In Response to a Discussion Between Dr Cyril Amar, Prof Karim Betouche and Peter
Thank you Karim, Cyril and Peter for another edifying discussion on the possibility of a multipolar world’s ability to confront the US and their vassals’ design on global hegemony.
A few esoteric issues caught my attention in which I will venture a response:
The Sovereignty of Nations: the inviolability of a country’s sovereignty is paramount to international peace and stability. Should a country’s sovereignty be compromised, there are mechanisms in international law (ICJ and ICC) whereby disputes could be resolved. Such an afflicted nation could also placate the United Nations for appropriate relief. These recourses are especially important to weaker nations that cannot defend themselves against the aggression of stronger nations. Should the institutions that are supposed to protect the weaker nations fail in their duty to do so, they become increasingly irrelevant. The impotence of these institutions have never been so conspicuous as in the advent of the Palestinian genocide. The disdain with which the United States and Israel have treated the United Nations, having vetoed or ignored all resolutions condemning Israel in their continued occupation of Palestine, accompanied by the slaughter and dispossession of that nation since 1948, is manifest. The ICC is widely regarded by the Global South as a whites friendly institution specifically designed to pronounce justice on the misdeeds of black and brown “leaders” with the notable exception of the monsters (Karadzić, Mladić, Milosević) of the Bosnian genocide. Suffice to say that the United States have committed various atrocities during their War on Vietnam and their so-called “War on Terror”, to name a few, that should have formed the basis of a prosecution of their leaders had there been true equality before the law. The United Nations, it has to be said, had been too pusillanimous to initiate any legal response to America’s criminality and consequently they have never been held to account. And to the United Nations’ ignominy, Bertrand Russel had to instigate a private tribunal, albeit a toothless one, to investigate and determine America’s culpability in their War on Vietnam. It is, in my view, in this context that a country’s sovereignty should be examined. How sovereign could any country claim to be when:
The western powers can invade subaltern nations, manufacture and effectuate regime change in such countries, threaten and bully them, unilaterally impose sanctions (with the complicity of a servile UN) on lesser nations, unilaterally determine the destiny of dispossessed nations, unilaterally ascribe punitive measures to trade agreements et al, especially to tyrannise.
The western powers hold these countries’ economies ransom through their monetary system imposed and policed by the IMF and World Bank.
The governments of these countries can only join this cabal if they too feign democracy, allow “foreign direct investment” to plunder that country’s resources undisturbed, ensure a ductile and subservient workforce, swear allegiance to the United States and the dollar, and so forth, in other words getting blood on their hands to ensure their complicity and indefinite acquiescence.
Consequently, and I say this with the greatest respect to Dr Amar, to say that the sovereignty of nations is “the antidote to western overreach”, is akin to liberating an oppressed nation from colonialism, giving them the vote and saying “now you are free”. Sovereignty, as is democracy, is always conditional. At best, some of these subaltern countries could confederate and hope for a more potent geopolitical future. As we have witnessed, such a consociation of countries i.e. BRICS, are as sterile as they have been singularly. I share your sentiments that the Palestinian genocide, that rationally deserved an immediate intervention, from day one, was the epiphanous moment when the BRICS nations could have flexed their collective muscle, stand erect for a subjugated people and show their struggle credentials, tell their tormentors “no more”. But, alas, we are left to rue our chances for a better future, perplexed by the perfidy of a BRICS.
2. The Chinese Conundrum: I know too little of Chinese history, politics, culture and society to venture any meaningful comment on their reticence to engage the western powers head-on. Perhaps my years of western indoctrination is finally exposing my own naïveté, thus: The Chinese leaves an impression of a dispassionate, obdurate and Machiavellian nation. Of course, I might be completely off-base and subject to criticism ( as with everything else I vocalise ). However, if my former estimation is correct or even plausible, I could understand and respect Peter’s epigram, and to paraphrase: “Never interrupt your enemy whilst he is committing an error”. Does this not tactically explain China’s realistic and pragmatic approach to the almost intractable challenges the western countries face at home? To digress a little bit, democracy in the US and UK are facing a serious existential threat. Chinas’ posture, in and of itself, is devoid of any sentimentality as it utterly celebrates narcissistic individuation. It goes without mentioning that they also understand their strengths and weaknesses intimately as alluded to by Karim. After all, Sun Tsu authored the treatise on the “Art of War”. Perhaps, this is what we struggle to comprehend when a nation, in desperate need of intervention, is being annihilated. If I accept this realism argument, do I lose my morality? My humanity? Do the Chinese lose their humanity? As I have stated from the outset, I am not in a position to judge. This obviously does not apply to you Karim, as you indubitably have a good understanding of Chinese culture.