Geography – like biology and demography – is destiny. And since Jamaica is only a couple hundred miles form the American mainland, it’s understandable that our media tends to obsess about the USA and its doings. Some of our media commentators for instance have spent practically the entire past year fulminating against the Iraq invasion.

Yet for all its exciting copy the Iraqi war will probably not have any great long-term significance. The most likely end result is that which prevails is most other oil producing Arab countries – a ‘western friendly’ strong man or pseudo-democracy. The USA is really only doing what previous super powers like the Chinese and Roman and British Empires did countless times, namely preserving a vital trade and supply link. There is no real morality in international affairs, only self-interest. If Iraq had no oil America would be paying it no more attention than it does to Darfur in Sudan, where ethnic cleaning by Arab militias has displaced over a million black Africans.

All the eyewash talk about democracy and weapons of mass destruction was pretty much par for the course gunboat war justification. The real surprise has been the astonishing incompetence with which the Bush administration has prosecuted what should have been a routine topple-the-leader-but-don’t-disturb-the-populace oil grab. Had the US made sure to preserve the infrastructure and bought off Iraqi generals while preserving the army, Iraq would today be attracting no more international interest than Afghanistan. After all most Iraqis were ecstatic to see the back of the brutal Saddam Hussain.

But wars on the cheap – like under-capitalized business enterprises - tend to be overly vulnerable to temporary shocks. A proper sized force would probably have caught Saddam and smothered the Baathist insurgency in 3 months. But inadequate resources and clumsy tactics allowed a minor revolt to swell into what might become a national ‘invaders get out’ call to arms. It seems increasingly likely that only putting foreign armed forces under United Nations control will bring normalcy back to Iraq. Bush-Cheney-Rumsfield should have realized this long ago. But pride goeth before a fall, and polls now suggest it will be John Kerry who ends up doing the obvious.

Yet the American election will likely prove less significant than the recent one in India. The US status quo is unlikely to change much no matter which Yale educated multi-millionaire prevails. But the Congress Party’s unexpected victory over the ruling BJP was led by an Italian born woman and resulted in the first ever Sikh – and non-Hindu for that matter - Indian Prime Minister. It will directly affect one sixth of the world’s population and may tell a great deal about what is happening beneath the surface to another one fifth in China.

It shows you the illogicality of human affairs that Palau with less than 20,000 people and China with more than 65,000 times this both have a single vote in the United Nations general assembly. For if every human life has equal value, China and India are by far the most important countries on earth. And what happens to the 2.3 billion people in these countries will have a far greater effect on the world than events anywhere else.

The BJP’s defeat proved that the ‘India Shining’ 8% a year growth was not trickling down to the masses. For electorates don’t kick out governments which significantly better their lot. Clearly globalization's drumbeaters missed a big part of the story here. Still, the market system is not a matter of good or bad but an inescapable reality. As Margaret ‘Tina’ Thatcher once said, there is no alternative. The 40 year East and West Germany experiment is incontrovertible proof that in the long run free market economies outperform state dominated ones in every aspect.

Yet globalization has short term costs which if ignored can cause enormous political and social disruption. And if democratic India where the government is responsive to the masses can have an electoral peasant revolt, you have to wonder if dictatorial China where there is no peaceful way for the masses to express discontent might not eventually have an violent one a la Tienamen Square 1989.

But even that would only be a temporary shock. The big question is what will happen if or when India and China become even moderately rich by western standards. Already the shortages produced by their present economic booms have driven oil and steel prices to record highs. If oil is $40 a barrel with $1,000 per capita China and $500 per person India, what would it be if their incomes averaged  $10,000?

The fact is there simply are not enough resources on this planet for every family on this planet to have a car and a house full of electrical appliances – the pollution alone would be unimaginable. Yet this is the theoretical goal of liberal capitalism, and the desire of all those aspiring to the ‘good’ life they see on Hollywood screens. 

The future then may be a Noah’s Ark world where everyone wants to board the western lifestyle boat but there is only room for a limited number. But who will decide who gets – or stays - on and who does not? The already rich will hardly be willing to give up their present privileges. But why should others who are just as hard working and productive not also enjoy a similar living standard? In a sensible world we would all lower our expectations and adopt more sustainable lifestyles. But if man was logical there would be no war. changkob@hotmail.com