Introduction: The Lies of International Scholars
The single most important critic on the international academic works is that these do not present the world as it really is, but rather what they (a) hope it should be (b) or how it is from own ideological-cultural backgrounds (mirror-imaging). This problem can be traced throughout the western dominated international studies (international politics, geopolitical studies, strategic studies, security studies, international history).
The best source of primary data, supporting this argument, is a study conducted over five years by the Centre of Critical International Studies at the Williams and Mary College (US). The study showed that these fields were completely dominated by western white men (not women or ethnics, hence, the feminists and post-colonialists concerns), with close associations to the western government; hence, another criticism that these field rather than find ways to describe and define the realities (based on their claims of following positivists approach to research), these rather tend to maintain and provide legitimacy and justification for the status quo, based around the western dominance of the rest, through fear-mongering concepts of ‘security-dilemma’ and ‘anarchy’.
In short, if you want to understand the realities of the things as they are, especially in politics and security matters in the globe (the high politics issues) never ever look towards the academic world for truth. Not the realist, not the liberal schools, social constructivists, or post-modernists provide any truth, but only what they believe to be so, and to be of accepted nature to their patron-states (the prince-effect is still present: this refers to the nature of how Machiavelli best-selling work, The Prince, was written in mind with an attempt to find favour with his new masters of Florence).
Now, lets move to examining the world as it has been since the age of Alexander the Great of Macedonia.
I. The Origins of Western Practise of International Lebensraum
During the reign of Alexander the Great, the first western state, the white men, first attempted to apply the theory of Lebensraum (towards the eastern lands); that occupation of the eastern lands for own benefits (and the natural riches).
For supporting articles and referred works, see these posts:
Lebensraum as a theory and practise was not unique to the Third Reich, under Hitler Leadership, but rather it has been an essential part of western foreign policy from Alexander to Romans, Christian-Europe, of Spanish and Portuguese imperial competitions, to the Dutch and British Naval overseas colonial scrambles and to the present age of Anglo-Saxon imperial continuity.
Alexander went as far as India. The Romans, as far as Persia and North Africa. The Middle Ages Holy Roman Empire held what it had inherited from the Roman dissolution, and from there various states from within started to scramble for the booty, as Spain and Portugal first gained the most, then challenged by the Franks of France, and from there the new actor in power politics, Britain, sought her shares, especially that from beyond European powers, and the world behavioural pattern was set; western aggressive lebensraum and the rest defensive resistance.
For the next four centuries, the western lebensraum was clothed with imperial interest and competition, to national interests and security, to democratic support against the communists, and to the present the freedom marches of Neo-Liberalism. The rest continued to show resistance against the western aggression into their affairs and territories, and it is this resistance, wars and revolution from the rest we turn to next.
II. Resistance, War and Revolution: The Rest Reacts
The rest have never sought to colonised or even dominate the west, after all as Ponting excellent work (see the posts above) noted, the west had nothing (no natural riches or any thing of strategic significance) that the east or the rest really wanted (remind me of the statement I read once, in a diplomatic archive, how during the first meeting between a white man and Chinese statesman, the latter laughed at a remark that China needs western capital and trade made by his visitor, and pointed out the window, see what we have, in plenty).
In short, this peaceful nature of the rest and aggression of the west in international history can be easily observed through symbolic architectural analysis. For example, the eastern peaceful nature was based around the interests of only trading with others, this has been represented by the symbolism of Silk Road (from East to West). Now, the aggression of the West is symbolised through the war/battle monuments, shrines and colonial settlements that can be traced along the silk road and alternatives, as the west goes towards the east.
From , then own, the rest have been in armed combat with the western aggression, resisting further dominance, and this was initially attained at a regional level when decolonisation of the non-western regions was finally achieved (just about). Though, not completely, as the west continued to exert covert influences, in attempts to hold on whatever influence they had through the top-tier of ruling classes (educated in the west, and seen as able to be pursued to be allies, and play by the western rules). Most, especially, in Africa, Asia and Middle East played by the rules, for example the self-proclaimed kings of Arabia, the kings of Asia Minor, the new Rulers of Africa, and some refused outright; for example, the rise of pan-Arabian nationalism (Baathists, still present in Syria, hence, the ever long struggle to deal with this problem child), and the Mugabes of Africa (with nothing of significant need for the west, these are usually left alone until they die, or opportunity comes for coup de main). The Latin America still exists the mixed of pro-dominance and anti-dominace, as more recent, the Mercusor bloc decided to change the rule of Falklands (the first step towards total independence for the island away from the little Britain).
In short, the resistance against the western lebensraum/aggression has been going on for centuries now, and more recent, after the defeat from the regional level, the resistance have taken the war internationally, trying to make for the first time, international relations to be of equals not western dominated, and it was the Islamic fighters who strike first, with 9/11 act (death of more than 2’500; but nine years after this, it has cost 100 times the losses of lives in the hands of western aggression, of over 250’000 people globally; I am not sympathising, but telling it as it is). This is our next review, as to what does the recent international resistance and wars means?
III. Predicting The World of the Near-Future
The west is under attack, literally, every one is encircling her, and not out of mere revenge wars, but rather because the west refuse to acknowledge the erroneous/fatalistic nature of her international behaviour. The more she respond to with force, and the more she delves into others affairs, the more others are formulating strategies of isolation and defence.
After the post-cold war age, and post-colonialism, the world was based around the concept of ‘co-operative multipolarity’, but after the strategic blunders as a result of defining the response to Islamic assault as a war, with unlimited global reaches, the world changed into ‘defensive multipolarity’, and from Iraq, the notch was added into ultra-defensive, as every nation began creating alliances, moving own security spheres into line, and re-arming themselves. From China to Africa (seen well during the Libyan Agenda, when the African Union refused to accept western claims for interference).
She will dissolved internally into four independent states, of Ireland, Scotland, England and Wales. She is no longer a player of any significance (as I had predicted earlier on, see e-library for my very old essays). Her recent strategic blunder is that of leaving the EU politics. She will try to hold up the ‘commonwealth’ the remnants of the imperialism, but these will also dissolve one by one, especially starting as in the past, from the ‘white dominoes’ of Australia, Canada, New Zealand, South Africa; and the rest as during the early years will follow, especially the African nations.
Her only worth is the little financial city of London (the cause of the recent strategic blunder) itself will move to mainland Europe, especially, the powers of Franfurt (Group) as the new Financial City of Europe.
(b) European Union
This will not dissolve, but integrate closely, it is necessary for her well-being, and it will come out of the crisis more powerful and stronger, and will challenge the US in future international politics. However, unlike her past, she will seek purely peaceful co-existence with the rest of the world, especially if the powers and influences of Scandinavian states grows, and without the aggressive policies of UK (and the taming of little paranoid France). She will be a model of peaceful future mankind.
(c) North America
United States and Canada, will always be under siege from within. These two states are the most unstable in the world, as ruled by colonial white man, the local natives will continue to resist, fight and seek a revolution to overthrow and regain their lands. These will be a band of a mixed non-white races, of Hispanics, Native Americans, Africans etc (As it was during the Florida Stand against Andrew Jackson Rough Riders).
For the evidence of such nature of ‘grudge-politics’, just take a look at the ‘Alsace-Lorraine’ Issue and the German-Franco relations.
(c) Latin America
The continent will free herself from the western hemisphere dominance very near-future. She will be a model of new hybrid of capitalism-socialism, and she will be a major player in international affairs, scientific and technological advances. She has a potential of supremacy in science, technology, business and living.
She is already on verge of unity, and prosperity, which will continue to grow and strengthen. She will be an independent force to reckon, with peaceful nature in conduct, however, she will never forget the past humiliation, and once a slight renewal of ‘dominance’ is to be observed she will retaliate with fierce destruction and brutality; merciless revenge wars.
She will be unstable, through corruption, popular uprising and continued regional wars of historical origins. No state will dominate, and she will never seek the dominance of outside world, as she will be pre-occupied with internal instabilities.
(f) Middle East
I have covered this already, search through the posts and the essays. I predicted with accuracy the events from ‘Arab Spring’ to ‘Islamists’ Rise and to coming Islamic Unity (resembling a caliphate).
She will, as already reinstated, reformed into a a single leadership state, of the old Soviet. She will influence close borders, as she has always been paranoid of her border security. She is, as never, a threat to global security.
Well, I think we have covered much today, lets close this with few recommendations on new strategies, especially for the west.
IV. Recommended Strategic Rethinking In The West
Only one strategic approach can save the west from the coming encirclement, dis-entanglement or dis-connection from the internal affairs of others, and taking no sides. The aim is to wait for whatever parties who win the local civil struggles, political or war, and to form a new relations with these on political, economic interests. Never be seen, or perceived of being behind the events of local politics and affairs.
Since this ‘special interests’ in others affairs have been a source of problems, the west need to rethink their policies within this issue; to stay put (and prepare for coming war), or to dis-associate itself (and prepare for an Metternich armed peace).
The world is in chaos because of the western lebensraum policy, and the rest have been resisting, fighting and revolting against these forces forever, and will do so, until the west, let the world be as natural as it had been before, and give up the western claims of ‘global ownership’.
Thank You For Reading.