(1999 April 28)

It was a Tony Blair, trying to pick up the mantle of leadership of the western Christian world from a Lewinskified Bill Clinton, who "proclaimed" according to the Reuters, a "new" international doctrine on Thursday the twenty second. It is symbolical that he chose Chicago as the venue to pronounce his policy of naked aggression on the eve of the fiftieth anniversary of NATO. Mr. Blair would like to displace Mr. Clinton as the village headman of the so-called global village. Unfortunately for Mr. Blair the western Christian world that he longs to give leadership has already entered its declining phase. Very soon the west will lose their ability to fool the others with concepts such as globalisation, human rights, freedom etc. Both left and right intellectuals in the west will find it increasingly difficult to deceive the "third world" with their theories, in Liberalism, Marxism, Post Modernism and the rest, cooked up especially for the non-western world. The NGOs, the civil societies and the like created and financed by the west in these parts of the world are being exposed as instruments of the western Christian civilisation and our dependence on the western world for the theories, concepts and knowledge in general is about to be cast aside. Mr. Blair is a toothless bear who would like to lead a western Christian civilisation that is about to begin a process that will witness the west losing its grip on the rest of the world. Not only the age of Napoleons and Nelsons but also the age of Churchills and Eisenhowers is gone forever. We have entered a new phase with the Clintons and the Blairs.

We have the spectacle of a labour prime minister and a democratic president trying to echo the ideas that are generally associated with the so-called conservatives. Today there is hardly any difference between the conservatives, liberals and the others and the facade of western liberalism and socialism has been exposed. What Mr. Blair has "proclaimed", is nothing new. It is a "proclamation" of naked imperialism that the west has practised for nearly five centuries. In the last fifty years or so they were able to cover it up with liberal terminology when it also had the benefit of having a socialist block led by the Soviet Union that could be presented to the "third world" as an alternative system.

The biggest blunder that the west did during the nineties was to dismantle the Soviet Union. The Greek Orthodox Soviet Union was following an ideology created in the west and in the final analysis was not a real threat to the western system. There would have been a cold war but the west was in a position to understand what was happening. Both Marxism and Liberalism spoke the same language. Marxism offered the rest of the world a way to "catch up" with the west and a development strategy based on an extreme "rational" mechanism of planned economy that exceeded even the rationalism followed by the western countries. Marxism, though tried to absorb from the other cultures, was an ideology created within the western Christian civilisation, just as much western science is, and was not looking for alternatives to the western tradition. However only a few intellectuals in the west were attracted to Marxism, as the Hegelian dialectics, which is a corruption of the chatuskoti logic (This has been dealt with in the two booklets Apohakaye Rupikaya and Marxvadaye Daridrathavaya - Formalism of Dialectics and The Poverty of Marxism), it used was too much for them, and it never became an ideology for a dominant social force in those countries. It was meant for the countries of the non-western Christian civilisation and was destined to create a social force based on it in the non-western countries. It was left to Lenin and then to Mao who came from other civilisations to carry out the Marxist scheme albeit with "political parties of the proletariat" that had so many non proletariats as members, and not with the "proletariat" itself in their respective countries. People like Lenin and Trotsky, just as much our own Marxist leaders were more westernised in their conceptual thinking than the non-Liberal and non-Marxist leaders of their respective countries.

It is true that there was antagonism between the western countries and the countries of the socialist block. It is now too late, but what the west should have realised was that these clashes were not different from those between the Catholic church and the Protestant church, between the Roman empire and the western European countries and then between the church and the western science. People had been burnt to death, so many wars had been fought but the clashes were all within the same civilisation. They were intra civilisation clashes and not inter civilisation clashes.

The church and the western civilisation have realised now that the western science is created within the context of western Christian civilisation and hence there are no more "wars" fought between the Church and the western scientific establishment. Of course, it took more than two hundred years for the western Christian civilisation to realise what was happening within western science. The west should have had somebody even surpassing Prof. Huntington long time ago to advice them that the "historical role" of Marxism was to bring the countries that belong to the other civilisations into the fold of the western Christian civilisation and that Marxism which was within their civilisation was not a threat to them. If the west had realised that Marx was on their side they would not have toppled the Soviet Union.

Prof. Samuel Huntington did not write his book "The Clash of Civilisations" as a liberated intellectual. His intention was to advice the western rulers and the western intellectuals such as Dr. Fukuyama who rushed to write "The End of History", not to be complacent after the fall of the Soviet Union. "The Clash of Civilisations" warned them of the impending clashes between the western Christian civilisation and the other civilisations. It is quite clear that the Blairs and the Clintons in the NATO have taken that warning like a set of schoolboy bullies. They are not mature enough to act in a subtle way with more restraint. Not satisfied with NATO bombing Serbia Mr. Tony Blair comes out with his so-called proclamation. The west wants to strangle the rest of the world before the clash of civilisations re-emerge this time as a challenge to the west.

The Jathika Chinthanaya school of thought had analysed world imperialism and social forces in terms of culture long before Prof. Huntington (in fact he refers to Jathika Chinthanaya in his book, though not in a complimentary way and the sentiments expressed are mutual) and was not surprised by his analysis. The Jathika Chinthanaya does not consider culture as a product that belongs to a superstructure determined by an economic base. However, this does not mean that the Jathika Chinthanaya, like the reductionist western knowledge that includes Marxism, reduces everything to culture. The Jathika Chinthanaya recognises the importance of culture, economics and politics in the making of social forces and as an eastern system of knowledge is also aware of the fact that they are interrelated and not mutually exclusive.

Prof. Huntington was only interested in warning the west of the future clashes of civilisations that could be a threat to the west. He has either not analysed or deliberately ignored the history of the past five hundred years or so in terms of his concept of the clash of civilisations. The Europeans came to our countries ostensibly for trade with the Bible and the gun. From the very beginning economics, culture and politics were all intermixed. God & Aristotle, Caesar and Ford are all entangled as they say in Quantum Physics. (To get an idea of the western concept of entanglement please refer the article "The end of uncertainty" that was reproduced in "The Island" of 14th April 1999). The clash of civilisations was started in the latter part of the fifteenth century and it has been going on ever since as a means of spreading the western culture. With the fall of the Soviet Union, the intra civilisation clash between western liberalism and western Marxism, albeit through a country which belonged to the Greek orthodox Christian civilisation, which had taken the centre stage for about fifty years has been receded and the inter civilisation clash has come to the forefront again. This is the essence of what the western journalists call the Blair doctrine.

Mr. Blair in his "proclamation" has said: "The spread of our values makes us safer". We all know that and that is what the west has been doing for the last five hundred years or so. Mr. Blair and the others in the west want THEIR values spread across all the countries, as they know that only when the others think like them and have been either forced or deceived to accept their values, they are safe. Their education system, the mass media, the knowledge they create, including the western science, the myths that they have created like their science is objective and follows a non existing scientific method, the British raj is impartial, cricket is a gentlemen's game etc., have all reinforced their system of values. The west has fooled some of us so much that they would like to believe that Buddhism and Hinduism are scientific, meaning that teachings in these religions agree with the western Christian science. We follow their Roman Dutch Law and would not like even to dabble with the idea of having a different system of law. Mr. Blair has further said that freedom is indivisible and asked the question as to when one man is enslaved who is free. This is only a typical western rhetoric and Mr. Blair is asking this question having tried to enslave all of us in, what they call, the third world, with their liberal and Marxist thinking. Mr. Blair knows very well that the west has succeeded in this venture to a great extent and in the tradition of British diplomacy he is not ashamed to ask this question. Mr. Blair should realise that all cannot be fooled for all time.

He has cited, according to Reuters who not only report but give a subtle interpretation justifying the "proclamation" of the new king Anthony the first (I know that "The Island" and the "Divaina" cannot have their own man in Chicago and that they have to depend on the western agencies for reports, but we have to be careful as these worthy journalists send their camouflaged comments also with the report in the tradition of western journalism, though they will make pronouncement after pronouncement that reporting has to be unbiased and objective), the last year's international financial crisis and the conflict in Kosovo as examples of the need for a new set of global rules for the 21st century. The intentions are very clear. The west wants to control the world in a way they have not done so as not to allow the other civilisations and cultures to develop their own theories without depending on the theories that the west cook up. They know that if the other civilisations were allowed to analyse the west from their respective perspectives the west will have no chance and that would be their downfall.

Mr. Blair has said that the national sovereignty was less important than human rights and the prevention of genocide. Now just one point on these genocides. The present west is the result of genocide of the so-called Red Indians in the Americas, the aborigines in Australia and New Zealand and mass murders in the other countries to spread their civilisation. These genocides were nothing but ethnic cleansing of the worst type. Having established their supremacy in the world they have formulated a set of statements which are known as human rights. Like everything else human rights also are not absolute and are relative. They are relative to the culture. The present day human rights are relative to the present west, which has been successful in establishing their hegemony over the entire world to a large extent. They are not even relative to the western countries that existed, say, two hundred years ago. What Mr. Blair says is that the west has the right to define the human rights as applicable to the whole world and it is they who decide whether a country has violated the human rights as laid down by them. By declaring that principle Mr. Blair has denied the other cultures the right or shall we say the human right of deciding what constitute the human rights. We have to accept as human rights what Mr. Blair identifies as human rights. The whole non-western world should rise against Mr. Blair for violating their most fundamental human right of deciding what constitute the human rights. This only shows the arrogance of the west and how much they care for the other cultures.

Mr. Blair is also thinking of changing the rules of the United Nations. He is not satisfied with the present veto system. What he wants is the power to control the United Nations the way the west wants. In essence politically he wants to go back to the era of the British empire on which the sun did not set (as somebody has said that the sun did not trust the British) this time with the words western empire replacing the words British empire.

Mr. Blair may be dreaming of acquiring all these powers in the name of freedom, the catchword of many swindlers. However as I have said earlier the west cannot deceive many people in the other countries now, though they may have a few NGOs agreeing with the "proclamation". We have come a long way from the old days of the British empire and we have learnt a few tricks from the west as well. The nuclear powers not confined to the western civilisation and above all we are now not dependent on their theories though our universities may still continue to teach the knowledge that is created in the west. Many cultures are beginning to create their own concepts and theories through which they analyse the west. The west cannot fool us anymore with their rhetoric on human rights and freedom and Mr. Blair will very soon find out for himself that the world is not going to accept him as the king Anthony the first. Unlike in the previous five hundred years the clash of civilisations this time will be against the western imperialism and will be a threat to the west.