The Achilles Heel of Nations

States are formed in the political scheme of power as envisaged by human beings.   Previously there were kingdoms, fiefdoms, empires and more.   Whatever the label, political entities are strong statements of unity and control under a declared culture, way of society, a dynamic personality of aruler or dynastic rulers, religion, trading hub or federation of smaller states.

Singapore, now a modern city state of a Republic, was part of the British Empire for many years.  Eighty years ago, on 15 February, colonial troops surrendered to the Japanese Imperial Army, which had quickly conquered the Malayan peninsular after the attack on Pearl Harbour in Hawaii.  ( On 19 February that same year, 1942, the Japanese air force bombed Darwin).  The British had concentrated their defences in Singapore facing south towards the sea, instead of also providing for defences along the island's north.  This was a lesson of Achilles Heel that was learnt at much cost in human casualty, military strategy and economic damage.

The animal kingdom marks out territories for food, reproduction, survival and climate adjustment.   Human beings, with all their philosophy, religious orders and assumed brainy higher order of development, still exhibit inherent and obvious behaviours of aggression, geographical control and reshaping Earth.

Maybe in certain locations, we did not have the contemporary extent of greed in the prior history of human kind, as opposed to what is demonstrated by commercialised and militarised powers in today's world.   Most indigenous tribes, which still survive today, still emphasise not harming the Earth in its landscape, water systems, biospheres and fauna management - they only take what is enough for them and not to supply an over consumerist society.  These long standing human groups knew the Achilles Heel is to over exploit Earth and her bounty - and not make Nature's gifts unsustainable.

The multi-national corporates which confront these older cultures, when carving out huge dams, deforesting wide tracts of long growing forests or scarring Earth for its valued minerals underneath, can operate outside some confines of individual state power.

Looking at the stage of world order today, in the beginning of the 21st century, what soft belly and vulnerable portions of societies stand out? 

One feature of Achilles heel for nations is their geographical location or shape.

It is often said, when looking at a map, that the Korean Peninsular can be viewed as hanging out and hovering over the southern Japanese islands.  Sicily is like being at the foot of the Italian boot. The two main islands of New Zealand are seen by the Maoris as two large boats in an wide open ocean.  Borneo either looks like a roosting hen or a comfortably seated bear.   The bottom half of South America reminds one of the tail of a mermaid.

If your nation is controlling a vital trading route, especially a narrow one like a canal or strait, it can be a two edged sword of a geographical feature - harvest prosperity,  or be a target for takeover by foreigners.  The colonials from the 16th to the 20th centuries fought for control of the Straits of Malacca, which still has a stranglehold of passage for ships from the Indian Ocean to transverse into the South China Sea.   Gilbratar, a tiny figment of space at Spain's southern tip, is a significant cross roads between Africa and Europe, between the Atlantic and the Mediterranean.    The Straits of Bosphorus divides not only the ancient and still important city of Istanbul, but also marks the line between southern Europe and the Middle East.   Again, it is a sea of water that separates Siberia from Alaska  - why ever did Russia sell Alaska to the Americans?   Russia's main access to shipping in Europe is the Baltic Sea  - apart from the Black Sea which has waters lapping at the Crimean Peninsular.

So in the 21st century, huge funded powers can control the weak points in internet, cyberspace and wifi delivery.

When you are a landlocked country, that can be your significant disadvantage and you require more options.   When your nation has huge ambitions - and the resources to realise further -  you want to expand your territorial control to another ocean.  Great Britain, in her days of Empire, demonstrated that, followed by the USA spreading out from its Atlantic coast origins.   

Switzerland, at the centre of inland Europe, however is an exception - she chose to be minimally involved with the complexity of European politics, wars and power staging - and cleverly nurtured her neutrality to be a beacon of relative peace, eventually offering her devices to host being a broker and focus on a better quality of life for her peoples.

When you have significant resources of minerals, bio materials and fossil fuels which Earth's commerce still wants in copious amounts, it can be your strength or weak point.   Financial powers linked with politics scramble to your door step to unearth your resources at the cheapest price - and make fortunes processing them before they arrive at the lap of the ultimate consumer.    

Western Australia's riches, Brazil's exploited resources, South east Asian forests and petroleum in unstable nations have been targets.  Countries that do not apply more technology, to add value to their natural resources being dug up, do usually and eventually lose out in the high stakes of economics, trade and finance.

There is always money and trade hidden behind the outbreaks of war.

We are told to get involved in war outbreaks around the world to fight for freedoms and democracy, but a more intelligent populace knows that the viability for such talk is getting thin.  

The Achilles heal for militarily mighty nations is that the ability to wage effective warfare is now spread across more nations.  There is more effective competition and decreasing ability to lord over the rest.

Warfare is sadly engaged by commoners at the ground level, directed by commanders in safe and comfortable hideouts calling the shots.    Are such commanders thinking more of a better life for their subjects, after waging a war, or are they more interested in protecting their privileges in controlling the financial currency of trade, their monopoly of vital assets like petroleum and in maintaining the world order where they still can be kings?   The world stage concurrently faces more political tensions as  emerging super powers possess increased abilities to face the incumbents.   The soft belly for powerful militaristic nations is the loss of control of what funds them.

If no wars break out , the huge ornaments industry will be significantly affected financially and in production of inventories.

So there can be prominent nations always seeking out issues, carrying out covert work and stirring up groups to create conditions leading to confrontation and military fights.

An obvious Achilles heel of nations is the inability or not having capacity to secure sufficient control of vital operations.   It may be the easier thing for governments to outsource more and more operations, leaving control to multi-national corporations, commercial providers other countries and entities outside their political control.   Have you come across a nation's government  keeping reserves of vital supplies in a foreign nation, located thousands of kilometres away?  Some nations do it probably because they do not have enough physical capacity to store those vital supplies, being a small island state does come to mind.  Others, even with lots of land, still amazingly keep their back up reserves physically in an allied nation far away.

In the still intense stage of international politics, a soft belly of usually weaker nations is to be used as a pawn in the high stakes chess game of proxy war.  Such a stage will mean this specific nation is targeted to cause a diplomatic or military incident, which then sparks off a larger argument, point of difference and the commencement of long simmering hostilities.   The sad state of such a soft belly being utilised is that usually the main opposing powers do not wage a physical or virtual battle in their own precious territories, but only on the land of the used smaller state.  They say to be careful to choose your friends, for having alliances with unsavoury powers that make use of you for spying facilities, battle waging and buffering against the sworn enemy can be expensive for smaller states.

Finally, but not exclusively, is the manner of how ruling governments treat and manage voters in a so called democracies.  It is getting obvious that electoral processes can be manipulated by hidden and overt powers in such political systems.   The game of playing dirty seems to be more blatant across the world in the beginning of this 21st century - ponder how significant corruption has broken out without much accountability and shame in more nations.   The manner in which Covid has been handled by ruling powers has brought out their deficiencies, intentions and power play in such pronounced ways.    Going forward, let the people judge.