How does the phenomenologically oriented merchant-type relate to conflict? Perhaps the best answer to that is to recall the grounding source of a merchant's cognitive cage--transactions. For the warrior it is conflict and security; for the official it is order and stability, for the peasant it is the risk bearing engagement with risk controlling forces beyond the peasant's control. But for the merchant it is the transaction. And it is not just the transaction, of course, but the elaboration of an environment in which transaction is possible and may be undertaken in a framework that is, and is grounded in, transactional thinking. From the position of semiotics, the transaction is simultaneously the object (action and result), its own signification (as interaction), and its own interpretation (the aggregated interpretation of transaction as system the purpose of which is transaction). This is neither capitalism, nor Marxist-Leninist development of productive forces; it is just what it holds itself out to be--transaction. . . the action, the idea and the object.
If one starts from the basic premise of cognitive rationalization from the perspective of the merchant, again the transaction, then virtually everything ought to be understood by reference to and as a function of the core cognitive basis on which reality is rationalized--again the transaction. That is quite different from the cognitive framing of the warrior, the official or the peasant. And it is significant where each of these (ache)types confronts violent conflict (whether or not some judge or other will determine that the conflict fits some definition of other that the has triggering legal consequences, e.g., here). In that context of violent conflict the rationalizing focus of the warrior is either to meet violence in equal (or superior) measure and to either restore the status quo ante and/or render the source of violence incapable of further violence. The official, on the other hand, looks for conflict avoidance --prevention first, mitigation after, and remedy to the extent that prevention or mitigation proves ineffective with the object of stability above any form from out of which stability might be achieved. The peasant, on the other hand, understands that they are fodder--either for war or its aftermath. They are consumables fit for exploitation by officials, warriors and merchants, but also necessary factors in the production of the core rationalizing element of each--war, transaction, or stability. For the peasant there is only resistance and manipulation in a grotesque dialectic, one that the peasant type is well aware of as well as the inevitability of the condition of peasantry.
 |
| Pix credit here |
It is with that in mind that one can perhaps with greater clarity, approach the value (to the U.S.) of the just executed U.S.-Ukraine "Agreement on the Establishment of a United States-Ukraine Reconstruction Investment Fund," the full text of which (in English) follows below. President Trump's Administration produced its own "Fact Sheet" about that transaction, Fact Sheet: President Donald J. Trump Secures Agreement to Establish United States-Ukraine Reconstruction Investment Fund (which also follows below) which elegantly framed the vision and ordering power of transaction as both a phenomenological event (the deal, over and over) but also the ideology of the deal as applied.
Under the leadership of President Donald J. Trump, the US and Ukraine entered into a historic agreement on April 30, launching a first-of-its-kind partnership for the reconstruction and long-term economic success of Ukraine.* * * President Trump envisioned this partnership between the Americans and the Ukrainians to show both sides’ commitment to lasting peace and prosperity in Ukraine * * * No state, company, or person who financed or supplied the Russian war machine will be allowed to benefit from the reconstruction of Ukraine, including participation in projects supported by fund resources.
The deal then drives everything else--that is the "everything" that serves as the generative signification/interpretation rationalization systems of warriors, officials, and peasants. It is through transaction driven interactions that conflict is both utilized, and managed toward transactional ends. The object of conflict is transactional. For the warrior-type and official-type perhaps transaction in territory and control; for the merchant, transactions in mutually beneficial economic relations--that is of relations in which merchant peers may exploit peasants and other resources, protected by warriors, and made stable by engaging officials. Within a cognitive universe defined by and as transaction, all of that is secondary to the deal itself, and the structures within which the deal itself can become self-perpetuating--by the instrumentalization of the warrior, the official, and the peasant. This is, in effect, America First, which like the Belt & Road Initiative appears as part of the zeitgeist of the times, and perhaps, in the form of America First, the current national spirit of the Americans (if one might abuse Hegel for a moment)--whether or not the high officials who undertake their fulfillment are even the most remotely aware of this or not. They too are the instruments of the times they think they are driving. The ox always thinks it is the cart.
This makes no sense to the warrior-type in Russia; or for that matter for the official-type in the E.U. and China; nor for the self-preserving peasant-type who sits below these architectures of elite self-conception (the masses). But there is enough here from which these "types" can rationalize the events any way they like. But what it does suggest for the Russians, Chinese, E.U., and of course the peasants everywhere, is that either they must reframe the cognitive framework within which the phenomenological merchant type operates, or they must figure out a way of making or preserving their "deals." One awaits, in that sense, the kind, character, and narrative of the countermeasures.
 |
| Pix credit here |
A FIRST-OF-ITS-KIND HISTORIC PARTNERSHIP: Under the leadership of President Donald J. Trump, the US and Ukraine entered into a historic agreement on April 30, launching a first-of-its-kind partnership for the reconstruction and long-term economic success of Ukraine.
- From start to finish, this agreement is a fully collaborative
partnership between our nations, that both the United States and Ukraine
will benefit from.
- This partnership represents the United States taking an economic stake in securing a free, peaceful, and sovereign future for Ukraine.
- This agreement will also strengthen the strategic partnership between the United States and Ukraine for long-term reconstruction and modernization, in response to the large-scale destruction caused by Russia’s full-scale invasion.
- The Treasury Department and the U.S. International Development
Finance Corporation (DFC) will work together with the Government of
Ukraine to finalize governance and advance this important partnership.
- The United States’ DFC will work together with Ukraine’s State Organization Agency on Support Public-Private Partnership, both of which are backed by the full faith and credit of their respective nations.
LONG TERM RETURNS FOR BOTH COUNTRIES: President Trump envisioned this partnership between the Americans and the Ukrainians to show both sides’ commitment to lasting peace and prosperity in Ukraine
- This partnership between the United States and Ukraine establishes a
fund that will receive 50% of royalties, license fees, and other
similar payments from natural resource projects in Ukraine.
- That money will be invested in new projects in Ukraine, which will
generate long term returns for both the American and Ukrainian peoples.
- As new projects are identified, resources in the fund can be quickly allocated towards economic growth, job creation, and other key Ukrainian development priorities.
- Indirect benefits will include a stronger private sector and more robust, lasting infrastructure for Ukraine’s long-term success.
- That money will be invested in new projects in Ukraine, which will
generate long term returns for both the American and Ukrainian peoples.
- The partnership will be controlled by a company with equal
representation of three Ukrainian and three American board members, who
will work together through a collaborative process to make decisions for
allocation of fund resources, such as investment and distributions.
- The partnership will also bring the highest levels of transparency and accountability to ensure that the people of Ukraine and the United States are able to enjoy the benefits of Ukraine’s reconstruction.
- Natural resource projects will include minerals, hydrocarbons, and related infrastructure development.
- If the United States decides to acquire these resources for ourselves, we will given first choice to either acquire them or designate the purchaser of our choice.
- Economic security is national security, and this important safeguard prevents critical resources from falling into the wrong hands.
- Importantly, this partnership sends a strong message to Russia – the United States has skin in the game and is committed to Ukraine’s long-term success.
No state, company, or person who financed or supplied the Russian war machine will be allowed to benefit from the reconstruction of Ukraine, including participation in projects supported by fund resources.
* * *
No comments:
Post a Comment