Why men and countries strive for dominance, I don't know. But I do know that they do. And I know that at the present moment, struggle for dominance is obvious all around the world. Maybe it always has been. Probably so.
What is Russia doing? Russia has been trying to reassert itself as a great power. Under Putin, their declared objective is to be a great power again; he says that the demise of the Soviet Union is the greatest tragedy of the last century.They have nuclear bombs – acquired with a technology stolen by spies just after WW II, but their own technology was great, as well. They launched Sputnik, after all, in days that they thought they might succeed. They do have military technology and power, but their national economic ability is not great. They are a petro-state. Their ability to achieve dominance relies on their aggressiveness and implacable leadership. And their ability to achieve dominance relies on the wavering will of his opponents. Putin has been trying everything he can think of. Militarily, he asserted dominance over Chechnya, he continues to try to dominate in Africa and the Middle East with troops and money, and he grabbed the Crimea with little more than a peep from the West. Now, he is trying to assert dominance by grabbing as much as he can of the Ukraine, and by demonstrating that there are little or no moral limits to what he will do. If he can't have Ukraine, he will destroy it so that no one else has it, either. And he tries every trick he can muster to influence and undermine the democracies, including spreading misinformation, hacking vital organs of democracies, and up to and including buying the allegiance of an American president and those all around him throughout the country. It's war; it's war.
The overall question is: can an autocracy outlast a democracy? Can a country led by capitalists who listen to money, when all is said and done, stay the course with a country led by those who are not limited by popular opinion. Putin's bet is that democracies will tire. Putin's bet is that democracies are inherently weak, and that dominance is a matter of will, not a matter of economic and moral development of a people.
Clausewitz said that war is the continuation of political fight be other means. That may help to clarify what war is, but it might also help to clarify what politics is as well.
While Russia might be fighting dominance and for repair of a lost glory, China's quest for dominance might not be much different. The history of China is a Middle Kingdom that always viewed itself as not only the center, but the apex of the world. Then their perch was displaced by encroaching Western powers that abased and humiliated China. Then Japan humiliated China as well in WW II. When the Communists beat the Nationalists in 1948, China was excluded from recognition for over 20 years and was one of the poorest countries in the world. After strict communism failed, retaining central planning but introducing capitalist reforms, and maturing of the Chinese government, performed one of the great miracles of the modern world, lifting China from a basket case to a leading economic power, with the end of that growth nowhere in sight.
China can be excused, in its contest for dominance with the West, for being skeptical when those misbehaving countries of the past now claim to be simply looking for justice and fair competition, and express hope that China will simply join the community of nations. They can smile and nod, but the natural will to dominance of nations cannot be concealed. Leaders matter; and just like Putin in Russia, Xi in China has achieved complete dominance internally, and he will go as far as he can internationally. He can see no reason to abide by rules of good behavior, which is actually new behavior for the West. He can see no reason he should not dominate as much in the South China Sea as the United States does in the Caribbean. He took Hong Kong and incorporated and dominated it and wiped out liberalism; he can think of no reason that he shouldn't have Taiwan. He can see no reason to obey rules against theft of intellectual property. He can think of no reason that he should not have hacked into every important choke point of the American economy, ready to squeeze whenever need should arise. Invading Taiwan would be a good time to squeeze. It's war. Wouldn't a soft democracy pay the price of Taiwan – far, far away – to go on with its life?
There are material gains to be had by being dominant, and psychological gains. It is just men who hunger for dominance, or would countries led by women do the same thing? Or is it just humans who group together and elect the most dominant people to lead them, or that these leaders grab the leadership? It would be nice to think that just changing the gender of leaders could make a significant difference – too simple. It must be evolution at work – I don't believe the meek inherit the earth, unless everyone else kills each other.
People have fought for years, and then fought for there being no more fighting. It's hard to think that this will change. There was speculation that the existence of nuclear weapons would eliminate wars because of the possible consequences. Not a chance. As in sports, if there are too many strikeouts or not enough, just change the height of the mound. In war, just adopt a code that there will be no first use and proceed as if they don't exist. Just change the rules so the wars can continue.
I still believe in the old conservative view that it is important to remain strong, although it can also be dangerous – neocons can fuck anything up – imagine their misunderstanding when they said, what's the use of a strong military if you don't use it? “Une chose qui m’humilie profondément est de voir que le génie humain a des limites, quand la bêtise humaine n’en a pas.” — Alexander Dumas (fils) (Translation: One thing that humbles me deeply is to see that human genius has its limits while human stupidity does not.)
The ultimate curse of mankind.
Budd Shenkin
No comments:
Post a Comment