Empires: different song, same verse.
There's a phrase which is used to describe situations that are equally stinky, but contained in different piles: same song, different verse. However, regarding empires in the world today I think the opposite is true: we have different songs, but with the same verse. This isn't an absolute truth, but a rhetorical device aimed at portraying that countries described as imperialistic in their behaviour (this not necessarily derogatorily, but neutrally and technically) do have similar M.O. 's in many ways, but different natures.
I won't talk about the M.O.'s in the sense that humans have different values, reasoning and shortcomings. When I say similar M.O.'s, I'm referring to the fact that different values, reasoning and shortcomings all point to a common, shared universal human nature. Thus, for example, North Korean agricultural mechanisation can be framed as a failure of the North Korean state but the North Korean state may very well argue that mechanisation that relies on dependency to foreign imports such as fuel and patented technology would be an even larger failure. This illustrates something we see everyday: some people have jobs where overtime is used as punishment whereas some people have jobs where overtime is used as reward. In both cases, the collective and the individual, we see that motivations and goals may conflict, but at the end of the day it is still motivations and goals that we are talking about!
Some people in Venezuela argued that Hugo Chavez preached with strong rhetoric against imperialism, American imperialism in particular, but ended up turning the country into a colony of China, Russia and Iran. This illustrates my thesis: why would President Chavez have done that if, at the end of the day, it's all the same song, albeit with different verse? And my answer is as follows: it is not the same song, but the verse is similar, which is what the opposition picked up (at least the second half).
How are they the same song if Russia, Britain, China, Spain, France, the United States of America, Islam, Haiti and to name three past examples widely considered extinct, Macedonian, Roman and Aztec clearly have different supporters and detractors? The rise of individualism makes for an interesting coalition: someone can have strong support for Russian and Islamic projects, yet another person can have a strong preference for a pro-Spain and pro-China point of view, and a third person be fully supportive of both Roman Catholicism and the United States of America project.
It does not all boil down to money: the rise of identity politics, linguistic affinity and shared cultural values talk loudly. For example, the gay men may be more supportive of France and Spain than of Russia and China. However, the Muslim libertarian from New York City might side more with Israel than with Islamic projects exceptionally. And of course, Haiti is a complex example where racial and linguistic resentment coexists with cultural and linguistic affinities. This is due to, among other things, geographical proximity and shared history.
Money still talks, though: like Anne Applebaum argues, our democracies are under assault due to paid misinformation. Some people can still be bought and sold. Tax havens serve a double purpose: the tax cut may come with geopolitical implications. Trade partners might make decisions that make practical purposes triumph over ideology.
I want to avoid the "money versus everything else" false binary. Individual and Collective geopolitical alignment to world powers often described as imperialistic in nature are informed by factors that are very important, albeit constantly misinterpreted. Love and romance is a factor: you or a loved one falling in love and entering marriage with someone of a different background influences decisions. To make this a real life credible scenario, your best friend's new girlfriend is from the Russian Federation and you meet a good, potential business partner in the Wedding. There goes the Cold War-era rhetoric you didn't even buy that much in the first place.
Other examples of things which affect geopolitical alignment as described are mystical experiences and other life-changing situations of any nature. Epiphanies, an encounter with an Other which marks a beginning and an end, are a constant in world history: Martin Luther feeling called to join the catholic priesthood, Steve Jobs controversial crediting of Apple's founding with entheogen-assisted psychonautics, George W. Bush crediting Methodism with his recovery from alcoholism are important milestones in human history.
We could talk about this further, but in order to avoid this essay from overextending, I will ask a simple question, if 'Empires' are all the same song, with different verses, then why do humans constantly side with one over another for several different reasons? Different 'empires' have different cultures, histories, missions, needs, populations, clientele, contradictions, styles (the M.O.'s I referred to) and allies as well as enemies. Their different armies, athletes, entrepreneurs, scientific developments, and failures all illustrate this. For example, in America we have the U.S. Marines Corps, Muhammad Ali, Bill Gates, the dishwasher and Vietnam. On the other hand, in Spain, we have the current state of the Armed Forces, Rafael Nadal, Amancio Ortega, sustainable mining science and the combined traumas of the defeats in the New World military arena in the mid-to-late 19th century as well as the 21st century Afghanistan deployment. This illustrates how both Nation-states may inform their mission and role in the global arena, as well as why.
To go a bit more casual, I will introduce a concept: need versus choice of expansion. Russia and China come to mind. Whereas empires such as Rome and the United States saw, and this is evidenced by available facts, their economic mission plus needs and way of life as interchangeable, thus the hunger for fast, hegemonic expansion (this is seen in Haitian imperialism, and even what has been called LGBT cultural imperialism, reminiscent of Chomsky's theory of the hegemony or survival true dichotomy, among other forms of 'imperialism') we see in Russia and China something different: a harder view of reality where pretensions, which may or may not be justified, of moral superiority that exclude competing moralities are secondary to a less elaborate "need for peace, commerce, and friendship" with more openness to an "agree to disagree" perspective where its goals aren't necessarily in conflict with the alternative idea in a world where unipolarity is a necessary goal.
Why is this conversation important for world peace efforts via de-escalation of existing conflicts? Hegemony or survival is still a valid perspective. Lest it not be forgotten the Marxists ideal of a global dictatorship of the proletariat precludes the existence of Western notions of individual rights and freedoms, as well as cultural traditions some collectives hold as non-negotiable. There's a thing I find interesting in the U.S.A. versus China conflict, though: mutually assured entropy deterrence. An American failure is a Chinese win, and a Chinese win is an American failure. This ensures the U.S.A. remains competitive as a "global leader", and China's mission to provide an alternative in a successful contest of the American global leadership monopoly ensures America actually fulfils its mission better.
A banknote is a banknote is a banknote. As a currency is, so is its government. There's the U.S. Dollar: some people who have true free will plus real freedom of choice still choose to trust and support the U.S. Dollar. Many people don't like the Chinese yuan, many people don't have to use the Chinese yuan, yet many people are open to the Chinese yuan. The Russian ruble if you don't have Russian friends, you may never even see one. The Haitian gourde: only Haiti and its friends care about it, but I suspect they're both pretending to. The pound sterling: strong and to be trusted, its level of support among foreigners may vary given affinity to Britain, and affinity to Britain among foreigners is based on many cold, hard facts (and Britain wouldn't have it any other way). The Islamic common currency: a scary thought for westerners, but nobody sees it coming. The Spanish peseta and the French franc are gone, and everyone likes to complain about the Euro, but nobody wants to go back to the past.
This essay has limitations, it is a geopolitical think-piece which merits further discussions regarding the depth of proof beyond the scope permitted by its length. For example, the optimistic point of view where Chinese and American competition against each other ensures mutually assured entropy deterrence has a darker counterpart: the race to the bottom more reminiscent of typical neorealist framings based on the prisoner's dilemma.
There are many significant scenarios which also warrant discussion, too. One is the fragmented left-wing in the Dominican Republic, a significant emerging market with important geopolitical implications due to its territorial implications. It can be argued the fragmentation of the Dominican left-wing is a relic of cold war era divisions where pro-China, pro-Soviet, pro-Cuban and organic groups got schismed even further due to the personalist factionalism so typical of Caribbean island politics. To complicate matters further, now we have pro-Venezuelan, pro-EU and pro-UN groups. A fragmented left-wing in this emerging market economy's political regime may be seen as a short-term gain for corporate American interests, yet in the long run American security interests are actually favored by a single left-wing party capable of forming part of a governing coalition which ensures legitimacy and the social cohesion necessary for investment climate risk-reduction. The enemy of my enemy is my friend still rings true every now and then.
THE END.
No comments:
Post a Comment