People mistake enforced order for natural order. Borders, families, institutions, even social rules can feel permanent when the power behind them stays invisible. Then the pressure shifts, and suddenly everyone acts, shocked that the structure was never as stable as it looked. That may be the most unsettling part of the essay for me. Not that the order is changing, but that so much of what we call stability depends on someone having enough power to keep the story believable.
Mark, you've just laid out a fantastic defence of the Westphalian order compared to the tension we are seeing as it erodes and shifts, though I'm not certain that was your intention. What is becoming clear, though, is that, in many instances, the emperor has no clothes, whether a group of mercenaries is banging at the door of Moscow, or another European nuclear power to the west is unable, at times, to control certain suburbs of its capital, or if its neighbour to the north needed to fight to preserve the far-off islands thousands of kilometres away, as it once did in the early 1980s, it would be much harder for it to do so today.
Some might even say that the world's indispensable power had its own capital overrun by rioters, or insurrectionists, or protesters, depending on which side of the fence a person is on, and that it hasn't successfully won a war since 1945, though Mr. Noriega and a few others may beg to differ.
If, for whatever reason, the treaties which brought us the Peace of Westphalia and resulted in the recognition of the independence of the Dutch Republic, which is an overlooked predecessor to that other great revolutionary state which would emerge about 150 years later in North America, if this Westphalia becomes a westfailure, then whatever comes after it, assuming it even makes it to its 400th anniversary, which will be in the year 2048, a year after Hong Kong special status ends, though some may argue it has already ended, as it is scheduled to do in 2047, then whatever comes next, may it be better and result in mankind being freer.
I must applaud this sentence in particular: << Most countries would ape liberal democracies, with autocrats holding elections understanding the legitimacy it granted them, even if the elections were rigged. >>
I was going to point to Iran -- and also to the inevitable Zionist annexation of the West Bank and Gaza (and possibly southern Lebanon, if the extremists have their way!).
If we go back to 2003, the US invasion of Iraq stands as another such example -- though here, the "global policeman" was guilty of something truly evil: an invasion predicated on an assumption ("weapons of mass destruction") known to be false.
People mistake enforced order for natural order. Borders, families, institutions, even social rules can feel permanent when the power behind them stays invisible. Then the pressure shifts, and suddenly everyone acts, shocked that the structure was never as stable as it looked. That may be the most unsettling part of the essay for me. Not that the order is changing, but that so much of what we call stability depends on someone having enough power to keep the story believable.
Mark, you've just laid out a fantastic defence of the Westphalian order compared to the tension we are seeing as it erodes and shifts, though I'm not certain that was your intention. What is becoming clear, though, is that, in many instances, the emperor has no clothes, whether a group of mercenaries is banging at the door of Moscow, or another European nuclear power to the west is unable, at times, to control certain suburbs of its capital, or if its neighbour to the north needed to fight to preserve the far-off islands thousands of kilometres away, as it once did in the early 1980s, it would be much harder for it to do so today.
Some might even say that the world's indispensable power had its own capital overrun by rioters, or insurrectionists, or protesters, depending on which side of the fence a person is on, and that it hasn't successfully won a war since 1945, though Mr. Noriega and a few others may beg to differ.
If, for whatever reason, the treaties which brought us the Peace of Westphalia and resulted in the recognition of the independence of the Dutch Republic, which is an overlooked predecessor to that other great revolutionary state which would emerge about 150 years later in North America, if this Westphalia becomes a westfailure, then whatever comes after it, assuming it even makes it to its 400th anniversary, which will be in the year 2048, a year after Hong Kong special status ends, though some may argue it has already ended, as it is scheduled to do in 2047, then whatever comes next, may it be better and result in mankind being freer.
An interesting essay here, but I wish you could convince the powers that be in the USA that they are NOT the world's policemen. 🙈🙉🙊
I must applaud this sentence in particular: << Most countries would ape liberal democracies, with autocrats holding elections understanding the legitimacy it granted them, even if the elections were rigged. >>
Thank you for the essay. However the invasion of Iran to "prevent nukes" is an example of being a global policeman, is it not?
I was going to point to Iran -- and also to the inevitable Zionist annexation of the West Bank and Gaza (and possibly southern Lebanon, if the extremists have their way!).
If we go back to 2003, the US invasion of Iraq stands as another such example -- though here, the "global policeman" was guilty of something truly evil: an invasion predicated on an assumption ("weapons of mass destruction") known to be false.