Economic and strategic impact of Western threat perceptions

The British Prime Minister, like other Western leaders, alerted through a press conference his country and the world at large about a perceived threat from an Islamist agenda of establishing a theocratic rule over the otherwise modern secular life. Perceptions have been used for geopolitical advantages since the days of Lawrence of Arabia.   
Today 'security', at least in Western   thinking, has no independent meaning as a political value and is related to individual or societal value systems. As a social science concept, "security is ambiguous and elastic in its meaning" (Art 1993: 820-22). Wolfers (1962) pointed to two sides of the security concept: "Security, in an objective sense, measures the absence of threats to acquired values, in a subjective sense, the absence of fear that such values will be attacked". From the perspective of social constructivist approaches in international relations (Adler 1997; Fearon/Wendt 2002; Risse 2003; Wendt 1992, 1999), 'security' is conceived as an outcome of a process of social and political interaction where social values and norms, collective identities and cultural traditions are essential. From this perspective, security is always inter-subjective or "security is what actors make of it" (Wendt 1992)."
The British Prime minister had a political need to alert the nation and indeed others in this world. But he may have been under the influence of those who are, since 9/11, plotting to profit from "terror-windfall" from trillion-dollar terror technology and terror management that have become predominant commercial activity in recent times causing unchecked harassment of ordinary people worldwide. It has also led to the conversion of democratic governance to ruthless unmanned autocratic rule.
What is the difference between the threat that posed during the Cold War period and now? Both the US-led alliance of the so-called free world and the former Soviet bloc were face to face threatening each other immediately after jointly fighting against Hitler's Germany and Japan and their allies. Why did they then need to become enemies after the war? During the war both the US and then Soviet Russia had  a huge war production that was keeping high domestic employment, developing new weapons and also sending people to kill each other in the war front. After the end of the war, the war machine could not be stopped without causing economic catastrophe. Economic objectives are entwined with these perceived threats.
Following the World War II, treasury took over the burden with taxpayers' contribution to fund the threat remedies and counter-threat measures which led to various technological innovations and regional conflicts to test the effectiveness of the equipment and the technology. In doing so, cases of covert attempts were made to instigate regional conflicts. Both western alliances and then Soviet Union were the principal proponents of it. However, some spin-off came to good use of the mankind, like application of nuclear technology in treating some grave diseases and the huge leap forward in digital communication that connected millions of people worldwide.    
It was difficult to keep up with the runaway costs for security and counter-threats (perceived or real) from the revenue received. The idea came to get market involved in undertaking these costs which the market took as an opportunity and passed on the cost to ordinary public as the perceived victims of threats. Over the last twenty years cost catapulted into trillion dollars and "Threat Business" became the forerunner in market where joint-interest of the market and the government worked wonders. Market produced money and technology and governments in turn produced legal binding which only added extra cost to living in addition to harassment and obstruction to day-to-day to life.
As expected the British Prime Minister's utterance resonated and echoed around the capitals of the world and, indeed, new legal requirements were proposed. Measures to counter threat are now planned at a great cost to the public. To support the Western fear, the King of Saudi Arabia reiterated his warning of gaining grounds by the radical Islamist Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS) and splinter groups of Al-Qaida now fighting in Iraq and Syria. But the core causes of these threats borne from the callously defined security of Israel and suppression of the Arab neighbourhood are not taken into any consideration. The seed of discontent sowed in 1948 by establishing the Jewish State of Israel grew into a global perspective by accentuation in 1967. The persistent and undue support for Israel's security has ushered in the ultimate terror around the world and risk as well of Israel's survival as a state.
It is unfortunate that the British Prime Minister, like the former US President George W. Bush, chose to deal with manifested and perceived threats but not the root cause of it. Belatedly the US and some of the European allies are questioning Israel's claims for support without any rational and limit to it. Ideological differences have also split the Jewish people living in Israel and abroad, as the continuity of a Zionist state will also rationally justify establishment of a theocratic Islamic state.  Speaking to more than 7,000 people at last month's annual conference of the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC), the powerful pro-Israel lobby group, Hillary Clinton, former US Secretary of State, highlighted the propaganda value of images of the occupied Palestinian territories. She called upon Israel to help change "the facts on the ground" to "refute the claims of the rejectionists and extremists and in so doing create the circumstances for a safe, secure future for Israel". "Behind these terrorist organisations and their rockets, we see the destabilising influence of Iran. Now, reaching a two-state solution will not end all these threats ... but failure to do so gives the extremist foes a pretext to spread violence, instability and hatred."
The West and in particular the US failed to grasp the opportunity to support a democratic Iran and thereby to deny the clerics to take control of the country. And they are now misleadingly pressurising Iran to give up nuclear options in favour of continuation of a theocratic rule. It will indeed be more rational to opt for democratic Iran with nuclear option that would have stabilised Middle East as a region in the long run and ensured a more reliable supply of energy to the world. Western intellectual understanding limits framing of a strategic perspective that could have sustained continuity of peace in real sense and would have created opportunities to tackle issues of hunger, diseases and, more importantly, of deteriorating climatic conditions.   
The mutual distrust between the Western alliance and the former Soviet Union surfaced in a very dangerous perspective where the West covertly supported the Arab Spring without an ultimate plan to convert the gains to a stable and sustainable structure. This gave Russia an opportunity to make inroads in the Middle East and deny the West the chance of maintaining its influence in the region. Russia succeeded in limiting Turkey (a key NATO member) and stopped Syria to convert to a Western ally. The West continued covert support in Ukraine but due to Russian interference failed to achieve its perceived goal. Cost of these real threats will be measured in the future when both Germany and Scandinavia make the final tally of energy cost in their economies.
The clarion call made by the British PM should have included clarity of purpose, calculating the cost to global economy and an understanding of strategic architecture where the prospect of Russian support for ISIS against western interest may become a real challenge. A previous British PM's ill-conceived enthusiasm had caused untold misery in Iraq and the region and the world is still reeling from it.   Threat as presented may be real but to counter it, one has to start from Middle East peace negotiations and compel both parties, particularly Israel, to come to a deal that will ensure a genuine collaboration with the Arab rulers who are now coming under increasing threat of "Spring Revolt". Unilateral actions and any support from Israel for Western efforts will galvanise regional population who are now more educated, skilled and conscious of their political and economic future and will find support from both Iran and Russia.  
Energy cost will remain a fundamental factor to economic growth in all nations and the West will find it difficult to compete with the lesser democracies in sustaining employments, social care and as well as growth of the economy. Recent experiences in the West of nonperforming economies, particularly in Europe and the US, have left political and management leadership in tatters. Old-fashioned make-belief conflicts to augment national or business interest are no longer on the cards as regional alliances have successfully continued to serve regional interest without becoming dependent on Western markets.  
Regional leaders like China and India will be preoccupied with their respective growth management and not have the appetite or raison d'état to risk internal stability by supporting Western hegemony.  Western alliances are now left on their own to deal with Russia and the demise of their monopoly.
The writer, an economist and business consultant, is the President of Bangladesh-Myanmar Chamber of
commerce & Industry (BMCCI).
kbahmed1@gmail.com