Philippines, October 25, 2015
Yesterday was the founding day for an organization that was supposed to promote world peace. And yet that has been an elusive dream UN Security Council and World Peace
Use of force by autocratic regime
"Does the end justifies the means?
We have defined that leadership is influencing others towards a goal, objectives or purpose.
We see varied approaches to achieve this end,either by love, by communication, and in many cases right now, through the use of force, albeit deadly and violent force.
Is therefore, the use of force, a necessary resource/tool of a leader to obtain the goal for the community or his followers
1. A soft drink exec in the 1980, and he led successful campaigns against very successful and giant adversary defined leadership as "taking a point of view and expressing it forcefully." Hence force for him is a necessary component of leadership?
2. There was a movie that featured a conversation between soldiers and the conversation runs like, that the soldiers are merchants of peace. Only they use bullets are used to convince the enemies to come to the peace table.
3. History and world relations are replete with acts of violence, and mayhem of one nation or faction, or sects inflicting violence to convince and move the adversary:
1. Nations go to war in an apparent attempt to silence the opposition or rebellious tribes; We have to go to war in order to achieve peace (even world peace)
2. Nations go into arms race, or establish great armed forces as a deterrent.
3. The apparent reason waved to recruits for the armed forces recruitment is to keep our children and women safe from aggression
4. The terrorists group, the Al Qaeda, the ISIS, the Tamil Tigers, the MILF, MNLF, the MIFF, the CPP NPA are armed forces to force the adversary into granting them autonomy or even submission
5. Thus in order for legitimate govts to deal with the legal, clean ops, they do diplomatic relations, summits, but at the same time they do black ops (spying, . counter terrorist) like CIA etc to neutralize illegal activities of opponents. This happens to democratic civilized govts.
6. The Phil history recently featured movies that involved the eradication of subordinates through death and execution: one of a general, and the other of the founder of the Philippine armed revolution because of power struggle. This happened in our doorsteps, in a legitimately established govt.
Aside from the deaths inflicted by the dictators through the armed forces, this writer is aware that lgu heads and even national leaders have with their system hit men and assassin to minimize opposition.
We have a general under litigation for carrying out ej killing of activiist.
Some questions:
1. How would you maintain peace in your territory that has violent terrorist group that conduct assassination, kidnapping, bombings. These guys are smart. They carry terrorist acts, and yet invoke legalities when in trials or legal procedures and eventually by using the legal system, go free to harm the regime again?
2. If you were a leader, would you be prepared to use force if necessary to maintain peace or the integrity of the group you are leading? (Are you willing to impose discipline on your erring members? Are you willing like Alexander the Great to spear a friend and long serving subordinates who embarrass or question you publicly before other subordinates.?
3. Would you run a group with two personalities: one is transparent, the other is black ops, so that the integrity of the group stays?
4. Would you willing to drag your constituents to a bloody deadly confrontation to preserve peace.
5. Is this acceptable for Ateneo Leadership, For Ignatian leadership
Are the answers easy?
These are dilemmas for leaders. involving legal, moral and ethical issues.
Think about it.
FOR COMMENTS
No comments:
Post a Comment