Welcome to Alternative Ideas...

Providing a platform for new and different voices...

Monday, May 25, 2009

Proliferating an (actual) Balance of Power

So North Korea has reportedly tested another nuclear weapon and Iran is testing new missiles with longer range capabilities. It seems like every few months we come back to the same basic questions about how to ‘destabilize’ the world. I find this argument very interesting yet also theoretically very absurd. I mean when we take our heads out of the cloud-like prisons that our lives (and the societal scenarios that control them) have become, and put this situation in simple terms it is as hypocritical as can be. I have a hammer, you can not; I have a TV, you can not; I have a car, you can not; I have a university education, you can not; I have a gun, you can not; I have a tank, you can not, I have an army, you can not; I have missiles, you can not; I have nuclear weapons, you can not. BUT WHY NOT?? Oh, of course, its all so that ‘you’ do not ‘destabilize’ the ‘balance of power’ in our little one on one/regional scenario. In other words, you live in fear of me, and you mustn’t try to change that.

Every individual or country (as the world is set up today) should be said to have every right to pursue their own Human Security interests. An individual’s ability for a secure existence: food, shelter, freedom from war, etc. These are all things the Western order espouses, and of course it would be great if everyone could have these things. Yet, at the same time the world’s powers see it fit to handcuff ‘lesser’ nations so as not to allow them to do as they wish, but rather as they are told (because it might destabilize the world).

And realistically, type of Human Security is what defense, military, and nuclear capabilities are really about today. The chances of the use of nuclear weapons in today’s world by a state actor is virtually nil, terrorist organizations would pose a greater risk of using them (if they can obtain them) due to the ideological uncertainties. But is this threat in fact a bad thing? I am not claiming that terrorist are rational or there is any norms or mores that check them, or that I’d like for them to have these weapons, as a usage of them goes against my pacifist principles. HOWEVER, if everyone has the same weapons, and is fairly equally adept at using them, then the ‘balance of power’ is actually that, a BALANCE of power.

Current geo-political scenarios are not in ‘balance’ as the terminology claims, they are in ‘stable’ positions or positions that maintain the ‘status quo’. This is not a ‘balance’ as the word is linguistically intended to be used. It is simply the stronger kid on the block (the international community – lead by a few bullies), posturing to the weaker kids on the block that they better not try to do anything to gain equality, as an actual BALANCE, would ‘destabilize’ the situation – i.e. take power away from one, give it to the other, thus rendering their relationship one of EQUALS.

!?!? WOW ?!?! You mean the world could be based on the negotiation of equals? I find it absolutely absurd that the established powers – and the sheep that call these countries home – do not recognize the absurdity and hypocrisy of this notion of a ‘balance of power’ as it is used today.

If North Korea gained nuclear capabilities, it is said that South Korea and Japan would then seek a nuclear weapon – except that they already are teamed with nuclear powers (the US obviously being key). Do these countries need to build one? No, would they, perhaps. If Iran – which doesn’t not seem to be anywhere near a nuclear weapon – where to gain the capability, what would this do to the Middle East? Israel already has Nukes, so how is this not actually ‘balancing’ an existing power imbalance?

The fact is that the countries and entities in the world that do not wish to fall into line with the powers of the world are ostracized and told they can’t work to achieve an equal negotiating field with the established powers. In turn they are told that they must always be second, or they will be MADE to be second.

Currently the more established powers of the world are happy with the ‘stability’ of the global order; of course, they are on top. They do not want to actually have to undertake EQUAL dialog with other countries. If Iran, North Korea, and/or even Al Qaeda had nuclear capabilities, you bet that the US, Israel, and others would pay a heck of a lot more attention to the interests and requests of these entities – maybe even (Gasp!) negotiate with them!!! If ‘I’ am a big arrogant f**ker with no qualms about using violence to force others into submissive stances/positions regarding the way I want the world to be (by pushing my cultural, economical, and political ways) then of course, I use my strength and intimidating position to force my way on others. I don’t HAVE to, or even NEED to respect your ways; I will make the world as I want it and don’t have to listen to you at all. However, if all things are equal, and I know that you could harm me, or make me change my way of life, then of course I will do what I can not to provoke you. I may perhaps even do preemptive negotiating and consulting to allow for us to find common ground – a compromise – so that we never come to blows.

This is what the world actually needs – TRUE balance; a world where all cultures, creeds, economic ideals, and political scenarios can be respected under mutual appreciation in an effort to find common ground and a way to live together peacefully and respectfully. This is not the world we live in as there is OBVIOUSLY no ‘balance’ in it.


Words from today’s news stories on this issue:

Belligerence, destabilize that region, provocations, recklessly challenging, endanger security and stability in the region, resolutely opposed, a danger to the world, alarming, irresponsible, direct threat against the peace and stability in the region, deeply disturbed, a clear violation of its U.N. Security Council obligations, threat to international peace.

India who recently flouted these ‘balance of power’ principles and gained nuclear capabilities said: “India is against nuclear proliferation,” LOLOLOLOLOL…. Unless it is us proliferating of course… Mahmoud Ahmadinejad (Iran’s president) said: “In principle we oppose the production, expansion and the use of weapons of mass destruction.” – Yeah, ‘in principle’, but in the real world, since those trying to tell us what to do have them, we hope North Korea does as well…

No comments:

Post a Comment

Please keep all comments and queries cooperative, constructive, and supportive in nature... Attacking, biting, or non-constructive comments will be removed. We want to build upon ideas, not tear them down...