Between a chit chat and a global dialogue
The ST has two interesting articles yesterday which I believe should qualify as something serious and worthy of reading than about some little girl’s diary or how I shampoo my dog. The first article was about a chit chat between two very senior gentlemen about to be hit by dementia or senility. Fortunately, at the ripe old age of the nineties, their minds are still lucid and functioning as fine as they could be. The other article was about a dialogue between middle age intellectuals with big titles but ended up more like a TV commercial repeating stereotype views and ideas that lack depth and insight to the evolving geopolitical scenario that is being played up in the Asia Pacific region.
In the chit chat, the issues were more about the dominance of civilisations and their roles towards humanity and the progress of human beans. It eventually narrowed down to the western missionary zeal to teach the world how to live and what is good and right. And there is the trigger happy righteousness to intervene into other nations to save the pathetic and the uncivilised. Genocide was briefly touched on with questions about the missed opportunities or the right or wrong to intercede in the events at Chechnya, Rwanda, Kampuchea and even Tiananmen Square.
The wise men simply grouped them together as matters of genocide. Were they? What is genocide? I think there is no need to define what is genocide as the answer is simply obvious. Tiananmen was a political uprising, a people’s grievance against a govt and its policies, nothing about genocide though it was put down forcefully with military force.
Chechnya is genocide, and so is Rwanda, and so is the holocaust of WW2. But conveniently no one would like to remember the greatest genocide of human history, the termination of the Red Indians. In all definition, the killing of 100m or there about of a civilisation of people by virtue of their race, for whatever reasons, political, economic or religion, must be genocide.
And should there be an intervention by any powers, it should be the savings of the Red Indians that were brutally and systematically put down. And there are still a few that are living and waiting to be saved but conveniently forgotten by the greatest human rights provocateur among nations. Or is it that the violators were the human rights provocateurs themselves? This is history or western history’s biggest hypocrisy.
In the dialogue, it was clear that the world exists only for the Americans and the Americans or the Empire decides what and who should be placed where and at which pigeon hole. Any country that dares to challenge this status quo, called the balance of power, in favour of the Empire is evil and must be put back into his respective hole, exceptions like Israel, Japan and the allies with the Empires blessing. The Americans spoke like there is only one world view, or one view that counts, and that is the Empire’s.
China’s rise as an economic and military power is seen as a challenged to the status quo and not permissible. It can only be allowed and accommodated if the Empire said so. And so are the other smaller countries. Those that tried would be brutally put down by military intervention in the name of human rights and regime change. Their enemy Number One is not China but the Muslim World that lives by a religious order that is in direct conflict and opposed everything the Empire stands by. But this has been well taken care of, and the Muslim World is torn and tattered and would be kept at least 50 years behind the rest of the world in all spheres of development.
Having taken care of this enemy, the Americans see it their right to shift all its military assets to the Asia Pacific to prevent the rise of China, as a ‘friendly measure’ to maintain peace and for the progress of the region. And all believes that this is true and a right thing to do.
According to the top proponent of the Empire, he said that ‘China was widely perceived in the US and the region as behaving in unusually assertive fashion.’ The Empire needs only think about what it perceives of others. Does the Empire ever think of what the rest of the world perceive of its behaviour, its aggressiveness, war mongering and assertiveness in intervention and regime change? No, doesn’t matter, immaterial? Yes, the Empire does not care two hoots what it does and how it is being perceived. That was exactly how the woman from the White House felt so shock when its ambassador was killed in Libya. How could that be? How could there be so much hatred against the Empire? Never mind, only a passing thought. The Empire will get down to business as usual, formenting dissent, inciting, conniving and starting wars.
Why the need for more wars? The Empire’s emissary admitted, ‘the US had done so far, moving its assets from other parts of the world to the Asia Pacific region, had reached the end of its usefulness and that there was a need to spend on new weapons.’ He added that the Empire ‘should maintain spending at 3 to 4 per cent of GDP’ on new weapons. This is perhaps the most clearly stated reason for the Empire’s action, to profit from more arms and weapons manufacturing.
Between the two pieces of works, I find the chit chat between two senior gentlemen having coffee and a puff, without the trappings of power and title more enlightening that the Global Dialogue that it was called. The stereotyping of views is so pedestrian and more like MacDonald’s hamburger commercial.