- 28 Dec 2023 16:47
#15299877
The first part of my life was spent in a world characterised by what we call “The Cold War”. Two blocs faced each other: “the West” and the USSR with its Eastern European satellites. Each had its own military institution: NATO versus Warsaw Pact. In 1991, one of the adversaries collapsed and the Cold War theoretically ended. The West ultimately “won” this pseudo-war. The Warsaw Pact is dissolved. Why not NATO? Yet, we were told that it had been created to face the Soviet threat. In fact, this threat did exist and justified a defensive alliance, but it was not the main reason for NATO's existence.
Since the 19th century, the West was pervaded by the conviction that its destiny is to govern and dominate the world. It is more than just an idea; it is a practice, as the idea has been constantly applied since then and it still is today, despite that adversity becomes more and more serious, particularly with the rising power of China. Let us remember that many of the borders in Africa and Asia were drawn by Western powers or were influenced by their intervention. At a time when decolonisation was making the world increasingly multipolar, the West needed to have a military alliance. For a bloc that feels called to lead the world, potential enemies are legion. This is the real reason for the existence of NATO and therefore the explanation for its persistence.
Due to this hegemonistic urge, the West finds itself involved, directly or indirectly, in almost all of the (very numerous) conflicts that punctuate world history, both international conflicts and civil wars. The boundary between these two types of conflicts is not always clear-cut: what about Kosovo for example? And Ukraine: initially it was just a domestic political problem; this country was divided between two communities, one looking towards the West and the other towards the East. From the Western point of view, in all these conflicts there is a “good” camp versus a “bad” camp. The good one is obviously the one who says to the West: “you are the light of the world”. This is exactly what our “hegemonists” want to hear. And that can be enough to get involved in wars that it would have been cleverer to try to avoid. This involvement can take various forms; in descending order: participation in combat (Iraq), bombing (Belgrade), supply of weapons and economic blockade (Ukraine), diplomatic manoeuvres (which we know to be the continuation of the war through other means).
Criticising Western international policy as hegemonistic does not mean agreeing with its enemies. The objectives they pursue and the means they implement may also be questionable. Some of them also aim for a certain hegemony. But let’s stop with this “good versus bad” fantasy. The West does not fight for the good but to keep control.
What might strengthen the feeling of the West to be the white knight is that human rights reign there more than elsewhere (including the right of women to be the equal of man). Certainly, it is here that Enlightenment happened. Unquestionably, it’s a quality. But let's not forget that half of humanity has been colonised by us. And that our behaviour at the antipodes was also at the antipodes of the values of Enlightenment. Our desire to rule the world is the best way to make other people hate these values.
Since the 19th century, the West was pervaded by the conviction that its destiny is to govern and dominate the world. It is more than just an idea; it is a practice, as the idea has been constantly applied since then and it still is today, despite that adversity becomes more and more serious, particularly with the rising power of China. Let us remember that many of the borders in Africa and Asia were drawn by Western powers or were influenced by their intervention. At a time when decolonisation was making the world increasingly multipolar, the West needed to have a military alliance. For a bloc that feels called to lead the world, potential enemies are legion. This is the real reason for the existence of NATO and therefore the explanation for its persistence.
Due to this hegemonistic urge, the West finds itself involved, directly or indirectly, in almost all of the (very numerous) conflicts that punctuate world history, both international conflicts and civil wars. The boundary between these two types of conflicts is not always clear-cut: what about Kosovo for example? And Ukraine: initially it was just a domestic political problem; this country was divided between two communities, one looking towards the West and the other towards the East. From the Western point of view, in all these conflicts there is a “good” camp versus a “bad” camp. The good one is obviously the one who says to the West: “you are the light of the world”. This is exactly what our “hegemonists” want to hear. And that can be enough to get involved in wars that it would have been cleverer to try to avoid. This involvement can take various forms; in descending order: participation in combat (Iraq), bombing (Belgrade), supply of weapons and economic blockade (Ukraine), diplomatic manoeuvres (which we know to be the continuation of the war through other means).
Criticising Western international policy as hegemonistic does not mean agreeing with its enemies. The objectives they pursue and the means they implement may also be questionable. Some of them also aim for a certain hegemony. But let’s stop with this “good versus bad” fantasy. The West does not fight for the good but to keep control.
What might strengthen the feeling of the West to be the white knight is that human rights reign there more than elsewhere (including the right of women to be the equal of man). Certainly, it is here that Enlightenment happened. Unquestionably, it’s a quality. But let's not forget that half of humanity has been colonised by us. And that our behaviour at the antipodes was also at the antipodes of the values of Enlightenment. Our desire to rule the world is the best way to make other people hate these values.
Paul Jael
- By Istanbuller
- By KurtFF8