World Peace & American Hegemony in the 21st Century: Is This the End of Democracy?


obama_bernie.jpg

We have reached a point in Western culture in which the concept of “democracy” is hailed as the best form of government.

The irony is that the bedrock of western philosophy, Plato, rejected democracy on the basis that politicians represent the animalistic impulses and petty passions of the people, not the best interest of the whole.

I argued in my thesis that democracy is not universal, for reasons of cultural relativity. Now, I would like to reassert the possibility that democracy itself as an institution is not the most superior regime-type, compared with a Republic, Monarchy, Communism Dictatorship & Theocracy.

What is best or most effective is a matter of opinion. The reality is, the West has consciously chosen a culture of robust self-interest; while the East has drifted entirely in the opposite direction focusing entirely on imperial statism. Other regions – Central Asia, Latin America & the Middle East; are an amalgam of ideas which reflects their unique and diverse cultures, as well as their subordination to the more innately expansive, militarized East and West. There are many forces which contribute to the current political dynamic – but what is the future?

Every nation that seeks unwarranted expansion without constraints faces retaliation – and without readjustment, can face decline – i.e. Roman Empire, Ottoman Empire, Chinese Empire, USSR.

The Middle East, Latin America & Central Asia, represent very unique regions of the world where ethnicity, culture and religion take precedence over rational/materialist interpretations of reality whether it is communist or capitalist.

I believe the neoliberal institutionalist and constructivist paradigms help most to explain how modern nation-states will seek security – not power – among other cultural desires, in a world of absolute gains. Democracy, like communism, fascism, and many populist systems, will prove futile, in the face of the centralized state, which will be mixed in economic nature and Republican in form. In the West today, especially America, Republicanism is associated with conservatism, financial libertarianism, and so forth – but the actual definition, taken in political theory, refers to a non-direct form of representative government.

Peace & cooperation will be possible, and the notion of relative gains will crumble on its own, as powers that seek irrational power will be isolated. In today’s world, that power is the US. It has more of a chance for long-term prosperity and security with a less hawkish leftist in power, similar to Obama. That candidate is most likely Bernie Sanders.

Is democracy a hindrance to world peace? That would be controversial, but that doesn’t mean it isn’t entirely true.

 

 

The Fate of Terror – What We Can Learn From Brussels, Ankara, Paris & Beirut


brussels-stays-on-high-alert-for-terrorist-attack.jpg

The only question that should be raised in response to the Brussels attack – why is this happening?

If you think the answer can be reduced to Islamic extremism or a clash of civilizations – you are ignoring the reality that much of the extremism which encourages violent terrorism in the Middle East emanates from countries that are closest to the US – Saudi Arabia. Not to mention, ISIS, which has claimed responsibility, is made up of primarily foreign fighters and funded by the Gulf states.

Also, the existence of ISIS, like al Qaeda is a product of western support for these types of groups. Regime change, as the US has pressured, has caused the sort of imbalance in the ME that allows for increased terrorism at home and abroad.

Islamists have been largely propped up by democracies in order to justify foreign invasions and regime change – only where it is convenient.

The notion that Islam is more prone to violence is incorrect. Furthermore we have to differentiate between terrorist groups who seek to confuse the public and cause political upheaval, and militias, like Hezbollah, which seek to confront nation-states like Israel militarily, instead of arbitrary attacks and an “Islamic” agenda. Islamists focus on theocracy where as Muslim militias aren’t necessarily – they simply seek the sovereignty of their land.

Until Western countries stop double-dealing with terrorists in order to justify foreign escapades; until countries like Saudi Arabia are isolated; we will continue to witness terrorist attacks like those in Brussels, Ankara, Istanbul, Beirut & Paris.

We must learn to separate the nationalist, and rather secular conflicts between the Arab-Palestinian & Israel factions from the ideological war being waged both by extremist networks of violent persuasions (al Qaeda; ISIS) which pollute the discourse with extreme religious rhetoric. National sovereignty, human rights and self-determination supersede regime-type. Until this is realized, conflict will ensue in the Middle East; and violence will be exported. If the US & its cohorts continue foreign campaigns aimed at forcing regime-change under the premise of “democratization”, there is more reason to believe that balancing could occur. But as the Obama Doctrine has demonstrated, this hasn’t been entirely the course or agenda of the US – in fact, since the Bush Administration, it seems the US has been pursuing a less “hawkish” course.

The US must realize that its cozy relationship with Israel & Saudi Arabia are the primary stimulators of global terrorism. It fuels fanaticism; directly through Saudi Arabia; indirectly through occupation & socio-economic paralysis. If the US wishes to maintain the role of global hegemony & leader, it is not a matter of “morality” but of “rationality” that the US separates itself from the co-dependent relationship it has established with these two religiously charged nation-states.

 

 

The Obama Doctrine – from Tehran to Havana


13

I think its a beautiful thing to see a US-Cuban rapprochement.

A full reconciliation of relations may be naive, but the so-called “Obama Doctrine” has made normalizing relations, with some of America’s most bitter “rivals” historically, part of the agenda.

The Nuclear Deal with Iran (which American 12republicans are sworn to reverse, along with every other progressive measure – immigration, healthcare, etc.); Obama’s sympathy with the Palestinians; his less hawkish tendency in the Middle East – these are part of what has been called the Obama Doctrine.

Though it has been vague. This is partly because Obama is an elusive figure. Early on, some called him a socialist. But it appears that before anything, Obama is a classical liberal – of the Neo-Liberal Institutionalist approach of international relations.

His emphasis on “trade relations” with Cuba underscores his belief that capitalism & democracy are the path to civility. Instead of military pressure, Obama has wielded the tool of diplomacy and pragmatism. I recall Fareed Zakaria’s article which labeled this era the Age of Pragmatism.

14

I must say that, while I understand that few presidents or US leaders can be critical of Israel, some are, more than others. Still, not enough is done. Palestinians are reduced to extremists calling for the removal of Israel; while Western leaders ignore the ongoing reality – Israel is actually removing the Palestinians. Thus, instead of tacit support of Israel, the US should play a neutral role, and allow the natural course of Middle Eastern self-determination to unfurl. The same applies for the rest of the Middle East. This approach could be an extension of what Obama is trying to do. Perhaps it could further democratization efforts in the region – but more importantly, it could create stability.

Is a Balance of Power Emerging?


201167141531102734_20.jpg

At first glance, it would seem that the world we live in is starkly unipolar – defined by US hegemony in a post-soviet world. While US hegemony is unquestionable, the notion of an emerging balance of power is still possible. Waltz definition for BOP theory includes a bipolar world. For this reason, the USSR-US dichotomy provided a staple framework for the theory. But the end of the Cold War introduced an era of seemingly unprecedented unipolarity characterized by US hegemony over global politics. Neoliberal institutionalism and democratic peace theorists have long argued that the balance of power theory is defunct and irrelevant in a post-Cold War era. BOP theory suggests that countries around the world would exhibit balancing in order to counter US hegemony, but democratic peace theorists argue that, democracies are less aggressive, and thus elicit less defensive responses. In other words, the US isn’t the same at the Roman Empire because the former is democratic, which permits free trade and self-interest. If this were the case, it could challenge the very nature of BOP theory in that, nations may not perceive hegemonies as threatening but rather, non-democracy as threatening. Is that perhaps why alliances between democratic hegemonies and democracies in the periphery have persisted, such as NATO & the EU? However neorealists like Kenneth Waltz and Mearsheimer might argue that the world is currently in a transitional phase, in which balancing will eventually occur. Evidence of that is China’s rise as an industrial power; Russia’s annexation of Crimea & South Ossetia; the emergence of BRICS; heightened conflicts in the Middle East; and the rise of violent, anarchical militias largely in response to US “hegemony”. All of these are reasons to believe that, balance of power theory was merely “warming up” after the Cold War.

But since the end of the Cold War, American hegemony has remained uncontested, at least, wholly. Neorealists have argued the end of the Cold War would result in a break up of the EU and a rebalancing of powers to counter US domination (Mearsheimer). In the 1990s, this may have seemed almost impossible – considering the allure of democracy, and the collapse of the USSR. Even in today’s world, the possibility of a US-European detente seems improbable, especially with a rising threat of terrorism; and the rise of the Far East (Russia & China). But since the attacks of September 11th, the US has plunged itself into a series of endeavors which have earned it both the lauding and criticism of its allies. The conflict in Syria, and Eastern Europe, with regards to Russian interference, is a sign of a resurgence of the East, possibly as a response to US expansiveness over the last decade. It could be argued, perhaps in Mearsheimer’s favor, that a balance of power is in fact emerging, led mainly by Russia & China. The question is how enduring it will be; and whether European nations will follow. Seeing that neoliberal institutionalists see democracy as an exception to the “realist paradigm”, they might argue that Russian & Chinese led power-balancing is the result of their desperate attempt to resist democracy. In this scenario, neoliberal institutionalists might argue that balancing occurs to resist authoritarianism; not necessarily to resist hegemony. For this reason, the characteristic of benign hegemony has been attributed to the US (Axelrod).

From the perspective of the neoliberal institutionalist, international institutions have served to mitigate the threat of hegemony, primarily as a result of the triumph of democracy which is rooted in self-interest. Peace is the nature of democracy; and therefore is usually only interrupted when authoritarian regimes become threatening. The relationship between democracies is rationally cooperative here, a sort of complex interdependence (Keohane).

Waltz & Mearsheimer would argue against this notion. Whether or not a country is democratic, in their view, does not affect its instinct to seek relative gains. The unit of focus is the state and system, versus the individual (Waltz).

Unconventional to all of these approaches is the constructivist claim, which essentially argues that cultural norms, beliefs or constructs, have produced scenarios in which balancing occurs in the past, and seek to explain perhaps why or why not balancing may occur in the future (Wendt). This school which is almost sociological in nature, challenges the very theories which realism and even neoliberal institutionalism rest upon, specifically the assumptions of static cultural and political norms. Motives such as security, survival, power and relative or absolute gains are social constructs; even states, war, and the balance of power. In today’s world, constructivists would likely argue that the balance of power paradigm is outdated and that other motives such as cultural preservation and sovereignty take equal if not more precedence among states and individuals. Therefore, the struggle in today’s world can be seen as a pursuit of these ends both by hegemonies and by countries in the periphery.

The aforementioned approaches each tackle the notion of the balance of power in their own right. While there is a clear distinction between them, it appears, they share some similarities too, especially between the neorealist and the neoliberal. However in sum, it would appear almost negligent to reduce the global political paradigm, and the state of the balance of power today, to one particular approach. Instead, I argue that a careful balance, no pun intended, of all the claims could help us to better understand the direction in which international relations, both the reality and the field, is headed.

It seems that the idea of a balance between the static nature of states and individuals and the socially constructed assumptions of the behavior of states and individuals — that is, a combination of the realist, liberal and the constructivist are not mutually exclusive. Alluding to Samuel Huntington, I believe that while states, or civilizations, do share many characteristics such as the need for survival and security – the means by which they are achieved are very different and are often drastically dependent upon the cultural norms of that given state’s society. But while cultural norms shift across different regions, some remain static – and these, I argue, help us to understand the international political reality of today. Within that context, it seems that a balance of power is in fact emerging in response to US hegemony, but that this balance has taken a new form largely due to the emergence of democracy and the dissolution of the USSR. Therefore the claim that a balance of power must emerge as the result of bipolarity, seems insufficient. Two possibilities seem most probable; a more coherent anti-US coalition could form  in the international political arena in the case of increasing US war campaigns; or cooperation among these states due to an alleviation of US aggression, both of which reflect a sort of “balancing” that ought to occur.

Bibliography

Huntington, Samuel P. “The clash of civilizations?.” Foreign affairs (1993): 22-49.

John J. Mearsheimer, “The False Promise of International Institutions,” International Security 19: 3 (1994).

Keohane, Robert, After Hegemony: Cooperation and Discord in the World Political Economy, 1984.

Robert Axelrod, “The Emergence of Cooperation Among Egoists,” American Political Science Review, Vol. 75, No. 2. (1981).

Waltz, Kenneth, Man, the State, and War: A Theoretical Analysis, 1959.

Wendt, Alexander, Social Theory of International Politics, 1999.

We Major! Minorities in America in 2016 & Beyond


 

123.jpg

White Supremacy is real.

At one time in America’s history, it was a norm.

Today, it is more veiled – nonetheless in today’s political arena, we are witnessing the ugliness of America’s culture of bigotry creep in.

The Republican party has been reduced to a conservative, racist party of white men & their brainwashed minority of immigrants – Carson & Rubio.

But the vast majority is more of the Paul Ryan look.

These Republicans are against a real competition – which is ironic because they run on the platform of free markets & individual liberty. What the GOP really means is exclusive markets & liberty for White America.

In other words – apartheid. Even though White Americans make up the majority of the US population, the nation will be a majority-minority nation by 2050.

Maybe the GOP realizes this and is working against it.

But why work towards depriving human beings of democracy? Why can’t we all have a shot? Why can’t we all have individual rights and access to the free market?

And why do Republicans act like used public services and collective initiatives are not equally responsible as their own individual initiatives in helping them to achieve their status?

Republicans want to paint anybody who supports freedom for all minorities too – as a danger to America; as a danger to the values of free markets; etc.

But how could this be possible in a democracy, where limits on the executive and elections limit tyranny?

It appears that, in a democracy, Republicanism functions more like Communists in an authoritarian regime – both seek to preserve an elite exclusive culture as the expense of equal opportunities for all.

These dudes just fear competition – an old guard.

And they don’t like the idea of a Black president; a Hispanic CEO; a Jewish athlete; a Muslim doctor; a gay teacher; etc. But these are all the fruits of a truly free society, that encourages competition and dignity for all – democracy ; whereas the GOP’s brand, called capitalism, echoes communism; and means freedom for a small bunch of white dudes.

Initiatives such as ending immigration reform; preventing prison reform; these are continuations of an age-long American/Anglo-Saxon tradition of politicized, institutionalized superiority complexes.

You see this in the ongoing police brutality which has claimed a disturbing number of lives of innocent African-American…youth.

But we have been desensitized by the media which conflates the victim’s flaws; and justifies the oppression.

I do think that with more legal action and reform, we can stamp out the “culture of racism” which has been disguised as “freedom-loving” in the US once and for all and provide a future for our children, of all colors and orientations, that gives them all the opportunity to either fail – or succeed – but nonetheless – giving them the opportunity – at best.

 

 

Checks & Balances


It’s here!!!!! I present you my album: “Checks & Balances”.

via SoundCloud & Citrus Rap​.

I want you all to know, that the little things you do, just to express support…that is the fuel that keeps us going. That is the love that gives passion meaning. I thank you all so much for everything. My hope is that I can repay you with an incredible album that speaks volumes…no pun intended!

Want to give a special thanks to the team that made it possible. Blessings to each one of you.

Credits:

Krikos​
TrayZarc Art​
Yubi​
Henao Contemporary Center​
Thanks Joey​
Yous Elsayed​
Andrew Girges​
Ajara Boulibekova​

SHOW DATES TBA.