Different worldviews, common aims

Nations don't have to sing "Kumbaya" together. But even a chilly peace can make the world a better place.

Scott Peterson/The Christian Science Monitor/Getty Images
Iranians celebrated on the streets of Tehran July 14 after the landmark nuclear deal was announced.

Whatever you think is true about China, Japan, Iran, Russia, Greece, the United States, or the 190 other nations that share this planet, you’ll see things differently when you immerse yourself in the conversations, history books, and news media of those countries. Most people agree, for instance, that Dec. 7, 1941; Aug. 6, 1945; and Sept. 11, 2001, are historic dates. What led up to those moments and what happened afterward remain in dispute.

Some of that difference comes from genuinely different perspectives. Some is propaganda, wishful thinking, or schadenfreude. (Our Global Newsstand feature on page 36 tracks these different perspectives; you might also check out watchingamerica.com.) In this week’s issue, you’ll see multiple examples of how vastly different worldviews affect international relations.

Take Iran. A historic agreement has been reached over that nation’s nuclear program. But Iran has strong reasons why it doesn’t trust the United States – from a US-engineered coup in 1953, to US aid to Saddam Hussein during the Iran-Iraq War, to cyberattacks aimed at crippling the Iranian nuclear program. Meanwhile, many Americans, Israelis, Saudis, and others don’t trust Iran based on its support of terrorists and its covert and overt policies in the Middle East and elsewhere.

The divide is deep, the history is fraught, the common ground is thin. While a fragile breakthrough has occurred, an era of good feelings between Iran and other nations is not imminent.

Then there’s Japan. We are approaching the 70th anniversary of the end of World War II. As you’ll see in Peter Ford’s cover story (click here), most Japanese agree that past imperialism was wrong. But they have a more ambiguous view about what led to the war and how Japan comported itself during its occupations of Korea and China. Those perspectives complicate Japan’s relationships in East Asia.

Nigerians and Kenyans, Indians and Cubans – people from dozens of nations harbor grievances about past colonial exploitation and repression, even though many now have decades of post-colonial history behind them during which homegrown exploitation and repression have occurred. Or consider Greece, Argentina, and other debtor nations. They see their fiscal sins as minor compared with austerity measures demanded by creditors. Creditors and taxpayers who are constantly bailing out these debtors disagree.

I know it’s not original to observe that in the post-Edenic world, nations, cultures, and people frequently are at odds and often come to blows. And yet despite the contentiousness of international relations, diplomats and peacemakers soldier on. They know that most people simply want a better life for themselves and their families. They know that there is a common language of science and a common understanding that not everyone conforms to the same worldview. They craft agreements based, as President Obama said of Iran, not on trust but on verification.

A future built on that kind of foundation isn’t warm and fuzzy. It can be chilly and suspicious. But it is a start at leaving history, grievance, and animosity in the past.

You've read  of  free articles. Subscribe to continue.

Dear Reader,

About a year ago, I happened upon this statement about the Monitor in the Harvard Business Review – under the charming heading of “do things that don’t interest you”:

“Many things that end up” being meaningful, writes social scientist Joseph Grenny, “have come from conference workshops, articles, or online videos that began as a chore and ended with an insight. My work in Kenya, for example, was heavily influenced by a Christian Science Monitor article I had forced myself to read 10 years earlier. Sometimes, we call things ‘boring’ simply because they lie outside the box we are currently in.”

If you were to come up with a punchline to a joke about the Monitor, that would probably be it. We’re seen as being global, fair, insightful, and perhaps a bit too earnest. We’re the bran muffin of journalism.

But you know what? We change lives. And I’m going to argue that we change lives precisely because we force open that too-small box that most human beings think they live in.

The Monitor is a peculiar little publication that’s hard for the world to figure out. We’re run by a church, but we’re not only for church members and we’re not about converting people. We’re known as being fair even as the world becomes as polarized as at any time since the newspaper’s founding in 1908.

We have a mission beyond circulation, we want to bridge divides. We’re about kicking down the door of thought everywhere and saying, “You are bigger and more capable than you realize. And we can prove it.”

If you’re looking for bran muffin journalism, you can subscribe to the Monitor for $15. You’ll get the Monitor Weekly magazine, the Monitor Daily email, and unlimited access to CSMonitor.com.