Each side in this war sees it as described above.
Though the explanations of why it is the case cannot be wholly trusted on one side of this divide.
At its most basic level you have:
1. Nations who have clearly expressed a wish to be left in peace to trade and to expand their economies.
2. Nations who have dedicated themselves to assuming the mantle of ultimate arbiters of good and bad with the sworn mission to change the nations in 1. above.
The reasons for those in group 1. feeling the way they do are stated in the description and hardly need further explanation. There are no signs that they wish to spread their modes of governance to any other nation.
Anyone inferring this merely from them wishing to engage in trade where both sides win, they gaining resources and wealth and the other products, services and investment, is over-egging the pudding as the saying goes. They are inferring negativity where none is truly evident, though it should be said no interaction of this kind is every wholly unproblematic.
On this side at least there is no significant trace of a desire to rule the world by establishing global hegemony and forcing all others to follow them.
The reasons for those in group 2. feeling the way they do are far more complex. For them, on a surface level as may be expressed by their elites, their mission is a duty based their own perception that they have the most perfect, liberal and free systems possible and that it automatically follows that they must work toward the end of changing all those in group 1 to their particular mode of governance.
The end goal would certainly entail the end of all forms of governance not conforming to that of the nations in group 2. This is surely obvious, and leads inevitably to the conclusion any hopes that the policy of regime change by this group would end were false.
Due to the past activities of many in group 2. a high degree of skepticism is warranted regarding their stated reasons, i.e. democracy, freedom, western liberal values as standard. The track record of the nations making these claims hardly confirms the purity expressed in the terms used. National interests of the nations concerned have time and again been the priority for many of these nations as evidenced by their assistance to nations who flout their claimed goals and still do to this day. In addition, several of these nations have undermined figures instigating the policies they claim to wish to spread and replaced them with those directly opposed to those policies, i.e. dictators rather than democrats.
However, the elites (both political and within mainstream media) insist that they have a refined and just purity of intent now, despite any slight “mishaps” of the past.
On the subject of world domination it seems clear that only group 2. has this ambition. That in as much as they wish to remove all forms of governance except their own (with the possible exception of certain Latin American and Middle Eastern dictators if such are willing to conform to their geopolitical dominance).
The title to this commentary is not in any way wild hyperbole. The war being waged now, can with justification be called the Final World War. When one side or the other wins there will remain no possibility for any further such conflict.
I will now speculate upon what might emerge after the total victory of one side or another where one side realizes and acknowledges they have lost and capitulates fully. (Of course this would be a long drawn out process and such a clear and unequivocal admission of defeat would be unlikely, but could be seen clearly by other means than a stated surrender.)
If the nations in group 1. win there can be no doubt that there will then exist a world where diverse systems of governance are tolerated. In the atmosphere of such a world agreements can be made under conditions of mutual respect. A greater degree of unity of purpose, despite all differences, will emerge as a strong possibility due to this high degree of respect being shown. The sovereignty of nations would without doubt be regarded as sacrosanct and international law once more be adhered to without any one nation being able to act above it.
If the nations in group 2. win there can be no doubt that there will then exist a world where diverse systems of governance are not tolerated (except by decree in specific cases by the victors). Nations who had previously been run under different rules of governance would be subject to close inspection and control requiring a high degree of monitoring to ensure they never slipped back to earlier, unacceptable modes of governance. It is very likely that a massive expansion of entities such as the NSA and GCHQ would be required for this monitoring to take place effectively.
These, as I see it are the two potential destinies of our world depending on who wins this last of all possible world wars.
My estimate is that most of us alive now under the age of 70 or even a little above in continuing good health will see clear signs of which group will emerge victorious in the hugely bruising war now under way.
There could hardly be a more important issue due to the mode of global governance of this planet in perpetuity, for every generation to come, being at stake.
No comments:
Post a Comment