Tag Archives: geopolitics

the 30-year anniversary of the collapse of the Soviet Union

Leave a reply

A big milestone of 2021 was the 30-year anniversary of the end of the Soviet Union in December 1991. I was born in 1975, so I was 16 when this occurred. I didn’t have a good understanding of it at the time, and I am not sure the average person has a good understanding of it today. As I read about it now, Russia, somewhat oddly, essentially declared independence from itself (aka, the Russian empire, aka the Soviet Union), and Mikhail Gorbachev found himself in charge of a political entity that no longer existed. I have vague memories of Boris Yeltsin and tanks in the streets of Moscow. I have no memory of the fall of the Berlin Wall in 1989. This suggests to me my parents and teachers did not spend much time talking to me about current events, or talking to each other about current events within ear shot. Maybe I can do a bit better with my children, while trying not to make the world seem too depressing.

Is the cold war over? Not really. There are many, many ways its legacy affects us today. The most obvious ones are all the nuclear weapons the U.S. and Russia have pointed at each other, nuclear proliferation around the world, and the tensions at the Russia-Ukraine border. Less obvious but crucially important is the extreme free market propaganda that constrains possibilities for the U.S. and economic and political systems around the world to this day. First, I think globalization had a lot to do with cold war propaganda. The U.S. invested heavily in industrializing and trading with Japan and South Korea after World War II at least in part to keep them out of the Soviet orbit. At first, the exports the U.S. was buying were a tiny trickle compared to the economy. The policies were so successful though, that those economies grew to rival and out-compete U.S. industry. The propaganda suited U.S. multinational corporations just fine because it provided access to cheap labor and lax environmental regulations abroad, while keeping the U.S. market wide open. Hong Kong, Taiwan, and Singapore copied the model with spectacular success, and then China copied it on a massive scale, and the system the U.S. had created swallowed it (the tail wagged the dog, the pig swallowed the python? I struggled to come up with the right animal-based metaphor here). Certainly, this economic growth lifted a lot of people out of poverty in Asia. It is somewhat ironic though that the biggest beneficiary turned out to be a (nominally, at least) Communist empire.

Back to those U.S. corporations and the propaganda that suits them. To this day, they are able to use that Cold War anti-tax, anti-regulation propaganda to scare the public into voting against “socialist” policies that would benefit the vast majority of citizens and even the economy as a whole, but would trim the profits of a tiny minority running mega-corporations. Commie red policies like having health care, education, and child care systems that are not failures and that would allow the U.S. to stop falling toward the bottom and eventually getting shit out of its peer group of advanced nations (I think I got that metaphor about right!) The mega-corporations can then invest a small fraction of their profits to ensure election of politicians who will continue to spew the propaganda and in some cases even actively work to undermine voting itself. This is a cycle that is going to be very hard to break, if it can be broken.

The National Intelligence Council’s Global Trends 2040

Leave a reply

Every four years, or early in each U.S. presidential administration, the National Intelligence Council publishes a scenario report. I had to look up what the council actually is, and basically it is an organization reporting to the Director of National Intelligence, who reports to the President and is sort of but not really in charge of the U.S. “intelligence community”, which sprawls across various military and civilian agencies with their own organizational structures.

Since this is a U.S. government report and not copyrighted, I can copy and paste as much of it as I want. Here are the five scenarios they came up with:

RENAISSANCE OF DEMOCRACIES: The world is in the midst of a resurgence of open democracies led by the United States and its allies. Rapid technological advancements fostered by public-private partnerships in the United States and other democratic societies are transforming the global economy, raising incomes, and improving the quality of life for millions around the globe. In contrast, years of increasing societal controls and monitoring in China and Russia have stifled innovation.

A WORLD ADRIFT: The international system is directionless, chaotic, and volatile as international rules and institutions are largely ignored. OECD countries are plagued by slower economic growth, widening societal divisions, and political paralysis. China is taking advantage of the West’s troubles to expand its international influence. Many global challenges are unaddressed.

COMPETITIVE COEXISTENCE: The United States and China have prioritized economic growth and restored a robust trading relationship, but this economic interdependence exists alongside competition over political influence, governance models, technological dominance, and strategic advantage. The risk of major war is low, and international cooperation and technological innovation make global problems manageable.

SEPARATE SILOS: The world is fragmented into several economic and security blocs of varying size and strength, centered on the United States, China, the EU, Russia, and a few regional powers, and focused on self-sufficiency, resiliency, and defense. Information flows within separate cyber-sovereign enclaves, supply chains are reoriented, and international trade is disrupted. Vulnerable developing countries are caught in the middle.

TRAGEDY AND MOBILIZATION: A global coalition, led by the EU and China working with NGOs and revitalized multilateral institutions, is implementing far-reaching changes designed to address climate change, resource depletion, and poverty following a global food catastrophe caused by climate events and environmental degradation. Richer countries shift to help poorer ones manage the crisis and then transition to low carbon economies through broad aid programs and transfers of advanced energy technologies.

Everything above is a quote by the way. I couldn’t get horrible, terrible, no good very bad WordPress editor to make them look like quotes, even using the HTML editor.

Anyway, there is a lot of doom and gloom here. I am oftentimes all about doom and gloom, especially when others are feeling optimistic, but the contrarian in me wants to think that now that almost everyone is feeling doomy gloomy, maybe the reality will not be so bad. Certainly the major food crisis above gets my attention. A major war, terrorist attack, major natural or industrial disaster, or combination of these could obviously be devastating. Smaller-scale disasters and conflicts are pretty much guaranteed, and refugee flows from poorer to richer nations are going to become an issue more and more. It is hard to see our natural environment coming under less pressure in the coming 20 years, and hard to imagine much progress toward a peaceful world government and equality on a global scale.

On the other hand, much of Europe and Asia have the managed economy thing reasonably figured out, where the capitalist economy is able to grow while the government collects taxes and provides services people need, like health care, education, and retirement. Cynical politicians in Europe and North America may figure out that the refugee pressure they are going to face will be catastrophic and that helping potential refugees in their home countries is a win-win for everyone. The world really has done pretty well with the food situation so far, and let’s assume this will continue to be a priority and that competent visionary people will remain in charge of that. Medical breakthroughs seem very likely over the next 20 years – for example, widespread cures for cancer, diabetes, HIV, and other dread diseases seem like they might be on the horizon. The population explosion will start to slow down. And let’s just say we avoid major war, plagues, or famines through a combination of competence and luck. Things really could be okay, and a generation of children could grow up in a relatively stable, sheltered, prosperous situation much as the majority of today’s middle-aged adults in developed countries did. Some of those children will be the problem solvers of tomorrow who come up with additional breakthroughs and incremental progress.

There, I just talked myself into not being quite so doomy gloomy.

George H.W. Bush’s September 11 Speech

Leave a reply

No, not that George Bush. And not that September 11th. This speech was given shortly after Iraq’s invasion of Kuwait in 1990. I remember being impressed by the lofty rhetoric at the time. I had turned 15 just a few days earlier. My family had actually been sight-seeing in Washington D.C. when the invasion happened, and I remember a buzz in the air. Great power competition was over, peace and democracy and human rights and the rule of law were supposedly ascendant.

Our objectives in the Persian Gulf are clear, our goals defined and familiar:

Iraq must withdraw from Kuwait completely, immediately and without condition.

Kuwait’s legitimate government must be restored.

The security and stability of the Persian Gulf must be assured.

Americans citizens abroad must be protected.

These goals are not ours alone. They have been endorsed by the U.N. Security Council five times in as many weeks. Most countries share our concern for principle. And many have a stake in the stability of the Persian Gulf. This is not, as Saddam Hussein would have it, the United States against Iraq. It is Iraq against the world.

As you know, I’ve just returned from a very productive meeting with Soviet President Gorbachev. I am pleased that we are working together to build a new relationship. In Helsinki, our joint statement affirmed to the world our shared resolve to counter Iraq’s threat to peace. Let me quote: “We are united in the belief that Iraq’s aggression must not be tolerated. No peaceful international order is possible if larger states can devour their smaller neighbors.”

Clearly, no longer can a dictator count on East-West confrontation to stymie concerted U.N. action against aggression.

A new partnership of nations has begun.

We stand today at a unique and extraordinary moment. The crisis in the Persian Gulf, as grave as it is, also offers a rare opportunity to move toward an historic period of cooperation. Out of these troubled times, our fifth objective – a new world order – can emerge: a new era, freer from the threat of terror, stronger in the pursuit of justice, and more secure in the quest for peace. An era in which the nations of the world, east and west, north and south, can prosper and live in harmony.

A hundred generations have searched for this elusive path to peace, while a thousand wars raged across the span of human endeavor. Today that new world is struggling to be born. A world quite different from the one we’ve known. A world where the rule of law supplants the rule of the jungle. A world in which nations recognize the shared responsibility for freedom and justice. A world where the strong respect the rights of the weak.

This is the vision I shared with President Gorbachev in Helsinki. He, and other leaders from Europe, the gulf, and around the world, understand that how we manage this crisis today could shape the future for generations to come.

The test we face is great – and so are the stakes. This is the first assault on the new world we seek, the first test of our mettle. Had we not responded to this first provocation with clarity of purpose; if we do not continue to demonstrate our determination; it would be a signal to actual and potential despots around the world.

America and the world must defend common vital interests. And we will.

America and the world must support the rule of law. And we will.

America and the world must stand up to aggression. And we will.

And one thing more. In pursuit of these goals America will not be intimidated.

Vital issues of principle are at stake. Saddam Hussein is literally trying to wipe a country off the face of the earth.

We do not exaggerate.

Nor do we exaggerate when we say: Saddam Hussein will fail.

Vital economic interests are at risk as well. Iraq itself controls some 10 percent of the world’s proven oil reserves. Iraq plus Kuwait controls twice that. An Iraq permitted to swallow Kuwait would have the economic and military power, as well as the arrogance, to intimidate and coerce its neighbors – neighbors who control the lion’s share of the world’s remaining oil reserves. We cannot permit a resource so vital to be dominated by one so ruthless. And we won’t.

Recent events have surely proven that there is no substitute for American leadership. In the face of tyranny, let no one doubt American credibility and reliability.

Let no one doubt our staying power. We will stand by our friends.

George H.W. Bush, September 11, 1990

So was I just an impressionable 15-year-old taken in by the rhetoric? What does my cynical middle-aged self think? Well, I still think it was a damn nice speech. The U.S. was going to lead the world’s powerful nations through the United Nations in standing up to cross-border aggression against a sovereign nation. We did that, achieved that limited objective, and got out. Everyone except Iraqi soldiers and civilians was happy. Did it make the world safer for giant oil companies that make giant campaign contributions to U.S. politicians for awhile? Sure. But it was a predictable, restrained use of power that other nations (except Iraq) did not feel threatened by. Our strategy and goals have been muddled ever since, and we have lost our credibility and reliability and leadership position. We need to understand that other countries are simply afraid of us because it seems like we can turn on them at any moment. We can learn something from the vision laid out in this speech.

how to fix international relations after Trump

Leave a reply

Well, here are some ideas anyway, from Joseph Nye, a professor at Harvard. The basic idea is to “establish rules-based international institutions with different membership for different issues.” In other words, isolate issues and then try to form groups that will be able to reach consensus on each narrow issue.

  • Countries like Russia and China are likely to accept a return to the idea of respect for sovereignty as defined in the UN charter. This allows some bad things to happen within borders, of course, and doesn’t solve disputed borders, but it used to limit cross-border military action and allow for joint international peace keeping missions in smaller troubled countries in less strategic areas.
  • Reboot the World Trade Organization with new international rules rather than bilateral or regional agreements.
  • Continue international financial cooperation, which he says is actually a bright spot.
  • “International ecological cooperation” – he says this has to override sovereignty. Not a lot of specifics here, but a return to the climate treaty and reinvigorating the WHO would certainly be a starting point. I would suggest we need to start taking biodiversity seriously, and also have a look at the long-term stability of the global food supply. Surely this last is something everyone can agree on?
  • Cyberspace – not a lot of specifics, but new agreements and norms are needed. Nuclear and biological weapons are not mentioned, and in fact weapons in general are not mentioned (drones, autonomous weapons, missiles, mines, space weapons?), and I would suggest adding these. Anything that will reduce risk in the short term will buy time to figure out a long term plan to give our species and civilization to make it.

my proposal to reform the United Nations Security Council

Leave a reply

Most of this article in National Interest (which I’m not too familar with) is an opinion piece about Iran sanctions, but a little more than half way it does a good job explaining the rationale behind the UN Security Council.

The UN Security Council is the most important multilateral institution engaged in global governance and cooperative rule-setting. Created in the aftermath of two successive and catastrophic world wars, the council’s legal structure of giving veto power to the major world powers has helped maintain peace between major powers for over seventy-five years. Its decisions mark the highest level of international law.

The raison d’être of the UNSC is to prevent the unilateral use of force by countries. The council relies on consensus decision-making among the five permanent members, ensuring the world’s most powerful countries are constantly in dialogue over pressing security matters. The council’s approval is required to launch wars and the resolutions it passes are binding on all UN members.

Crucially, the veto power the UNSC affords the United States, China, Russia, the UK, and France gives these leading powers a stake in the global order. This helps obstruct zero-sum competition from taking hold among them, which could easily spiral into the kind of worldwide conflicts that reaped immense suffering in the last century.

National Interest

So, one way to state the purpose is to avoid cross-border aggression by major powers against other major powers, because such aggression by any one would automatically be opposed by the other four. No one country is so powerful that the balance of power would be in its favor.

To have a future, the Security Council clearly needs to be expanded to include today’s most powerful countries. It is unlikely it could kick off less powerful countries already there (looking at you, England and France). However, there is some limit to how many parties could be expected to reach consensus. How many? We need more than 5, and more than 10 seems like too many.

How do you define “powerful”? How about a formula? I pulled stats on GDP (at purchasing power parity) from the CIA World Factbook. GDP correlates to economic power, and potential though not necessarily military might. The top 10 look like this:

1China
2United States
3India
4Japan
5Germany
6Russia
7Indonesia
8Brazil
9United Kingdom
10France

That would include all the current members, plus add Japan, Germany (news flash: WWII is over!), India, Brazil, and Indonesia (hands down the world’s most populous and powerful nation that westerners never think about.)

Who barely misses the cut? #11-15 are Mexico, Italy, Turkey, South Korea, and Spain.

What if we decided actual military spending mattered. I pulled those numbers, gave 50% weight each to GDP and military spending, and it looks like this:

United States
China
India
Russia
Japan
Saudi Arabia
Germany
United Kingdom
Brazil
France

So this would trade Indonesia for Saudi Arabia, which seems odd. If you rate GDP 75% and 25%, you keep Saudi Arabia and Indonesia and leave out France. That seems like a non-starter.

Giving 10% weight to military spending doesn’t change the top 10 compared to straight-up GDP.

So I think my proposal is straight-up GDP. To summarize, it wouldn’t cut out any current member, and would add Germany and Japan, major developed countries and economic powers who lost a war 70 years ago, and major developing countries India, Brazil, and Indonesia. It would be harder to reach consensus with 10 than 5, but the effort of adding these important voices to the conversation would be worth it, and any hard-won consensus would have more legitimacy as representing the majority of the world’s power.

Iran attacking its own customers? Why?

Leave a reply

I try to avoid commenting on rapidly unfolding current events, but I’ll make an exception for this supposed attack by Iran on Japanese and Norwegian oil tankers. I can’t actually find this in news stories, but it seems that these tankers must be either on their way to pick up Iranian oil for delivery to world markets, or on their way to world markets with Iranian oil. So what incentive could Iran possibly have for attacking its customers? None that I can see, and this makes the U.S. claim that Iran is responsible completely incoherent. Part of the U.S. claim, if I can understand it correctly, is based on seeing Iranian boats in the area that were involved in rescuing survivors of the attacks. The only possible incentive I can think of for Iran is to demonstrate they can disrupt ships at the mouth of the Persian Gulf if they want to. But there is no need for that – the entire area is bristling with advanced anti-ship missiles and this is not a secret. So to sneak out and secretly attach mines to these ships, then secretly remove them, then rescue the survivors – well, I already said it a couple times, and it is not making any more sense to me the more I think about it.

Who would have an incentive to give Iran’s customers pause in doing business with it. Well, any of Iran’s enemies. This list would include Saudi Arabia, the UAE, the United States, and Israel.

Or any non-state terrorist group that just wants to sew chaos and make states and oil companies nervous. Sneaking out to secretly attach a mine sounds like their playbook to me. These groups have a tendency to want people to know they are responsible though, and it is strange that there is no mention of that happening.

U.S. officials aren’t even trying to make a plausible case here. It’s embarrassing. The other thing people are point out is the U.S. making the case that Iran is breaching the agreement it made in 2015 to limit uranium enrichment, when it is the U.S. that has declared that agreement null and void.

Belt and Road

Leave a reply

The Council on Foreign Relations has a primer on China’s Belt and Road initiative here.

Xi’s vision included creating a vast network of railways, energy pipelines, highways, and streamlined border crossings, both westward—through the mountainous former Soviet republics—and southward, to Pakistan, India, and the rest of Southeast Asia. Such a network would expand the international use of Chinese currency, the renminbi, while new infrastructure could “break the bottleneck in Asian connectivity,” according to Xi. (The Asian Development Bank estimates that the region faces a yearly infrastructure financing shortfall of nearly $800 billion.) In addition to physical infrastructure, China plans to build fifty special economic zones, modeled after the Shenzhen Special Economic Zone, which China launched in 1980 during its economic reforms under leader Deng Xiaoping.

Xi subsequently announced plans for the 21st Century Maritime Silk Road at the 2013 summit of the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) in Indonesia. To accommodate expanding maritime trade traffic, China would invest in port development along the Indian Ocean, from Southeast Asia all the way to East Africa.

Oliver Stone on Recent U.S. History

Leave a reply

Oliver Stone is adding a chapter to his 2012 book The Untold History of the United States covering 2012-2019. He basically argues that in 2012 things were not great but getting better, while in 2019 “the unthinkable has become thinkable”. The litany includes continued threats of NATO expansion, wars in the greater Middle East, backing out of the Iran deal and historic Cold War-era nuclear weapons treaties, expanding the nuclear arsenal, threatening behavior against North Korea and China, and continuing to deny and ignore climate change.

In my view, while the U.S. adversaries are not blameless, we need to understand that their governments feel legitimately threatened by our government. The U.S. government has the world’s largest military, the world’s largest nuclear arsenal, and has used its military frequently and unilaterally against weaker countries. A path to real peace would have to include some credible means of convincing other countries that we will not attack except in self defense, and we don’t have the track record to convince anyone of this. And in a world where the food supply and coastal population centers are going to start coming under threat from nature, humanity needs to be unified and undistracted to have a chance to deal with other threats.

NYT on Saudi Arabia’s Nuclear Program

Leave a reply

The New York Times has a disturbing article about Saudi Arabia’s nuclear program. It is somewhat of an open secret that their nuclear program has been to bankroll Pakistan’s nuclear weapons program over the years. The U.S. and most media outlets that I am aware of have turned a blind eye to that, even as we have been attacked by some of their citizens and fought against their extremist proxies for 17 years now. We also fought two wars in Iraq at least partly to protect their government against aggression. Apparently they are asking for nuclear energy technology that can be used for peaceful purposes, but it can also be weaponized, and they are resisting efforts to include unconditional UN weapons inspections in any deal. Putting more nuclear materials within potential reach of these extremists, whether in Pakistan or Saudi Arabia itself, seems like a bad idea.