FLASH
Shkruar nga Hakki Öcal
I have no intention of repeating the gloomy and pessimistic predictions of my favorite Stratfor analysts, George Friedman and Peter Zeihan. But I ask you to keep your ears open for one name: Alex Garland, English novelist, screenwriter, producer and director.
He is best known for the films "Ex Machina" (2015) and "Annihilation" (2018). But this time he made a film that depicts America at war with itself, "Civil War".
Garland does not explain the political reasons why America is divided, and why Texas and California are at war with other parts of the USA, now called Loyalist States. He simply recounts how such a war is waged.
Several well-known critics praised the handling of this theme and the messages conveyed by the film. But for people like me, who think that everything is political and that every human endeavor must have a political motive behind it (or even openly), the question remains whether (or under what circumstances) real politicians and political groups can open call for secession from a state.
And if this request is not accepted gently by others, could this lead to an open conflict? In a work of visual art, such as a motion picture, sometimes the visual art leaves no room for you to understand why the events depicted so skillfully occur.
And Garland may be right to avoid opening up a discussion about the reasons for a possible secession and armed conflict in the US, which could overshadow the film's artistry. Does Sergei Eisenstein tell us why the crew members of the Potemkin, a battleship of the Black Sea Fleet of the Imperial Russian Navy, were given such slanderous meat that they at one point decided to rebel saying "Comrades, the time has come so that we can raise our voice too"? No.
We assume the reasons ourselves based on our knowledge of history and politics. Garland shows us many fascinating views of modern America, which we fill in the gaps in information, reaching our conclusion about a country that is "under siege".
And instead of presenting evidence for this, let me quote a few headlines taken from mainstream US political news sites: How and why Biden destroyed the strategic oil reserve; How Biden lost the fight against inflation and the economy in general ; Biden makes it harder to pay off student loans; Anxiety and depression are on the rise among young people, and no one knows why; Trump cannot remain silent as his trial approaches; Solar eclipses give rise to conspiracy theories.
You might think that these cannot be evidence of a siege. Because there is still no military operation in which enemy forces surround the country. And the destruction of strategic oil reserves does not mean the interruption of essential supplies. Even Trump's possible victory is not forcing anyone to surrender or leave the country.
But this is the military definition of a siege. While there are other types of encirclement, thanks to the capital accumulated over the past century and the discovery in recent years of shale oil within the US, which is fueling economic growth, America will no longer provide global military support for a world order. that has fostered safe transition and global investment.
While other developed countries have seen their GDP decline, the US has remained an economic powerhouse. The US military is unmatched in strength, the best universities in the world are American, and this nation remains a leader in technological innovation. And yet, political gridlock in Washington is at unprecedented levels, affecting America's failure to lead the world.
Income inequality has blocked the opportunities of the middle class to move forward. Especially after the US ends its global Pax Americana, domestic peace will also end. Until now, the unified banking and financial system helped the rich and industrial North foot the bill for the South.
When the US withdraws globally, the new order created by several smaller or larger but competing powers and emerging economic systems across Europe and Asia will try not only to impose their influence on the sector global energy and agricultural markets, finance and technology, but will seek new export markets around the world, including the United States.
And a Washington without the power that comes from being a global hegemon would surely question its authority over domestic affairs, and perhaps be rejected because the Founding Fathers did not require it to have a say in domestic affairs. .
So the "Second Republic of Texas" and the "Republic of California" (as Alex Garland calls them) may want to import from China instead of Iowa, and nothing can be done about it. And if you dare to do something, you will discover the political reasons that Garland does not show in his film.
However, we can draw conclusions from what political and geopolitical analysts have said so far. That said, we conclude that Garland's new film, which has rightfully stirred up controversy and hysteria, should make us all anxious about the future, as the director himself says
The thesis is fictitious, but not entirely. It is fiction, but not forgery or deliberate deception. It may happen, God forbid, that there will be many political disputes which cannot be settled by any other means than open conflict.
Zeihan and Friedman are not the only ones who argue that America acted as a superpower that imposed the Bretton Woods Free Trade and Monetary Management System, not for the sake of economics but to impose security agreements. But almost all analysts agree that with the removal of the safety shield, 'perfect storms; economic and political would take root within a short time.
Germany, the 'money factory' of Europe, the savior of those countries with systemic financial crises (Greece, Portugal, Spain and Italy), will stop doing the donkey work for the imaginary European Union. Poland, Central Europe's biggest industrial power and the largest population, will see itself as a natural leader against Russia.
On the other side of Europe, France proclaims itself as the natural boss of Europe (after all, it first organized the European Economic Community and later the EU!). So Europe will be tested. We didn't even mention Turkey, which according to Zehan "is creating its own sphere of influence from the remnants of the EU and NATO", and Sweden "which logically supports paranoid Poland" against Russia.
Zeihan thus closes this chapter in his book: "Will all these developments lead to war? Certainly not. But it would be really impressive if none of them did." / Adapted "Pamphlet", taken from "Daily Sabah" .
Lini një Përgjigje