Mereja.Forum

RIC - Russia, Iran, China! In our case add - Turkey! Here is the war we are in!
https://thecradle.co/Article/analysis/5101

Horus,

I think this is a good read. For people like me it gives a clue on how the world is shaping up for the future.

The end of unipolar world order and the emergence of that of multipolar order has been said by many observers, as far as I understand. This piece is cementing this view with some tangible evidences on the ground.

The following passage summerizes it all, I think.

While the west is busy sabre-rattling, imposing unilateral sanctions and virtue signaling their rules-based superiority, the world has moved ahead towards a new multipolar system premised on genuine cooperation.

Just read this sentence and imagine how many countries around the world are suffering under the so called unilateral American sanctions as we speak, which is still rising and with that making the world unbearable for the too many people.

Horus this is one of the best, if not the best, article I have read recently.
The article is long, and summarizing it might be challenging. But I chose to do it having Ethiopian politics in mind.
It stated “ while the west is busy Sabre-rattling, imposing unilateral sanctions and virtue signaling their rules-based superiority, the world has moved ahead towards a new multipolar system premised on genuine cooperation.”
That once sentence signifies that the new power emerging. The cooperation between China, Russia and, Iran. The cooperation between Iran and the former USSR moslem states, the cooperation between Iran and UAE , and the cooperation even between Iran, Iraq and Syria.
While that sentence is very telling about what was unfolding in world politics, the next two sentences seemed to have written by Abiy of Ethiopia and Isayes of Eritrea.
It reads “ despite the fact that old imperial habits die hard, there is obviously a new game in town, and anyone who wants to have a future should come to the recognition that they must learn to play by new set of rules. These are rules which reject regime changes, divide-to-conquer tactics, or zero-sum thinking. I agree with those two.

DTT,
It is funny that India, the closest friend of US also got the 'American sanction' slap & whip! The only problem is that the conflicts within the anti-west alliance are many. For example, China-India conflict, Iran-Turkey conflict, etc In reality, the kings of Indian ocean and the Red sea are India and Africa. These 2 continents with more that 1/3 of world population have not developed their geopolitical consciousness to a level required by current realities - they are still colonies.

We just started a unipolar system.
The collapse of the Soviet union was the end of a multipolar era. What they are pretending to do, fighting for dominance, the west and the east is just pretention. The whole world pretty much accepted the US as the world ruler.

DefendTheTruth wrote: ↑

25 Dec 2021, 15:11

Horus,

I think this is a good read. For people like me it gives a clue on how the world is shaping up for the future.

The end of unipolar world order and the emergence of that of multipolar order has been said by many observers, as far as I understand. This piece is cementing this view with some tangible evidences on the ground.

The following passage summerizes it all, I think.

While the west is busy sabre-rattling, imposing unilateral sanctions and virtue signaling their rules-based superiority, the world has moved ahead towards a new multipolar system premised on genuine cooperation.

Just read this sentence and imagine how many countries around the world are suffering under the so called unilateral American sanctions as we speak, which is still rising and with that making the world unbearable for the too many people.

Sam
Communist internationalism has died a long time ago. The American dream of Liberal internationalism is now in the process of dying. The nations of the world (close to 200) have trade, commerce, ecological other global collective human needs to carry out through diplomacy and technology. The American imperial dream is a colonial habit inherited from the last century! It ain't gonna cut it!

I think what someone shouldn't overlook is the underlying principle or paradigm, which made the whole system no more tenable, it is not about who is on top and at the bottom. The paradigm underlying the american unilateral sanctions regime has been exploitative, exclusionist based on greed at the core of it, which all added up to make it unsustainable.

Capitalism in itself is based on 3 core principles: production, consumption and accumulation, to each of which has never been a limit was set.

This can only be possible by means of exploitation, which makes the whole setup unsustainable.

I think that is what the author is also implying in the following concluding paragraph of his article.

Where one paradigm is unipolar, the other is multipolar; and where one is premised on extracting wealth from a fixed set of resources in order to get nations to fight for scraps, the other creates new wealth while harmonizing diverse interests into a greater whole. Which one would you rather live in?

If the above paradigm of extraction has led to the collapse of the whole system, then there is a need in shifting the paradigm, to succeed this time around. It is not doing the same thing again and again and expecting a different result.

Without doubt, the purpose of any global politics - be it geography, economic,ideological or cultural - boils down to struggle for power/control/influence, wealth/resources/knowledge, national fame and achievement of respect in the world including becoming the feared or the beloved. For example America wants our geography and our loyalty, China wants our economy, Egypt wants our water, etc .... what is funny is that US doesn't bother to use fair diplomacy and acceptable political game; it thinks literally like a big daddy with a whip. We are now saying NOMORE!

With all due respect to the analytical skills of the writer of this article and his presentation of informed goal-oriented contemporary dealings among various powers of the world, I feel there is something amiss in the analysis.

Don't get me wrong that I am in disagreement with the direction in which the agreements are headed. I happen to think that there is a different perspective to look at what drives these agreements.

I am a student of gravity, natural gravity. In my mind, there also exists a social gravity of history and destiny. Virtue is the driver of this social gravity into persistent reality.

The gravity of history and destiny is what I heard recently in a documentary when Moshe Dayan of Israel said back in 1967 something to the effect that his forces had taken a historical site in Jerusalem never to take leave again. Whether his claim about a shared city is totally justified can be contested. However, his expression came across precisely as an expression of the gravity of history and destiny.

I do not think that destiny is transactional, which is my main point here.

Nothing explains to me about Ethiopia's internal struggles over the years, especially between the Amharic and Tigrigna speakers, better than the gravity of history and destiny. Only my limited reading and understanding of a shared origin from north to south and from east to west appears a panacea for such internal struggles.

China, Iran, and Russia are depicted figuratively for this analysis. No doubt that all of them have histories and destinies. They are not alone in the world to face the social gravity of history and destiny.

If my limited reading of history serves me right, Iran has been a persistent presence throughout history. I really can not name many throughout the world that have made the kind of persistent presence throughout history that Iran has made. I remember even Donald Trump once calling them legendary negotiators.

China was one of the four global powers in history. Iran was also on that list.

I haven't heard any other polity of history and destiny that casts their enigmatic shadows over the west more than the Czars of Russia. That is according to the west's own analysts on TV.

Roman machoism may have helped it build the biggest colosseum in the world. However, it doesn't appear that it managed to create a polity that could save its former protectorates from plunging into medieval anarchy. Its new polity chose to look away from it and toward the philosophies of the polities of the ancient era of Classical Civilization.

The Franklins that the writer cites to begin his analysis were the students of the polities of the Classical Civilization.

Do many of America's present-day leaders get driven by the history and destiny of Classical Civilization or are they drifters away from it without a clear compass toward either British Monarchy or Roman machoism? I do not know the answer to this seemingly simple question.

The simplest way to find out is perhaps asking the Irish man lost in America if it is the history and destiny of Classical Civilization, or British Monarchy, or Roman machoism that he sees as his virtuous call every day he goes to work.

Even a better litmus test for him is if he has any reservation against a system premised on genuine cooperation. For heaven's sake, this is not a new paradigm. Can anyone imagine what Joe Biden's reservation against such a premise might be? I can't and I wish to be proven wrong.

Take the same question to Iran or India or any polity in any country in the world that is worthy of claiming such a class to see if it has any reservation against the same premise. I don't think that any polity anywhere in the world that is in a position to claim the gravity of history and destiny would have any reservation against such a claim. In my view, it is the magnitude of such gravity that led Iran a long time ago almost alone to say to hell with your childish machoism that it sensed coming out of America.

In the article, I looked at any time that the writer reflected on destiny in light of how much he spent on transactional agreements. I found no instance where the word destiny came from the writer. The only time that this word appeared in it is in a quote from a United Arab Emirates official.

So, is this analysis about destinies or transactions or both? In the event that it may be argued to be both, which one is the driving force?