BB Part Two

Notwithstanding America’s unipolar and martial ability to shape this world in the American Way with designations from US leaders about rogue nations, and with God know’s how many more million’s slaughtered or crippled in the process, we need the referees and umpires of global fair play to now make the decisions.

We could well ask where will they come from, especially as our UN is strongly de-democratised by big nation vetoes, and in the West all our Supreme or High Courts are filled with partisan political appointees rather than from proven neutral or ethical establishments?

So finally we must look to some moralistic area of socio-political science, which does indeed strongly discuss Realpolitik-style power balances as a last resort plan to prevent global war. And indeed in this dangerous nuclear age with so many countries getting away with turning nuclear, as Pakistan did, and as North Korea has, we may need the older semi- scientific power balance theories to come alive again, as happened with world agreement for India to atomically match Pakistan

Actually a pretty safe bet from socio- political reasoners rather than from the politically religous, would be that a well-discussed arrangement for Iran to go atomic to match Israel could be the remedy to cure the majority of present Middle East problems.

We thus take the liberty to give intimation to Peter Coates’ conclusion, for us - to recognise that Iranian iniatives are not necessarily a threat

Boaz David

If they all turned Christian that would only be an advantage if they all adopted one brand. If the Shiites turned Catholic and the Sunnis turned Lutheran would we be any better off?

A better solution might for all to turn Jewish or Atheist.

Bushbred

Yes its easy for OLO commenters to classify other viewpoints in a negative way.

What I try to look at is:

- The economic determinants – ie what natural resources or other businesses set a region or country apart (eg. oil in Iraq)? This approach unites Marxists (and more quietly) capitalists. They differentiate themselves on social aspirations – but this often doesn’t make a real difference; and

- National interests. What behaviour has a country shown historically/politically and why? eg: the US needs a large active defence force for its economic health. Another is that dominating the oil heartland of the Middle East is essential for the US and its minor allies the UK and Australia.

The power balance strategy certainly seemed to be behind Israel and the US (partly on behalf of Saudi Arabia) alternately backing either side in the Iran – Iraq War 1980-1988.

Then as now western leaders might feel that keeping Sunni and Shiites weak by fueling long wars between them is the way for the west to maintain dominance (divide and rule).

Big power will or vetoes in the UN may well be on the rise. As there is now a South Korean UN Secretary General, US influence over him might be stronger.

“Iran to go atomic to match Israel could be the remedy to cure the majority of present Middle East problems.”

I don’t know if Iran going nuclear would be beneficial but realizing that it has the right (like Israel and Pakistan) to do it is realistic. One can expect Saudi Arabia to move in the same direction.

Pete
http://spyingbadthings.blogspot.com/

Plantagenet, if you are really Pete, you seem to have what is termed a fluent overhead knowledge as well a great interest in what is really going on in the Middle East. I myself studied power politics as a mature age student during the end of the Cold War. As an oldie was praised by the American tutor as having insight, and when getting top marks in a degree was ragged on something about - From Deserts the Prophets Come.

What is meant by overhead knowledge, as you doubtless know, is that of a non-political lawman or judge, whose wisdom is better to be based on sound reason than on party politics or religous faith. Also, as I mentioned in an earlier post, our democracies suffer so much through having the principles of justice destroyed through political postings into our judiciaries.

There is a saying, unfortunately, that politics and ethical principles don't always make a good mix.

bushbred

I appreciate your words - yes I'm Pete (still getting used to identifying myself). What you are writing about appears to be falling into place - ethics and genuinely explained national interests are constantly being hidden for profit and political ambition - making conclusions difficult.

The Middle East has a mix of major change, helpful sources of information and potential effects on Australia to demand concerted attention.

My research suffers (benefits?) from being an employer free zone but I aim to eventually redress that.

I hope you have happy Christmas and New Year.

Pete

Also happy Christmas to you Pete. Anyhow, bit more on power politics, looks like GWB is playing his own GPPG, Global Power Politcs Game with India.

Had a bit to do with India while studying the social sciences in Sri-Lanka in 1981. Was surprised to find both Sri-Lanka and India were not quite as non-aligned as acknowledged by our Western media at the time. While we were surprised to find a Soviet cruiser anchored out from Colombo, as well as we were not allowed to visit Triconomalee because the Soviets had a base there, we were also guardedly informed that the Soviet navy often called into Indian ports.

Also one of our PHD's in charge was part Indian, and it was surprising how the conversation sometimes also got non-aligned or enjoyably cosmopolitan.

Returning to the recent visit to India by George W', with knowing through part experience that the Indians did not come down in the last diplomatic cloud, could reckon that anything George Bush arranged with India, might not be in America's benefit in the long run.

As you intimated Pete, about more a global game of power politics, like the old Concert of Europe after the Napoleonic Wars with Bismarck very interested as he gathered the old feudal mid European Princedoms together to make the Greater Germany.

However, Bismarck did his best to avoid further wars to virtually save Europe. Further it has been said of Bismarck who died in 1905, that with his reasoning WW1 would never have started. Further, it was later said by Maynard Keynes who attended the Treaty of Versailles, if commonsense had been used at Versailles rather than treating defeated Germany like a pariah, Hitler would never been encouraged by the Wermacht to begin WW2.

Guess its a case of true or false, Pete, or shutting the gate after the horse has bolted, but even as Winston Churchill declared, good leaders do need to take lessons from history even to go back to the ancient Greeks.