Time for the new non-aligned

You have to be wide awake to notice some forms of denigration. Our establishment is very canny about it. You might almost conclude that there was collusion or censorship in Western societies.

My text book example is Nick Clegg and his British liberal democrats. Before 2010 Nick’s team was fairly harmless. They are centrists in British politics, openly in favour of the EU, disarmament, fighting inequality and a lot of other causes that might resonate if we got around to thinking about them.

The party to the right and the one to the left have all the historical power and incumbency. They, and their mouthpieces in the press, used to be patronizingly nice to Nick’s liberals while they were no threat. Yes, they said, your ideas are good, thank you for them, and then, sotto voce, it is a shame your team don’t have gravitas or experience and don’t really understand our world. This way the status quo was preserved, and politics could present itself as inclusive and intelligent.

Then in 2010 a strange thing happened. Nick, a decent and talented fellow, nearly won the election. There was a TV debate, and the other two overdid the patronizing and agreed with Nick so much that opinion polls showed that he would win.

Immediately, the establishment fought back. Barbs were trained relentlessly on Nick and his team. The references to his good ideas were drowned out by scare stories of his lack of experience or understanding. In the end he did not win, but he did OK - the other two cancelled each other out, and he ended up in coalition.

He remains there, but has suffered an appalling barrage from the press for four years, so much so that they failed to spot the new challenge to the status quo of UKIP.

The lesson is about the establishment fear of the change and its power to stop it. Threats from the flanks are defeated by the exposure of their daft ideas, as UKIP will be eventually. Those from the centre are defeated by patronization, scare stories and by the denial of any fair debate of their ideas. The EU itself is handled in a similar way.

It is worse in the US, where the entrenched behemoths of the two main parties control debate and money even more tightly. Nothing in the centre sees the light of day. Some other countries have proportional representation so politics is more plural, but don’t pretend that the establishment does not exist.

Extending this thought, consider what else is marginalized in the same way. How much publicity do UN reports receive? These are invariably excellent, but hidden away in specialist organs. There was another one a few weeks back – not by the UN – about social growth. New Zealand came first in the rankings, Holland and Scandinavia did well, and the UK and US disappointed as usual. You have to work hard to find this stuff reported, despite it having clear lessons for all of us about how we might improve.

Thinking about this and about other news jogged something in my memory. Years ago, I heard reference to an organization of non-aligned states. It sounded an eminently sensible thing. Yet it gets no press.

The thought cropped up from considering the trouble spots of the modern world. I believe that the only reason North Korea is not solved is that China fears having a land border with a united Korea loaded up with US weapons. Think about this if true: tens of milions are allowed to live in deprivation for generations because of a strategic fear.

Ukraine is something similar. It seems clear Putin would be able to accept a Ukraine trading with the West, but not the CIA all over Kiev and by extension to his own borders. The proximity is the issue, combined with the US arguably abusing its covert power.

Sadly, the US does not seem to be able to back off. The epitome of this was the famous quote from George W, “you are either with us or against us”. That language is all about power, conquest, dominance, and it still pervades Washington even if we now have a president with some perspective. Peaceful co-existence does not seem to be on the menu.

As China and other regional powers grow, it is already clear that this attitude, and the lack of any solution, will become more of a problem. We have issues in Iran, Syria, Israel, then Venezuela and where else? Things could spiral out of control.

Historically, this has presaged calamitous war. And after the peace, there have been attempts to support an idea of “never again” via institutions. The League of Nations started in 1919, the UN in 1947.

In our globalized world, the nation state itself has become the main blocker to progress. But that is not going to vanish in a hurry (though we should all stand up against its worst effects). So perhaps it is more practical to argue for a revision of institutions, this time before the global war rather than afterwards.

So I recalled the non-aligned movement, and its suppression in establishment discourse, and read about in Wikipedia. It was very interesting.

Nehru was the inspiration for NAM, and Tito was the initial driving force. The current chair-holding country is – wait for it – Iran. Egypt came immediately before, so the community had the confusion of dealing with successive chairmen called Mubarak, Morsi and Al-Sisi. Past chairmen have included Mandela, but also Castro and Chavez. While every African nation (except South Sudan) is a member, the only European members are – wait for it again – Azerbaijan and Belarus.

This reads like a rogues gallery to our Western eyes. But the movement still exists and covers almost all developing nations, so is the true that they are rogues, or is the truth that our eyes have been coloured?

Despite the heterogeneity of its membership, until the end of the cold war at least the movement had a primary theme, that of protecting territorial integrity. After 1989 that purpose has become somewhat nuanced. But the North Korean and Ukrainian examples suggest that a new purpose may be within reach.

As the world has progressed positively, it might be possible to form a large group of nations willing to sign up to more taxing conditions than the UN charter. It might include something about the limited role of the armed forces, about tolerance of minorities and external mediation in the case of dispute, something about institutions and term limits, and even something about free trade. Now, wouldn’t that be a thing!

I call on Finland and Sweden to lead the formation of the group. Finland has finessed its position wonderfully over the last fifty years, as an EU member with a long land border with Russia. Neither Sweden nor Finland have joined NATO. A similar status for North Korea, Ukraine, Georgia, Palestine, Taiwan even Cuba, backed up by global heft, might be just the catalyst to the next era of global progress.

It costs nothing to dream, only perhaps some pre-ordained frustration. But it is always beneficial to the think, and dreaming is a good aid to thinking. Apart from the big idea, there are other things I can take away from this line of thought. One is about whom the outliers are, the West or everyone else. The other is a renewed determination to seek out items that might be suppressed (actively or not) by our Western establishments.  

The High Ground

The best advice we receive is often to stake out the high ground.

It starts as children. If we are in a fight and screaming at a sibling, our parents will tell us to calm down, stop fighting and eventually to say sorry, whether it was our fault or not. Part of this process is an acceptance of the other party, recapturing some respect for them. We are ready to accept their side of the story and to move on.

It is powerful therapy. Not only does it cease hostilities, but all the parties come to feel better about themselves and the ground is laid out for a more fruitful relationship. Well, at least until the next fight.

Much of modern psychology follows the same principles. If we are angry, we should accept the anger, recognize it then move on. If we feel hard done by, well that is all very well but it will help us if we can banish thoughts of revenge and replace them with living in the present and trying to rebuild relationships. If we can find respect for the other parties and even actively forgive, so much the better.

This approach has stood the test of time because it works. It is shared across many religions. In Christianity, common themes in the Gospels are respect for others, forgiveness and reconciliation. The various twelve step programs borrowed the same principles. The early steps are broadly about working through anger, the middle ones are about forgiveness and the last ones about sustainability.

One part of religion that many of us find hard to accept literally but can still help the process is acceptance of God, or some higher power. If we read carefully, God is not there to help us win fights. But consideration of a higher power helps us to see ourselves in a wider context, to see how small we are, how powerless. Even for non believers, it is a useful construct, for no one can deny that we are small and powerless relative to everything around us.

One way to describe the overall technique is to look for the high ground. When tempted to wade into the swamps, climb out again, reflect and move on. Of course a corollary is to avoid those swamps in the first place. If our actions and thoughts can start from a place of context and respect, so much the better for ourselves and for others. We also learn over time that the main beneficiary of a generous high-ground approach to life is ourself. 

This is all well-established when it comes to individuals, even if many of us find it hard to follow in our everyday lives. But the theory applies just as well for institutions too, which, after all, are made up of people.

Most obvious are families. The parenting example applies to adults as well. Sadly, most families have simmering wars and estranged elements. Smart families will work to eliminate those. It also makes a lot of sense to try to get on with the neighbours.

Alliances sometimes occur within extended families. One branch might stick together and try to score points from other branches. Some parents even have favourite children. But we learn quickly, so long as we are not mafiosi, that this approach goes against all good high-ground principles. As soon as our mindset is of us against them, the high ground has been deserted.

A good test of any religion is how it interacts with other religions. There seems to me to be a fundamental mismatch between the teachings at the heart of all religions and an attitude of intolerance to other religions. I always balk at the prayers in Catholic services, where we first pray for other Catholics and Church leaders before moving on to the leaders of our nation. Why not pray for all humanity? I like to hope that our new Pope is doing exactly that. In the US, the Episcopal Churches appear admirably inclusive. Note how in general the larger and more powerful an institution is, the harder it tends to be to reach for higher ground.

Of course, the opposite attitude continues to be a prime cause of war even today. We are widely told to believe that Islam is somehow a threat to our world. I refuse to accept this. Of course, some Islamic clerics spout dangerous nonsense, and even some mainstream Islamic teaching is tough to accept, on the role of women for example. But Christians are hardly spotless. If we start by seeking high ground, we will make more progress.

Turning now to corporations, there is more good news than you might think. Well-run companies actually follow the logic of the high ground in many ways. Lasting success comes when authentic common cause is sought with customers, and with suppliers. The very best achieve the same with their staff as well, though the degree of true staff engagement within companies falls way short of where it should be. Even competitors receive some respect – perhaps an unintended positive consequence of strong anti-competitive regulation.

Companies acting otherwise tend not to survive. Enron thought they had a winning formula for a while. Look out for unacceptable attitudes to staff, suppliers or especially customers – these are strong warning signs. Goldman Sachs has only survived its “muppet” comments because its entire industry is as sick as they are. If the whole point of an industry is to act as parasites, there is not a lot of high ground to find.

Now, the institutions having the greatest effect on all of us are nations, and here the concept of high ground is sadly absent. Listen to the language used by nations. Allies and foes. Strategic interests. Defending our people. It is tragic, and it holds up global progress.

After the world wars of the twentieth century, some attempts were made to set up bodies to represent the global high ground. Quietly, the UN does some wonderful work. Whenever I see a UN report, I tend to pay it attention, since it is usually relevant and balanced. Yet, almost from its inception, the UN has been undermined by nations putting narrow interests above global priorities.

A good place to start for anyone seeking higher ground from their own nation is to look at UN agreements that have not been ratified or have not been enforced. I read this week that the UK has still not ratified the international agreement about protecting a cultural heritage. Seemingly embarrassment (and presumably legal fear) still weighs heavily after Dresden and other 1945 acts of the RAF. But isn’t that a national disgrace?

Once again, the bigger the nation, the harder it seems to be to find high ground. Within the US, the UN is almost seen as an enemy, with congress regularly blocking funding and support from any leader akin to political suicide.

It is worth going back to the basic logic of high ground and recalling that the beneficiary is the one being generous. It is not hard to observe the cost of US intransigence. Broken budgets, a swollen military, unaccountable covert operations, and loss of trust and respect all come from the prevalent tribal attitude. The free internet looks like being the next casualty. It is galling to hear Putin justifying his actions in Ukraine by quoting equivalent US actions in the past.

China’s attitude in the next thirty years will have a key bearing on the progress of our race. The signs are mixed. It is sad to see the new belligerence in the South China Sea. Hiding behind a doctrine of non-interference is also not good enough over Ukraine. But there are also encouraging signs, not least a more responsible approach to global warming. As the next hegemon, it is a shame that the example of the current one, and, to be fair, all past ones, is so poor.

We have learned that our personal behaviour will lead to a more fruitful life if we can seek out high ground, even if our practice usually falls short. One thing we can usefully do as global citizens is to old our institutions to the same principles, starting with our nations. In the end, nations are made up of people like us, so we have it in our collective power. Instead of judging others, let us start with ourselves.   

Limits to Openness

One thing I consciously changed in my life around 2007 was openness. Previously I had been a typically stuck-up Brit, restricting conversation to safe areas wherever possible. Around 2007, I made a change, offering a lot more of my true thoughts to others.

It started at work. I had built a reputation as something of a mentor for younger people, and many sought me out for career advice. Of course, good career decisions are often very much tied to good life decisions. I started sharing things about my own career in the context of where I was in life, and this opened the door for people to do likewise.

The results were stunning. Firstly, conversations became a lot more interesting. Rather than talking about mundane matters like qualifications or bosses or strengths and weaknesses, I started hearing much deeper stories. By being vulnerable to others, I left space for others to be vulnerable with me, and I was amazed how many people longed for that opportunity.

Many times, someone would open up in a way that was surprising to me, and probably to them as well, leading to a far greater understanding of their own character and choices. I had to learn how to respond. I learned that empathetic listening and asking simple questions were often enough. The best solutions for most of our issues lie inside us, we just need someone to help us find the courage to bring them forward.

I found younger people trooping to my new unofficial clinic, situated in the coffee lounge of the Shell offices in The Hague. Women found it easier to open than men, perhaps looking for a relatively safe, older, male figure to confide in. I had no problem (to myself) justifying my time on this activity, as I am sure I unlocked some talent in the process and sometimes found myself good team members.

The second result was a major change in my own outlook. Inevitably, I started thinking more about my own life situation, and became open to more than before, both in thought and in discussion. Most of the conversations were helpful but one-off events, but a few developed into relationships where perhaps we would sit down once a month. In these cases, the balance of subject matter became more even.

Now, I have no idea whether so much change would have happened in my life in the following years without this open approach. What I do know is that a lot of change did happen, much more than in any other period of my life. And the major things holding me back before, the problems and issues that I would not spend time on even in personal thought, suddenly came to the fore.

Within two years of this change I had revised my career direction completely and engineered an early retirement at fifty. I had changed my whole outlook towards spirituality and humanity. And I had separated from my wife of over twenty years, later divorcing and starting a new lifetime relationship that is now a marriage. So all of the foundations of my life had been turned upside down.

Now it is hard to establish cause and effect here. Maybe my increased openness led to me challenging more assumptions and initiating change. Or perhaps there was a latent desire for change that required openness as one of its catalysts. A bit of both, probably.

At any rate, until now I had not really challenged the openness as a positive practice, often recommending it to others. Surely assumptions are there to be challenged and denial should be faced up to? And I continued to recommend openness even though I have retreated away from it myself. I haven’t quite gone back to the reserved citizen of yore, but I am no longer so free with my confidences as I was in 2007-09.

A book came to my attention recently to help me understand this dilemma better. I think the title is “committed” – at any rate it is a book by Elizabeth Gilbert, the lady who became justly famous for “Eat, Pray, Love”. In the book she tries to reconcile her own guiding principles with the practice of lifetime monogamous relationships.

Gilbert starts with the statements made by people who split up from long-term relationships. Most of us are surprised when we stray. Our infidelity can be as large as a break up or as small as a recurring thought or desire. Once the recurring thought leads to any action, our partners ask us how it happened. Quite often our response is “I don’t know, it just happened”. This response does not help much to restore trust or respect for maturity.

Gilbert talks about lifetime relationships having walls and windows. Once infatuation wears off, the relationship is sustained partly by a mutual respect and by comfortable habits. But none of us is perfect, and the respect inevitably becomes a little blurred over time, especially at vulnerable times.

Gilbert suggests that during vulnerable times it is better to live in a house than an open field. Smart couples make efforts to build these virtual houses. They do this by reserving intimate parts of their lives for each other, with no outsider allowed in. A couple can view the outside together through windows, and can be viewed as a couple through windows too. But the walls are solid, and our most precious secrets and most intimate facets of our being stay safely behind those solid walls. And building the walls and windows, and keeping the doors shut, provides protection when storms arrive.

I like this model very much. It fits well with my own experience. For whatever combination of reasons, my walls and windows had eroded, and my marriage house became weak. Filled with doubt, I chose increasing openness, thereby making the house even more vulnerable. In the end it collapsed. Subsequently, I have rebuilt a new house with its own strong walls and windows. This naturally limits my need for openness to others, and also makes me just a little cautious of openness as a mantra, even though the new house has big windows and lets in lots of sunlight.

If we accept the model, there are many implications for all of us, all made by Ms Gilbert.

If we are in a long-term relationship, we need to work with each other to build and maintain the walls. That means communication, and hard work. We need to carve out areas of intimacy and continue to feed them. I would say that is more important than good behaviour with others. It is better to live in a great solid house and to take a holiday, than to live in a plywood shack and try not to stray from it.

The model also explains why exes are so toxic to any relationship. Exes always retain spare keys to our houses – we can’t just change the lock. We have to respect this, allow a little latitude and even a little suspicion, and take no risks.

Then there is the transition into a long-term relationship. Habits built up when single have to be modified when committed to someone else.

If we lose a long-term partner, and the excuse is “it just happened”, we know we can look deeper and learn. Had we done enough to build the walls? Perhaps it was just the right time for the relationship to end.

In all of this I try not to argue against openness. Vulnerability is wonderful and brings many rewards, and an open life is generally a more fulfilled one. But, if we also seek the rewards from lifetime relationships, an even greater blessing for many of us, we have to recognize the importance of walls and windows, and make sure we don’t open ourselves to the risk of violation lightly.

A good acid test might be that we should avoid finding ourselves being open with a third party about anything we have not already been open with within the relationship. And in addition that there are always important things about us that only our lifetime partner knows and shares.

Thank you Liz Gilbert. “Eat, Pray, Love” was a lovely book and now you also bring some new life lessons. Would it have made any difference to me in 2007-2009 if I had known that lesson then? I doubt it. But you never know.