Some might say it is hard to understand the web of initiated and reciprocal threats being posed around the world at a time when the entire world is in financial turmoil. It is an understatement to say the situations are confusing. Russia threatens to deploy missiles near Poland where the United States have their own missiles but say they are not intended to defend against an Iranian strike not a Russian one. Iran lauds the coming of a new U.S. administration then speaks harshly of it when expectations are minimally violated and then offers talks again. Israel warns the U.S. of talking with Iran. The IAEA praises the idea. China shocks the world with its massive bailout package but other European countries are underwhelmed with China and think they should contribute more to the International Monetary Fund because of their huge reserves. Russia begins to increase talks with old allies like Cuba and new ones like Venezuela. France suddenly swoops in and says the missile defense system that Russia is against but most of Europe is for is a bad thing and won’t help defend Europe. China begins to talk to Cuba. Cuba wants free trade with the U.S. And among all of this, the U.S. is telling the world that it would be a “terrible mistake” to increase trade regulation and governmental intervention, while at the same time considering putting stakes into the automobile industry. International crises within the first six months, indeed.

If you followed the specifics of the above paragraph you can see that global pieces are moving in a seemingly haphazard manner. In the broad spectrum of the global situation, though, I believe that these nations know exactly what they are doing. And in a period of time where globalization is praised as the New World Order, we see each country ultimately looking out for itself.

Of course Russia condemns the missile defense system; it impedes their power. Of course Iran wants to talk to the United States; it legitimizes their power. Of course China is going to assert themselves in global economic turmoil; it asserts their power. Of course Cuba and Venezuela want to ally themselves with Russia; it would strengthen their power. Of course the U.S. warns against global regulation; it equalizes our power among other countries, countries whom we consider substantially less powerful than we.

One might compare this time to the Imperialism of the late 19th and early 20th century. Each country was vying for some sort of global footprint. England, arguably the most powerful of its time, served its own interests by establishing the big four throughout the world: economic, geographic, military, and cultural footprints. Virtually every other European country was trying to compete with England in one of the four areas listed above. France stretched its geographic boundaries to Indochina; Spain was maintaining its cultural and geographic boundaries in the New World; everyone in Europe was trying for a piece of the African pie. The United States and Japan even got in on it later in an effort to stay globally competitive.

This was also a time of unprecedented global regulation. In countless international meetings, trade agreements were established, and lines were literally drawn on maps in order to establish geographical boundaries. Culture crossed demographic boundaries like never before, and military power increased exponentially. Throughout all of this, there were also numerous secret military alliances and trade agreements, which ultimately led everyone to trust no one.

The one arcing storyline to all of this was one comparatively small, doesn’t-pose-a-threat country: Germany. Because it was a comparatively new country, others paid little attention to Germany. But when Germany began enormously increasing its military might, nations got nervous. Germany was not able to compete as a maritime nation because of its relatively small coastline, so in order to compete in the Imperialistic paradigm it had to set its sights on neighboring countries. Germany’s military quickly became the most powerful in central Europe, and it was proud to demonstrate its claim to fame.

When the heir to the Austria-Hungary throne, Archduke Ferdinand was assassinated on June 28, 1914, declarations of war ran rampant. Austria-Hungary (a German ally) declared war on Serbia (geographically threatened by Germany); Russia (a German enemy) declared war on Austria-Hungary; Germany declared war on Russia; France declared war on Germany, and soon a free-for-all throughout Europe ensued. Every nation eventually picked a side, either the Triple Alliance (Germany, Austria-Hungary, Italy) or the Triple Entente (Britain, France, Russia). In the end, there were over 40 million casualties, and Germany was forced to accept responsibility, not only because they lost, but because they could have done the most to prevent the war.

One thing we must remember during our own era of global economic regulation, geographical cooperation, mutual cultural influence, and military secrecy is this: Those who won in World War I didn’t win because of military might, international strategy, or economic superiority. The victors in the War to End All Wars were those whose nationalistic pride and zeal to preserve a way of life exceeded the enemy’s. It was the indefatigable spirit of the capitalistic, Britain, France, and United States of America that prevailed. It was the principles of Victorianism that guided the winner’s moral compass and sustained morale.

In a time when the United States undoubtedly has the biggest footprints in the world, we suddenly seem willing to concede them for the sake of global appeasement. Due to a politicized economic crisis that gained unprecedented attention because of the election, we seem willing to abandon the principles of republicanism and capitalism that brought us to this point and made us a global superpower. President Bush said it very well in his address to the world: “History has shown that the greater threat to economic prosperity is not too little government involvement… it is too much government involvement….”