Pacitalia
20-12-2006, 21:36
New international leagues are speaking loudly but carrying a brittle stick
Editor:
History has proven that, in the past, nations who align in mass numbers in an attempt to completely or partially redirect the course of the international community and its interrelations have witnessed a short period of success followed by long, and sometimes humiliating, decline. In general, these alliances or attempted power-consolidations show a cyclical rising and falling action within a short timeframe. And the troubling scenario of new world orders or alliant empire-like cliques has once again bubbled to the surface with the creation of an alliance dedicated to "the preservation of civilisation", alongside the merger of a regional alliance with a conventional counterpart.
The great proto-Pacitalian philosopher and scriptor Iulus Desiderius Gregorius (92-159) once stated that "in the world, there are those with power, and those either too weak to seek it or with hands so large that they cannot possibly hope to feel it in their grasp or know that they have it". How true this is today, with the possible rise of a "new world order". How true this is, on reflection of the attitudes of the members of this clique.
The Alliance for the Preservation of Civilisation does not realise that, while they hold the memberships of many strong and, to varying extents, influential countries, they are not, and far from, the majority in this world, and when challenged to conform, numerous nations will refuse, and will resist the aims of this group successfully. This exact point will mark the commencement of the alliance's decline.
This is simply because the global political structure is not set up to handle "world orders", new or old. There are those with power, those with prosperity and those with influence, because they are trusted states with sensible or, at least, effective governments, that represent either their country's views, or the beliefs of their particular ideology, with maturity and an underlying current of pride. The international community has been proven to run more efficiently and progressively when individual states consider their interests or the interests of like-minded countries in informal but strong entente, rather than tying down into an alliance with restrictive rules and an inevitable denouement.
Human nature has always been to resent and resist this restriction and it is another reason why formal alliances fail: it will never be realistic to assume that all members of an alliance are never at least partially acting in their own interests, in channeling the resources of their respective alliances. Perhaps it can be said, then, that this alliance is simply a derivative, a mouthpiece, of the perceived leaders of this clique, that the component states of APOC are being used to spread a fearful, dangerous message across the world.
Instead of attempting to consolidate the ideology and aims of these countries under one banner, they can simply work together to preserve civilisation if they must. If they ignore this heeded warning, the world faces potentially, finitely, disastrous results, as yet another clique has failed to convince anyone of their goals and values. The question remains: what good is military, industrial and financial capital if no one wants to listen in the first place? And, thus, what good is the alliance?
The day of the alliance has long passed. Today it is up to individual states to promote their beliefs and messages around the world. If they are right, people will listen. If they are wrong, or misguided, they will be shut out and ignored.
It is highly imprudent for the Alliance of the Preservation of Civilisation to even so much as consider an attempt to develop and cement a new world order with them at the very core. Though this political clique holds visibly admirable sentiments about the state of the world and equally admirable aims in attempting to reverse (what they perceive to be) the decline of it, they have shown no recognition of the inevitable decline of these alliances, regardless of whether or not they are ultimately successful. And, they are naïve if there is even one shred of belief that this sort of alliance will last for years, decades, centuries, even millenia.
This alliance must face the cold, hard truth: in time, they will become one more in a line of also-ran political pacts and ententes. And while their history and their legacy may differ from other cliques, the underlying message about the overall effectiveness of formal alliances with grandiose and terribly unrealistic aims will remain.
Dr Timotaio Ell
Former prime minister
The Right Honourable Signore Dr Timotaio Ell was prime minister of the Democratic Capitalist Republic from August 1996 to January 2006 and currently teaches public administration and international relations at his alma mater, the University of Mandragora.
Editor:
History has proven that, in the past, nations who align in mass numbers in an attempt to completely or partially redirect the course of the international community and its interrelations have witnessed a short period of success followed by long, and sometimes humiliating, decline. In general, these alliances or attempted power-consolidations show a cyclical rising and falling action within a short timeframe. And the troubling scenario of new world orders or alliant empire-like cliques has once again bubbled to the surface with the creation of an alliance dedicated to "the preservation of civilisation", alongside the merger of a regional alliance with a conventional counterpart.
The great proto-Pacitalian philosopher and scriptor Iulus Desiderius Gregorius (92-159) once stated that "in the world, there are those with power, and those either too weak to seek it or with hands so large that they cannot possibly hope to feel it in their grasp or know that they have it". How true this is today, with the possible rise of a "new world order". How true this is, on reflection of the attitudes of the members of this clique.
The Alliance for the Preservation of Civilisation does not realise that, while they hold the memberships of many strong and, to varying extents, influential countries, they are not, and far from, the majority in this world, and when challenged to conform, numerous nations will refuse, and will resist the aims of this group successfully. This exact point will mark the commencement of the alliance's decline.
This is simply because the global political structure is not set up to handle "world orders", new or old. There are those with power, those with prosperity and those with influence, because they are trusted states with sensible or, at least, effective governments, that represent either their country's views, or the beliefs of their particular ideology, with maturity and an underlying current of pride. The international community has been proven to run more efficiently and progressively when individual states consider their interests or the interests of like-minded countries in informal but strong entente, rather than tying down into an alliance with restrictive rules and an inevitable denouement.
Human nature has always been to resent and resist this restriction and it is another reason why formal alliances fail: it will never be realistic to assume that all members of an alliance are never at least partially acting in their own interests, in channeling the resources of their respective alliances. Perhaps it can be said, then, that this alliance is simply a derivative, a mouthpiece, of the perceived leaders of this clique, that the component states of APOC are being used to spread a fearful, dangerous message across the world.
Instead of attempting to consolidate the ideology and aims of these countries under one banner, they can simply work together to preserve civilisation if they must. If they ignore this heeded warning, the world faces potentially, finitely, disastrous results, as yet another clique has failed to convince anyone of their goals and values. The question remains: what good is military, industrial and financial capital if no one wants to listen in the first place? And, thus, what good is the alliance?
The day of the alliance has long passed. Today it is up to individual states to promote their beliefs and messages around the world. If they are right, people will listen. If they are wrong, or misguided, they will be shut out and ignored.
It is highly imprudent for the Alliance of the Preservation of Civilisation to even so much as consider an attempt to develop and cement a new world order with them at the very core. Though this political clique holds visibly admirable sentiments about the state of the world and equally admirable aims in attempting to reverse (what they perceive to be) the decline of it, they have shown no recognition of the inevitable decline of these alliances, regardless of whether or not they are ultimately successful. And, they are naïve if there is even one shred of belief that this sort of alliance will last for years, decades, centuries, even millenia.
This alliance must face the cold, hard truth: in time, they will become one more in a line of also-ran political pacts and ententes. And while their history and their legacy may differ from other cliques, the underlying message about the overall effectiveness of formal alliances with grandiose and terribly unrealistic aims will remain.
Dr Timotaio Ell
Former prime minister
The Right Honourable Signore Dr Timotaio Ell was prime minister of the Democratic Capitalist Republic from August 1996 to January 2006 and currently teaches public administration and international relations at his alma mater, the University of Mandragora.