It is
undoubtedly factual as enunciated by history that the world is usually, as
could be perceived somehow, in disguisable serene when there is one mighty
superpower on the throne. But this is not often so if the situations do not
align with the wishes of the empire. Otherwise, the world headed by the United
States today would not have wars going on in it. Just like the empires
that have long gone, the superpower has some responsibilities in what goes on,
either normally or abnormally.
The
biblical empires’ periods of calmness indicate that throughout history, mankind had
become accustomed to the presence of one mighty power in order to remain
disciplined and governable. It was evident in the following biblical empires:
1st world
power = EGYPT (in power to 1491 BC)
2nd world
power=ASSYRIA (1491 - 606 BC)
3rd world
power=BABYLON (606 - 538 BC)
4th world
power=Medo/Persia (538 - 333 BC)
5th world
power=GREECE (333 - 44 BC)
6th world
power=ROME (44 BC - 476 AD)[1]
These
biblical periods were weird in many respects just like their heirs apparent namely: The British
Empire in the grips of the UK and then the
American Empire, now headed by the USA. Sheer miscalculations by the powerful can sometimes, as it had always been in
history, put the world through periods of unrest and uncertainties. We all
remember the Weapons of Mass Destruction that were never found
in Iraq. The unproven assumption by the United States and allies that Iraq was
manufacturing weapons of mass destruction, a situation that led to the invasion,
was a miscalculation by the strongest. The resultant militancy by Al Qaeda and
sectoral religious groups in Iraq was a reaction to an attack on their country
which they knew was not justified. Many civilians have so far lost their lives
in the wake of the war in Iraq and in the continuing militancy there.
In today’s 'planet America,' the game of the period had been played differently
but much the same as in all other empires that have gone before it.
Though absolute force is not often used but used excessively when needed, the
game has continued to be played based on submissions or alliances, political
and economic control through dissemination and enforcement of democratic ideals
and practices. No one can misjudge the weapon of economic control in which the
mightiest and richest power asks and coerces all countries to play by the rules of
the game. Through the use of this powerful market nuke, weak third world
will continue to be pushed down into the economic abyss.
On November
7, President Obama came to Australia and announced in the Australian parliament
that ‘the United States is a Pacific nation’ and authoritatively laced his
speech with a forceful intonation of a highly regarded rhetoric; ‘we are here
to stay.’
It was a tone that would nerve any emerging nation with the intention to prosperity without checks. No
question the Chinese were not happy. They might have seen this as the US policy
of containment of China in South East Asia. Remember that ‘Chineseness’ drives
the Chinese and the Chinese-controlled economies of most countries in the
region follow Chinese economic cultural attachment to mainland China. Some
countries such as Singapore and Indonesia have Chinese with motherland
attachments who are economically strong and control 90 percent of national
economies. So what is America saying here? The East will always be yellow and
this should be clear to any power at the helm.
Chinese
reaction to American geographic assertion into the Pacific region was to
denounce Washington-Canberra’s re-alliance in military cooperation closer to
home, for this was the reason behind the rhetoric. Many nations, America
included, might see the Chinese uncontrollable advance in economic progress
as the reason why the US is literally disconcerted. America could be right. Chinese
developmental advances in the past decades had been marvelous. The speed at
which they overtook Japan and became the second most powerful economy in the
world still mesmerizes the Western world.
The worry, however, is the evidence we have in
history when two or more strong powers engage in sort of national or
multinational interests. For instance, when America, USSR, and China swirled in a
military confrontation over Korea in the 1950s, it resulted in the fragmentation of
the Korean society and led to an eventual division of the country into two
separate nations - with one country going wildly nuclear. Millions of relatives were stranded on either side of the
border and the two countries, thereafter, became sworn enemies for eternity.
Could the same situation be repeated in this disguised war of economic control?
If the tactics applied in this economic supremacy become so serious leading to
proxy skirmishes, as it is evident in the case of China and the US, the
probability is zero that the least strong and friendly countries balancing both
sides may end up caught in the mix of war and muscular exhibition.
Who should
then worry if this scuffle ensues? South Sudan will be among those who should
need to worry. In the same week that America made her intention in the Pacific,
China declared it was boosting military ties with Khartoum. Sudan accepts one
China policy, which threatens war if Taiwan declares independence and also
denounces Tibet fiddling around with demands of more autonomy in China than
they have now. China is a major trading partner of Sudan, purchasing at least
one-fifth of its industrial oil through and from the country. It also fears the American
eye of providence in South Sudan where most of the oil wells it depends on are
situated and owned. China sees America in South Sudan as a potential threat to
its source of oil.
Had Sudan
put one Sudan policy on the table of friendship with China? No one knows. But it would be
clear Sudan needs Chinese support to control South Sudanese oil. The
assurance Sudan got from China in establishing military ties was the reason
that led to Khartoum stepping up its military incursions in the Blue Nile,
Nuba Mountains, South Sudan, and Southern Kordofan. It was a conspicuous
demonstration that Sudan's actions were consequences of guaranteed support
and backing of the giant: China. Sudan further exploited this opportunity and
commenced forceful nipping of South Sudanese oil for payment in kind. Who was
going to buy that oil? It would be awe for all to see the justifiable
conditions under which South Sudanese national commodity would be traded
without the consensual approval of the owner.
The truth
is that Khartoum will not shut down South Sudanese oil flow, for China, the biggest partner would not like it. South Sudan can’t shut down the oil flow
either for the wrath of the biggest buyer, which in this case is China, would
be hard to bear. But the latter has the sole decision over her resources and
would surprise the world in the scenario in which its national pride and
independence appear to be at stake.
The Chinese and
Russians have always been agitated where America appears to have an interest.
American interests in South Sudan, though not so significant, may cause the
young nation some snags. With Chinese in the north and American influence in
the South, the situation is symptomatic to Afghanistan in 1979 where Afghans
suffered under the feet of Americans and Soviets; Vietnam in 1955 where
Vietnamese became the undergrowth between Soviets and Americans and Korea; a
country that was split up willy-nilly while China and America saw eye to eye and
nose to nose with the Koreans paying the price. Today the world may risk paying the
ultimate price because one of the Koreas has Nukes!! These guns are awful.
Whose making is it? Perhaps the empire can answer that.
Will South
Sudan suffer the same fate? We pray not. But we must be careful.[1] The Chronology of World Empires, http://www.liferesearchuniversal.com/endlesson4.html
