Written in Jan ’22

“Should you care about a segment of a class of people in another country?’ Only when we can take care of ourselves, will I prioritize them over us.””

Let us simplify the situation. Your neighbour is abusing his wife every day. Will you call him out? Will you call the police on him or bring other social pressure? May be you might.

OK, what if that lady was your childhood sweet heart and friend? Will you go and protect her? Yes definitely.

OK, What if the husband is the local drug don and arrack king? He could murder you. Will you still call him out or will you work on some outside ‘influence’ strategy?

OK, many will stay away from him and shut up in your own self interest.

Now, let us say that this drug don is abusing that lady due to your old interactions with her and is threatening you in parallel. Will you still face the law or you will slowly slunk away? Many will try and save their own lives and interests in this scenario.

Now, let us look at a different scenario.

OK, will you stop your jeep to save a man lost in a forest?

Will you still stop to save him if there is a pride of lions menacing around him, and he is there helpless? Or will you drive fast to reach safe land before your garner help?

I feel that there are limits to an individual’s ‘humanitarian’ tendancies. Some might have more, some might have less. But there is a balance between benevolent altruism and enlightened self interest.

Our evolutionary genes make us prioritise the enlightened self interest, ahead of any altruism we want to exhibit.

The same paradigm applies, in my view, to nations too. They might couch it as ‘liberty’, ‘freedom’, ‘democracy’, ‘individual rights’, ‘equality’, ‘free trade’, ‘open borders’, ‘non-interference’, ‘defence treaty (NATO like), etc. But, I feel the ultimate goal is an enlightened self interest.

Why didn’t US intervene when anti-Jewish laws were enacted in Germany in 1935? Or concentration camps were opened in 1937? Or when Poland was annexed in 1939. It took a ‘Pearl Harbour’ in 1941 for the US to enter into the fray. Again, for the UK it took Germany’s annexation of Poland to realise France and UK were next in line. It was their self interest to wait and watch.

Why did Swiss stay neutral in the entire duration of the war? Why didn’t they talk about the atrocities that were happening across the border? Was it the banking system that benefited from the funds, gold and paintings moved to Switzerland? It was their enlightened self interest to stay silent.

Why did US become the beacon of hope to Kuwait in ’91 against Saddam? Because of the oil moved from $21 to $46 in 6 months in the lead up to the invasion. And Kuwait had oil locked in. Self interest.

Vietnam. Korea. Chile. All places, US had the CIA ‘intervention’ strategy and war, just to protect their capitalistic interest. The interest was not to accede space to the USSR.

Why did US not intervene in Rawanda crisis? Why didn’t France intervene given that they had created the schisms in the population that created the crisis as Ranwandan overlords for over 200 years before? It was not convenient for them to send the forces to make it happen. The nation was sucked dry, there was no market interest.

Sri Lanka. Burma. Colombia. South Sudan. Ethiopia. Congo. Syria. All these places saw major humanitarian crisis in the last decade. Why didn’t US or the West intervene strongly? There was no interest to be served.

India also had similar history of active interference and wilful ignorance in the name of ‘empathy’. They didn’t intervene when the nationality of Tibet was swallowed by China – as China was a bigger force. They intervened in East Pakistan, Indonesia, Bhutan and Maldives just to protect their border, and because they could. It was selective humanitarianism. They applied ‘Non-intervention’ policy selectively based on convenience.

Why did India offer refugee status for Hindus in the 2021 Afghan crisis and not for Muslims from Rohingya. It suited someone’s agenda.

Why is Germany totally aligned with other partners in NATO on Ukraine? It is because of the Nord Stream 2 pipeline from Russia to Germany – it avoids Ukraine to avoid carry costs. Germany’s energy security is dependent on this. It is in their self interest not to strongly intervene in the Ukraine conflict.

Why didn’t any one intervene with empathy on Russia’s annexation of Crimea in 2014? Because no one cared about Crimea, they had this rocking trade going with Russia.

Let us take the case of current Ukraine crisis. It is the same situation like Chamberlain’s treaty with Nazis to protect Poland. US figuring out a diplomatic solution, not a stronger military intervention. Because it is not in their core interest to risk a war to protect Ukraine.

The Xinjiang /Uyghur conflict has been there since 2010s. Why is it now a crisis and not before? Until the mid-point of Obama’s regime, China was seen as a trade partner who can be converted into a Democracy. Tiananmen square (89) was always in the background but was winked away with convenience. It helped the supply chain of American corporations.

It was in ’12-16 did China become a serious threat to many of the ‘critical supply chains’ of the US. US planners realised that they cannot complete key military parts without China’s supply. Enlightened self-interest kicked in. Free trade concepts were thrown away and protectionism (tariffs) were brought in.

A country’s response should always be based on its overall enlightened self interest. Any alignments of the country is a reflection its self interest.

These responses are not an accident. This is how it is supposed to work.

1.⁠ ⁠People in power want to align economic benefits and better living to their population, just to stay in power.
2.⁠ ⁠Countries have limited bandwidth – they focus on problems that can benefit them the most
3.⁠ ⁠People do not have patience for extended, meaningless conflict where the purpose is lost (Vietnam)

That is how countries thrive – by aligning strategic interests to their side.

So a country would care about a section of population in another country only as long as it impacts their strategic interests and survival. Otherwise, it will not occupy the mind-share of the country and hence will be swept aside in the force of time.