I write this essay in the wake of the assassination of the Iranian general Qasem Soleimani. I have some mixed opinions about the situation most of which are irrelevant as I am not privy to all the pertinent information. I cannot as yet say if it was a good call from anyone's perspective strategically or even morally. I have always believed that war should be targetted at those giving the orders. It puts the incentives in the right place and would presumably tend towards a reduction in casualties and waste, and most relevantly the choice to go to war in the first place. That is a general case belief that goes on the assumption that the hypothetical war was inevitable, ideally from the perspective of the just against some objective evil. If there is an alternative way to avoid a war that doesn't involve killing people there is a good chance it is a better line of action. I certainly cannot speak to any of this in the current case of Iran and if conflict was either inevitable or justified.
I am left in this odd limbo of knowing a bit about the specific context enough to have my ideologies confused and conflicted but not enough to work it through and come to any real conclusion. I find the provocations unsettling. Major assassinations are a great way to escalate things towards a war. Indeed if the sides were at all evenly matched this would be taken as a direct declaration of war. I find the subsequent threats by the United States about Iranian cultural sites should they retaliate to be abhorrent. That is not an attack on anything bar humanity itself and does everything to suggest that such actions are not taken by the side of the just. Targetting those at the top of military operations might be the optimal way to fight wars, destroying cultural sites is the certainly not.
Mostly what this recent event has made me realize is quite what a backwards idea conflict between nations and escalating it really is. It is actively counterproductive and incredibly short term. It smacks of much that is done wrong by capitalism and democracy in their haste and hedonism. This is most so the case for the United States who are in a fantastic position economically and culturally. Leading the world in both aspects means they do a better job of conquering allies than they do enemies. It is in their interests to have a world full of economically developed and stable allies. Such places trade with them, they use their products and make them richer and more powerful.
I would argue that the modern human in a western democracy has far far more in common with any other such person from any other such nation than they do with their grandparents and older generations. Indeed I would say that the western democratic nations 100 or so years ago have more in common with places like Iran now. We have changed and we have moved away from historic cultural elements. Not entirely and not evenly at all, I am talking on the large scale and in trends and averages. Democracy, capitalism, and especially the United States have become incredibly good at making things people want. From food, to gadgets to entertainment, giving people what they want is what the States is absolutely the best at. These commodities have shaped us and made those with access to them more homogeneous. The internet has sped this process up too.
There are certainly subtle differences from place to place but broad strokes we humans like and dislike much the same stuff the world over. The more we mingle, trade, share and do anything at all with each other the more alike we become. It is not so much a case of American or British or where ever, it is a case of modernizing. We are leaving behind some older values and ideas. We should reasonably expect the people of the world to become more like one another as they mix and consume the same sorts of thing.
With this in mind it would make far more sense to remove trade sanctions with Iran. It would make even better sense to provide free wifi to the people. Free Netflix and BBC iplayer access. Low cost iphones. Get McDonalds and Starbucks out there. Much as I doubt it has a direct effect on the government it should have a more pronounced effect on the people which slowly indirectly affect the government in turn. People being much the same the world over are likely to embrace these things given the historic precedent set.
It is somewhat of a cultural conquest but it is a lot less arrogant than it sounds when you consider how quickly we have made the transition away from such things ourselves. It is not our culture we are attempting to replace theirs with in this cultural conquest. It is instead a new modern culture that is evolving. It is more like sharing than overwriting. The United States simply has a small head start.
Saudi Arabia is an example of a country where American influence is having a significant impact despite the different forms of government and ideological differences, mainly in the influence of religion on the governance.
This concept of cultural conquest also explains a lot about the tight controls on things like the internet places like Russia and China are attempting or enacting. I used to think it was an attempt to quell internal dissidents which seemed futile and ill conceived. As a means to prevent a cultural assimilation it makes rather more sense. Certain modern western values are not entirely compatible with how a number of governments like to act!
Now, I am not suggesting that a world full of consumerism and hedonism are a good thing. The idea of everywhere just being little America is pretty horrendous but it is vastly better than war or the persecutions of people by their own governments. A world full of Starbucks and McDonalds doesn't sound like the healthiest, physically or morally, but it sounds a lot more stable and peaceful than the one we have. It is at least a good way towards the global cooperation that is likely needed for humanity to take the next big steps in progressing the species.
Certainly there would be plenty of kick back from governments on letting in external retail and media brands. You could encourage the companies in question negotiate with the foreign governments themselves. All the domestic governments need really do is offer subsidies and remove impediments for successful entries into the foreign markets and let natural forces do the rest. The BBC being what it is should just be free to anyone who wants it and who's government allows it. It should be better funded and more autonomous too but that is another matter! The US should be trying to get McDonalds and Starbucks into every nation, with appropriate twists to accommodate the culture at hand, be that certain kinds of meat off the menu or what ever.
It just seems like such an all round win. No one wants to bomb retail outlets from their own companies. Why invest in missile defence systems that add little utility when you can just as effectively protect yourself with the companies of hostile nations. It works in all directions, would be aggressors gain compliance and alignment, and a bigger customer base. The potential targets gain a valuable defensive asset which in turn provides utility and employment to people. In even more simple terms it is applying resources in working together rather than working apart.
In practice there are likely many reasons this is not common policy. For one it is only just becoming apparent how our use of companies and media align cultures. It is a slow process that operates over generations and as such is a little too slow to be an individuals goal or plan. Us humans like to see the fruits of our labours and so long term projects are less commonly found in societies, even less so in the policies of democratic governments with short term limits. I have witnessed the UK and the US becoming more alike over a couple of decades, accelerated with the advent of the internet, but they were closer than most to begin with. They are also still plenty different despite years of closer relations and exchange. There is every chance that such things would be a significantly slower process in more different cultures with a greater degree of rejection or required tweaking of products needed. Even so, we are not looking to make culture homogenous. That would be ghastly. Especially if it were a superficial consumerist US one! I am all about the freedom but I would like to see it used more nobly and productively. Ultimately I just think it is a good rule of thumb that countries should do their best to encourage homegrown industries to expand beyond their borders. We have a lot of protectionist subsidies and these would be far more productively used to incentivize global expansion rather than protect against international competition.
The more ways we can interconnect and the quicker we can do so the better. We will be better positioned to tackle the problems of our age which are very much species wide issues not national ones as they have historically been. We need global responses to pandemics and to climate change. Anything that can help us see ourselves in the same boat as each other will really help us navigate that boat in the right direction. Things are clearly already going in that global community direction but there is a long long way to go and we can do more to help it along the way, or indeed in many cases stop resisting the change.
No comments:
Post a Comment