A fragile world teathers in volatility: will there be a World War III?
by Popoy Del R. Cartanio
Will there be a World War III?
Let readers imagine that opinions not based on research or results of scientific experiments on what is happening in our world today are really believable, of great value and are good bases for predicting events likely to happen in the coming days. Put another way, what media in terms of news and opinions dished out everyday to readers and watchers are good reasons for people everywhere to worry that a big world war could explode any moment. Moreover, it is another angle by which doomsayers or war mongers can make mountains out of molehills and which also die hard Peaceniks can down play as false alarms. This first paragraph might already be overtaken by catastrophic events even before it gets posted. Knock on wood, eh?
In Tagalog mas madali at maigsing sabihin na yung sinasabi sa media na nangyayari sa kapaligiran ay tunay na nagbabadya na bukas makalawa maaring magkagiyera. Sa mga may panahon, nagbabasa, nakikinig, nanunood, nagiisip at sumusubaybay sa internet, mga taong interesado sa nangyayari sa kanyang malawakan kapaligiran ay mayroon sapat na dahilan matakot .
Nakakakilabot isipin pag nakagiyera, nandiyan ang bomba “nuclear” at saka “chemical”. At marami pang makabagong sandata ng pagpatay.
Tignan lang ang mga higanteng bansa na siyang masasangkot sa giyera: Estados Unidos (USA), Great Britain, Canada, Japan, South Korea, Australia, France, Israel; at saka Russia, China, North Korea, Iran, Syria. Puede rin tignan ang mga grupo na maaring magkaisa ang mga miembrong sumali sa giyera tulad ng European Community, ASEAN, Islamic Conference, Organization of American States, at iba pa. Matagal na meron din bumanggit sa media na ang pangatlong pandaigdig na digmaan (WW III) ang siyang gugunaw sa mundo kung magkakaroon ng malawakang paggamit ng bomba nyukliyar, mas nakahihindik bomba kemikal. .
Pero sa magkabilang panig o hanay na mga bansang nagaaway, pag ginamit ng liderato ang sentido kumon para sa makataong pananaw at takot sa hindi maubos maisip na dami ng mamatay sa buong mundo, HINDI puputok baka maipagpaliban pa ang “Third World War.”
To say it in English, if previous world wars could give any indication of a coming “holocaust” war, the signs are there for pundits to see which started after WW II in 1945. After 72 long years, Russia broke from the free world and became China’s bosom buddy. Germany was divided into East and West, Korea and Vietnam into North and South; followed by the Cold War. There was then the Korean War in the 50s. There was also the break up and breakdown of the USSR (Union of Soviet Socialist Republics). Likewise the demolition of the Berlin Wall. Followed by Vietnam, the Israeli continuing war, then Afghanistan, then Syria, Al Qaida, and ISIS insurgency.
In each and every country those were big chunks of national history. However, in the macro world view those were NOT signs of a peaceful WORLD. Those were, in small bundles, characteristics of socio-economic struggle and indications of political instability. All of which undermine progress and work against harmony in the society of nations. Furthermore the events of recent memory are portentous of large scale war. Without delving into details . . . but more like an invitation to dig deeper into the meaning of events and the consequent changes those events had triggered . . . read and cogitate.
ONE : At least in USA and the Philippines–maybe even in Great Britain– political correctness was put on the dock and was found wanting. Political correctness was found anachronous; its usefulness and potency had expired and that called for a full scale make over. Presidential candidates Donald J. Trump of the USA and Rodrigo R. Duterte of the Philippines were the two leading challengers who made mince meat of political correctness with almost victorious belligerence.
To Presidents Trump and Duterte, it could be a new ethos of governance; not a blast but a break from the past of wholesome, placating, respectful, culture-based, jurisprudent and traditionally moral kind of governance. On a scale of 10 for mild to extreme non-dictatorial societal change, it is an unheard of 8 or 9. It is doubtless considered an INSANE adventure to apostles and practitioners of political correctness who believe such recklessness could emasculate ruling elite and could lead to unheard of dire consequences.
Ah yes, about Great Britain or UK. On political correctness, it must be admitted, it’s a bit of a stretch. It was NOT encouraged or brought about by government or its leaders. It was a significant segment of the population who voted for BREXIT. It’s like a contextual repudiation of causes blamed for bad results, for bad effects on a large number of the common citizens. It was an affront to the noble purpose of a conglomerate that ensures for members mutually beneficial relationship. Belonging to the EC (European Community) was not it at all, according to BREXIT. In fine, many Britons who voted for exit believed by experience that UK membership to EC was not good for them at all.
Attempts at correcting political correctness could snowball not only in Europe and North America. After the elections in the Netherlands, watch the coming elections in France. Other smaller countries could follow suit. China and Russia seemed successful in toppling their ideological correctness. China’s Cultural Revolution had a stealthy make-over to morph into mutant capitalism. USSR disintegrated; Russia’s Gorbachevian perestroika and glasnost made Russia what it is now under President Putin.
The extreme view behind the falling out of political correctness seems to be its growing divisive nature as reflected by the saying that over time, the poor get poorer while the rich get stinking richer. The shameless divide between the clean haves and the unwashed have nots has become abysmal. Very likely a pundit may write: “It’s not economics stupid!” Rather “it’s gruesome national politics.”
TWO – The tinderboxes of war: The world remembers with relief the Bush’s Father and Son Gambit in the Middle East: Iraq’s Desert Storm and Baghdad’s “shock and awe” were dud tinderboxes. A few countries NOW may not be totally so, but could be candidate tinderboxes like North Korea, Syria, Afghanistan, Israel, Palestine, Ukraine, Georgia of the former USSR, etc. These countries if left alone to solve their own internal conflicts or against each other are not likely to cause WW III. Also, for example, the Kashmir lingering border wounds between India and Pakistan, both engaged in a nuclear arms race, could remain continental and may not trigger a global war.
These tinderboxes with their re-invigorated bilateral relations with world power countries, however, may complicate matters. If non-aligned countries realign with either the free world or the so called non-democratic countries and foreign affairs loses its diplomatic and humane content, then good bye world peace este, mankind.
THREE – the changed process and content of INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS: Well, the opposing view is that is not happening at all; not yet, but SUBTLE CHANGES could be happening in broad daylight within a narrow context. If the process is diplomacy and the content is permanent national interest as the simplified definition of international relations, recent events then should suggest something of interest to opinion writers or bloggers.
Lately from newsbreaks from around the world, can we infer from actuations of world leaders that their country’s ambassadors may have been lowered to the stature of liaison officers and their embassies mere outposts not unlike the desert outposts of the French Foreign Legion?
This example is minuscule, but America for generations will not forget the recent blow to its greatness. What happened to American public servants in its Benghasi outpost will be indelible to international relations history for a long long time. Have the Americans forgotten the hostage taking in their Teheran outpost during the watch of President James Carter?
FOUR — the unheard high pitch noise of war: Can it be said that the high pitch noise of war can only be heard by the dogs of war? The Group of Eight (G8 turned G7) and the Group of Twenty (G20) are still there waiting in the wings ready to perform their noble (or is it ignored?) role as the UN’s double to make the world stay in even keel. But on matters of world peace and security, the new US President Donald J. Trump may have introduced if not imposed an initiative for world peace or its conflagration. President Trump was talking ONE ON ONE to country’s leaders with clout and influence.
In basketball parlance, it’s not zone defense but a man to man guarding. Playing man to man for a whole game, it’s a relentless mental and physical effort which is tiring and exhausting. Since his move to the White House, President Trump has talked to international and national leaders man to man(woman) in reverse chronological order: the President of China, the Prime Minister of Germany, the King of Jordan, President of Egypt, Prime Minister of Iraq, President of Peru, the Prime Minister of Israel, the Prime Minister of Australia, the Prime Minister of Canada, the Prime Minister of Japan, and the Prime Minister of the UK. Read the list backwards to have a measure of the tensile strength of USA’s bilateral relations with these countries. Still uncertain to happen is a meeting between Presidents Trump and Putin.
Alin ba talaga ang magiging dahilan, mitsa o gatilyo ng pagbabago sa kapayapaan sa mundo: yung pagbomba chemical na pumatay ng maraming bata sa Syria o yung Tugon ni President Trump na tomahawk missiles sa airport sa Syria?