Long before I became a university freshman in 1974, I was never impressed and did not accept the term the “free world” as perpetrated on the citizens of British Guiana and the colonies of the developing world by the USA and European colonial powers. At an advanced age, I still reject with unbridled intellectual force that the Western countries constitute a section of the globe called the free world.

I do believe deep in my heart that there is more tolerance for citizens’ views in the Western countries than in Russia, China, Arab countries, Cuba, etc. But as an academic, I would never use the methodology of juxtaposition between the free world and other countries. The word ‘free” has to be deconstructed.
The free world cannot be a place of freedom when it has taken away the freedom of dozens of countries and caused the deaths of millions of people since the end of the Second World War. You can count on your fingers the countries China invaded–one only Tibet.

Russia has invaded four–Hungary, Czechoslovakia, Georgia and now Ukraine. The total is four. For the US, the total is over 40. The most recent are Iraq and Afghanistan and one right here on CARICOM – Grenada. Brazil and India have invaded no country at all.
So we come to 2023 and the “free world” is at it again. The country that all American and European leaders refer to as the leader of the free world has sent its largest warship, a smaller one and a contingent of ground troops, to the site of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. The UK has sent a ship and a spy plane.
Is there is a war in the Middle East at the moment? The answer should be a reverberating no. Syria is in no position to attack Israel. The Lebanese Government has no intention of fighting a war with Israel. Those are the neighbours of Israel. What could happen is that militias in Syria and Lebanon could attack Israel. But these are not standing armies with the three branches of air force, navy, and army. So what are these ships, planes, and troops going to do in the area of conflict? Are they going to engage the militias?
Important to note is the use of the word, “war” as used by the Western press. There is no war in Gaza because there is no army, navy and air force to confront the Israeli jet fighters. There has been not even half of a casualty on the Israeli side since the bombardment began a week ago. What is happening in Gaza is that Israeli jets leveling entire bocks of buildings killing women and children.

How in the use of the word “war” what is going on in Gaza is a war? And if there is no war in Gaza what is the largest battle ship in the world doing in the area? Exactly what this battle ship will do if the militias attack Israeli? It could only to one thing and one thing only – engage the militias.
Engaging the militia can take only two forms. The US will have to bomb Lebanon and it will have to engage in hand-to-hand combat with the militias in Gaza and on the Lebanese border. If the US military engages the militias, then that could only have disastrous consequences for global peace. What the Chinese will do is flex its muscles over Taiwan and Russia will feel it has a larger blank check to devastate Ukraine.

I was puzzled when I read that the US has sent the Gerald Ford warship to the area. It is the largest warship in the world and you would expect that such a military colossal would be dispatched to the area of battle in a war between two countries. But since it was sent, Israel continues to flatten Gaza with impunity so the question immediately pops up in your mind–what is this warship supposed to do?

In analyzing international relations from a non-western perspective, the US, and British military presence demonstrates that the US sees its national security interests as being bound up with Israel. Given that reality, it is perfectly logical for the US to provide military assistance. This is the reality and has been the reality of the permanent Peloponnesian shape of international relations.

But in such a reality, why do states not come to a gentleman’s agreement that they each recognize that every country has national security interests to protect? But does the West recognise that Russia has security interests along its borders with the Ukraine and China in the South China seas? I wonder how the Chinese and Russian leaders approach this reality.