SSP Diaries | Weaponisation – a misguided solution for peace (Part 2)
In Part 1 a number of the variants of “weaponisation” were discussed and what some nations are gaining as a result of such strategies. The reader is reminded that the art of weaponisation brings with it enormous profits for the highly...
In Part 1 a number of the variants of “weaponisation” were discussed and what some nations are gaining as a result of such strategies. The reader is reminded that the art of weaponisation brings with it enormous profits for the highly industrialised developed nations and social degradation for the developing and underdeveloped. Notwithstanding, there are other situations to be aware of and more efforts placed in appropriate solutions to conflicts.
Let us now look at the developed and underdeveloped countries. What have they got to look forward to? There is likely to be an increase in the sophistication of weaponry held by terrorist and other criminal organisations, and in many instances these weapons will be far more potent than those held in the legitimate hands of a state. These countries will be under severe threat, in most cases from illicit actors and some may even become failed entities. Our neighbour Haiti currently faces this dilemma. The rest of the Caribbean will eventually be severely threatened because the security and safety of its people has never really been a focused priority of governments. Furthermore, some Caribbean countries, by siding with the US/EU/UK, did so without considerations of the after effects of the Ukraine conflict. The developed world is likely to be preoccupied with their own ‘after conflict’ agenda. The Caribbean region, for example, would be most suited for advancing terrorism or a terrorist attack against US/EU/UK interests at this time. Who will the Caribbean turn to when the need arises? I suggest we will find ourselves abandoned unless we start to plan now for the inevitable.
The greater evil has to do with the real possibility of the use of nuclear weapons. The current focus of the US/EU/UK et al coalition is to completely embarrass/humiliate/defeat Russia in the eyes of the world by bringing it to its knees through the use of perceived superiority in military, economic, political and ideological power. These are the weapons at play. The present sanctions are not likely to achieve civil uprising of any real consequence in a totalitarian state. Russia will not tolerate uprisings such as those in Sri Lanka in recent history. It is more likely to vigorously pursue its involvement in the establishment of a new world order, such as the BRICS, and bring this to fruition in the near future as a viable alternative to the US and its global economic monopoly. Time is of the essence here, as is an understanding of Russian history, thought processes and inherent distrust of the West.
Russia sees the actions of the West as threat to its very existence and is prepared to use the weaponry at its disposal to defend itself. As much as we would like to think otherwise, we are in fact poised on the brink of a nuclear disaster, the magnitude of which mankind has never experienced and may never survive to tell the tale. Whether bluffing or otherwise, Russia sees the US as setting the precedent for the use of catastrophic weaponry, namely Hiroshima and Nagasaki, Japan, in WWII. We have reached this far because those who claim to lead by example are incapable of practising what they preach and have become irrational in their thought processes, which appear to now be governed by greed, expansionism and the false concept of superiority, one over another.
Weaponisation in all its forms serves only to isolate nations, driving them farther and farther apart. Should BRICS become fully viable then it is likely to attract more clients than the IMF/World Bank institutions and so will itself be seen as a weapon against Western status quo. Solutions through appropriate dialogue, with no considerations of violence, is the only way forward to guarantee the existence of humanity.
When will weaponisation as a solution end? This is a very difficult question, especially when the situations discussed in this article are considered. Conflicts and the use of violence, or the withholding of vital resources, to bring about resolutions, have become second nature in the human race to the extent that there isn’t a continent today that is not impacted by such occurrences. Greed, selfishness, ideology, power, the politics of expansionism and superiority complexes, and an unwillingness to accept the right to coexist, are all characteristics of man’s inherent weaknesses. We will need to overcome these if there is to be peace. As soon as we recognise that arms, natural and other resources, are not things to be weaponised and peace can best be achieved and maintained by the airing of differences, through discussions to arrive at acceptable solutions, then and only then will humanity stand a chance of survival. It is indeed sad that after so many centuries and advances made by mankind, we still cannot communicate.
Send feedback to firstname.lastname@example.org