Tony Rakhal-Fraser
This column seeks to place warmongering by the powerful of the world in historical and contemporary perspective.
Listed below are a few of the major factors which instigate the above nations to engage in war against the less powerful; indeed, against many which have little or no power to respond to the aggressors.
Territorial disputes, brazen occupation and confiscation of lands of countries unable to respond to the destructive violence; economic competition for resources, ideological differences, religious extremism, and nationalist motivations are all used to achieve do ideologues, power hungry individuals, nations and collective groups in historical and contemporary periods, intent on controlling the resources of the world, force the powerless majority to submit to aggressive bullying and destruction, or face the wrath of genocidal action.
Wars also occur from failed diplomacy—when countries are required to accept the proposal put forward by the powerful, or suffer the military consequences; from security dilemmas, and from revenge.
Underpinning the above-listed causes of war are often political, economic, and social instabilities that are escalated into violence by military power.
Then there is racial conflict and hate: one group against another and/or mutual hate between and amongst ethnicities. The above and more are conclusions which can easily be found in the UN Literature on war.
There is also the Times History of War, From Ancient Civilisation to the 21st Century; add the above to that which is being telecast and recorded “live and alive” in the media of the present to gain some appreciation of war, its causes, and those who ignite the conflicts.
The interested reader now has to examine a few of the major wars of the contemporary period to see how the above-listed causes fit.
In the instance of the Russia-Ukraine war of 2022, which followed Russia’s invasion and annexation of Crimea in 2014, the immediate and long-term intention has been to take hold of portions of the territory of Ukraine adjacent to Russia.
The rationale of President Putin’s Moscow has been to retaliate against broken promises by the US-European allies not to spread the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO)—the cloak of co-operation and military protection of the US-Western Europe—given to Russian President Mikhail Gorbachev (1990), not to advance NATO beyond its then existing boundaries to include Ukraine.
The rationale of Moscow being that Russia required space between the NATO countries and its borders. In the instance of Ukraine, its continuing resistance to Russia’s bombing to grab additional chunks of the country, that is based on the established principle that a country has every right to protect its territory, having already been deprived of large chunks of it at its eastern borders to Russia.
One point to note here is that the loser up to this point in the conflict, Ukraine, is likely to be deprived of valuable resources, and this is notwithstanding the “rights” and “wrongs”, lies, and distortions being uttered by Russia and the NATO territories. The fact is that Russia, having confiscated and occupied Crimea and the Donbas, is now reportedly in charge of 20 per cent of Ukraine. Who is going to force Moscow to return the occupied Ukrainian lands to Kyiv?
No serious leader of a country can stay quiet in such circumstances, notwithstanding US President Donald Trump having told President Volodymyr Zelensky to suck-up the loss of territory, ie, cede the Donbas region and Crimea to Russia to end the war.
So one powerful state is pressuring a militarily weak one to cede national territory to another power to make up for NATO’s push further east into Russia’s orbit.
As clearly depicted here, the power to determine the very existence of a country and region resides with those with large armies, nuclear weapons, and the belief that they have the right to dominate small countries, inevitably to take control of their lands and resources.
Question to be researched and answered here is: Have these countries, which claim superior moral right to rule the world, to determine which country should possess nuclear weapons and which not, have they demonstrated the moral right so to do?
To the other major conflict of the present, that which is threatening to inflame the Middle East and, inevitably, the rest of the world in military, economic and political warfare. Living in the present ubiquitous media with unbelievable technological reach, Israel and its “Big Brother” protector state, the USA, have all but bombed Palestine into existence only on paper. Respected international affairs expert Emeritus Professor Paul Rogers from the University of Bradford says, “Israeli bombing of Gaza is equivalent to six Hiroshimas.”
It must, however, not be forgotten that in the early engagement of the war against Palestine and now Iran, NATO-Europe was very much involved, selling and donating arms to Israel.
In the circumstances of the present, as the reality of plunder and genocidal killings has become apparent through the technologically driven media, the slaughter cannot be hidden. In such circumstances, Eurozone countries have begun to attempt to escape blame by refusing to cooperate with the US and Israel.
To be continued.
Tony Rakhal-Fraser – freelance journalist, former reporter/current affairs programme host, and News Director at TTT; programme producer/current affairs director at Radio Trinidad; correspondent for the BBC Caribbean Service and the Associated Press; graduate of UWI, CARIMAC, Mona, and St Augustine – Institute of International Relations.
