Blog No. 200: Part V: What is to be done?

The war advocate most recognisable as the MIC’s public face is former head of the CIA and currently Secretary of State, Mike Pompeo. (My reading is that Trump, though Pompeo’s boss, is less committed to war-mongering confrontation but, like his probable successor, has little choice but to sing to the MIC’s song-sheet.) This article gives an inkling of the damage that this MIC representative has achieved. Pomposity For anyone wishing to laugh out loud a read of this speech recently given at the inauguration of the new Ronald Reagan library gives a frightening view of how the world can look from the pinnacle of US power. Voice of America

Additional to the incident recorded in ‘The Man who saved the World,’ there have been multiple occasions on which the living world has come close to annihilation and of which the public has been kept in unperturbed ignorance. As the preceding parts of this blog have clearly demonstrated, there are certain to be more such incidents – but probably not that many. The next one could well be the last.

 We live in a world threatened by long-term (50 years?) climate change, by pandemics more lethal than Covid-19 (next 20 years?) and by nuclear annihilation (next week?)

With the MIC ruling America and with America holding such an influential place in the world, now is not the time to be playing down or ignoring nuclear dangers – let alone, pretending that they don’t exist.

The three existential risks mentioned above can only be finally removed by an improved system of global governance, the strengthening of multilateral institutions and the making and enforcement of appropriate international law.  At the present pace of progress, such a situation would seem too far in the future to justify confidence in its being put into place in the limited time available.

In the absence of effective global governance and enforceable international law, governments and motivated citizens need to do all in their power to address the twin dangers of climate change and future pandemics. However, the threat that needs to be addressed most urgently is that posed by the MIC.

It is not by accident that the West’s deliberate disruption of international trust and its diplomatic links with Russia and China coincides with the MIC’s development of ‘sub-strategic’ nuclear weapons, designed for aggression rather than deterrence.  There is now a very real danger of both the ‘limited’ nuclear war, openly advocated by some MIC beneficiaries, and the ‘unlimited’ ‘bouncing of the rubble’ of our global civilization that will follow their miscalculations.

 Now is the time for lesser nations like New Zealand, to disentangle themselves from nuclear alliances and throw their full diplomatic strength behind the effort to strengthen the mechanisms of global governance and international law. Were it no longer associated with the greed and selfishness of the Western alliance, NZ’s ability to influence other nations in this effort would be greatly enhanced. Perhaps, in the longer term and given the imagination and the will, NZ could become a leader of a campaign to bring effective global governance to the world community.

In the shorter term, were NZ to disassociate itself from the American deep state, its example, and that of other states following, would serve as notice to the MIC that its ambitions were unrealistic and needed to be curtailed. It would bring to the attention of to the western publics the dangers to which they are exposed by their continuing to give such free rein to the MIC and thus inspire them to do something about it.

Sadly, at such a time of heightened risk, when the reduction of the nuclear threat should have the highest priority, there is no evidence of any sense of such urgency on NZ’s diplomatic agenda.

Though New Zealand has given its diplomatic support for a treaty prohibiting nuclear weapons Prohibition one only has to study the history of the League of Nations to learn that attempting disarmament before providing guarantees of collective security is unlikely to succeed.

 In the face of a MIC that regards as anathema, all attempts to restrict the profitable development and deployment of weapons systems, including nuclear, there is no reason to believe this pending treaty will achieve it aims. The best that can be hoped for is that it provide a potential instrument for increasing the public’s awareness of their perilous situation and thereby, encourage them to take more interest in their self-preservation.   Self-interest

New Zealand has just elected a new, left-of-centre Labour government. This will have more than enough domestic issues on its hands for it to pay the amount of attention to international matters the situations regarding both climate change and war call for. In any case, it would quite probably lack the technical knowledge and experience required for it to come up with a policy appropriate to the problem to be faced. An even greater determining factor is the apathy and ignorance of its electorate on questions of global affairs. Be assured, the NZ’s mainstream media has no incentive to change that situation.

An increased level of knowledge and interest among the NZ public is the key to their political leaders seeking out the required level of understanding and the incentive to act. In the longer term such increased awareness could be brought about by changes in the school curricula. However, an immediate first step could be for the new government to fund a NZ think-tank along the lines of Australia’s ASPI, but with adequate funding to ensure commercial interests don’t subvert its function. ASPI’s clear function is to advise Australia’s leaders on the defence of Australia with its funding heavily tainted by the MIC.   The NZSPI’s function would be to advise NZ leaders how best to achieve peace and security on a global scale and its funding would have to come from sources with similar interest.

Reform of the media is urgently required and is another aspect of NZ society that would greatly benefit from government involvement. Over time, this would result in the pursuit of policy more conducive of the public good. Over the past six years, this blog has repeatedly returned to the fourth estate and the baleful effect its failings currently exercise on public opinion and consequently, on  government policy. Some of these earlier blogs could well be mined for ideas.

Something to add? Please leave a comment in the box below

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *