On Poland, India, and the Philippines
By John Mangun
Posted On November 20, 2005

Shortly after the 2004 United States presidential election, a worldwide opinion poll asked the question, “Do you feel safer with George Bush as the U.S. President?” Of the two dozen nations around the world where the survey was taken, in only three of these countries did a majority of those asked respond positively and felt better with Bush as President: Poland, India, and the Philippines. Why these countries?

What common thread of perception could run through these nations that are as dissimilar in culture, history, religion, economy, and global position as possible? On the surface, there does not seem to be anything that could tie these peoples together in forming a common outlook that runs counter to the prevailing world belief.

One might contend that a particular national self-interest, unique to each nation could shape their individual views and that in fact there is no common ground of thought. However, the responders were the average person on the street, not the government, and there could not be any specific or direct benefit in giving President Bush this kind of approval.

To understand this situation, one must understand the change in political philosophy the “Bush Doctrine” presented as an alternative to that which has dominated the world for the past century.

The twentieth century opened with probably the most foolish, unnecessary, and undoubtedly, costliest and bloodiest wars in world history. Austria partially controlled the Balkans, which clamored for total independence. After separatists assassinated Austria’s Archduke, impossible demands were made of the local government, which allowed Austria to increase its military presence and domination, done primarily to impress the Austrian people as to how strong its monarchy could be. This increased occupation could not have been accomplished without the open approval of Germany.

Russia is sworn to defend its ethnic Slavic cousins in Bosnia and declares war on Austria. France had a treaty to defend Russia. Germany moved against France to aid Austria and marched its troops through Belgium to invade France. Treaty obligates Great Britain to defend Belgium, forcing it to wage war against Germany. The Ottoman Turks sided with Austria hoping to take advantage of the situation and reclaim the Balkans.

This disaster prompted the policy and belief that war is to be avoided at all costs. The twentieth century was supposed to have been the century of peace as the nations declared war as an unthinkable alternative to handling disputes. All possible means should be tried and thoroughly exhausted before combat occurred. This idea failed miserably and led to a bloody century of endless war.

The “Bush Doctrine” in its simplest and purest form says that war is a viable and necessary option when one party does not intend to pursue a peaceful alternative and resolution. War is a last resort but needs viewing as a realistic option and not simply as the result of failed peaceful negotiation.

Why would the “Bush Doctrine’ make the majority of those polled in Poland, India, and the Philippines feel safe? Are these war-mongering peoples eager for battle, destruction, and death? No, these are nations that have lived and suffered through decades, losing tens of thousands of its citizens through the policy of “peace at all costs” against enemies who did not have any desire for peace.

Poland spent more than a half-century under total military occupation as the world sought a “peaceful” solution first with Hitler’s Germany and then the Soviet Union. War with Germany was avoided in the mid 1930’s as Austria and Czechoslovakia were annexed through the “peace process”. Weeks before German storm troops marched into Warsaw, Great Britain declared its agreement with Hitler would insure “peace in our time”.

Mahatma Gandhi, not a strong advocate of independence for India, tried negotiation with British colonizers for justice and equality, seeing thousands of Indians die as he pursued “peace”. India has fought at least three border wars with China and a fifty-year conflict with Pakistan. It has lived its entire national life at war with neither resolution of the conflict or peace. And now the war pits two nuclear powers facing each other.

Like Gandhi, Dr. Jose Rizal believed that Spain had leaders with common sense and understanding of right and wrong who would pursue peace. He died for his values and the Philippines gained little except a national hero worthy of emulation.

Other national heroes tried to make peace and avoid war with an American government not interested in either and the resulting brutality left a half a million dead.

For thirty years, the Philippine government has struggled for peace, trying to avoid war with two enemies of the state who show little willingness for peace. Thousands of Filipinos have died in combat, or as collateral damage, with the NPA and the Moro secessionists, when perhaps a policy of war would have been a better alternative for those who died while the government “fought” for peace.

The pursuit for a peaceful solution as an alternative to war is noble and right, but impossible unless both parties are inclined and eager to avoid fighting. Some of our enemies are only interested in victory and never in peace, regardless of the human cost. American revolutionary patriot Patrick Henry asked “Is peace so sweet and life so dear to be bought at the price of chains and slavery?” Perhaps sometimes with some enemies, peace is simply not possible and that war is inevitable to achieve that which is right and honorable.

John Mangun is a business and political columnist writing from the Philippines over the last eight years. Comments can be made at Mr. Mangun's weblog, "Third Eye on the Third World."

E-mail this article to a friend.