Thursday, June 15, 2017

Geopolitical Trajectories

As I see it...

The USA wants continuous instability and violence because global stability and respect for national sovereignty (the very basis of the UN Charter) imply the natural development and independence of Eurasia, Latin America, Africa... and the natural loss of USA hegemony.

Likewise, Israel wants continuous war and conflict in the Middle East to assert its military and enforcement hegemony, which is otherwise naturally eroded by regional development.

Russia and China want diplomacy and collaboration to avoid USA mayhem and economic predation.

The more the USA and Israel support violence and bully nations with sanctions and military campaigns and support for terrorist proxies, the more emerging nations must collaborate and respond. Next the USA dollar will continue to be displaced.

The USA is losing its global bully status. The only question is how brutal it will be in its downfall. (Current examples: Syria, Philippines...) It may also find dignity, but historic examples of authentic USA dignity are rare. There is little choice other than firmly resisting USA madness.

A few relevant recent links:

1 comment:

Levantine said...

respect for national sovereignty (the very basis of the UN Charter)

Carroll Quigley hasmade relevant remarks about this in 1966: "...... almost total destruction of international law and the international community as they existed from the middle of the seventeenth century to the end of the nineteenth. That old international law was based on a number of sharp rational distinctions which no longer exist; these include the distinction between war and peace, the rights of neutrals, the distinction between combatants and noncombatants, the nature of the state, and the distinction between public and private authority. These are now either destroyed or in great confusion. ..... “

The growth of international law in the late medieval and Renaissance periods not only sought to make the distinctions we have indicated, as a reaction against "feudal disorder"; it also sought to make a sharp distinction between public and private authority (in order to get rid of the feudal doctrine of dominia) and to set up sharp criteria of public authority involving the new doctrine of sovereignty. One of the chief criteria of such sovereignty was ability to maintain the peace and to enforce both law and order over a definite territory; one of its greatest achievements was the elimination of arbitrary non-sovereign private powers such as robber barons on land or piracy on the sea. Under this conception, ability to maintain law and order became the chief evidence of sovereignty, and the possession of sovereignty became the sole mark of public authority and the existence of a state. All this has now been destroyed. The Stimson Doctrine of 1931 the American refusal to recognize Red China, shifted recognition from the objective criterion of ability to maintain order to the subjective criterion of approval of the form of government or liking of a government's domestic behavior."

.... As long as the chief criterion for a state's sovereignty, and hence of recognition, was ability to maintain order, states in international law were regarded as equal. This concept is still recognized in theory in such organizations as the Assembly of the United Nations. But the achievement of nuclear weapons, by creating two super-Powers in a Cold War, destroyed the fact of the equality of states. ... As a result, all kinds of groups and individuals could do all kinds of actions to destroy law and order without suffering the consequences of forcible retaliation by ordinary powers or by the super-Powers, and could become recognized as states when they were still totally lacking in the traditional attributes of statehood....."

Under the Cold War umbrella, small groups or areas can obtain recognition as states without any need to demonstrate the traditional characteristics of statehood, ..... either by securing the intervention (usually secret) of some outside Power or even by preventing the intervention of a recognized Power fearful of precipitating nuclear or lesser conflict. In this way areas with a few states (such as southeast Asia) were shattered into many; states went out of existence or appeared (as Syria did in 1958 and 1961); and so-called new states came into existence by scores without reference to any traditional realities of political power or to the established procedures of international law. "

The number of separate states registered as members in the United Nations rose steadily from 51 in 1945 to 82 in 1958 to 104 in 1961, and continued to rise. The difference in power between the strongest and the weakest became astronomical, and the whole mechanism of international relations, outside the UN organization as well as within it, became more and more remote from power considerations or even from reality, and became enmeshed in subjective considerations of symbols, prestige, personal pride, and petty spites. ...."