The role of stability can not rest nor can it achieve weakness in the face of dominance. If dominance has a masculine quality where nations adhere to a certain sequence of prosperity by aligning themselves with the strong, then the assumptions rest on stability having no strength at all in asserting itself towards dominance. The two polarities do exist because nations can not prosper or do business without stability. If stability can not sustain its masculinity then it can not sustain its growth in the corporate order that the world is searching for.
If nations do not assert themselves to achieve normality or even a sense of normality, a lost opportunity will forge itself on the international stage. China and India are not holding back and are coalescing their international fight against terrorism. If terrorism brings a certain disability in the global economic order, it also brings unity in the roles that nations must adhere to in order to safeguard peace and stability. India and China are enriching themselves with a thought process that gives great importance to their vision in becoming growth engines of the global world and must carry the weight by ensuring stability in the international community.
It is a pivotal role in the opportunity and a semblance of order that many multinationals and global investment communities will make strategic investments towards. Rajnath Sing, the Home Minister of India, will pay a visit to China, the first in ten years to discuss border security and anti-terrorism. China’s and India’s involvement carries the characterization and mechanism of global security not resting on the US’ and Russia’s conceptualization towards terrorism. The international community’s singularity towards stability is its only redeeming core value until national interests carry the nation to an alternative path towards human rights.
Ancient Roman power was based on fraternal and military succession. Power in the 21st century is more sporadic in the case of certain countries when a leader passes away. Eventually, the historical perspective on power does achieve atonement. A leader that only achieves power to enrich himself rather than his nation only has history to answer to and a future leader that will not vindicate them.
It would’ve been very difficult for Xi Jinping to restore trust in a communist party if he did not penalize his rank-in-file for corruption charges. 73% of Chinese citizens support the death penalty in the case of official corruption. The polarity between stability and human rights will achieve a closer relationship eventually. International law only establishes normative rules and behavior; it lacks maturity in the shifting and codification of regional economic power. Legally binding codes of conduct representing international life rest on social forces directed by self-interest coinciding with other nation’s mandate in respecting that philosophy.
China’s and India’s objectives in economic, social, and political environments give them the authoritative normative beliefs to safeguard stability and to prescribe a broader outlook in fighting terrorism. Fighting terrorism is not to appease American or Soviet interests. The act of terrorism mentions no boundaries that one form of terrorism is more equal than the other and the notion that one undesirable ruthless leader is more desirable than the other.
Chinese and Indian senior defense officials called for cooperation in fighting terrorism after the deadly terror attack in Paris on Friday. This alone conveys the national character of two nations that are formulating an abstract reasoning towards a customary law that their economic engines will not faulter because of terrorism. If the international community is a distinct sociological, political, and legal phenomenon then it needs to reflect on the existing realities and threat that terrorism can not be a distinctive characterization towards global business. The general character of any nation is to have a substantive character to move in a direction towards stability, to provide an environment for businesses to thrive, and to move towards the international community.
Why would emerging nations allow one or two dominant nations to monopolize the global order? When it comes to oil, international law does have a bad habit in creating mischief with sovereign states by labeling them undesirable. If you label a nation undesirable, then who will give up their life to fill the void? If Article 51 of the UN Charter gives collective military response to terrorist activity, then why should China and India be excluded in this competitive field of combating terrorism?
China and India are eyeing Russia’s resolve to strike at terrorist oilfields. On November 19, 2015, Russia hit three major oilfields in Syria. ISIS can not sell oil anymore: a major source of income for the organization. Terrorists lack the technical expertise to regain damaged oilfields or fully exploit the oil fields themselves. The militant’s extraction capabilities have been reduced and now rely on smuggling antiques, taxing businesses, and ransom money.
China and India may hold the key to stability if they successfully coordinate their efforts by simply not purchasing oil from any Middle East countries that are supplying terrorists. These two countries have the most to lose in their economic vision and initiative to the Economic Silk Road Belt project. India and China may make it clear to multinationals that control Iraqi oil to establish stability or face the consequences of less revenue. If multinational oil companies are jockeying to fill power vacuums that shape global events that establish uncertainty and risk in the global business then the global banking and investment communities need to also exert their influence on the oil companies.
The global investment community can not allow oil companies to erode and weaken nations’ political will to survive. The good oil companies may be reluctant to do so because of competition that is not willing to compensate a nation’s citizens. I recently read an article stating that America is losing its fight with ISIS. The prescription to fight against terrorism only belongs to America, not the international community. But again, the international community believes that all nations are not equal under God.