src='https://pagead2.googlesyndication.com/pagead/js/adsbygoogle.js?client=ca-pub-2513966551258002'/> Rightways: Andrew Sheng Infolinks.com, 2618740 , RESELLER

Pages

Share This

Showing posts with label Andrew Sheng. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Andrew Sheng. Show all posts

Saturday, January 13, 2024

How to decolonise minds and why it’s crucial

 

No one has total sovereignty when a few platforms can use AI to obtain full data of how individuals and even nations are thinking or behaving. — Reuters

Decolonisation means different things for different peoples, depending on their own colonial or near-colonial history.


To be treated as equals to the West, the Global South must decolonise its minds.

What does the Decline of the West mean? After Ukraine and Gaza, the line between the West and the Rest (what is today called the Global South) has been drawn clearer and clearer.

In Ukraine, the West expected the Rest to support its principled stance in fighting for national sovereignty, freedom to choose and against aggression from neighbours. they were surprised that the Rest did not fall in line, with many abstaining from taking sides.

In abandoning diplomacy and balance in favour of weaponising everything, the collective West (America, Europe, Japan and Australasia) is increasingly isolating itself from the Rest, divided into the East (strangely grouped as Russia, China, Iran and North Korea) and the Global South, comprising countries that refuse to be aligned either to the East or the West.

Today’s modernity is clearly associated with the West, which has set the scientific, educational and cultural standards since the 15th century, when Portuguese and Spanish explorers opened up the Americas, Africa and Asian maritime trade routes.

Colonisation became a land and power grab by Europeans against the Rest, with the use of superior military firepower, energy and industrial and financial technology. this power grab continued to the 20th century, with Belgium taking Congo as late as 1908, the Philippines by the United States in 1906, while the Italians tried to colonise parts of Ethiopia in the 1930s.

When the United States took over the global hegemon mantle from the British empire after the end of the Second World War, many former colonies bought the neoliberal ideology that free trade and markets, democracy, rule of law and equality would be a universal creed for all nations and cultures.

That naïve belief ended when inequality within the West itself widened, even as the gap with the Rest narrowed.

Neoliberal idealism shattered as the West’s middle class began to turn towards protectionism, industrial policy and in the case of Israel, military occupation and subjugation of Palestinian rights.

The Palestinian-american father of post-colonial studies, Edward Said said, “Part of the main plan of imperialism is that we will give you your history, we will write it for you, we will re-order the past.

“What’s more truly frightening is the defacement, the mutilation and ultimately, the eradication of history in order to create an order that is favourable to the United States.”

Mental colonisation, which is the ultimate aim of imperialism, is reached when the colonised, slave or vassal believe that the imperial power is superior to his or her own culture. Mental slavery is more frightening than physical slavery.

But as rock-star Homo Sapiens historian Yuval Noah Harari said, artificial intelligence (AI) is all about mental colonisation, when the private or state-run platform knows more about you than you yourself and influences your likes, dislikes, and future.

Decolonisation means different things for different peoples, depending on their own colonial or near-colonial history.

For indigenous people like the Maoris in New Zealand, it means remembering the cruel past of taking their lands and rights and at a minimum restoring their dignity in today’s laws.

In former colonies like India and South Africa, the British “Raj” mentality is being replaced by homegrown narratives in which the country seeks “strategic autonomy” in foreign affairs and greater sovereignty (some call it nationalism) in owning data and developing control or regulation over generative AI.

No one has total sovereignty when a few platforms can use AI to obtain full data of how individuals and even nations are thinking or behaving.

We are in a cusp of uncharted mental territory where no man has gone before.

The self-order of free markets is being replaced by an unpredictable non-order arising from competition by new state-market bureaucracies that are neither fully elected nor humanly designed.

The new order may even be machine or AI generated. Where is the justice when Ai-generated algorithms can order the execution by missile strike or drone of someone branded a terrorist outside legal jurisdiction?

Who will enforce natural justice when the system systematically dehumanises humanity by treating individuals as digits to be manipulated, controlled or deleted?

In an entangled over-crowded planet, the system is inherently unstable when we resolve differences through conflict and war, because history has shown that war begets more war.

Humanity survived through cooperation and peace. the neocon presents the case for preparing for war to maintain peace, but since war can only be destructive, we must prepare always for the postwar peace.

If there is a fundamental difference between the West and the Rest, it is that the theory-biased, principles-based West often forgets history and context, opting for fundamental “principles” of inalienable rights to guide action.

Russian historians remember that it was the Western Europeans (Napoleonic France and Nazi Germany) that invaded Russia twice in the last two centuries. the Israeli expansion of territory in Palestine over time is there for all to see.

In population terms, the West is in the minority of one plus billion in an eight billion world, owns more than half of global wealth and income, but on a per-capita basis, consumes more than its fair share of planetary resources.

For the majority Global South to consume like the average Westerner is a suicidal path because the world will run out of planetary resources.

The paradox of the UN Sustainable Development Goals is that the Global South must find its own paths and intellectual paradigms in a diverse search for sustainable living and meaning.

Decolonisation of the mind therefore requires the courage to reject the unsustainable, but also to find new pathways that are more holistic and democratically legitimate than the old. In short, decolonisation is a journey waiting to unfold.

The Spanish poet Antonio Machado, in his famous poem, “Caminante no hay camino – traveller, there is no road”, made the important point that the road is made by walking. In the post-western world, the Global South must walk their own paths in search for a more peaceful and sustainable future.



 -  Andrew Sheng andrew Sheng writes on global issues from an asian prospective. the views expressed here are the writer’s own.







FM Wang Yi in Cairo: Taiwan has never been a country, nor will it ever be! “Taiwan independence” has never been realized, nor will it ever be! Whoever that pushes for “Taiwan independence” would be splitting Chinese territory&would surely be judged harshly by history&law. (1/2)
Image

Related posts:

Saturday, January 14, 2023

Piloting spaceship Earth in the new year 2023

The World Bank’s latest outlook sees the global economy growing by only 1.7% in 2023 and 2.7% in 2024.

As we begin the new year and approach Chinese New Year, we need to reflect on how to face a grimly uncertain future.

Gold prices are back up, the Ukraine war grinds on horrendously, politics are messier than ever, and most analysts signal a recession ahead.

The World Bank’s latest outlook sees the global economy growing by only 1.7 percent in 2023 and 2.7 percent in 2024.

That’s a full one-percentage decline of 2.7 percent from the IMF forecast in October 2022. The bank thinks the downgrade in growth will affect 95 percent of advanced economies and nearly 70 percent of emerging markets and developing economies (EMDEs).

The US and Europe are forecast to grow by 0.5 percent and 0 percent respectively for 2023, which I personally think is optimistic, particularly for Europe.

You cannot have a war without some serious costs. Brace for tough times.

The bank thinks that global inflation may “remain higher for longer.”

After peaking at 7.6 percent in 2022, global headline CPI inflation may remain at 5.2 percent in 2023 before easing to 3.2 percent in 2024, above its 2015-19 average of 2.3 percent per annum.

So, interest rates will remain elevated for longer, killing those poorest indebted economies, where total EMDE debt is at a 50-year high.

A divided word

If I were looking at the Earth from the Moon, I see a spaceship where the first class passengers are quarreling with the business class section, whilst the economy class passengers are suffering from overcrowding and worrying about a real crash.

The world is now divided into three blocs: the 1.1 billion rich West (Nato plus Japan and Australasia), the 1.7 billion East (which the West classifies as Russia and China, Iran, and North Korea), and the South (meaning the 5.2 billion rest of the world).

In short, the first-class passengers think that the business class is taking over and is doing everything to contain them, asking the economy guys to be on their side.

The South looks at this nonsensical cold war emerging and refuses to take sides, but since the West still controls the money (even though a lot is borrowed from the rest), everyone is on a “wait and see.”

Can someone please remind the captain and chief engineer that Spaceship Earth is wasting energy and polluting Planet Earth at unsustainable levels?

Instead of trying to land, the first two cabins are committed to more defense expenditure, decouple from each other, and label anyone who disagrees with them as revisionists or terrorists.

The world is already spending $2 trillion on defense annually.

Even without a nuclear war, which would be terminal, one study suggested that the richest countries are spending 30 times as much on their armed forces as they spend on providing climate finance, and seven of the top 10 historical emitters are among the top 10 global military spenders.

The latest jet fighters, missiles, and aircraft carriers are all energy guzzlers, and the Ukraine war shows the futility of destroying not just lives, but the whole environment.

Common sense needed

How can the Rest knock some common sense into Spaceship Earth?

For those of us used to dealing with different cultures, using your language, history, and culture to explain to another is like ducks talking to chickens.

You would have thought that science and rationality are a common, universal language.

The billions who have been taught science in English often find that using non-Western logic to explain their point of view to Westerners is often futile.

Modernity, often equated with the West, treats non-Western points of view as at best mystic, non-empirical, and therefore non-scientific, or worst, inferior.

This is changing fast after last year.

The Indians, like their foreign minister Jaishankar, are clearly leading the intellectual charge in formulating views from the South that are articulate and convincing—don’t drag us into fighting a cold war of your own making, we are only on our own side.

The Indian motto for G20 Summit this year, which they are hosting, is One Earth, One Family, One Future.

No family can survive quarrels by committing mutual suicide.

The one ancient Western philosopher who can bridge almost all cultures is emperor/philosopher Marcus Aurelius (121-180 AD).

Stonic philosophy

His stoic philosophy is not only worldly, but practical and personal in approach.

Unlike most desk-bound theoreticians, Aurelius was the last of the Five Good Roman Emperors, who applied his philosophy to government, war, personal life, and relationships.

His stoic approach views the importance of self-cultivation, self-reflection, self-control, and fortitude in order to master one’s emotions so that one can have a clear and unbiased ability to do one’s duty.

He does what he thinks is right, but is willing to accept that he himself may be wrong, needing to understand the other’s point of view.

Aurelius’ “Meditations” showed remarkable awareness that mastery requires self-discipline and the exercise of unbiased judgment.

He accepted change and death, humility, not fame and status, and sought truth from understanding: “When another blames you or hates you, or people voice similar criticisms, go to their souls, penetrate inside, and see what sort of people they are. You will realize that there is no need to be racked with anxiety that they should hold any particular opinion about you.”

Making lives better

For those in first class, remember that no one is entitled to first class forever. For those in economy class, we may not be able to knock sense into those in the privileged classes, but at least we can do something at the local level to make life better for our families and our communities.

Aurelius is surely correct in understanding that a good life is when you know you have enough and overall happiness is that less is more for the more, not more for the few.

I may not be able to change Spaceship Earth, but enough that I can change myself.

Happy Year of the Rabbit. Asia News Network 

    By: Andrew Sheng is former chair of the Hong Kong Securities and Futures Commission.

 Source link

 Related poste:

    2023 global growth to slow to 1.7% from 3% expected six months ago WASHINGTON, Jan. 10, 2023 — Global growth is slowing sharply in 

 

Southeast Asia, like much of the rest of the world, is losing patience with King Dollar. The westernization of the world’s reserve curr...

Saturday, May 21, 2022

Comprehending the complexity of countries

 

This book argues for computer-aided collaborative country research based on the science of complex and dynamic systems. It provides an in-depth discussion of systems and computer science, concluding that proper understanding of a country is only possible if a genuinely interdisciplinary and truly international approach is taken; one that is based on complexity science and supported by computer science. Country studies should be carefully designed and collaboratively carried out, and a new generation of country students should pay more attention to the fast growing potential of digitized and electronically connected libraries. In this frenzied age of globalization, foreign policy makers may – to the benefit of a better world – profit from the radically new country studies pleaded for in the book. Its author emphasizes that reductionism and holism are not antagonistic but complementary, arguing that parts are always parts of a whole and a whole has always parts.

Comprehending the complexity of countries is a monumental contribution to deep thinking about countries as complex and dynamic systems.

GEOPOLITICS is the game of strategists figuring out how countries behave. The Ukraine war has shown how assumptions about countries or the behaviour of their leaders are wrong, plunging the world into what Henry Kissinger has called a “totally new era”.

Hans Kuijper, a retired Dutch diplomat and exceptional Sinologist, has written an indispensable guide to understanding where country studies have gone wrong, and how we can use systems thinking and computers (ICT) to unravel the quagmire of flawed country studies.

His book is a tour de force into the philosophy of social science, drawing on his incredible reading of ancient Chinese and Western philosophy, science and current country studies.

The thesis of this book is quite simple: country studies have an explanandum (something, i.e. a country to be explained), but so-called country experts do not have an explanans, a tested or testable theory that not only explains, but stands out from other scientific theories in different disciplines such as geography, demography, ecology, politics, economics, sociology, linguistics, or anthropology.

Thus, “China experts” unjustifiably claim to explain China, even when basing their writings on a single discipline, as if they are knowledgeable about everything concerning the country. As the saying goes, “No ant can see the pattern of the whole carpet.”

Kuijper has identified a fundamental gap in conventional country studies. If you study a country (part) without taking a crude look at the world (whole) and not considering how interaction affects simultaneously the parts and the whole, that is to say, only making conjectures without a testable theory, you are only practicing pseudo-science, not science. For science is more than expressing opinions.

Comprehending the complexity of countries is a monumental contribution to deep thinking about countries as complex and dynamic systems.

In chapters one to seven, the author methodically and relentlessly exposes the enduring confusion, building step-by-step his thesis, examining theories and models, clarifying the concept of country (as distinct form area), showing how cities and countries have much in common, and exploring the scientific and technical feasibility of collaborative country studies.

The author moves essentially from a multi-disciplinary to an inter-disciplinary approach, to the higher order of a trans-disciplinary way of thinking about the development of countries as adaptive complex dynamic systems.

He examines how countries comprise both spontaneous and man-made systems, interacting both exogenously and endogenously (chapter six).

The ancient Chinese recognised that empires rise and fall from both “external invasions and internal corrosion”. Chapter seven delves deeply into the issue how modern scientific tools such as artificial intelligence, big data analysis and computer simulation could aid country studies.

Science fiction assumes that if we put all available information about one subject into a supercomputer, the subject would be replicated as a hologram, thus helping us predict its behavior.

Whether we have sufficient information and computing power is only a matter of political will and imagination.

Kuijper uses the example of networked digital libraries to substantiate his view that the study of a country could be greatly improved by deploying electronically available information about countries and regions.

Having conceptualised the model for studying countries, Kuijper examines its profound implications for higher education, arguing for “connecting the dots” (chapter eight).

He is most original when he argues that ancient Greek and Chinese thought are alike in thinking about the organic whole, whereas the specialisation of Western science caused the divergence between Western and Chinese ways of research.

The modern university, originally created to truly educate (bring up children) and spiritually elevate, became more and more specialised in less and less, making graduates complexity-illiterate.

Students do not learn to connect the dots, to see the whole. The author argues for tearing down intellectual walls and mental silos to see the grand order of man and nature.

Since each and every country has emergent properties irreducible to the properties of its constituent parts, we have to make use of the science of complex (not: complicated) and dynamic (not: linearly changing) systems in order to really comprehend the country.

An example of not connecting the dots is the fact that it took years for development economists to realise that lifting a country out of poverty involves more than economic factors.

Similarly, ecologists took decades to realise that more scientific data on global warming is not going to change policy when economists (influencing the policymakers) habitually assume that markets can solve the problem of global warming in total defiance of the fact that it will take a combination of state and market to change human behaviour.

I consider Kuijper’s discussion of reductionism versus holism (Chapter nine) a huge contribution to moving beyond the quagmire of Western exclusive and antithetical versus Chinese inclusive and correlative thinking.

The reduction to atomistic parts of free individuals creates blinkers. Western scientists draw ever more distinctions, but tend to miss the whole (from which they are apart and of which they are a part) and how the whole changes with the parts.

The whole is not a matter of either – or but of both – and, meaning that reductionism and holism are complementary rather than contradictory to each other.

The book is the amazing achievement of an independent, determined scholar reading thoroughly in depth to find out that we need complexity thinking to understand complex phenomena, resisting the ingrained habit of simplistic reductionism, the default way of human understanding.

It took at least four centuries to convince doctors to give up the idea of blood-letting as a solution to sickness.

So, it is not surprising that pseudo-scientists still think that they can pass as country experts without the help of many collaborating disciplinary-experts, using big data analytical tools.

Kuijper helps us navigate this complex subject by using a short abstract for each chapter, backed by key references. General conclusions are drawn in chapter 10. He then draws his very practical and very useful recommendations with the last chapter distilling his key insights.

This is a wonderful book, not just for sinologists, but for all who consider themselves to be country experts. It gives insight into the question of how we have got ourselves in a terrible mess over the current geopolitical path to conflict.

This book speaks truth to power, but whether those in power will listen, is the big and urgent question to which there seems to be no simple, straight answer.

Andrew Sheng writes on global issues from an Asian perspective. The views expressed here are the writer’s own. 

 Source link

Related posts:

 Sun Tzu - The Art of War Explained     The Art of War is the most influential treatise on war ever written, consisting of 13 chapter

China’s search for technological mastery will succeed because it is essentially replicating the actual history of the economi...

Saturday, May 7, 2022

Is education fit for the future?

 


EDUCATION is the most controversial of subjects.

 
 One thing is clear, whilst the quantity of educated manpower is critical to national strength, quality may matter more.

Parents quarrel about the quality of education for their kids, just as societies are deeply divided on education as it defines the future.

Is the current education system fit for purpose to cope with a more complex, fractious future, fraught with possible war?

According to Stanford University’s Guide to Reimagining Higher Education, 96% of university chief academic officers think that their students are ready for the workforce, where only 11% of business leaders feel the same.

As the population and work force grow, the gap between skills demanded by employers and the education received by school leavers is widening, so much so that many are finding it hard to get the jobs that they want.

As technology accelerates in speed and complexity, the quality of education becomes more important than ever. Is it for the elites or the masses?

The Greek philosopher Aristotle recognised that the aim of education is for knowledge, but there was always a different view as to have knowledge for the individual or whether education must prepare the individual to fulfil the needs of society.

Feudal systems hardly paid attention to the masses, whereas most ancient institutes of higher learning were for elites, either for religious orders or in Chinese history, to prepare for civil or military service, but blended with self-cultivation.

Conservative think tank American Enterprise Institute (AEI) has just produced a fascinating study on the implications of higher education for national security.

Covering the period 1950-2040, the study acknowledged that the United States attained uncontested power status, because it had the highest levels of educational attainment and manpower.

In 1950, the United States, with less than 5% of the world’s population, had 45% share of world population aged 25 to 64 with completed tertiary education.

In comparison, India had 5% and China about half of that.

By 2020, the United States’ share had dropped to roughly 16%, whereas China was catching up, whilst India had just under 10%.

By 2040, depending on different estimates, China may double its share to between 15% and 20%, whereas India would have overtaken the United States with 12%, leaving the United States third with 10%.

It is a truism that education matters for economic growth and power.

Every additional year of schooling for children is estimated to add 9% to 10% increase in per capita output.

If you add in “business climate” with improvements in education, health and urbanisation, these factors explain five-sixths of differences in output per capita across countries.

Under the liberal world order, America encouraged the spread of global education, so much so that the global adult illiteracy (those without any schooling) fell from 45% in 1950 to only 13% by 2020.

This worldwide expansion in education was good for the world, but it also reduced the comparative advantage of the education and technology front-runners, particularly the United States.

The AEI study reported that the share of global adult population with at least some tertiary education increased from under 2% in 1950 to 16% today and would approach 22% by 2040.

In 1950, eight of the top 10 largest national highly educated working age labour pool was in advanced countries. By 2020, their share was half.

By 2040, this is likely to be only three out of 10.

In essence, India and China would take the lead in total highly trained manpower, especially in science and technology, with the United States “an increasingly distant third place contestant.”

The AEI study illustrates why increasingly American universities will be more selective in their future foreign student intake, especially in science and technology which may have impact on national security matters.

As late as 2017, MIT manifested global ambitions in its strategic plan, “Learning about the world, helping to solve the world’s greatest problems, and working with international collaborators who share our curiosity and commitment to rigorous scientific inquiry.”

That global vision may be cut back in light of the growing geopolitical split into military blocs. Western universities may no longer be encouraged to train foreign students into areas where they can return to compete in key technologies.

In short, geopolitical rivalry will determine the future of resources allocated to education, research and development and technology.

No country can afford liberal education in which every student is encouraged to do what he or she wants to do.

Students today want to be more engaged in the big social issues, such as climate change and social inequality.

But at the same time, they expect more experiential immersion into careers that are more self-fulfilling.

Instead, institutes of higher learning are forced by economics to provide more shorter term courses to upgrade worker skills, using new teaching methods and tools, especially artificial intelligence, virtual reality etc.

At the national level, governments will push universities into more research and development and innovation to gain national competitiveness, including R&D on defence and national security sectors.

This means that the education pipeline or supply chain will also be bifurcated like global supply chains that are being disrupted and split by geopolitics.

The conversation on what should go into the curriculum for education is only just beginning. Much of this is to do with funding.

As higher levels of education are more expensive, especially in the high technology area, whilst governments budgets are constrained, universities will turn to private sources of funding.

The more society polarises, the more likely that such funding would turn towards entrenchment of vested interests, rather than solutions to structural problems.

Education is controversial precisely because it is either a unifying social force or a divisive one.

One thing is clear, whilst the quantity of educated manpower is critical to national strength, quality may matter more.

The Soviet Union had the second largest share of educated manpower during the Cold War, but it did not save it from collapse.

Will our future education system provide leaders who are able to cope with the complexities of tomorrow?

As the poet T S Eliot asked in his poem “The Rock” in 1934, “where is the wisdom we have lost in knowledge?”

That question is being asked not just in universities, but by society as a whole.

Andrew Sheng writes on global issues from an Asian perspective. The views expressed here are the writer’s own. 

Source link.

 

Related posts:

 

What ails our Malaysian universities ?

 

Malaysia's education policy must champion Meritocracy instead of Mediocrity system

 

Losing faith in reform of Malaysian education system

Sunday, February 27, 2022

Checkmated over Ukraine; Is Ukraine a metaverse nightmare?

 Cornered: Ukrainian armoured vehicles blocking a street in Kyiv as Russian troops stormed toward Ukraine’s capital on Saturday. – AP Nato's actions have made it's Western allies incapable of doing better for Ukraine than Ukraine can do its own relations with Russia

WHEN the wilfully unstoppable force of Nato expansion hits the steadfastly immovable object of Russian national security, war erupts.
`
By February 24 when Russian tanks rolled into Ukraine, Moscow’s challenges became exposed and grew more acute.
`
Russia cannot hold Ukraine in any sense as resentment to its incursion swells. There can be no assurance Russia can succeed in whatever it seeks to do to Kiev.
`
As in all military interventions, moving in is always easier than pulling out – which must eventually happen. And then what?
`
All disputes must conclude in negotiations, especially between neighbours, and it is now harder to negotiate. Meanwhile Russia is cast as the sole villain, so an invasion could not have been its preferred option.
`
As a power play it is a tragedy of Shakespearean proportions and superpower dimensions. Ukraine and Nato may have top billing but the US and Russia are the key actors.
`
The 1947 Dunkirk Treaty between Britain and France was a contingency agreement against German or Soviet aggression. This grew to include the Benelux countries and then the US and six others to become today’s North Atlantic Treaty Organisation.
`
By 1955 Nato expanded to include WWII foe Germany, leaving the Soviet Union out in the cold. Moscow then established its Warsaw Pact alliance in trying to achieve some balance.
`
Since then, Moscow stayed in Nato’s sights on the other side of the fence. Nato’s first Secretary-General Hastings Ismay described its role as “keeping the US in, Germany down, and Russia out.”
`
Nato is a Cold War device that was not dismantled after the Cold War but has instead grown. But the official rhetoric in the early 1990s was of consolidation with a few contemplating dissolution.
`
As the Soviet Union was collapsing in 1991, Nato officials from the US, Britain, France and Germany repeatedly assured Moscow that Nato would not expand. Nato had become the most serious organised challenge to Russian national security.
`
US Assistant Secretary of State Raymond Seitz said expansion of membership would not happen “either officially or unofficially.” His British counterpart added that expansion was “unacceptable”.
`
German Chancellor Helmut Kohl and Foreign Minister Hans Dietrich Genscher agreed and said so. Then Nato’s expansion happened.
`
When Russia complained, Nato stalwarts said any agreement was only verbal and not written down, implying that what they said could not be trusted. Later Nato claimed there had not even been a verbal agreement.
`
Earlier this month Germany’s Der Spiegel newspaper reported that Prof Joshua Shifrinson of Boston University had found a declassified document confirming that a pledge on Nato’s non-expansion had been made. Elsewhere it is reported that President Bill Clinton broke that pledge.
`
In 1999, Nato expanded by including former Soviet bloc countries Poland, Hungary and Czechia. Russia seethed but could do little.
`
In 2004, Nato expanded further by admitting former Soviet republics Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania. Russia complained again but once more its security concerns were ignored.
`
As Nato missiles aimed at Russia moved closer to its borders, Moscow protested but Nato said they were only there because of Iran. Russia was unconvinced.
`
After Ukraine’s independence its government continued friendly relations with Russia. But the US engineered the 2004-05 Orange Revolution that toppled the government and replaced it with one closer to the West.
`
France and Germany invaded Russia in the 19th and 20th centuries with each attack ending in disaster. Napoleon’s and Hitler’s forces nonetheless made damaging incursions into the Russian heartland and national psyche.
`
Today France and Germany are among European nations careful in managing relations with Russia. However, a US-led Nato with less experience and less sensitivity to Russian security concerns has acted with less care.
`
Russia remains the world’s largest country by area rich in natural resources like oil and gas. It is not a threat to Europe or even Ukraine if agreements made can be honoured, but provoking it can produce a different result.
`
Using Nato to challenge and undermine Russian interests will not end well for anyone. US interests are protected with the Atlantic Ocean as buffer, but European members of Nato share a continent with Russia and would have different priorities.
`
The UN wants Russian forces to withdraw from Ukraine and return to base almost as much as Russia wants Nato to withdraw from its eastward momentum and return to the 1997 Nato-Russia Founding Act. Although neither may happen soon, Moscow has no interest or expressed desire to occupy Ukraine so the former is more likely than the latter.
`
Ukraine for now is trapped in a vicious cycle of violence and disintegration beyond its control. It is a familiar plight of pawns caught between incompatible great powers.
`
Ukraine wants urgent negotiations with Russia while Russia wants Belarus to host talks on the Minsk accords for a ceasefire and phased measures towards a compromise. Even if talks are possible it will be an uphill task since Moscow and Kiev have different interpretations of the 2014-15 terms.
`
Among Biden’s errors is targeting Putin personally as if another Russian leader would have acted differently. Even Boris Yeltsin would have done the same over Ukraine, while a nationalist like Vladimir Zhirinovsky would have acted tougher and earlier.
`
For the West to dump the Nord Stream 2 deal supplying Europe with Russian gas punishes only Europe which now has to pay many times more for US supplies. On Feb 4 Russia signed a new US$117.5bil oil and gas deal to supply China instead.
`
Western observers worry that China may learn unsavoury lessons from Russia’s actions in Ukraine to further its disputed claims in Asia. Any lessons would be more akin to Nato’s gradual encroachment on Russian territory.
`
The apparent beneficiary from Ukraine’s crisis is China, being a distraction for the West which also increases Moscow’s dependence on Beijing. But China is also awkwardly positioned as it wants to maintain good ties with all parties.
`
The only unqualified beneficiary of the crisis is China-Russia relations, which must count as another major strategic blunder for Nato and the West.
`
Bunn Nagara is a political analyst and Honorary Research Fellow of the Perak Academy. The views expressed here are solely the writer’s own.

Source link

 


Is Ukraine a metaverse nightmare?


`

The Russian pipe-laying ship 'Akademik Tscherski' which is on deployment for the further construction of the Nord Stream 2 Baltic Sea pipeline, is moored at the port of Mukran on the island of Ruegen, Germany, on Sept. 8, 2020. The gas is still flowing from Russian even as bullets and missiles fly in Ukraine. But the war is raising huge questions about the energy ties between Europe and Russia. The conflict is helping keep oil and gas prices high due to fears of a possible reduction in supplies, and consumers will continue to face financial stress from that. 

 


The real-life cost of war: People walk at the border crossing between Poland and Ukraine, in Medyka, Poland, on February 24, 2022. Photo: Reuters

 Moving from a unipolar world to a multipolar world was always likely to be messy and risk-prone. But few saw how fast we moved from beating war drums to actual armed conflict between the Great Powers, the latest being in Ukraine. Are we on a march of folly to World War III, or have key players lost sight of reality?

`Lest we forget, World War I (1914-1918) and World War II (1939-1945) were fought to keep down rising powers—Germany and later Japan.
`
Russia and China suffered the most casualties in WWII, and both were allies against German Nazis and Japanese militarists.
`
The United States became the real winner, but decided after WWII to contain communism in both the Soviet Union (USSR) and China.
`
Fifty years ago, in 1972, US President Nixon set aside enmity against China, restored US-China relations, and in one strategic stroke, isolated the Soviet Union, leading to its collapse two decades later.
`
The great achievement during the Cold War was the avoidance of nuclear conflict, with the Cuban missile crisis being a live test of brinkmanship.
`
Both sides climbed down when the USSR removed missiles from Cuba, and the US quietly removed missiles from Turkey.
`
President Kennedy understood that grandstanding on moral issues should be restrained, because in a nuclear war, mutually assured destruction is madness.
`
After seven decades of peace, the Western media has been painting the multipolar world as a black-and-white conflict between good vs evil, democracy vs autocracy—without appreciating that the other side may have different points of view that need to be heard.
`
By definition, a multipolar world means that liberal democracies will have to live with different ideologies and regimes.
`
Today, YouTube and the Web provide a wealth of alternative views than mainstream media, such as CNN or BBC.
`
Prof John Mearsheimer, author of the influential book "The Tragedy of Great Power Politics," offers the insight that the Western expansion of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (Nato) was the reason why Russia felt threatened.
`
The more the Nato allies try to arm Ukraine, the more insecure Russia gets.
`
In essence, Russia wants a buffer zone of neutral countries like Austria, which are not members of Nato, but that does not exclude trade with all sides.
`
Carnegie Moscow Center analyst Alexander Baunov described how "the two sides appear to be negotiating over different things.
`
Russia is talking about its own security, while the West is focusing on Ukraine's."
`
What he is describing are two sides that are each in their own social bubble or virtual reality (VR) Metaverse, deaf to the other side's views.
`
The term "Metaverse" came from a 1992 dystopian sci-fi novel titled "Snow Crash," where the Metaverse is the virtual refuge from an anarchic world controlled by the Mafia.
`
Today, Metaverse is an online virtual world where the user blends VR with the real, flesh-and-blood world through VR glasses and software augmented reality (AR).
`
In other words, in Metaverse, your mind is colonised by whatever algorithm and virtual information that you get—real or fake news.
`
Metaverse is escapism from reality, and will not help us solve real world problems, especially when we need to talk eyeball to eyeball.
`
The Metaverse designer is more interested in controlling or influencing our minds, feeding us what we want to hear or see, rather than what information we need to have to make good decisions. The risk is that we think VR conflict is costless, whereas real war has real flesh-and-blood costs.
`
.In short, the more we look inward at our own Metaverse, the more we neglect the collective costs to the world as it lurches from peace to war
`
Surprisingly, I found the right-wing influential Fox commentator Tucker Carlson asking better questions than CNN or BBC commentators.
`
In his show Tucker Carlson Tonight, in the segment "How will this conflict affect you?" he asked bluntly why Americans should hate Putin and what the war will cost every American.
`
Carlson asked some really serious questions, even though his views are partisan—have the Democrats, with their moral concern to hate Putin, forgotten the big picture of war costs?
`
First, would Americans be willing to go into a winter war with Russia?
`
Second, would they pay much higher gas prices as oil prices have already hit above USD 100 per barrel?
`
Although economic sanctions are applied, even Europe will not be willing to risk cutting off gas supplies from Russia, since Russia accounts for 35 percent of European gas supplies.
`
Third, is Ukraine a real democracy?
`
Carlson's 2018 book "Ship of Fools: How a Selfish Ruling Class Is Bringing America to the Brink of Revolution" is well worth reading to understand how conservative Americans think about elites who care about themselves more than society at large. 

Carlson asked some really serious questions, even though his views are partisan—have the Democrats, with their moral concern to hate Putin, forgotten the big picture of war costs?
`
First, would Americans be willing to go into a winter war with Russia?
`
Second, would they pay much higher gas prices as oil prices have already hit above USD 100 per barrel?
`
Although economic sanctions are applied, even Europe will not be willing to risk cutting off gas supplies from Russia, since Russia accounts for 35 percent of European gas supplies.
`
Third, is Ukraine a real democracy?
`
Carlson's 2018 book "Ship of Fools: How a Selfish Ruling Class Is Bringing America to the Brink of Revolution" is well worth reading to understand how conservative Americans think about elites who care about themselves more than society at large.
`
In sum, the decade of 2020s may face a tough period of escalating conflicts at local, regional and global levels, with proxy wars that disrupt each other's economies and social stability.
`
If states fail, and poor and hungry people migrate at a larger scale, even more border conflicts are likely, since most will want to go to the richer countries in the North, such as Europe and America.
`
There is no ideal world where everyone is good and the other side is bad.
`
In a multipolar world, there will be all kinds of people that we don't like, but we have to live with them.
`
A negotiated peace is better than mutual destruction.
`
In Metaverse, virtual life can be beautiful, moral and perfect, but the real world is lurching towards a collective nightmare.
`
We should not kid ourselves that the Metaverse VR of self-deception is the real world.

`
We either sleepwalk to war, or have the courage to opt for sustainable peace.
`
The real question is: Who is willing to climb down and eat the humble pie for the sake of peace?
`
By Andrew Sheng is adjunct professor at Tsinghua University, Beijing and the University of Malaya. He was formerly the chairman of the Securities and Futures Commission, Hong Kong. 

Andrew Sheng | South China Morning PostTan Sri Andrew Sheng (born 1946) is Hong Kong-based Malaysian Chinese banker, academic and commentator. He started his career as an accountant and is now a distinguished fellow of Fung Global Institute, a global think tank based in Hong Kong.[1] He served as chairman of the Hong Kong Securities and Futures Commission (SFC) before his replacement by Martin Wheatley in

Andrew Sheng comments on global affairs from an Asian perspective. The views expressed here are his own.

Source link

 

Related posts:

 

THE GLOCALISATION OF HUMANITY 

 

China calls for building a community for man and nature at US-held climate summit