Wednesday
10Aug2005
Why should we be safe?
Wednesday, August 10, 2005 at 10:52AM
Few countries have enjoyed the benefits of internationalism more than the British, former purveyors of an Empire that once circumvented the globe. Economists and politicians talk of globalisation as if it’s a recent phenomenon, as if international trade, and the trans-global corporation are somehow novel. In reality the world has always been a global marketplace.
From Roman times and the traders who travelled the Silk Road the worlds markets have been interlinked and interdependent. All human civilisations are founded on the principles of trade; to argue otherwise would be convoluting the simplicity of our reality.
Trade thrives on stable developing markets; therefore the security of the market is paramount to those who are sustained by its prosperity. Is it no wonder that competition to control the market – and therefore the spoils – has led to so many wars?
Why did European leaders react so disproportionately to the assassination of Arch Duke Fernandez in Sarajevo in June 1914? Why was the murder of an unloved Austro-Hungarian aristocrat so sensitive? Because the complicated web of empires and alliances within Europe had reached a critical point where growth was crippled. For the Ottoman and Austro-Hungarian Empires and the great empires of Russia, Britain, Germany, and France, the opportunity for extended influence and the control of trade, depended on creating a vacuum. Somebody had to make way. Friction between these empires was manifested in rapid military growth, which was always going to result in direct conflict.
*********
I have read conservative (and liberal) commentators arguing that the current conflict in the Middle East is not about oil; this statement ignores the actuality of international history and the world today. Sophistry such as this is used to conceal the aggression of our societies when violently protecting their wealth. There are few exceptions to the belief that almost all-human conflict is a battle for prosperity.
Religion, education, nationalism, and government are all mechanisms to control society to allow one or another economic model to thrive. Humanity – in order to sustain its population - relies on the commercial exchange of goods and services. The concept of the ‘town’ is one of a market for pooled resources; the ‘city’ and ‘country’ are extensions of this. Religion and nationalism are merely centrally imposed mind states to ensure unity within the masses, and to rally support against an economic threat.
Today’s world is no different, when Blair talks of our way of life, what he means is protecting our prosperity and wealth. The mounting menace of the emerging economies of Asia poses a significant threat to the access and distribution of the world’s limited natural resources. Chinese political and economic expansion westward through Central Asia threatens the Post-Cold War economic order. American economic hegemony is reliant on a stable oil market, and as in the early part of the last century, competition for dwindling resources is warming up. Conservative foreign policy strategists are working to ensure that the new globalised world is an American one, and Iraq is testament to this.
Iraq sits on the second largest proven oil fields in the world, the worlds oil is near its maximum output (many analyst’s believe this point has already been reached), and yet we are expected to swallow assurances that the war is not about oil. Nonsense.
*********
Capitalism is economic Darwinism, the fittest survive and the weak die. Capitalism is a science not a religion. Human contact corrupts capitalism; society refuses to accept the absolutism of the market. The human experience of capitalism has resulted in nationalistic economic protectionism, social security, and charitable aid. Market Fundamentalism is roundly rejected as societies refuse to be subjected to the harsh realities of the unfettered market. It is this Humanistic Capitalism that has proved so successful over the past century.
However this model of capitalism is now under threat. The competition for oil threatens to destabilise the macro-economic entity that is western democracy, the very prosperity and permanence of Anglo-Saxon global dominance is in jeopardy. Western leaders know this and action to ensure a military presence in the oil-rich region has been fostered by the enigma of Islamic Terrorism. At home leaders again use the threat of radical Islamism to reform and curtail freedoms and liberties. In the uncertain future the Capitalists’ know that dissent, ideas, and free speech threaten to unsettle their placated populations.
So in the name of Capitalism we are happy to scorch the earth, and kill thousands protecting our way of life, is it not inevitable and fair, that this blood and misery should be visited on our societies too?
The Capitalists are now moving insidiously to shore up their control, rolling back centuries of liberal progress. Liberty and Capitalism have always been uneasy bedfellows, as conflict feeds the need for an authoritarian clampdown on freedoms, to ensure the market is buttressed against insecurity. Capitalism is Darwinism and this means conflict, if someone is to win…. someone else must lose. In the testing times ahead the Capitalists know their ideology will be challenged (prosperity will retract as oil diminishes), and now under the spectre of Islamic Terror we are handing them the power to crush any resistance.
We should therefore reject the newly invigorated nationalism and authoritarianism, and accept the obviousness of our predicament; our way of life is not under threat because of terrorism but because a global economic change threatens our prosperity.
*********
We are sheltered from the real cost of our societies by the gloss of capitalist consumerism and the cult of property ownership. Should we not know the real costs of our way of life? Maybe a fuel pump should be adorned with the photo of dead Iraqi children, or jewellery shops should replace their posters of brides with that of the severed limbs of African refugees, and maybe the label on our clothes should depict a child slaving away in a sweatshop? We experience none of these realities, but slowly the violence that is proliferated across the world is our name is finally returning home.
So if we are to continue to spill blood and spread misery around the world to protect our primacy, we must understand that we also have a price to pay in our flesh too. And if that means more bombs and even more hatred of our civilisation we must accept this sacrifice.
We in Britain are getting too bogged down in reactionary responses to the attacks in London, while I have sympathy for those involved it remains primarily a non-event compared to the conflicts that continue around the world. Also we must realise that while we use our economic and military strength to exploit others we should expect the effects of this – resentment and hatred – to be manifested in violence towards our societies.
Reform of our homeland security and laws is a diversion from the real problem. Police cordons at tube stations are not the answer, what purpose will this have? Would a suicide happily walk into his/her subsequent arrest? Of course not, they go to the nearest Tesco and blow themselves. And if the police are looking to intimidate, how do you intimidate someone prepared to die?
Racial profiling is also limited as Islamism is not exclusive to a colour of skin; we await the first white British born suicide bomber.
As Robert Baer points out in last Sunday’s Observer the battle is lost when the suicide bomber first straps on the bomb, because at that point society has failed. Our response of further dividing our communities will achieve nothing more than ostracising more young Muslims, and these individuals turning to extremist groups.
The real problem is the inequalities in the world, while there is war and exploitation there will be anger and hatred in the world. In a world where air travel and global trade are pulling down boarders we can’t expect geography and ignorance to protect us from the reactions to our actions.
Until there is peace everywhere, there is peace nowhere.
*********
From Roman times and the traders who travelled the Silk Road the worlds markets have been interlinked and interdependent. All human civilisations are founded on the principles of trade; to argue otherwise would be convoluting the simplicity of our reality.
Trade thrives on stable developing markets; therefore the security of the market is paramount to those who are sustained by its prosperity. Is it no wonder that competition to control the market – and therefore the spoils – has led to so many wars?
Why did European leaders react so disproportionately to the assassination of Arch Duke Fernandez in Sarajevo in June 1914? Why was the murder of an unloved Austro-Hungarian aristocrat so sensitive? Because the complicated web of empires and alliances within Europe had reached a critical point where growth was crippled. For the Ottoman and Austro-Hungarian Empires and the great empires of Russia, Britain, Germany, and France, the opportunity for extended influence and the control of trade, depended on creating a vacuum. Somebody had to make way. Friction between these empires was manifested in rapid military growth, which was always going to result in direct conflict.
*********
I have read conservative (and liberal) commentators arguing that the current conflict in the Middle East is not about oil; this statement ignores the actuality of international history and the world today. Sophistry such as this is used to conceal the aggression of our societies when violently protecting their wealth. There are few exceptions to the belief that almost all-human conflict is a battle for prosperity.
Religion, education, nationalism, and government are all mechanisms to control society to allow one or another economic model to thrive. Humanity – in order to sustain its population - relies on the commercial exchange of goods and services. The concept of the ‘town’ is one of a market for pooled resources; the ‘city’ and ‘country’ are extensions of this. Religion and nationalism are merely centrally imposed mind states to ensure unity within the masses, and to rally support against an economic threat.
Today’s world is no different, when Blair talks of our way of life, what he means is protecting our prosperity and wealth. The mounting menace of the emerging economies of Asia poses a significant threat to the access and distribution of the world’s limited natural resources. Chinese political and economic expansion westward through Central Asia threatens the Post-Cold War economic order. American economic hegemony is reliant on a stable oil market, and as in the early part of the last century, competition for dwindling resources is warming up. Conservative foreign policy strategists are working to ensure that the new globalised world is an American one, and Iraq is testament to this.
Iraq sits on the second largest proven oil fields in the world, the worlds oil is near its maximum output (many analyst’s believe this point has already been reached), and yet we are expected to swallow assurances that the war is not about oil. Nonsense.
*********
Capitalism is economic Darwinism, the fittest survive and the weak die. Capitalism is a science not a religion. Human contact corrupts capitalism; society refuses to accept the absolutism of the market. The human experience of capitalism has resulted in nationalistic economic protectionism, social security, and charitable aid. Market Fundamentalism is roundly rejected as societies refuse to be subjected to the harsh realities of the unfettered market. It is this Humanistic Capitalism that has proved so successful over the past century.
However this model of capitalism is now under threat. The competition for oil threatens to destabilise the macro-economic entity that is western democracy, the very prosperity and permanence of Anglo-Saxon global dominance is in jeopardy. Western leaders know this and action to ensure a military presence in the oil-rich region has been fostered by the enigma of Islamic Terrorism. At home leaders again use the threat of radical Islamism to reform and curtail freedoms and liberties. In the uncertain future the Capitalists’ know that dissent, ideas, and free speech threaten to unsettle their placated populations.
So in the name of Capitalism we are happy to scorch the earth, and kill thousands protecting our way of life, is it not inevitable and fair, that this blood and misery should be visited on our societies too?
The Capitalists are now moving insidiously to shore up their control, rolling back centuries of liberal progress. Liberty and Capitalism have always been uneasy bedfellows, as conflict feeds the need for an authoritarian clampdown on freedoms, to ensure the market is buttressed against insecurity. Capitalism is Darwinism and this means conflict, if someone is to win…. someone else must lose. In the testing times ahead the Capitalists know their ideology will be challenged (prosperity will retract as oil diminishes), and now under the spectre of Islamic Terror we are handing them the power to crush any resistance.
We should therefore reject the newly invigorated nationalism and authoritarianism, and accept the obviousness of our predicament; our way of life is not under threat because of terrorism but because a global economic change threatens our prosperity.
*********
We are sheltered from the real cost of our societies by the gloss of capitalist consumerism and the cult of property ownership. Should we not know the real costs of our way of life? Maybe a fuel pump should be adorned with the photo of dead Iraqi children, or jewellery shops should replace their posters of brides with that of the severed limbs of African refugees, and maybe the label on our clothes should depict a child slaving away in a sweatshop? We experience none of these realities, but slowly the violence that is proliferated across the world is our name is finally returning home.
So if we are to continue to spill blood and spread misery around the world to protect our primacy, we must understand that we also have a price to pay in our flesh too. And if that means more bombs and even more hatred of our civilisation we must accept this sacrifice.
We in Britain are getting too bogged down in reactionary responses to the attacks in London, while I have sympathy for those involved it remains primarily a non-event compared to the conflicts that continue around the world. Also we must realise that while we use our economic and military strength to exploit others we should expect the effects of this – resentment and hatred – to be manifested in violence towards our societies.
Reform of our homeland security and laws is a diversion from the real problem. Police cordons at tube stations are not the answer, what purpose will this have? Would a suicide happily walk into his/her subsequent arrest? Of course not, they go to the nearest Tesco and blow themselves. And if the police are looking to intimidate, how do you intimidate someone prepared to die?
Racial profiling is also limited as Islamism is not exclusive to a colour of skin; we await the first white British born suicide bomber.
As Robert Baer points out in last Sunday’s Observer the battle is lost when the suicide bomber first straps on the bomb, because at that point society has failed. Our response of further dividing our communities will achieve nothing more than ostracising more young Muslims, and these individuals turning to extremist groups.
The real problem is the inequalities in the world, while there is war and exploitation there will be anger and hatred in the world. In a world where air travel and global trade are pulling down boarders we can’t expect geography and ignorance to protect us from the reactions to our actions.
Until there is peace everywhere, there is peace nowhere.
*********
"If we want things to stay as they are, things will have to change."
Giuseppe Tomasi di Lampedusa
Reader Comments