Basis For Ethical Response
A lot of governments in history were rightly criticized for being cruel to its citizens. There were many bad manifestations of superiority, from censorships to politically motivated murders. In broader, geopolitical sense, similar traits are embodied in many those more complicated. As we had intelligence agency orchestrated murders, for example, we also had many pressures to less powerful countries and people. In this article I won’t discuss the foundations of the indispensability of some sort of political superiority (which is not logical one indeed), I will actually discuss something more narrowly put: what traits should geopolitical powers consider in order to justify its geopolitical superiority.
It would be useful to take migrant crisis issue as a remainder example. Before I deal with the main options about it, the basis must be made clear. So I would postulate that due to technological emergence some sort of touch between people of the world is indispensable. It’s something pretty everyone someway educated knows. As I said before, that was just to be mentioned. Next step in conclusion is: the more differences among some groups of people there are, the more chances are there for some secondary indispensability to occur. Here I think of main indispensability postulated in this text: geopolitical superiority.
Why Should Manifestation Be Changed?
I have just dealt with topics whose main analysis is out of the theme of this article. Now it’s time to say a word about manageable aspects of that indispensability. What I mean by them are, in more clear words, ways how participants are able to concretely deal with indispensability of geopolitical or, in the broader sense, political superiority. So, it’s very obvious why the adequate and recent example is pretty welcomed in order to demonstrate some conclusions.
In present debates there are two radically opposite stances about migrant crisis. One generally in favour of accepting people from endangered zones, and one negatively cautious. I must note that particular examples arguments are among those out of consideration as false ones.
Let’s face the issue from the negativist stance first. Negativist would say that letting many migrants inhabit European Union countries would shake its stability and probably cause some existential threats to its citizens. Well, on the basis of evidence, why shouldn’t it be said that not letting people inhabit safer countries also leaves those people under some existential threats, likely more severe.
Negativists would say that there is some force aligned with those migrants willing to help extremists conquer Europe. And this remark is very important as it raises another one: is that hypothetical conquest a kind of rise of certain superiority. I guess there is not much of a disagreement here.
So, we steadily approach the main point. That is, we are discussing possible aspects of certain superiority. And my important question is: does this kind of extremist superiority have anything in common with any other one that leaves the strong impression of power?
I won’t speculate whether there is a necessary connection between religion and robust manifestations of power. However, if there will be a process of great conservative turnover in Europe, there is probably a lot of necessary manifestations of power that would be required if that is to happen.
Why are strong manifestations of power familiar with European history? Wasn’t it that Western imperialistic way of ruling the world somehow left such an impression? Translated to the present situation, does that way of dealing resemble some negativitist views from Europe. Well, what is obvious is that those people who get deported back to Syria or Turkey with no apparent reasons will come in touch only with the power of superiority. The brute superiority.
How should proponents of the opposing stance respond? They should propose an ethical way of dealing with a problem. Probably participants, Europeans and migrants, should make a lot of compromises, but details about that are for another text. I will just underline that compromises are perhaps the core of general moral strategy.
How it will be worked out is up to those who has already been through experiences of faulty manifestations of power: European responsibles. As power is overwhelmed by its ethical appearance, what fills the puzzle is the way superiority can be justified in moral terms.
Western superiority toward migrants, European one in particular, is real. On the other hand, the place where the European Union should find its greater and more crucial compromise is on the scene of global power relations. In its own geopolitical context, Europe should make decisive steps toward the migrant crisis in particular. Its indispensably superior status in that particular relation is one that is considered through its main manageable aspects, namely manifestation of brute power and manifestation of morality.
