Daily Times

We are now ready to conclude this study. Before doing so, however, I need to draw your attention to a prevailing situation, which I have written and spoken on repeatedly but, not in this series.

Throughout history empires and global powers have fallen, to be replaced by others. If more than one empire existed concurrently, they took to the field to decide which one would be the Emperor of the globe. The Cold War era introduced competitive world powers which ruled concurrently but avoided direct wars between the two. Because a war between the two could destroy the entire mankind. With the failure of USSR, we returned to one global empire.

But, a replacement empire, China, [or competitive one] has begun to flex its muscles while its predecessor is still in power and, seeks, at least, to return to a bipolar world. And, it has done so when global destruction could be the result of “taking to the field to settle the issue”.

But, this unique situation has resulted in many worrisome consequences for the “Allied States” and/or “Colonies”. Who should they choose? The choice is unequal at the moment. The US, apparently, is still [militarily] the stronger of the two and, it still enjoys greater clout among the International Institutions, which feed these satellite allies annually.

However, China is fast closing up the economic differential, in which US is visibly wilting. Of military developments in China, not enough is known but, there are strong rumors that, technologically, China might be well ahead of the US, in some fields. And, since these fields, in which China might be well ahead, are those fields which could be game-changers in future conflicts; China might not really be far behind the US, even in military capabilities.

Economics has, overtime, become a complement and subordinate to Political Economy and, the latter is dependent on perpetual conflict somewhere or the other in the globe

Nonetheless, US holds the global purse strings at the moment and that, it isn’t letting go of, not in the foreseeable future. So where does that leave countries like ours; the ones who need skirts to hang on to? Should they hang on to the US and annoy the future or vice versa? And, were an increasing number to abandon the US, what would be US’ reaction? Would it meekly accept its [hastening-due to the betrayal of satellites] demise? Or, would the US, like many earlier waning powers make a last attempt to regain the global throne, even if it results in Armageddon?

In other words; the current world lives on a razor edge. We are now ready to pick up from where we left off last week. Let us review our conclusions from this six month study. I list these below:

a. Economics has, overtime, become a complement and subordinate to Political Economy and, the latter is dependent on perpetual conflict somewhere or the other in the globe.

b. That conflict has become increasingly lethal and deadly overtime and, if not prevented from crossing Red Lines, could destroy the world.

c. That, nevertheless, neither the construct of the current day global economy, nor the elite states, and individuals that benefit from conflict will permit any deviation from Political Economy.

d. That the UN, which came into being for the dual purpose of a) preventing conflict and b) to reduce poverty was created to remain firmly “controlled” by the elite, states and individuals and, perhaps, therefore, has failed at both.

e. Resultant to the foregoing conclusions, the states which have become virtual colonies to elite states, are destined to conflict so that the global economy runs and elites [states and individuals] continue enriching themselves.

f. That conflict is uncontrolled in its very nature and can, frequently, become self-escalatory. That the Cuban Missile Crisis, was a dramatic live demonstration of what could have been and still might, if not bridled.

g. Finally, that UN takes pride in its achievements at Peacekeeping. That there is universal demand for Peacekeepers to “Do More” and, to that end, the role of Peacekeepers needs to be expanded vertically and horizontally. But, if it is expanded in both directions; where does it end?

If we put the foregoing conclusions into a pot and accept these as given. That we are Cannon Fodder states, destined to conflict so as to maintain status quo; can we continue to subsist without self-destructing some day? I can offer an outlandish suggestion.

If we, the world’s Cannon Fodder states table a motion in the UN saying that we understand, and accept our status and are prepared to continue playing the game you want us to play but, on our terms. Which are that we, we, not you, not the current controllers of the UN, under the aegis of UN, assisted by the UN Military Adviser’s Secretariat, control the game of wars, under our rules. Each conflict will be firmly “controlled”.

We, Cannon Fodder states will appoint a “Council of War”, C o W, from among our chosen representatives. This C o W will assign minimum/maximum aims to both countries as well as, design a War Termination Strategy for the conflict and, will assign Observers and Umpires from among Peacekeepers to ensure that the Terms of Engagement laid out for each conflict are strictly followed. [Thus automatically empowering Peacekeepers to save more lives, since their responsibilities will now include, peacekeeping, controlling wars, creating peace thereafter and then maintaining it.]

Any member refusing to accept should be entirely quarantined and isolated by UN. No commerce or interaction with any other member. Appropriate punitive measures can be assigned to every on-field violation of the rules of conducting a Controlled War.

Outlandish? Yes. Silly? Maybe? Could it work? I think it has to be made to work if we wish to conclude the period of the entire globe sitting on the razor’s edge.

The writer is a retired brigadier. He is also former vice president and founder of the Islamabad Policy Research Institute (IPRI)