The Future Will (not) Be Polarized

Yes it has been quite a while since I last wrote. My apologies, between Comedy of Errors and freaking out over housing situations, its been a hectic two weeks.

So to make up for it, I'll do a fun post about the future.

According to a new article in Foreign Affairs magazine, the fashion of the future rests in the hands of non-state actors and sees a decline in the power of nation-states. Ergo, the US as a nation will not be as dominant, but US based corporations and other non-governmental actors probably still will be.


So a quick explanation of polarity...During the Cold War, the world was bipolar. No, not bipolar like your aerobics enthusiast man eating cousin Cindy. Bipolar in the sense that two states have relatively equal power and influence over all the other states. After the fall of the Soviet Union, the world was unipolar, which is the same thing as hegemony, and the US was definitely "it". Multipolarity, the generally thought of hippie favorite, is as you can guess, a system where multiple states enjoy power and influence.

This guy, Richard Haass, is arguing none of these will exist in the future. The world will be nonpolar, which to me sounds like a lot of fun. I don't like to play power games because someone always gets trampled, so I prefer the idea of not playing the game at all. But its still possible that a nonpolar world would still be just as messed up.

Lookie at Haass' conclusion:

Nonpolarity complicates diplomacy. A nonpolar world not only involves more actors but also lacks the more predictable fixed structures and relationships that tend to define worlds of unipolarity, bipolarity, or multipolarity. Alliances, in particular, will lose much of their importance, if only because alliances require predictable threats, outlooks, and obligations, all of which are likely to be in short supply in a nonpolar world. Relationships will instead become more selective and situational. It will become harder to classify other countries as either allies or adversaries; they will cooperate on some issues and resist on others. There will be a premium on consultation and coalition building and on a diplomacy that encourages cooperation when possible and shields such cooperation from the fallout of inevitable disagreements. The United States will no longer have the luxury of a "You're either with us or against us" foreign policy.

Nonpolarity will be difficult and dangerous. But encouraging a greater degree of global integration will help promote stability. Establishing a core group of governments and others committed to cooperative multilateralism would be a great step forward. Call it "concerted nonpolarity." It would not eliminate nonpolarity, but it would help manage it and increase the odds that the international system will not deteriorate or disintegrate.

Okay fine, I do play power games. I'm addicted to the Civilization games. But come on, the suffering of digital people doesn't really count does it?

Omgz, Its Like The New Huntington

Oh snaps! Its been a long time, I shouldn't have left you...without some boring posts to not read. I think that's how the song goes, right?

My brain went on a little vacation from blogging, but now its back, much due in part this new article from Foreign Affairs magazine on ethnic nationalism.

Basically this guy is talking about the view of the world that says ethnic groups get their own country, and how this was more widely accepted in the West in the 19th century as nationalisms started sprouting up, but a lot more trouble in areas of the world where the idea of nation state isn't nearly as old.

In short, ethnonationalism has played a more profound and lasting role in modern history than is commonly understood, and the processes that led to the dominance of the ethnonational state and the separation of ethnic groups in Europe are likely to reoccur elsewhere. Increased urbanization, literacy, and political mobilization; differences in the fertility rates and economic performance of various ethnic groups; and immigration will challenge the internal structure of states as well as their borders. Whether politically correct or not, ethnonationalism will continue to shape the world in the twenty-first century.

And yay of all yays, he mentions my view of Israel-Palestine as an example.

This story is widely believed by educated Europeans and even more so, perhaps, by educated Americans. Recently, for example, in the course of arguing that Israel ought to give up its claim to be a Jewish state and dissolve itself into some sort of binational entity with the Palestinians, the prominent historian Tony Judt informed the readers of The New York Review of Books that "the problem with Israel ... [is that] it has imported a characteristically late-nineteenth-century separatist project into a world that has moved on, a world of individual rights, open frontiers, and international law. The very idea of a 'Jewish state' ... is an anachronism."

Unfortunately, this guy is suggesting the best way to deal with ethnonationalist conflict is to go ahead with the partitioning, keep groups that hate each other away from each other. I say that's unfortunate, because I don't think it fixes anything. It may reduce casualties on both sides of a conflict, but a certain structural violence is still inherent. Negative peace, meaning the simple absence of violence, is not a sustainable peace. If you keep pink people and green people seperate from each other, you're reinforcing the idea that they are seperate, that there is enough of a difference between them that they cannot live together. There is such a thing as a pluralistic society, and that should be the goal, as it is the most beneficial for all involved.

More will come on this topic I think, because the article itself is 8 pages long, and that's a lot of information to take in on such an intense topic. But anyways, this sounds like its the kind of thing that'll make as big a splash as Samuel Huntington's (or Sam H-Dizzle as we call him in the academic circles) Clash of Civilizations. Let's just hope an administration doesn't pick up and run with it like its a giant pair of safety scissors.

No hearting of the Huckabees

So what to do today? Hmm...How about tear apart a presidential candidate's article for Foreign Affairs magazine? Yes. That sounds like a good idea. Spotlight on: Mike Huckabee.

I have issues with Huckabee outside of his article, America's Priorities In The War on Terror. Like sticking to a very silly promise made to an American comedian that he would be your vice presidential running mate. Stephen Colbert is awesome, and it might have been a little funny early on in the race, but keeping it up so far into it already isn't funny. Its like the guy doesn't take his candidacy very seriously. Anyway...Mr. Huckabee's opinions appear to be all too common in American politics and regular American discourse.

"The United States' biggest challenge in the Arab and Muslim worlds is the lack of a viable moderate alternative to radicalism."

No, the challenge is actually supporting the very present viable moderates who we have chosen not to listen or even report very much on.

"The potential for such moderation to emerge is visible in the way that Sunni tribal leaders in Iraq have turned against al Qaeda to work with us; they could not stand the thought of living under such fundamentalism and brutality."

First of all, working with the Americans doesn't mean you're progressive. Second, there may be some peaceful Sunnis working with us, but there are just many who are working with us because they don't want the historically oppressed majority Shia to gain ground in the new Iraq. Sectarian violence is going both ways, we shouldn't judge which side is better based on who's more willing to work for us. That is a very very common mistake in American foreign policy.

"We must first destroy existing terrorist groups and then attack the underlying conditions that breed them: the lack of basic sanitation, health care, education, jobs, a free press, fair courts -- which all translates into a lack of opportunity and hope."

Right about lack of freedom being a breeding ground for terrorism, but not poverty.

"If I ever have to undertake a large invasion, I will follow the Powell Doctrine and use overwhelming force. The notion of an occupation with a "light footprint," which was our model for Iraq, is a contradiction in terms."

Now that's just scary. We shouldn't even be thinking about the next invasion we undertake, because there should not be another invasion period.

"I support providing the Turks with actionable intelligence to go after the PKK with limited air strikes and commando raids but would prefer to train and equip Iraqi Kurds to fight the PKK and rid themselves of this menace. I regret that it took the deployment of 100,000 Turkish troops to the border with Iraq, and the PKK problem becoming a crisis, for the Bush administration to give the issue the attention it deserves. We should have put more pressure on the Iraqi government, including the Kurdish authorities, to deal with the PKK earlier. Our special envoy on the issue, retired General Joseph Ralston, quit his post last October out of frustration over the passivity of both the U.S. and the Iraqi governments. Some crises cannot be averted; this one could and should have been."

Does this guy know anything about the Kurds?

Huckabee also goes on to describe how he agrees with Bush's plan to contain Iran and how he wants to continue with it while keeping the military option on the table yet bringing in other options as well so we're not stuck with only the military. I don't agree with this idea of "containing" Iran. Mostly because that's trying to fit a round peg into a Cold War square hole. The best article I've read on this issue is here, I've also blogged about that one before, here.

Then fun of all fun, he goes on to Pakistan, criticizing the government for not fighting Al-Qaeda hard enough. Well, if the US would've had a better strategy in Afghanistan, then Pakistan might not have had to concentrate its limited efforts on the spill-over and influence of the Taliban in Waziristan. He's right to criticize Musharraf where he does, but his chief criticsm seems to be that Musharraf bending over far enough for the US. Its just indicative of an overall view that the world's allegiance should be to America because America and global security and interest are one and the same and that is just ridonkulously arrogant.

In short, Mr. Huckabee has jerkface politics, and unfortunately, his views aren't all that unique.