Bridging Cultural Divide Through Collaboration

As the world grows smaller, we seem to be getting obsessed with finding ways by which different nations may collaborate despite their huge cultural differences. You only have to open any newspaper and it is likely that you will find the word collaboration in headlines, article titles, editorials, and even in advertisements. The lines extolling the virtues of collaboration sound banal, but that is only because there is such a plethora of collaborative ideas being bandied about. Such lines harangue us everyday- "USA and India will collaborate for mutual benefit." "The Middle Eastern culture and the Western culture will benefit from mutual collaborative efforts." "Collaboration in the manufacturing sector leads to a coming together of Chinese and Western culture."
The persistent focus on collaboration could lead one to think that collaboration between various national governments is the best way to bridge the cultural divide and solve international issues. Unfortunately that is seldom the case. Why? Because collaboration, when done on an international level, cannot remain insulated from the political agenda of those in power. A political collaboration helps only the Machiavellian powerbrokers who, in the name of bridging cultural divide, take care of their own vested interests. While singing paeans to collaboration, the governments in powerful nations support petty and cruel dictatorships in many third world countries. These dictatorships in turn compensate their backers by granting them unfettered access to their mineral and oil resources.
It is not just the need for mineral and oil that may force a powerful nation to collaborate with a third world country. The need can also be ideological - a powerful nation may collaborate with a third world regime to inspire it to bring about a cultural and social change. The principal fault line in international relations today is the one that runs between the US and the Middle Eastern nations. US would like the Middle Eastern nations to develop into vibrant free market democracies, but Middle Eastern nations don't seem to relish the idea of a democratic change. There is a huge collaborative effort on in Iraq - the US govt and a new Iraqi regime collaborating on a project for bringing democracy to that country. But there are Iraqis who don't want to be part of this collaborative exercise. They prefer an Islamic dictatorship to a democracy. There is use of force on both sides and an endless cycle of killing and counter killing.
The current imbroglio in Iraq is perhaps the most glaring example of a collaborative exercise gone horribly wrong. With US government and the Iraqi rebels working to cross purposes, the fig leaf of collaboration cannot last for long and US might be forced to withdraw, leaving Iraq in the hands of a much worse dictator than the one it deposed. Some cultures are so different from each other that no bridge can ever be built between them. There can never be any collaboration or compromise between a US that desires democracy and the Iraqi rebels who yearn for a medieval dictatorship. So why try such an exercise that is doomed to failure. Iraqis should be allowed to live in a culture of their choice, a culture they can comprehend, until the time comes when they will voluntarily wake up to a need for change.
That is the point that Stephen Crane makes in his thoughtful poem "In the desert" - he shows no inclination to transform the beast, rather he calls him his friend and treats him as his equal. He makes no effort to collaborate with the beast or to force it into changing its habits.

In the desert
I saw a creature, naked, bestial,
Who, squatting upon the ground,
Held his heart in his hands,
And ate of it.
I said: "Is it good, friend?"
"It is bitter-bitter," he answered;
"But I like it
because it is bitter,
And because it is my heart."

In the last 100 years almost every collaborative effort that the US government has made to transform other cultures into mirror image of its own and "bridge the cultural divide" between its people and the others has failed. The US intervention in the World War I was a collaborative exercise involving dozens of governments, and it aimed at keeping Europe free of dictatorship. But a US victory in this war merely paved way for the rise of Hitler. Then during the World War II, US collaborated with the beleaguered nations of Western Europe to rid the world of Hitler, but a US victory in World War II only led to the creation of another powerful dictatorship, Soviet Union under Stalin. To rid the world of Soviet Union, US collaborated with the Pakis and the Afghan Mujaheddin but that only led to the rise of Islamic fundamentalism, which in turn spawned international terror organizations like the Taliban and the Al Quida.
You cannot collaborate with dictators in many third world countries and still expect the population in those countries to be true to democratic ideals. Nor can cultures be bridged or transformed by brute military power. You can't bomb any nation into becoming a democratic free market society. US marines are not meant to be the apostles of democracy and peace, they are a fighting force, they can only win wars. The task of bringing about democracy and cultural change is best left to the local politicians. As long as US persists in collaborating with dictators in third world countries and in using its military to promote a "so-called democracy" it will continue to act like a catalyst for the rise of forces opposed to democracy and to everything that US stands for and values. In best interest of its own people and for the rest of the world, the US government should withdraw within its own borders and confine itself to governing its own people.
A collaborative and internationalist US, has done immense harm to itself and to other nations. An isolationist US is the best thing that can happen to the world. However, collaboration between people from different nations, when it happens on a non-governmental level, is a great way of bridging different cultures and improving the lives of the people on both sides of the cultural divide. When people from different cultures collaborate for the purpose of furthering their own individual self-interests, they usually succeed to work together for great mutual benefit. A good example of this kind of collaboration, achieved at an individual-to-individual level, lies in the recent success story being scripted in the Indian city of Bangalore. About two decades ago Bangalore was small town in India with a not very high standard of living. Then the IT boom happened.
Entrepreneurs from Bangalore and from Silicon Valley in US found a way to collaborate with each other and create quality software at much cheaper rates. As a result of this collaborative effort Bangalore became an international IT hub and US got software at much cheaper rates. It was a win-win situation for everyone, and especially for citizens of Bangalore whose standard of living has improved dramatically. The collaboration between IT entrepreneurs in Bangalore and US could become a success only because governments of both the countries were not involved, only private individuals were. The IT industry in Bangalore is an example of globalization at its best. People from different cultures come together at their own free will and collaborate on the things that they want to do.
It is Thomas Jefferson who has said, "A businessman has no nation." And because a businessman has no nation he is the best suited to be a bridge between different cultures.