Article Image
IPFS News Link • Afghanistan

Political Decentralization Might Help in Conflict-Ridden Countries


What do Libya, Somalia, Yemen, Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan have in common? Although it’s true that the United States has conducted recent military interventions in all of them, the more fundamental answer is that they are all artificial countries. That is, they are each made up of feuding ethno-sectarian groups or tribes.

And perhaps the instability caused by those realities has been a beacon for the American superpower’s imperial attention. Of course, solving all of these countries’ “issues” would probably not stop the United States government from finding chaos elsewhere to police, thus continuing to squander tens of billions of its taxpayers’ dollars. However, resolving the conflicts in those nations would likely help the war-ravaged peoples who live there.

In the long-term, to deal with such quarrels–which are usually caused by ethnic, sectarian, or tribal clashes—one needs either to address the underlying causes so that the various peoples can live together or to move toward a separation of warring groups and political decentralization. The former solution is often difficult because the various groups are usually fighting over control of a strong central government that can be used by one group to oppress the other or others politically, economically, or militarily. Thus, those attempting to solve such crises should give more attention to the second solution.

Yet the second solution is often avoided because some of the great powers, often meddling in such local disputes, get nervous about eventually succumbing to any precedent for breaking up existing states. For example, Russia, China, France, and the United Kingdom all have restive areas that might benefit from more autonomy. Although not having the same problem, the American superpower believes that such political decentralization sets a precedent for destabilizing the entire international system.

However, the great powers are denying reality. Political decentralization has been an international trend since at least the de-colonization movement began in the 1950s, has continued through the break up of the Soviet Union and East Bloc in the 1990s down to the present, and has not been stopped by movements for economic integration—for example, the European Union. In fact, the efficiencies of economic integration have made it more feasible for smaller political units to have greater autonomy or even become independent. In the European Union, Scotland may go its own way from the United Kingdom, and Belgium may break up into smaller political entities.

Also, in the case of Iraq and doubtless other cases in which talk of separation and political decentralization would arise, elite Westerners espousing multiculturalism would probably yell “apartheid.” Yet apartheid in South Africa was forced separation at gunpoint by one group (whites) against African and mixed race groups.


2 Comments in Response to

Comment by Ed Price
Entered on:

"Decentralize" is another term for "guerrilla warfare." That is, assuming that a central power has taken over and is in place... one that people are trying to decentralize right in its face.

What is another term for "guerrilla warfare?" Isn't it "terrorism," at least in the eyes of the central power?

The United States coup leaders - Obama and the United States Government people that back him, Bush before him - do NOT have central, WORLD control... not yet, anyway. They don't have it in either the United States or in the rest of the world - although their plans are moving along nicely in some ways. So, what they have done is to resort to guerrilla warfare on a larger scale than most forms of guerrilla warfare.

LET ME SAY IT STRAIGHT OUT. The central power that the United States Government guerrilla warfare terrorists are fighting is, a central power called "DE-CENTRALIZATION."

The solidified, various nations of the world are finding it extremely difficult to fight the U.S. kind of terrorism. Smaller terrorist groups in these nations are fighting back against the United States terrorist group in whatever ways they can. Al-qaeda, for example, formerly was used by the United States Government to do dirty work in the Muslim countries. But the whole plan of United States government terrorism all along was to out-rightly suppress and destroy ALL the Muslim governments, including Al-qaeda.

Once Al-qaeda and other groups realized that they were being used, and that the United States Government plan for them was the same as the thing planned for the nation they were being used against, they switched sides. Now, many of these smaller guerrilla warfare groups have turned to fight the United States Government terrorists that had formerly employed them.

The plan within America has to, of necessity, be different. The covert, guerrilla, terrorist warfare against Americans has to be carried out very carefully. Why? Because the people must never be allowed to find out that a U.S. Government coup has taken place, and that the terrorists in Government are against the American people just as strongly as they are against everyone else that is DE-CENTRALIZED. If the people find out, they just might stop supporting the United-States-Government-coup-guerilla-warfare-terrorist group. And the ONE-WORLDERS' plans would go down the tubes... at least in America.

All you need to do is keep the above thought in mind, and peruse the many articles in Freedom's Phoenix, and on similar websites, to see the whole thing unfolding before your eyes.

As a note, the Federal Reserve Bank, and the world banks, are some of the key weapons being used against all of the people around the world. Other weapons include the U.N. and Big Pharma... and lately, military technology.

Once you have studied this, and found out that is true, join with all American people in furthering FREEDOM, and maintaining the only centralized government that makes any sense at all, - DE-CENTRALIZATION.

Comment by Dennis Treybil
Entered on:

The movie "Ghandi" was so long they had an intermission in the theatres and on cable when it was shown way back when.

Not long after I saw it in the theatre, I heard a talk from an Eastern Indian who was in India during Ghandi's latter days and who was old enough at the time to appreciate what was going on.

The single point I recall from his talk was Ghandi's three-pronged plan to free India from England.  He presented this three-pronged plan nearly everywhere he went.  He is a list of the three prongs:




Even Ghandi's practice of spinning his own thread was an exercise in self-reliance.  This was turned into something quasi-sexual with Candace Bergen by the way she responded.  At least, it came across the screen that way to me.

How many seconds does it take to recite the words, "De-centralize, de-centralize, decentralize"?  And in a movie that was so long it required an intermission both in theatres and on cable, how many times was Ghandi depicted saying it?

I don't recall even one time.  (It's entirely possible I missed it if it was said in the movie.  The Indian speaker I heard also said it was not made part of the movie.  He was amazed by this in 1983.)

Since 1983, the moves by TPTB to totally centralize power, both in the USA and worldwide, may help explain this "oversight".

DC Treybil