The March of Nations

Andy Warhol- Superman

The March of Nations


Influential18th century political philosopher G.F.W. (Georg Wilhelm Friedrich) Hegel, wrote about the destiny of the world directed by the “Will of God”, but carried forward by the “State”. Hegel, sometimes confused with fellow German Friedrich Nietzsche and his heady “Will to Power” exhortations, visualised a clutch of dominant players, no more.

But today with shrinking state authority amongst the first world, due to largely checkmated military options and near bankrupt coffers; things may be taking on a retrograde tinge reminiscent of the 18th century. The centre is not holding up too well and not just in India.

Hegel’s original vision of a ruling set is perhaps akin to the modern-day stranglehold of the five member Security Council. But the Security Council is also gridlocked. This has forced unilateral action on the part of its strongest member, namely the US, but might embolden others to follow suit in future, provided always that it or they can likewise finance their military adventurism.

There is also the high-power clubbiness of the G-8, despite its own set of competing interests; and also the media soaked summitry of business and politics at the annual Davos Economic Summits.

Certainly therefore, in echo of the Hegelian thesis, taken at face value, all this is tantamount to a ruling oligarchy of nations and their top businessmen, determining, for all intents and purposes, the fate of the world.

Hegel called this process “the march of nations”, implying where these lead nations go, the rest of the world is constrained to follow. Today, we might describe the phenomenon by just one word- globalisation, which admittedly is a little fuzzy about the inner workings of the power equations.

But, there is a mutation in the manner the Hegelian dialectic operates now. It is no longer possible to neatly systematise everything into thesis/antithesis and resultant synthesis. It is not as neat as that because the same influential nations and businessmen are forced to regroup, guided by “enlightened self-interest”. This makes for decisions taken on an issue to issue basis reflecting national vested interest, power politics and commercial gain and loss. Nations are no longer lined up in clear-cut teams in competition to each other across the board. Nor are they necessarily melded together by ideology, at least not for sustained periods.

For example, China is with America on certain matters and not in others. So much so, that the conceptual formulation of a G -2, touted barely a year ago, wherein the world’s richest country and its fastest growing one could rule jointly, is seen to be falling apart already. It is falling apart because China, though it is today only a quarter the size economically as the US, thinks itself strong enough to not have to play at junior partner. It is the perception of a growing power looking at what it thinks is a declining one. It’s not going to work in China’s favour, but tragically, it has persuaded itself otherwise.

The European Union on its part is hoisted on its Euro-based petard. That is why there is much angst generated amongst its dominant players such as Germany and France having to bail out its near bankrupt compatriots, such as Greece, Ireland or Spain.

Besides the quid pro quos, though routinely demanded, are not necessarily forthcoming. There are localised political pressures. Broke but Socialist Greece is finding itself strike bound, even before receiving bailout monies from Germany and France, as it tries to restore fiscal discipline. If Greece were on its own it could perhaps have devalued its way out of the debt trap, but now all 16 EU countries have to defend their beleaguered currency, and their average indebtedness of some 84 per cent of GDP!

That is also why the EU sometimes speaks in different voices on the matter of Islamic terrorism. Its constituents don’t uniformly support the foreign policy initiatives from the US either, despite being dependent on US trade and investment and even at the expense of undermining NATO. And this state of affairs is naturally being exploited by others, both within the Security Council and elsewhere.

In an increasingly disunited and multi-polar world, the Hegelian vision of a unitary lead-and-follow principle is largely compromised. This, even as the pressures and complexities of interdependence and contradictory policy positions are making for self-evident paradoxes.

For example, the increasing calls for strong sanctions against Iran for its nuclear weapons ambitions are undercut by the fiasco of the WMD propaganda used by the West to bring down Saddam Hussein’s regime in Iraq. Many are wondering whether Iran is being demonised for control of its oil rather than the security issues being touted.

After all, nothing truly effective has been done against the Al Qaeda and the resurgent Taliban, even though they are tantalisingly close to laying their hands on Pakistan’s nuclear arsenal. But America and its allies persist in using a reluctant and culpable Pakistani state to act as its proxy.

Ironically, Iran, being vilified for its nuclear power/weapons ambitions, is not a terrorist state but is on the brink of being slapped with crippling economic sanctions. Pakistan, which is a terrorist state, nurturing both its non-state actors and dubious guests, is receiving strong support and succour from the Western Alliance!

Clandestine nuclear power North Korea has cocked-a-snook at the West, and gets away with it due to a gridlocked Security Council and blatant support from China.

And China, on its part, continues its hegemonistic policies in the South Asian theatre and further afield, inclusive of military muscle-flexing, cyber-terrorism and trade based aggression. It calculatedly ignores the gathering global perception that is distinctly shifting against its ill-advised “Will to Power”.

An economically weakened US has little alternative, if there is no Chinese cooperation to address trade balances between the two, but to undertake an all out trade war with China. This may prove very damaging to both sides but end up halting Chinese export-based economic growth.

But such is the direction that the “march of nations” is taking. India, very much a follower in the scheme of things, may yet benefit from the fall-out of all these building storms, provided it is able to defend its borders, maintain its internal security, and keep growing strongly on the back of its domestic markets.

(1,043 words)

February 12th, 2010, Mahashivratri
Gautam Mukherjee

Published as Leader on Edit Page as "The march of the nations" on February 19th, 2010. Also online at www.dailypioneer.com and is archived there under Columnists.