How to win the World - and lose it again

  

 

Nineveh, you have been hurt badly, and nothing can heal your wound. Everyone who hears the news of your destruction claps their hands. They are all happy, because they all felt the pain you caused again and again.

 

The prophet Nahum (3:19) on the fall of the Assyrian capital Nineveh.

 

As often said, the present Second European, now global Civilization is now in the late part of its modernity. This is a phase where few remaining big powers fight to gain control over the nations and create a universal state. In many earlier civilizations this endfight has been decided militarily. Because such a fight on the big scale today would be suicidal, we will rather see confrontations in other spheres. The internet will be the battlefield both in the form of direct cyber-warfare implying attacks on essential infrastructure etc. and a more subtle manipulation and competition to win support from the world’s public opinion. Because large scale military confrontations are excluded (as we must hope) and a direct cyber-attack on a superpower and its closest allies in present doctrines are viewed as a casus belli, hybrid internet-warfare and competition for sympathy will be of the utmost importance in deciding which power will take over the world: Minor powers can be convinced politically or economically or be bribed or persuaded to enter the sphere of a superpower, especially if this is perceived as benevolent. 

 

Even though direct internet-attacks from an opposing superpower against smaller powers allied to a superpower can cause war, this is not the case for cyber-attacks or pressure from a superpower on its own allies or on weak nations. Europe and Latin America should be prepared.

 

The importance of good PR has existed in the endfight in all civilizations, even the most militarily violent. In the following I will use examples from earlier civilizations to illustrate the balance between a) force and b) perceived benevolence. With “force” I mean things like military might, political coercion, economic pressure and presently cyber-attacks on essential services.

 

Obviously, the perceived benevolence or popularity of a major power has an inverse relation to its use of force, but it depends on numerous factors. These include propaganda and the unpopularity of opposing superpowers. It is also important to notice that the two factors, force and benevolence should be applied not in an erratic manner, but consistently as part of c) a longer term strategy.

 

 

MODELS AND EXAMPLES

Good models for our present endfight are the Greco-Roman Civilization, the Second Mesopotamian Civilization and the First Chinese Civilization. 

 

1) Rome, Greco-Roman Civilization 

The easiest example is if there is only one superpower and it only has weak opponents. Especially after the fall of Cartage around 200 BC Rome was in this position in the endfight in the Greco-Roman Civilization, at least around the Mediterranean Sea. Because of this Rome could win even though it was as divided and polarized as present America. But because of its inner chaos the victory was not total. The Roman empire had to leave the Eastern part of the Hellenist world with one of the world's largest cities, Seleucia, to Parthia.  

 

Rome was initially not very benevolent, but as peace arrived, it became more popular: the ruthless exploitation of the provinces was reduced, and Roman rule began to benefit both culture and commercial activity in the Mediterranean area. Parthia won the East not least by applying philhellenic policies, i.e. being friend of Hellenism, thus benevolent. This as opposed to the intolerant preceding Seleucid state, whose brutality is illustrated in the Maccabean books. So we got two lasting universal states. Both empires continued for centuries.

 

In the following examples power was immense, but despite this a lack of perceived benevolence resulting not least from brutality contributed to the defeat of these powers.

 

2) Assyria, Second Mesopotamian Civilization 

For a couple of centuries Assyria dominated the modernity in this civilization. Through repeated invasions and cruelty most peoples were subdued. A major opposing power, Elam, was even obliterated in 645 BC. But in the end the accumulated hatred caused Assyria’s defeat in 612 BC, cf. the quote in the top. This hindered that Assyria became the creator of the universal state of this civilization. Instead, Cyrus the Great accomplished this in 539 BC not least thanks to his kindness and tolerance. His Persian Empire was to last for two centuries. 

 

3) Germany, present Global Civilization 

Although far more short-lived and less dominant Germany from roughly 1870 to 1945 can be compared with Assyria. It was very strong militarily, but it became hated and was defeated in the end. Like Assyria Germany did not become the unifier of its / our civilization. In the East Japan through its aggression and expansion became similarly hated, and in the end it got the same fate.

 

4) Qin, First Chinese Civilization 

Here we have another version. The less civilized state Qin dominated a large part of the First Chinese modernity. For a long time its power over the other countries was big, but limited because of its bad standing in public opinion. Later it increased its internal cohesion, consistency, military strength and brutality. It did manage to create the universal empire, but fell a few years later in rebellions against its oppression of peoples and culture.

 

Thus, Qin was first limited by its unpopularity. Increased power then overrode the bad PR, but in the end it was nevertheless defeated because of its hated cruelty. Instead, the much milder Liu Bang and his Han Dynasty took over. This dynasty lasted four centuries.

 

 

APPLICATION

As often said, America can not afford its present level of inner conflicts and inconsistent changing policies. As opposed to Rome two millennia ago it has powerful opponents. If the United States on top of this also begins to lose popularity by brutalizing the world, long term defeat is almost inevitable.

 

Together China and Russia can rival America in power, but presently they are lacking popular support in many countries. This can limit the expansion and the duration of their spheres. Public opinion does matter if one wants to invite friends and ultimately win the World. It is not enough to win support from autocratic leaders or people on the political fringes.

 

If America does not grow more unpopular in world public opinion in and beyond the Middle East, and if the Americans could overcome the internal divisions, their power and relative demographic youth could ensure them by far the largest empire with only small spheres left to China and Russia. But a continued polarization and not least the possible return of Donald Trump or the like will ruin these prospects. Instead the United States could face civil war.