Tom Kando
I often think historically. From that perspective, I can see a couple of deja vu’s:
1. Seen historically, Putin’s behavior is the norm, not the exception:
From ancient Egypt and Rome to Hitler, including the Asian hordes (Attila, Genghis Khan, Timur), European nationalism (Louis XIV, Napoleon, Prussia), Western imperialism (Belgium, Britain, France, Iberians, Netherlands, the US) 20th century fascism and communism (Mussolini, Tojo, Stalin, Mao), etc.: All powerful regimes have engaged in the same thing as Putin’s Russia is doing today: The enlargement of the nation’s territory through conquest and genocide of alien territories and populations. This has been the norm more than the exception.
The shocking thing about Putin’s campaign is not that it is unprecedented, but that it represents pre-1945 politics by other means. It is the type of war and aggression that was practiced by innumerable powerful states until the middle of the 20th century.
2. On Oct. 12, the United Nations voted to condemn Russia’s behavior in Ukraine. This, too, is reminiscent of the past:
In 1920, the planet took its first step ever toward world federalism, or world government. It created the League of Nations, with forty-two countries joining originally, growing to fifty-eight, headquartered in Geneva. To his everlasting credit, President Wilson used all his influence to promote the creation of this world body, in conjunction with the Treaty of Versailles and the conclusion of World War One. Sadly, due to customary senatorial malpractice, the US ended up not joining. The novel idea was that national borders, as drawn on maps, are sacrosanct. Nations enjoy sovereignty. No nation is to invade, occupy, attempt to possess territory belonging to another nation. Borders may be negotiable, but they are not to be altered through war.
In the 1930s, there were also rogue states acting illegally and waging unprovoked wars of conquest against other states: In 1931, Japan invaded Manchuria and in 1937 it invaded China. In 1935, Mussolini invaded Abyssinia (Ethiopia), In 1936, Franco invaded Spain. In 1936, Hitler occupied the Rhineland, in 1938 he invaded Czechoslovakia, and in 1939 Poland. In 1939, Stalin invaded Finland and Poland.
The League of Nations attempted to resist these actions. It voted and condemned the rogue states. It applied economic sanctions. Does this ring a bell?
And what was the outcome? Countries that were censored became enraged, stormed out of the meetings and canceled their League membership, as did Japan in 1933, Germany in1933, Italy in 1937 and Russia in 1939. Nor did the economic sanctions have any positive results. They merely accelerated the start of World War Two.
The creation of the United Nations in 1945 was a significant step forward: That body now has nearly two hundred members. There have been dozens of UN actions, some successful.
But consider the recent Oct. 12 resolution, in which the UN condemns Russia’s actions in Ukraine.
An impressive one hundred and forty-three countries voted in favor. A pitiful four countries voted against, i.e. sided with Russia
(Belarus, North Korea, Nicaragua and Syria). And there were thirty-five abstentions, including India, China, South Africa and about thirty African countries.
This may seem favorable, until you realize that the two largest countries in the world, together making up 36% of the world’s population, plus another thirty-three abstentions and four pro-Russia votes represent close to half the world’s population being on the wrong side of the issue.
To be sure, one cannot assume that the votes recently cast at the UN by India, China and the other thirty-eight countries which failed to condemn Russia represent the will of all those people. But then, the same thing can be said about the hundred and forty-three anti-Russia votes.
Today, nearly every country of the world is a member of the UN (193 out of 195). This is a far cry from the League of Nations
in the 1930s. And three quarters of all the countries of the world voted to condemn Russia. Even Putin might be annoyed and influenced by this. There is some hope that the UN matters, that it is not totally irrelevant.
The growing rightward drift and nationalism/tribalism in many parts of the world are to some extent an expression of white panic: White folks in North America, Europe and elsewhere perceive a threat of non-whites overrunning them due to greater demographic growth and migration. But much of this worldwide drift to the right is old-fashioned tribalism. Chinese, Hindu, Brazilian and other Latin American right-wing revivals cannot be interpreted as white panic.
But the United Nations will no more act today than the League of Nations did in the nineteen thirties. It remains primarily a debating society, as was the League of Nations nearly a century ago.
World government and world federalism remain a distant dream. Nationalism and tribalism continue to plague the world and are in fact currently enjoying an uptick.
Another deja vu all over again.
© Tom Kando 2022;All Rights Reserved
