PressTV: How to play and win in the contemporary highly competitive international geopolitical games of power?

Thu Dec 27, 2012 7:38PM GMT

By S. S. Salim

This was the age which saw the birth of the new aggressive western colonization of the great parts of the world.

First fell Americas, followed by Asiatic states of India, China, Japan, to Africa (and the new capitalist venture of Slavery).

This article has been submitted primarily as a result of the request from one of the readers who commented on my most recent article on the PressTV online section of the ”Viewpoints”, an article which was titled as ”PressTV challenging Western Media Monopoly”, when the article probably should really have been appropriately titled as ”West’s Plan Iran-Option B: The Korean Model”, which argued that the west has somehow ”accepted behind doors” that Iran is becoming a nuclear power and thus it seemed to have changed it’s strategy [Option A] from denying such a capability to containing a Nuclear Iran [Option B] through starvation, isolation [both mainly achieved via sanctions and bans] and finally the armed encirclement of Iran by western regional puppets of Persian Gulf Community [arms race in the region].

Anyway, the reader asked ”how could one compete with the western imperialist powers?”. And on this present article, I will try to respond to this question, with some appropriate details, most of which might be accessible via open sources materials and channels (while some might be original, actually just one: the utility of private security/mercenaries to the west today as in the past).

It is critically essential that before one attempts to understand how to play the highly competitive contemporary international geopolitical games of power, especially with the pinned-hopes of winning, one must accept two logical and complementary facts: one, that the present international system has been for many centuries now been predominantly a western invention/design or product, thus, when one accepts this first-logic then one can be able to appreciate the second complementary logic based on the fact that since this contemporary international system (and it’s complex and highly competitive geopolitical games) is a western creation/product, then one must diligently and studiously seek an in-depth understanding of the history of western politics, culture and general socio-economic affairs (which I will briefly outline next after this section).

In appreciating and approaching the competitive contemporary geopolitical games within this frame of reference, that it’s western structure, processes and characteristic, then one can learn or rather recognize with ease the point of attack, that the vulnerable critical point of such a system found to be the ”THE CAPITAL” (money and wealth); in other words, the ability for western states to amass great wealth and to control the structures and systems of international finances, economics and trade or banking, is the single critical point of assault in defeating once and for all the beast— the control of capital is the western only Achilles Heels. So how do one take away such a control? I will briefly answer this after a brief history of the West.

The west: from rags to riches

In the third century, Alexander the Great, the son of the King of Macedonia and Greece (after the fall of Athens and Sparta), took over the reins of power from his father King Phillips. To legitimize his power, as his father did, Alexander proclaimed his actions were all done ”For The Glory of Greece”, in other words, Greeks were not to think of Macedonians as their masters but as their kinships and fellow citizens, from same racial tree; this was the birth of the concept of ”west”, which literally meant (as it is today) that it represented the bloc of White-European races, who were apparently more civilised and racially superior than the rest of the world, and at the time, this white- European (westerners) was somehow only limited to Macedonians and Greeks, and not even the Northern tribes of Germanic races, or Latin (Romans), or Iberian tribes of Spain and Portuguese, or Scandinavians were included in such a ”pure racial bloc of superior civilised nations”.

So we bega to see the birth of a ”racist ideology” (of the ”west” supra-nationalism identity) established, and with it, also under Alexander, saw the founding of a significant socializing norms and values of what is to be a westerner? It meant to be able to think of oneself as ”superior [i.e. civilized] than the rest [of barbarians]”, and with this socio-cultural psychological outlook, we saw the logic of the western ”natural rights” (based on social organic theory of human evolutions and classification, known later as Social Darwinism), that it was the right of these civilized and superior western races/people of Europa (later included also was North America after the colonization and ”civilization” of these lands) to ”save”, or ”to free”, or ”to civilised”, or ”to intervene in others” affairs because on their own these ”inferior barbarians” could not do it by themselves (the racial paternalistic practice enshrined within western imperialism and colonialism to this day: Bush Freedom/Democracy Wars, or Humanitarian Interventions, or Human Security etc); cornerstone of western geopolitical thoughts from Mackinder, Haushofer, Ranken, Fiske, to present Samuel Huntington’s Clash of Civilization, or Thomas Barnett, the neoliberal geopolitician at the Pentagon, who deviced the ”New Pentagon World Map”, to British Robert Cooper and his essay calling for new western ”Liberal Imperialism” IN ORDER TO SAVE THE WORLD from so-called new ”barbarians” such as Al-Qaeda, Failed States or ”Axis of Evil” states of Iran, Iraq, Syria and North Korea.

Thus Alexander was a founding father of an idea and a concept that is ”west[ern]”, which was from the beginning to this present day, is enshrined in similar highly racial, highly paternalistic, highly aggressive, and highly imperialistic norms, values and principles in relations to ”non-western Others”.

This is the root of western imperialism and culture.

Alexander was replaced by former Barbarians of the Northern borders, the Romans who took over his empire in the west, and proclaimed, as Alexander kinship did, that they were not defeaters of Macedonian-Greeks power but rather their ”successors”, and they proclaimed they new societies and cultures to be based on ”old Greek practices and ideals” (claims found even today: in arts, literature, architecture, intellectual discourses and general behaviours of the west: the West as Children of Rome; hence every western power ever since has proclaimed herself as ”Pax Britannia”, Pax Ecclesia, Pax Franca, Pax America, or today Pax Europa). Rome maintained the aggressive (war as central to western policy against barbarians) and imperialistic (superiority vs inferiority) characteristics.

They also inherited the colonies in the North Africa and Middle East (still changing hands, from one western imperial power to another, to this day) conquered by Alexander, and later they lost these to new ”self-proclaimed Roman successors”, their defeaters the Visigoths tribes, who now erected the Christian Church which founded its popularity during the later Roman years, as the as rightful successor of the Roman Empires, hence referred to as the Holy Roman Empire.

However soon each embolden western ”tribes” or dynasties, who had carved their own territories out of the fall of Rome such as the Franks of France or the Druids-Celtic (Anglo-Saxons) of Britain, Teutonians of Germanic Northern States, all began to proclaim ”dynastic self-determination” (a form of nationalism and statehood), well expressed by Louis XV of France, ”The King is the State” (and not the Church or the Pope). During this time, the ”west” fell into a long period of painful civil wars as one ”state” tries to ”balance” the others out of full control (the idea of balance of power, not new, but western commentators claim it’s, as with everything else, apparently their inventions).

Out of this painful civil war came a treaty recognising each king’s rights under the Treaty of Westphalia, and as the war worsen the economic conditions of the west, and with zero international wars (for colonization and booty-raiding), minus the ”Crusaders Wars” in Palestine, the west found themselves in dire state, with total destitute and with conditions made worse by plagues and diseases, so these new ”powers” commissioned international expeditions to ”look for wealth and treasures” to save their societies.

This was the age which saw the birth of the new aggressive western colonization of the great parts of the world.

First fell Americas, followed by Asiatic states of India, China, Japan, to Africa (and the new capitalist venture of Slavery).

During this time ”western” states wealth boomed beyond belief, which in logic made ”imperialism and colonialism” two of the western most stable and permanent policies within the international politics and security. As the logic went by mastering others’ lands and resources, as well as people, by arms, the west saw the ”fruits” of power and of capital (profit from resources not theirs), and only by having wealth (attained through armed robbery: see my previous article here on PressTV), could the ‘west” have had a chance, to this day so remains the logic, of survival and competing (though not in reality as many as shown, through peaceful intertrading the west can still get the deals they want, however, few western states, like UK, US and France, are merely very greedy and want everything for nothing!).

London became the centre of the capital and finance, as well as Amsterdam, Paris, and others.

This is how the capital/money became the king-maker in the world. After the so-called ”world wars”, which were really another western civil wars, equivalent to a 100-years wars, the west unanimously enthroned United States as the successor of the western empire (management), and US cleverly created ”international communities and institutions” to share the burden of management, after all the US is a business-inclined state from birth, hence it’s ability to think and approach issues as a business problem.

The model survived to this day, as central to western international system dominance and control is the ”delegated management responsibilities and role” for the ”international communities” of ”allies and partners” who are really nothing but new administrators of the new form of liberal imperialism under the western powers of US-led ”white-European” communities (making up of NATO, EU, NAFTA, and so forth; while the new colonies are made up of AU, GCC, ASEAN, and the likes).

Above is a brief-detailed outlined of the history of the west, from rags and to their riches, based on the principles of imperialism and colonialism with arms and force in order to control global supplies of natural resources, products and services, as well as wealth.

And it is here where lies the Achilles heel of the west, the ability to reap up the unchallenged control of the international capital system.

So how do one challenge this?

Founding a Parallel International System

One can challenge the west’s control and command of international system by simply erecting, not going head to head as previous power-challengers had tried like the Soviet Union, new parallel international systems.

In short, the non-western states need to slowly and progressively found and erect their own financial systems, thus by-passing western dollar (see this article, which a must read, on how US wars are conducted out of fear of a challenge to her dollar-power and status) -based Bretton Woods or Washington Consensus order, which in itself will defeat the western ability to go around with ease ”sanctioning” and bullying any parties or states they wish to, since the west ”controls the purse!”.

This article, , is a must read from Financial Times, written by an Indian young economist who outlines such a parallel order. BRICS structure is a good first attempt, but very limited, and mostly made up of parties which seem very unlikely to EVER come to an agreement on who should lead; China is arrogant, Russia is arrogant, India is arrogant and defensive, Brazil is defensive, South Africa is defensive. BRICS will need to expand by opening up membership to others, also there will be a need to work from within existing ”western-created international system and institutions” in order to control these from within. I will leave the discussion here, but the readings of above articles will provide excellent starting point.

Offensive-Capabilities: Be Pro-Active

Next to follow is the need for non-western countries to start arms-race with highly offensive weapon systems similar to western capabilities. Traditionally, non-western states have focused mainly on defensive weapon systems and capabilities, since their goals and interests were mainly limited to regional affairs and of nature, and not global as the western states.

This need to change.

The non-western states need to learn lessons observed directly from the western practises, from offensive arms, to proxies uses, to covert operations and so forth. Here is a seemingly missed-point of importance which I elude to as might be of originality from the start of this article; the west use of terrorists. But these, western terrorists, are legitimised as, since the age of ”private companies” of Italian Condonetteris, private security contractors; in other words, western-terrorists are ”western mercenaries”, of formerly known firms such as Blackwaters, or Aegis, or private intelligence firms, such as Hakulyt, Janusis, Control Risk, Kroll, and so forth.

In short, these are some of the basic ways for a state to have a chance to compete successively against the western hegemonies in the highly competitive contemporary geopolitical games of power and mastership. But it requires unity, leadership or mere individual determination with a genius for strategic foresight; which means even Iran by herself can compete with any great power out there toe-to-toe.

SSS/JR

S. S. Salim is a specialist on defense, geopolitics and security/intelligence affairs, with primary regional interests being the West, Muslim world, Africa and Sino-Russian political and security affairs. Salim is a graduate of the University of Wales, Aberystwyth with a BA and MA in international politics and military studies. He has also an MA in terrorism, international crime and global security from Coventry University.More articles by S. S. Salim

About these ads