Maravi

(HERALD) In times of peace, prepare for war

In times of peace, prepare for war
Friday, 21 October 2011 00:00
Darlington Mahuku and Bowden Mbanje

Lenin once said that imperialism is the highest stage of capitalism. According to him, capitalism would cause wars in various parts of the world as to secure and sustain its economic growth as well as to satisfy the needs of the capitalist society. The 21st century has witnessed a surge in the demand for and competition over the world's scarce resources. Africa is endowed with most of the minerals in demand whilst the Middle East has abundant oil resources to prolong the world's energy needs. Hans Morgenthau, a realist scholar clearly defined all international politics as a continuous struggle for power and scarce resources.

One political science scholar once said that the Democratic Republic of Congo would never know peace as long as it had abundant resources. Put simply, this African country will only enjoy peace when its vast mineral resources are exhausted. Its mineral wealth has not been of benefit to its people who still wallow in poverty.
The Congolese have been pawns in the struggles between and among great powers as they compete for these copious mineral resources. The DRC populace continue to suffer because of various foreign funded conflicts which are centred on the country's geo-strategic mineral resources.

Twenty-first century international politics has now taken a more aggressive form as great powers now openly cause conflicts as well as engage in limited hostile confrontations with governments they deem opposed to their imperialistic foreign policies.

Hundreds as well as thousands of Ivorian and Libyan civilians have lost their lives in the neo-Western imperialistic crusades merely because Gbagbo and Gaddafi were totally in opposition to foreign manipulation of their countries' wealth.

worried by the inroads that Brazil, India and China have made in the economic spheres actually suggested that her country should make its economic interests central to its foreign policy as for it to remain a global leader.

She went on to say that the US had to position itself in a world where security is shaped in boardrooms and on trading floors-as well as on battlefields.
Clinton called for an end to Washington's culture of political brinkmanship. The American Secretary of State is obsessed by the realist school of thought which supports the view that laws and morality have played a

little part in the workings of world politics and that a state's primary obligation is to itself, not the international community, other states or humanity. Self- preservation and economic growth under such conditions demands that a state be able to protect its own interests.

Clinton does not hide the fact that there must be a distinction in politics between truth and opinion. She opts for an American foreign policy that is guided by objectivity and rationality rather than one divorced from the facts as they are. She is totally opposed to political bluffing and rhetoric.

For Clinton, just like with realist philosophers and scholars, foreign policy must therefore always be engaged in a pursuit of a state's core economic interests otherwise other states will take advantage of this mistake in judgement by acquiring more economic power. Brazil, China and India are threatening and undermining the USA's once monopolised economic base in Latin America, Asia and Africa.

The USA does not also rule out the possibility of engaging in war when its economic interests are tempered with. Clausewitz, a Prussian military strategist clearly pointed out that "war is the continuation of politics by other means".

If you fail to agree as happened in Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya and Ivory Coast, the best way to reach a favourable agreement would be through the use of hard power. As these horrible struggles for scarce resources unfold in the international system, Africa watches as a mere spectator with arms akimbo.

The leaders in Libya and Ivory Coast are blamed by some African governments and their Northern sponsored media as being undemocratic. These Western invasions are justified by Africa itself under the false and misguided banner of democracy. Africa has totally failed to read the rhythm of international politics. It is too blind to see and read through the Euro-centric facade of democracy and human rights.

Power politics shapes the relations of states in the world we live in. Clashes of political and economic interests among states are inevitable. In international relations there are no permanent friends nor enemies but permanent interests.
The major purpose of statecraft, for realists, is national survival in a hostile environment characterised by competition and conflict. It is therefore important in this international system that is totally and permanently devoid of a world government, for any state, big or small, to acquire military power.

Africa should stop day dreaming that the world is governed by rules and morality. More than two million innocent civilians have died in unjustified wars in Africa and the Middle East only because these innocent souls happened to be living in countries endowed with scarce resources.

Africa should know that Western countries see the respect for moral principles as merely wasteful and dangerous especially when they collide with their own national interests.

According to Jonathan Stevenson, America was more interested in Iraq's oil than with the civilian casualties and France was more concerned in its economic interests in Ivory Coast than with the poor disadvantaged

Ivorians. All these cases had "little" if not nothing to do with democracy or human rights.

Africa should understand that a state's ethical preferences are neither good nor bad-what matters is whether or not they serve its national self-interest. America is not very much interested in the democracy it talks about. It wouldn't have sustained Mubarak and Ben Ali and the other leaders in the Arab world.

There are many cases where the Americans and Europeans have totally failed to honour these democratic principles especially where their interests are concerned.

These so called beacons of democracy have on several occasions failed to walk the talk on good governance and rule of law. We are yet to hear of the Americans and Europeans standing before the International Criminal Court on trials against humanity.

Arguably, Africa is living in an ideal and utopian world where politics is made to conform to an ethical standard. Morgenthau clearly points out that a man who was nothing but moral man would be a fool for he would be completely lacking in prudence.

Africa needs pragmatic and prudent leaders not mere moral fools who still believe in false Western claims of human rights and rule of law while at the same time these Northern hypocrites are busy killing innocent civilians in Iraq and Libya as well as looting their resources.

The whole international system is "a dog eats dog" world. It is characterised by resource predators that are schooled in Charles Darwin's "survival of the fittest" school of thought. St Augustine clearly states that man by nature is evil and self-centred and so are states in the international system.

Thomas Hobbes says the world we live in is anarchical and is characterised by a scenario of "war of every man against every man." North Korea, India, Israel and Pakistan will never destroy their nuclear weapons until the USA,UK, France, Russia and China destroy theirs first.

No state is willing to forgo its nuclear weapon programme bearing the anarchic nature of the international system whereby the "Avatar Syndrome" seems to have taken root. We have coined it the "Avatar Syndrome" from James Cameron's movie ‘AVATAR' whereby the strong or military preponderant states in typical Thucididesian fashion do whatever they can and the weak suffer what they must. Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya and

Ivory Coast have suffered at the hands of the strong in this twenty-first century.
Charles Kegley and Robert Wittkopf argue that most nations are reluctant to engage in arms limitations in an atmosphere in which trust of their adversaries is lacking, and such trust is unlikely to be fostered as long as those adversaries remain armed.

Africa should look at the above statement given by Hillary Clinton with a critical mind. The continent instead of being divided should actually unite and start thinking about its future in this sea of predatory states.

We desperately need a united African army that will defend the continent from greedy nations that will stop at nothing to raze the continent to ashes in pursuit of their own selfish interests.

Capitalism is now a house divided against itself, it is running out of resources to sustain its own ailing economy and like what Lenin warned us many years ago; Africa will soon be a zone of unprecedented wars for scarce minerals.

If the international system remains as predatory as it is, rewarding aggressors for the wrong reasons, then it is plausible to argue that the African continent should possess nuclear weapons to preserve its vital interests as well as to deter greedy imperialistic states.

The most important way in which the continent can help itself and be assured of its own survival is by providing its own security. The UN can never be trusted again after what happened in Libya and Ivory Coast.

Africa should therefore value its national security above all other things and military preponderance will make the continent safe from Western raiders. (America's 2011 defence budget was more than 500 billion dollars while Zimbabwe only needs about 10 billion dollars to kick-start its economy)

The NATO attack on Libya actually set a bad precedent in the international system as weaker states now see the importance of military preponderance including the acquisition of weapons of mass destruction.

The misperception coming from some misguided and imprudent sections of African society that the continent should carry out security sector reforms is not only utopian but it is like waiting for a train that will never arrive. Hence, the most effective strategy for Africa to avoid a war is to prepare for one.

* Darlington N Mahuku and Bowden B C Mbanje and are lecturers in International Relations and Peace and Governance at Bindura University of Science Education.

Labels: HILLARY CLINTON, NEOCOLONIALISM

posted by MrK @ 5:42 PM