|
|
For example? Sunni vs Shia? Northern Ireland? Turkey's response to Kurdish separatism? The future of Belgium? China's control of Tibet?
There are some international disputes where the progressive position seems easy to demarcate -- find the oppressed or marginalized, and take their side.
I have the suspicion that this search for pat answers causes many progressives to place a disproportionate emphasis on conflicts that aren't that important in real-world terms, simply because they're easy to sound-bite. For example, the Israeli-Palestine conflict; in all seriousness, I believe its importance has been overstated. The issue of Turkey and the Kurds is far, far more important in my eyes. And yet, figuring out what the 'progressive position' should be is far murkier. So we hear about it less.
What are your thoughts on any of the issues listed above?
...the outcomes of these disputes are usually what I try to focus on.
If one side is likely to increase repression or suffering, I'm likely to root for the other side. If I think one side would create a better environment for the people involved ('better' being completely relative and arbitrary, of course), that's where I'll usually hope for success. But the criteria for what makes a situation 'better' depends entirely on the specific context under consideration.
And, of course, there are always situations where the best option for long-term progress is for both sides to lose.
But as a general rule, I look for outcomes that will likely lead to a lower probability of war, famine and death, and a greater potential for liberalization down the line.
So with regards to the Iraqi Sunni-Shia split, for example, I tend to hope the Shia emerge stronger since they're more capable of creating order and reducing violence, which is my immediate concern and I feel a necessary precondition for political liberalization to ever be feasable.
With that being said, I don't think that progressives have a stance favoring Sunni over Shi'a Muslims in general. It may be safe to say that progressives are against the combination of Church and State and would stand against the idea theocratic governments.
Turkey's response to Kurdish independence definitely affects the United States. Again, you are right to say that progressives tend to side with the oppressed, but I personally am always hesitant to support any independence effort. I do not agree with the Turkish oppression of the Kurdish population, but independence should only be sought if all other channels of negotiation have failed.
The same can be said for Tibet. It is wrong for the Communist Chinese government to oppress the Tibetans, who are considered one of the five traditional ethnic groups of China. However, has the international community done everything and failed so that the only way to solve the problem is Tibetan independence?