep 9, 2006 1:30:00 PM cite

Dedi Baron: Answertext will be available soon.

by Dedi Baron

Sep 9, 2006 1:30:00 PM cite

Donato Bayu Bay Bumacas: In my point of view, this is because of brainwashing. Their leaders within their own country brainwash them to make their people believe that democracy is not good. Like, for instance, in the Middle East, even if people who are experiencing dictatorship in the Iraq in the case of Saddam, still when Americans came and say, “We want to give alternative form of government that you are experiencing,” people tend to dislike still the concept of democracy, and maybe because this is a dictator democracy. So, it's really a question of world view. Those countries might have different world view in terms of democracy than what Americans are trying to share to the world with dictatorship. So, it's more of -- for me, it's more of a difference in world view and, of course, adding to the brainwashing that the leaders are doing. That’s the reason why -- and maybe because democracy does not really respond to their needs and maybe that’s the reason why they still hate or they still don't like the concept of democracy in their own countries.

by Donato Bayu Bay Bumacas

Sep 9, 2006 1:30:00 PM cite

Dritëro Kasapi: Hi, Chris. Well, a lot of people in foreign countries that don’t have democracy but they are being oppressed, don’t feel that the Western world, democratic world, is doing that to spread democracy and freedom. But, they’re experiencing it as an invasion in their countries and in their living space and imposing by force how they should think, what they should do and telling them almost by pointing the finger, "This is the right way of living." And a lot of people feel that this is done not because the Western world or U.S.A. wants to spread democracy but because they want to establish themselves in these countries because of the natural resources that these countries have, because we want to exploit them and in many ways, they are right because not in every dictatorship we go and spread democracy. Not in every part of the world we go. It seems like we are spreading our way of life in certain places where it seems like we have invested interest and in some other places we simply are not interested in. So, it points out a double standard which people can see through. And I think the way to make a change is not to spread our way of life, but it's to give support to progressive forces in these countries that want to change from within, and we have had the chance to do that, like in Iraq. But because of invested interest, we didn’t do it. We suppressed the progressive forces. We helped these progressive forces be suppressed. So, I think the--[AUDIO ENDS]

by Dritëro Kasapi

Sep 9, 2006 1:30:00 PM cite

Eliane Potiguara: I will not give an answer, which is related to the indigenous people but rather to the people living in the favelas of Rio de Janeiro, where one can observe aggressiveness within the last few years. Those people get more and more violent since they don't have any access to school, work, responsibility, they don't have access to anything at all. Those are people who are highly destitute but at the same time enter the world of drugs and of drug trafficking. And by living this world of violence they turn their backs on society. Those people get more rebellious, aggressive and more frightening and society in turn fears them. Interestingly, the oppressed will become the local oppressor; he gets himself weapons and becomes the local terrorist. What we see is that the economical power suffocates us and creates a focus on violence, a focus on power, a power of weapons, drug trafficking and so on. All these people I'm referring to are mere teenager, children between 12 and 15 years of age. These children die, even as we speak – it's absurd. They are children, which should go to school but end up as drug addicts or drug trafficking. They are victims, which turn into oppressors of the local community. This means that we don't know what to do when we fear those people who, honestly, have become the local power, the parallel power. It is a very serious problem.

by Eliane Potiguara

Sep 9, 2006 1:30:00 PM cite

Eliot Weinberger: Yeah, well, the problem with this question is your, i.e. not living in fear all the time, when in fact, this may be true in Vancouver, Canada, but it’s certainly not true in the United States. And the United States for the last five or six years since 9/11 has been creating a climate of continual fear. And with the FBI and so forth announcing that a terrorist attack is imminent in the next few days over and over and over again, this warning that the person next door looks just like a normal person may be a terrorist, the idea that people who live in the middle of Kansas in a soybean field should be buying duct tape and plastic to seal up their windows against biological warfare. So, I don't think that it’s all true that people in the so-called Western World, their way of life is that of not living in fear all the time. It’s also not true that people outside of the West are living in worlds where they are in fear all of the time too. I mean, you also have a question; definition of what is the west. I mean, if you look at the West in the post -– just to take the last 50 years or so, is the west Denmark, is the west Franco-Spain, is the west Italy, which essentially had no government at all during many of those years, where was east Germany? Was East Germany in the west, or was that in the East. So, I think the notion of a monolithic west is a completely false one and the notion of a monolithic other, which is against the west, is also entirely false.

by Eliot Weinberger

Sep 9, 2006 1:30:00 PM cite

Elisabet Sahtouris: Thanks, Chris, for participating in this dialogue. My apology for wearing sunglasses. It’s been very gray and cold here all day so far and suddenly we have so much sunshine that it’s hard to see into the camera without sunglasses. I can’t quite tell whether your question is a serious one that you believe that we are trying to spread democracy in the world and that people are acting hostilely when we have good intentions. I’m afraid that I think that our aggression in the middle east is aggression and that we did not have good reasons for attacking either Afghanistan or Iraq. And this is certainly going to be an issue in the elections coming up in the United States today, as I noticed on CNN this morning. I think we have been given a distorted view in the United States and I see that you’re from Vancouver, so that’s why I’m wondering whether your question is serious. I don’t think we have really seriously been spreading freedom and democracy in the middle east. It’s very difficult to find middle easterners who would think that that is what has happened. And having invaded Iraq and Afghanistan I think under false premises and not carrying out the building of democracy very effectively instead Iraq now has a civil war and I think that terrorism is bred by violence whether it’s economic violence, religious violence or any other kind of violence. And I have to take responsibility for my own country as having acted very violently in the war. I know that we were responsible for setting Saddam Hussein up as a dictator. I also know that the Iraqi people were ready to overthrow Saddam Hussein and that we actually intervened so that they couldn’t do that. We have huge oil interests in the middle east and there’s a tremendous amount of anger among middle eastern people against what we are doing in their countries. So while terrorists were relatively few in number before we went into the middle east, I believe there are far more of them now because of our activities there. And so what do we want to do? Stop terrorism? Do we truly want to--

by Elisabet Sahtouris

Sep 9, 2006 1:30:00 PM cite

Ervin Laszlo: This question has so many assumptions to it that is very difficult to answer in this forum. We say that people are aggressive or societies are aggressive that have -- that are oppressed by dictators. We also say that the Western world wants to spread the way of life which is not leaving in fear all of the time. None of these, necessarily holds for all societies, but even completely hold for any society. Are you living in a [fee] of fear all of the time in the West? How about the new questions of security, how about job insecurity, how about the deterioration of the environment and people who don’t have democracy are not necessarily aggressive, some of them are simply repressed. So, I think this question has to be reconsidered very seriously to have less assumptions. People are not mainly and ideally aggressive, they all always have some reason in their mind and it’s not as though they were evil and we are all the good. We all have elements of good and bad in our constitution. If we had a better more equitable world there will be less aggressiveness in this world as well.

by Ervin Laszlo

Sep 9, 2006 1:30:00 PM cite

Esther Mwaura-Muiru: I think my conviction is that the powers of dictatorship in the south and in the developing countries are actually a puppet of the dictatorship in the west and in the big countries. So you cannot look at dictatorship of the whole world as the – and differentiate it, the dictatorship in the north and the south. A lot of the governments in dictatorship today have been supported by many governments in the north to be where they are. And when the game changes, then they are called dictators. When the populations are about to struggle and remove this government, a lot of investment indirectly is put in place to sustain those governments. I think if only the west could listen to what is the people’s perspective and what they believe in and what the governments are and what kind of government they would want, I feel we would not have dictators, just because, if they are not talking, a lot of time, the voice, then, they are not saying the same voice that the west would have and want to have, and they are called dictators. Sometimes, of course, they are dictators. But I think we cannot look at dictatorship in the south and in the north as a different entity. It’s one and the same. And that dictatorship has been perpetuated by amassing of the wealth. So I feel that’s empowered. And who defines who is a dictator? So, sometimes I think what we receive, what we read, what we are told, may not reflect the true one. Some presidents, actually, in the developing countries, are very ethical. They are very supportive of their countries. But since they don’t allow the world powers to penetrate their countries, and the world wants to remove them of their powers so then they accumulate the powers, then they are called dictators. So I feel we must – we really must unpack what we call dictatorship and in whose terms do we says governments are dictatorships.

by Esther Mwaura-Muiru

Sep 9, 2006 1:30:00 PM cite

Fernando Solanas: This question seems confusing to me. I am not in the orient, I am in Argentina, in the South of Latin America where we are living the so called formal democracies, the so called forms of occidental democracies or delegate representative democracies. Well. A big part of our people are critizising the so called occidental democracies. The economical interests and certain sectors of our societies have deepened the inequalities, the fears and the lack of democracy in our societies. That is why we are critical concerning the free occidental world. Great Britain for example has forms of democracy, of liberty and free expression. But the English colonialism sowed the whole planet with terror, attacks, fear and hatred. And concerning this we don’t even have to mention the United States.

by Fernando Solanas

Sep 9, 2006 1:30:00 PM cite

Fred Matser: Well, in general, everybody that gets oppressed has the tendency to react. If that takes a long time, and then the reaction expresses it in aggression. And that, of course, in dictatorial situations, one is oppressed and through time that happens on and on again, one gets frustrated. When we cannot express our real opinion, we cannot express our feelings because there are people that watch us and we may go to prison without any form of justice. That creates frustration and that frustration indeed can get out as aggression. So, internally that already is the situation. So, then if we, I mean, from a Western perspective, if we come from the West and try to impose our values on the relevant countries with dictatorship, we often are portrayed also as aggressive and as invasive. So, that basically triggers the same reaction. It needs quite some education and some awareness to see that indeed from a Western world, we can offer people to consider a different value system. And with that, if you can see that what we can offer and we can perhaps help the countries to open up from dictatorship to democracies, yes, then, it is -- then the reaction would not be aggressive. But anyway, that is with the manipulation of media, very, very difficult to get in place. And so, aggression is often difficult to avoid.

by Fred Matser

Sep 9, 2006 1:30:00 PM cite

Galsan Tschinag: That is a very important question. When you asked this question you already hit the nail on the head; a nail that is sticking in many human bodies. Yes, among other things this is my own experience. You have to know, dear Christian person, that I was part of the opposition during the times of communism and when this communism also came to an end in my country, my joy about it was divided and even painful. I was almost ready to reintroduce communism if I had had the power to do so. Later I asked myself this question again and again and finally I found the answer. It was my youth, my home and my life even though it was a very painful one. But on the other hand there are fanatics who profit from the harshness and the despicableness of dictatorship. For them the inhuman rules are their pleasant and lucrative way to earn money.

by Galsan Tschinag