power of the periphery

(I just read on pen-l about a new book which argues that political talk is
good in itself. Here is my political talk for the summer recess:)
yes, it's true that the world periphery is poorer than the center and that
the gap has been widening. BUT, the periphery should not just be pictured
(or picture itself) as a victim. That would be empirically incorrect and
philosophically utterly undialectical. The periphery (and semiperiphery,
i.e., non-NATO, non-OECD) has a lot of strength as well. Material for
collective self-reliance of the periphery. Military: several nuclear powers.
Technology: a lot of talent (not only nukes, also Sputnik, computer
technology, agricultural technology, China and India  were already civilized
when Europeans were still running around in bear skins). Economics: the
periphery (and semi-p.) has 40 % of world income if properly measured (in
tems of PPP, purchasing power parity); lots of millionaires in the Third
World as well, great business skills. Politics: no wall flowers either. Law:
many laws on the books which support periphery rights, including UN
Declaration of Human Rights / economy section and UN machinery.  Mao
overstated his case, the Center is not just a paper tiger. But the periphery
is not just a helpless victim either. Self-reliance starts with counting
one's strength. Analyses of center power may all be correct empirically, but
tend to create two biases praxeologically: (a) they do not analyse center
weaknesses; (b) they do not count periphery strengths. Thus, certain
questions arise from praxeology which have not been sufficiently dealt with
empirically. Hopefully, I am not fooling myself with this. Perhaps, it is
just the heat of the Canadian summer which makes me think that.

Gernot Kohler
Oakville, Canada