On jumping to conclusions

There is this lovable story of a little old lady who was watching an exciting display of parachute-jumping at one of those disused airstrips in a small town in Europe. After a particularly breathtaking spectacle, the lady turned to one of the organisers and innocently inquired, “Tell me, young man, what happens if one of those parachutes fails to open?” His reply was prompt and to the point, “That, dear lady, is called jumping to a conclusion!”

Tongue-in-cheek or otherwise, the person in question did make a pertinent observation. Jumping to conclusions is, in any circumstance, fraught with danger. If one jumps to a conclusion, one does so at one’s own peril. Taking a cursory look at world history, one can hardly avoid the conclusion that most troubles facing humankind stem from the regrettable propensity of the powers that be to jump to (unwarranted) conclusions.

Case in point: Policy decisions of Mr Donald Trump, the venerable president of the ‘sole superpower’. While not denying that he and his actions will be judged by history in due course, the world does look askance at some.

Take a look at his campaign promise to ‘make America great again’. Had he stopped at the word ‘great’, it would have made a lot of sense. To add the word ‘again’ gives an ominous ring to it. What golden epoch in American history is the great man alluding to? Does he intend to take the clock back to the period when America was looked upon as a ‘bugbear’ by the world around? Or was he groping for the attribute ‘mighty’ or ‘powerful’? All to the good, but why zero in on ‘great’? The mind verily boggles!

Moreover, take the matter of the proposed ‘Great Big Wall’. Just when the world was heaving a collective sigh of relief at the thought that the wretched ‘walls’ in this already messy world had gone out of fashion, President Trump pops his intention to bring them right back and with a vengeance! The world could do with a few walls less. Apparently, President Trump concludes otherwise.

The ‘Trumping’ of the Paris Accord is another example. It was hardly a good omen, given the furore over the dangers posed by global warming. President Trump’s announcement that the US would opt out of the Paris Accord drew flack from most quarters, with most countries reaffirming their determination to carry out their commitments, including China, which is the world’s biggest emitter of carbon dioxide.

Then, comes another ‘bombshell’ with President Trump’s recognition of Jerusalem as the ‘capital of Israel’ and his vow to move the US embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem. This ‘conclusion’ rides roughshod over the aspirations of Palestinians and virtually stifles all hopes for a possible settlement based on the two-state principle. Vetoing of the resolution on the subject in the UN Security Council virtually slammed the door. The US, having already burnt its fingers in the fires it helped stoke within the Muslim World is, thereby, in danger of losing whatever leverage it had in that volatile region.

Another instance is the ‘nuclear accord’ with Iran, cobbled together after some delicate negotiations, it now hangs by a thread and may well be the next casualty of President Trump’s lackadaisical foray into the mine-field of international diplomacy.

Before concluding, a clarification may be in order. One has no desire or indeed the right, to poke holes in the policy decisions of what is after all the sole superpower. It is just that part of the ‘Third World’ — ever on the receiving end — sometimes looks up to the ‘First World’ as a role model. With the latter evidently prone to ‘jumping to conclusions’ when formulating policy, that has implications beyond its borders, would the former not be well within its rights to look askance? Or perhaps not!

Published in The Express Tribune, December 28^th, 2017.

Like Opinion & Editorial on Facebook, follow @ETOpEd on Twitter to receive all updates on all our daily pieces.