The big powers have finally had it -- Minor dysfunctional nations have nothing but nuisance value

Future alignments in the world may take unexpected turns. Familiar rifts -- North and South, rich and poor, white and non-white -- may no longer be essential fault lines. The main battlefront isn't likely to be drawn between statist systems and free enterprise democracies, or the "infidel" and Islam, or the West and the rest. Though previous divisions -- racial, economic, religious, and political -- will remain, they'll become reduced in significance.

Chances are that the coming "clash of civilizations" won't be modernity versus medievalism, or tyrannies butting heads with free countries. Instead, it will be major powers putting minor powers in their place. It will be a clash between shakos and sheep-stealers, to borrow a 19th-century image.

"Shakos" meant civilized Europe. The word for the rigid, cylindrical military headgear was used rather like the word "suits" is used today. "Sheep-stealers" was the disdainful expression German chancellor Otto von Bismarck employed to describe the peoples of the Balkans. It was like "cave-dwellers," the word the Western media favours to describe not only al-Qaeda and the Taliban, but the entire region between the Amu Darya and the Hindu Kush. Such words are expressions of the contempt strong, mature, vigorous and accomplished cultures often feel for weak, immature, exhausted or unaccomplished cultures: Cultures that seem unable to feed, govern, or come to terms with themselves, or are sources of upheaval and turmoil.

Major nations scorn minor nations almost as a matter of course, but such routine derision isn't invariably coupled with hostility. Often it's combined with curiosity bordering on affection, encompassing protective and beneficial impulses. They can create big-power champions for "underdog" nations, like Lawrence of Arabia.

Hostility comes when "sheep-stealers" or "cave-dwellers" disturb the equilibrium of major powers -- as the Serbs did when one of them assassinated the heir to the Habsburg throne, sparking the First World War, much as Bismarck had anticipated it. Or, more recently, when another Serb, Slobodan Milosevic, tried to use brutish measures to prevent the secession of the Serbian province Kosovo. Resentment ensues when remote and barely comprehensible tribal conflicts, whether between Pashtuns and Tajiks, or even Israelis and Palestinians, spill over into what we regard as the civilized world.

Resentment and hostility don't always result in major powers ganging up on minor ones. Usually major powers exploit the instabilities or grievances of minor entities by inciting them against rival major powers, or utilize them as buffer zones. This is what happened in many regions during the Cold War.

In the post-Cold War era, however, major power rivalries are at a relatively low ebb. There's an equilibrium -- somewhat uneasy, but an equilibrium still -- between the United States, Russia, China, Japan, the European Union and India. The balance of power may be unstable and it may not last, but at present it exists. Peace isn't threatened by big-power rivalries, but by the ambitions, insecurities, jealousies and grievances of minor nations and tribes jockeying for position around the edges of contemporary history.

As the new millennium begins, it's the appetites or gripes of Basques, Bosnians, Chechens, Hutus, Israelis, Kosovars, Kurds, Macedonians, Palestinians, Serbs, Tibetans, Tutsis, Uzbeks, Uighurs and similar minor entities that are upsetting the tranquility of the world -- along, of course, with the militant Sunni or Shiite fundamentalists of Afghanistan, Pakistan, Kashmir, Algeria, Sudan, Egypt, Saudi Arabia and Iran.

Likewise the two remaining small Marxist dictatorships in Cuba and North Korea, as well as a few Arab states in the grip of aggressive tyrants of nationalistic or quasi-Marxist rather than Islamist bent, such as Iraq, Libya, and Syria.

What these entities have in common is that they don't amount to a hill of beans economically, technologically or culturally. A few may have mattered once, but no longer. If they ceased to exist -- in some cases, if they never existed -- it would make no difference to the accomplishments of mankind in art, science, technology, exploration, economy, literature or philosophy. Even oil doesn't provide sufficient leverage for such cultures in a world of alternate technologies. Though together they may have the weight of numbers -- e.g., if Islamists succeeded in "hijacking" Islam, they could array a billion Muslims against the rest of the world -- taken one by one, even the largest among them, such as Pakistan, would be no military match to the major powers at present.

From the point of view of the significant powers -- not only the United States, the EU, Russia, China, Japan and India, but also Australia, Canada, Latin America and South Korea -- these minor and often dysfunctional countries or tribes have nothing but nuisance value. Their constructive significance is almost non-existent, yet their destructive significance is considerable. Their aspirations or laments constitute a menace to the stability of regions in which the major powers have finally achieved a precarious balance. The United States and the EU aren't looking for trouble in the Balkans or the Middle East, while China and Russia positively want to avoid it in their Muslim provinces or neighbourhoods. At present, Beijing would sooner buy military technology from America, such as spare parts for its Blackhawk helicopters, than continue playing a game of Let's Annoy India by supporting Pakistan over Kashmir -- especially when China has problems with its own Muslim Uighurs in the province of Xinjiang.

Though most Uighurs, as a recent Washington Post editorial rightly points out, "are secular, nationalist and pro-democracy," some have been touched by bin Laden's spirit. "In recent years, some militants have carried out bombings and assassinations of Chinese officials, and a few hundred have traveled to Afghanistan or Pakistan for military or religious training," notes the Washington Post. In this climate, annoying India or even annexing Taiwan takes second place. China no more needs Uighurs crashing hijacked jets into the Forbidden City than the United States needed Arab hijackers crashing into the World Trade Center.

And hijackers are the least of it. By now, some of Bismarck's sheep-stealers -- notably Iraq, North Korea and Pakistan -- have developed, or are in the process of developing, weapons of mass destruction. It's obvious that an "Islamic bomb" in the hands of a Saddam Hussein or an Osama bin Laden would be an intolerable threat to life on Earth. It's equally obvious that the major powers know it.

The much vaunted "root causes" scarcely come into play at this stage. It no longer matters if some marginal countries resent major powers for valid reasons, such as having been repressed, exploited, or betrayed by them, or for unworthy reasons, such as feelings of inferiority, spite, and envy. In either case, what major powers feel for marginal groups is the hostility of urban commuters for obnoxious panhandlers wielding squeegees.

The big powers have had it. If, during the Cold War, the United States backed Israel against the Soviet Union, while Soviet Russia backed the Palestinians against the United States, in today's climate both the United States and Russia prefer to back each other against troublesome Jews and Muslims alike. Russian President Vladimir Putin has a million soldiers near the Afghan border, and seems poised to make a deal with President George W. Bush.

Some minor nations are beginning to realize that they've been pushing the envelope. This year the Serbs have surrendered their national leader, Milosevic, to the International War Crimes Tribunal in the Hague. Iran seems ready to do something similar (or worse) to its ayatollahs.

This may be prudent, because the next coalition to emerge is likely to be the world's shakos against the world's sheep-stealers. Yes, the West may be uneasy with some measures Russia is liable to employ against the Chechens, or China against the Uighurs, but it will keep its unease to itself.

I dunno. The author doesn't seem to consider the impact of the big players(China, Russia) egging on/utilizing the small states as mercenary disruptors, while maintaining plausible deniability.

One could also ad to the Jews and Muslims.... Rhodesians and South Africans that the two powers agreed to back each other on.....sad but true!

Thank you for this post.

It does put the actions of Russia and the U.S. into perspective.

I for one am not too happy about the friends we plan on making to confront the sheep stealers.

I'm not too sure if Russia and the U.S. are ready to play nice.

I know that Putin has been presenting him self as a Russian version of a born again christian.

OK, good for him. I'm not going to judge the man's faith but I do believe he has cause to do a little soul
searching.

At the same time instead of getting into stupid UN messes like we did in Bosnia, we should of relied
more on Russia for guidance.

..... the West may be uneasy with some measures Russia is liable to employ against the Chechens, or China against the Uighurs, but it will keep its unease to itself .....

It will?

Only if we're lucky .....

..... instead of getting into stupid UN messes like we did in Bosnia, we should of relied more on Russia for guidance.

What a deal, eh?

Given the choice between following Russia's advice or Hitler's example, that stupendously stupid pair of clowns, Herr Boyo KKKli'toon and his horrid little turd-way Neo-axis cohort -- 'Turd-Way-Tony' Mussolini Blair -- galloped after Mr Hitler!

Let us therefore hope and pray that Bush does better!

You know, this article makes a lot of sense, but the writer loses me when he lumps Israel in with the "sheep stealers" as though there is moral equivalency between terrorism and national defense. The writer seems to have thrown Israel into that mix for the purpose of holding on to the attention of Muslims and socialists, but it's still unforgiveable.

I disagree with the wholesale lumping of all "sheep-stealers" into one big heap. I'd say that once the big powers work out their differences they will scale down their "special relationships" with such countries as Israel and various "freedom fighters" that were used in their play against their opponent.

That also point to why small players would like to maintain animosity between larger players and stir the pot. The neocon Trotskyite Krisol-Podhoretz-Safire clique is on a mission to keep America involved in local wars in order to keep America engaged with Israel.

..... keep America engaged with Israel .....

What will "keep America engaged with Israel" is that it is the Right thing to do. The Fundamental Christian Goodness inherent in our FRaternal Republic's very being will see to it that, until the last American, Our Nation -- regardless of what the self-styled [There aren't any!] "other big powers" say and/or do -- stands beside Israel

See? You lost. We gonna die no matter what.

1. We have to help because it's Right thing to do until the last American.
2. If we don't help the end is for all of us.

"Beautifully written."

George Jonas is a prominent Hungarian refugee who made his mark in the Toronto literary scene. An engaging writer!

A good example of the sheep-stealers idea of character and decency is, they named a bridge after the guy (Princip) who assassinated the Archduke, which led to a World War. Sheep-stealer cultures are often perverse, and always inferior. Left unchecked, sheep-stealer cultures have a "Gresham's Law effect" - they drive out good cultures.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.