Many of you, while being students, have enjoyed reading about the great conquests by the Greek, the Romans and even Napoleon if you wish. But from the second half of the 20th century onwards a change has taken place in our minds. Although we still love reading about the greatness of empires, we condemn contemporary nations intending to establish similar empires. Our time, though, is not any different from the ones in the past: man strives for power. The state, its power amplified by the size of the geographical area it controls, provides a tool just to achieve that.

We, Westerners, are the first ones to condemn a state that interferes in civic life. At the same time we are true believers of ‘pluralism’, resulting in a certain tolerance towards cultures that are not our own. Our respect, though, is limited. If we were really open-minded to other people, we would put more emphasis on carefully judging situations and respecting differing point of views that do interfere with our values. For example, let’s consider the relationship between Tibet and China. From our point of view China should refrain from interfering in the affairs of this rural area. We believe that a people should have control over its own destiny.

Now remember the Great Roman empire. How it invented new warfare techniques and invaded unknown areas. Keep the images of its leaders in your mind. Now place that image on present day China. A power that has been a long for a immensely long time. Think of the pride of the Chinese people when it comes to their land and culture. Think about their stance towards religion. Any great Roman leader must have wanted to subject Tibet to its will.

Over the centuries a sense of cultural pride has disappeared from us. We could pinpoint this to the fact that our societies have put greater value on who we, as individual human beings, are. We have forgotten about the collective, about our place in the group we belong to. The last decades we have seen new states crumble off larger entities. In Europe a diversity of small and medium-sized states survive under the umbrella of the EU, an untested system of peaceful coexistence.

Every so-called nation thinks it is entitled to succession… and automatic protection by Western institutions like the UN, NATO or EU. We would not be surprised to see Catalonia or the Basque country declaring independency from Spain. The same holds true for regions in the UK or the Balkan. There is a blind trust that many years of fighting, and rising and falling empires, is over, and that 3.000 years of fighting will be followed by 3.000 years of peace? All happily glued together because of some man made institutions (i.e. EU, UN)?

When we compare these fragile, consensus based institutions (especially when taking into account the cultural, historical differences) to a political system that focuses on geographical expansion and demands efforts from its citizens… which society is most likely to survive? Westerners fear the rise of authoritarianism because it urges them to make choices and, above all, to act. It will expose them to their fear of living. Authoritarianism cannot be countered by appeasement. It can be countered by identity-finding and regaining internal strength. It is this friction that shapes the following period of prosperity. It might be good to have authoritarian neighbours.