Enemies of our enemies are not always our friends. Yet why do we often hear people say “The enemy of our enemy is our friend”? This seems to make good sense. In fact, it is a strategy frequently used during wartimes: countries that might not be on friendly terms form alliances to fight against a common enemy and these allies are “friends” against the bigger enemy. During peacetimes, this strategy is frequently used in politics. During the US Presidential Elections, for instance, some candidates, recognizing that they are losing out, typically withdraw from the race and express support for a remaining candidate whose position aligns with theirs more and/or whom they believe would benefit themselves (more) should he become the President. When only very few candidates are left, voters, fearing that their most dreaded candidate would win, typically vote for a strong contender whom they might not like very much in the hope that the latter would beat the former.
It feels good to be able to form alliances with parties to help defeat one’s biggest enemies, regardless of whether they are, or can become, real friends. There is power in numbers. However, one only needs to go a little further to discover that “the enemy of our enemy is our friend” is ultimately untrue. Here are just three every day examples demonstrating why:
***
I talked with people on an Internet forum who were staunchly against radical politics and ideological possession which, as explained in my other blog essays, is commonly found among the far left (although it is just as bad on the extreme right). As I am also against authoritarianism regardless of politics, for a moment these people seemed like good allies.
However, these people who talked very sensibly soon revealed themselves to be the other enemy that I have been fighting against. They believed that it is a great idea to work in present day’s Hong Kong, despite its lack of political freedom, simply because they could say whatever they liked without having to worry about political correctness. It soon turned out that they were not truly against authoritarianism. They were against the type of authoritarianism that would not allow them to show their blatant racism and sexism. Yet they were in favor of the type of authoritarianism that seemingly benefited them and allowed them to act out their bigotry and to discriminate against minorities, even if it means giving up on their fundamental freedoms and dignity as human beings.
Next time, if you encounter some arrogant expatriates in Hong Kong who hold such a deplorable attitude–there are still plenty of “filth’s” (the “failed in London, try Hong Kong” type) according to my friends in Hong Kong–feel free to tell them: “You know, you’re just a loser.”
***
Recently, there had been clashes among some radical Muslims (I emphasize “radical” because in my experience many are rather secular and moderate and do not act like these people) and LGBTQ activists in Canada due to the latter’s advocacy for the inclusion of teaching materials about diverse sexualities in elementary schools. Many Asian parents I know of are against exposing very young children to such materials. They are not against the idea of diversity and inclusion and do embrace the idea of teaching respect for people who are different. They simply believe that children should be exposed to sexually-related materials at a more mature age.
Let’s assume that teaching very young children anything beyond basic respect is indeed harmful and counter-productive to fostering a tolerant society. It would be utterly foolish for these Asian parents to form alliances with religious fanatics in the hope of waging a war against the LGBTQ activists. These fanatics typically have no respect for western cultures and do not feel ready to embrace the principles of their host country. In fact, there have been numerous reports about homophobia and transphobia coming from these radicals.
***
Many in my friends circle are celebrating the removal of Claudine Gay from her role as the President of Harvard, though very dissatisfied with the fact that she remains as a professor bagging the same monthly salary (It’s who you know, not what you know, see?). Gay’s utter incompetence was revealed by her response at the Congressional hearing re: whether the incitement of genocide of Jews constitutes harassment at the college, and her substantial record of plagiarism throughout her career (the most glaring examples being her omissions of references to the authors and their works, even assuming that her omissions of quotes or bad/no paraphrasing were due to oversight and pure sloppiness). Whether attacks on her had been motivated by racism or not would not change the fact that she is completely unqualified for her role, or indeed, any professorship, and the likelihood that she had advanced her career solely because of her race and privileged family background.
However, not all enemies of Gay are friends of people who want real justice and progress in society. Good people questioned her credentials and subjected her to proper scrutiny (because it was the only moral thing to do), but not all who did so are good people. There are indeed white supremacists, racists, and misogynists among those cheering on her downfall and everlasting shame. These people are also enemies of society: the opposite of authoritarianism is not democracy or liberty–it is a different form of authoritarianism.
***
It is tempting to join hands with all enemies of our enemies. Revel in the fleeting sense of alliance in the mass celebration of the downfall of Gay, for instance, but do not fool yourselves into thinking that the bad people are our friends or allies. One must form meaningful alliances with people with shared beliefs and visions in their fight against authoritarians, so as not to replace them with authoritarians who go by different names.