Facing the Inevitable (Part I)

Ryan air, I saw on British television, is threatening to sue the British government for extended security measures, which have wrecked havoc in airports. No doubt, it was an international victory when the plot to blow up nine airlines was busted by various international forces working together against the ‘War on Terror’, and extreme actions were required in order to achieve the same, but has anyone thought of the side effects of extreme actions? Taking greater world history into account, it needs to be understood that big projects need big risks, but the risks themselves lead into roads that are otherwise not planned for because of lack of extended foresight by the people taking these decisions.

In the year 221 BC, China was in the age of the ‘Warring States’. In this era, China was divided into various small states which were continuously battling with each other with no end in sight. It is estimated that so many people died during the years of the Warring States. The Qin Dynasty ruler, Emperor Qin Shi Huang reunited China, with an aim to bring an end to the fighting and bloodshed. How did he do this? He declared war on all the seven states, albeit with more brutality. Did the end justify the means? Who knows? One thing is certain, though, the aim of unifying China and ending the blood feuds was indeed met. In fact, as a result, Qin also unified the characters of the Chinese language, a system of writing that is still in use today. He also put in place a standardized system of weights and measures. The blood of the ancients gave way to the methodology of the future. Most people disagree with the Qin’s method of ending the fighting, saying it paved the way for authoritarianism and totalitarianism. Others defend by pointing out that freedom is not often limited to the right to own a gun. It goes beyond it by the concept of the greater good. It was for sure a risk to start a greater war with just a vision in mind, a vision that might as well be flawed. In the end, the question is raised: Can one man’s vision of what is good be strong enough to be a prediction of the future?

There are considerable similarities between the Qin Chinese and the 20th century American strategic policy direction. The word China can actually be roughly translated into ‘center of the world’ or almost literally ‘between heaven and hell’. As this stands, the administrations of both countries had this in mind, China, in the Qin period, and the United States during and after the Cold War era, that anything that affects their own well being will eventually affect the safety of the entire planet. This is partially true, even today, because of the economic interests and military strength and research both these nations have achieved. Nonetheless, China probably handled the situation better than the United States did, by closing its borders for almost one thousand years, as opposed to pre-empting military action on perceived threats. Because of China’s belief that unification at all costs was necessary for the country’s peaceful existence, they eventually opted for communism. By the way, it is suitable to note that China is the only country in the world that has never invaded another country. The case of Tibet is unique, since the Chinese believe that Tibet has been, legally, a part of China since the Yuan dynasty. The issue of different culture is officially recognized by the Government of China with a view that China in itself contains over fifty different ethnicities and cultures. This, according to the Government of China, is no ground for independence. Let’s examine the psychological effects surrounding this decision.

Communism is a system of government in which the state excercises considerable control over market forces. By controlling how much people earn and what they do, the strategic direction of a country can be maintained, leading to slow and steady progress. The problem with communism is that although everyone has basic amenities, but no one has wealth. Wealth is retained by the state in order to be distributed where needed. Hence there is a general, sometimes claustrophobic status quo perhaps because of Maslow’s model not being fully experienced. On the other hand, capitalism creates free markets, which cause incredible growths and wealth creation, but also leads to poverty and unemployment. Both of these economic systems have their problems: Communism has equitable wealth distribution, but no happiness, whereas capitalism has freedom but poor masses and inequality. China’s decision to pursue a one man vision more than two thousand years ago eventually led to the belief that a one man show is better for everyone. They opted for supremacy for the greater good. Even then, capitalism, however controlled, did manage to sprout out into the Chinese economic system, bringing with it all its problems. At this time, the Chinese government is Communist, but the people are capitalist. In the end, China is progressing both as a state and as a nation. Point being, instead of looking for the solutions to their problems elsewhere, the Chinese fixed the issues at home and managed to block threats from entering its borders.

The United States, believing that it’s a free world, let everyone come in. Because of it’s capitalist approach, they needed labour, and labour is expensive if citizens are labouring. In Pakistan it’s the same issue, menial labour is done by legal and illegal afghan immigrants. Illegal immigrants, because of lack of proper facilities and lower than average income, find it easier to earn via crime, including robbery, drugs and prostitution, than to get citizenship, which is at best a rigorous bureaucratic procedure. Now that the United States has a whole breed and three generations of various cultures and religions, feel that they should be integrated into American society. Unfortunately, the ‘American Way of Life’ advocated by Superman is undefined, strangely broken down into ‘life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness’. When coined during the cold war, it was a way of displaying the American concept of exceptionalism. Even this word, ‘American Exceptionalism’ was coined by Alexis de Tocqueville in 1831, observing that the United States is different from other developed nations because of its unique origins, national credo, historical evolution, and distinctive political and religious institutions. This term was also used by the Republicans in 1890 for justification of US expansion outside North America.

Because of immense immigration to the US from all parts of the world (mainly because of economic and financial benefits, hardly because of freedom of expression), the US became increasingly confident that as a system of government and ‘Way of Life’ it was needed everywhere. As communism and other world powers, particularly the Soviet Union, grew in technology, and hence, money, the Americans felt they were being threatened. Please note that this threat was not only physical but also ideological. Ideological overshadowing would eventually mean labour, both physical and intellectual would move away from the United States and towards other nations, perhaps France, Germany or the USSR.
This would affect the production of goods and services in the US, thereby taking away money from them. This led to a pseudo-foreign policy with the effect that any country not allied with the United States would be counted its enemy. In essence, this meant any country not using the capitalist market system would not be allowed to exist until it reverted.

By self nominating themselves as leaders of the free world, and, according to Naom Chomsky, as flag carriers of the free market economy, the Americans have long been the lone cowboy out to defend innocent villagers from their tyrannical leaders, often against the ignorant wishes of the exploited themselves. It’s not surprising to note that High Noon an American Western movie of 1952, is the most requested movie of American Presidents. The movie, starring Gary Cooper and Grace Kelly, tells the story of a small town Sheriff who stands up against a gang of troublemakers alone, because the townspeople and administration are scared and unwilling to fight. Perhaps this is the inspiration for the American military to invade other countries despite the country’s own reluctance for rescue.

I agree with Henry Kissinger, if I understand him correctly, that the Treaty of Westphalia (1648) was nullified by the United States on the concept of pre-emptive ‘shock and awe’ signature military tactics. This treaty maintained, learning from the thirty years war, that whatever happened inside one sovereign state was no business of any other state, unless absolved by an act of war. I agree that the definition of ‘act of war’ has changed over the centuries, however politico-economic systems and imagined weapons of mass destruction do not count, in my opinion.

To be continued. . .