Essay by Keith Rankin.
Today’s geopolitics is already coming very close to a war (mainly of words, so far) between Asia and Europe (both entities broadly and loosely defined). For geopolitical purposes we may call this a war of hubris and cant between East and West. Conveniently for the West, the words East and Evil start with the same letter, so it’s easy for westerners to conflate East and Evil to the initial E.
What letter do we give greater Europe, aka The West? G for Good? Or B for Bad?
Consider the six principal political leaders of the West: Rutte, von der Leyen, Starmer, Merz, Trump, Netanyahu. What they have in common, to a lesser to greater degree, is their complicity re the genocidal Israel project. Can we call them Good? Clearly no. Can we call them Bad? Yes, we can.
It means that, from the point of view of an academic (ie disinterested to a point, not uninterested) Eurocentric observer, we are entering a geopolitical struggle between Bad and Evil. (Only people who advocate for the Israel project in its present form could claim that it’s Good versus Evil.) We note that the most obvious interpretation of ‘Bad’ is that Bad is the lesser Evil.
(We should also note that, from a Sinocentric or Russocentric or Iranocentric or Indocentric point of view, the expansionist West probably looks more like Evil than Bad. It may be that more people in the world perceive West to be the greater Evil and East to be the lesser Evil. The median viewer probably lives in India.)
From a Referee’s Eye
Let’s think of this geopolitical arm-wrestle as a game of rugby. The referee is obliged to favour neitherBad nor Evil. And it’s a game with an indefinite amount of ‘extra time’; only the teams themselves can call fulltime, though they may consult the referee. So long as the teams cannot agree to an outcome, the game simply continues ad infinitum. We may assume that each team has a very large ‘reserve bench’.
(We note that, and ignoring the case of Japan for simplicity, geopolitics from 1938 to 1990 was either ‘Good versus Evil1 versus Evil2’ or ‘Bad versus Evil1 versus Evil2’; it was multipolar then bipolar. For simplicity, for that historical war we may call Good/Bad the West, putting aside the issue of western motives and morality. In May 1945, Evil1 conceded to West and Evil2. In 1990, Evil2 conceded to West. There was no real argument about who were the winners and losers. There may be an argument about the use of the ‘Evil’ labels; but those labels accurately reflect the western view of both Nazi Germany and Communist Soviet Union.)
Most likely the referee secretly prefers the lesser Evil (Bad) to prevail over the greater Evil. But our referee is a professional, and must adjudicate according to the ‘plays’ that take place. A professional referee is neutral. Probably both Evil and Bad will try to cheat. The referee must deal with both sides’ cheating even-handedly. (Point of ethics. Would it be better for the game if such a referee is like a ‘bent cop’, in this case favouring Bad over Evil?)
What is the game’s best outcome if Evil is winning? Does Bad keep playing forever hoping for a Hollywood-style comeback? Or – if the only realistic alternative is total defeat – does Bad concede, offering a dishonourable draw in the hope that Evil will accept?
The Nuclear Option
What happens if, when we enter indefinite ‘extra time’, we abandon the rules and agree to start playing Nuclear Rugby; noting that this form of rugby involves both sides resorting to tactics of mass destruction. In the absence of rules, the referee relocates to Rapa Nui, hoping to be safe there. Further, the referee is now an observer, pronouncing on military advantage and nothing else; hardly anybody listens anymore. As before, the game only ends by mutual agreement; or by there being no players left alive.
Here we note that there are ‘third parties’. There are neutral nations which have joined neither team. And each nation has unwilling participants; people who do not like rugby. These people neither wish to support the same team as their government nor the other team; for practical purposes they are neutrals or pacifists, not traitors. They struggle to be heard above the noise of the binary contest. Then there are the non-human life forms on Earth; they are neutral third parties. Nuclear weapons, more than any other type of weapon, disproportionately affect third parties.
How does a game of nuclear rugby end? Is there an ‘offramp’ before The End? Presumably Evil will give up if it’s clearly losing; as eventually occurred in 1938 to 1990. But will Bad ever give up if Evil is winning?
If Evil is winning and Bad refuses to ‘sue for peace’, then the only hope for the birds and the bees is a quick extinction of all participating humans. Humanity’s only hope would be the survival of some neutrals; and the retention of a planet which can still support life. There will be no victor to collect the cup of Ashes.
The better option
Don’t play geopolitical rugby.
*******
Keith Rankin (keith at rankin dot nz), trained as an economic historian, is a retired lecturer in Economics and Statistics. He lives in Auckland, New Zealand.
