On request from the United States, Canada has arrested Meng Wanzhou, Huawei's chief financial officer.
Another line has been crossed. Where are we, if it is a part of political and trade relations to arrest a leading person from a economically competing company from a politically competing nation under some pretext? As if the countries of the world were just small appendixes you can treat like pieces of shit. To repeat myself once more, the Romans were in that position, the United States is not. The Europeans may often behave like American puppets, but other powers are too strong for this. Or maybe the American behavior is a compensation for perceived weakness, a sign showing that the United Sates has fallen into Thucydides's Trap. Anyway, it is another clear example of the political decline and the descent back to the law of the jungle.
The United States has been crossing one line after another these last two years. Crossings which make the world more dangerous and push us closer to barbaric conditions. Clearly other countries have behaved likewise, but one may have expected a more civilized behavior from the “leader of the free world”.
Chinese IT-companies, not least Huawei are accused: They MAY abuse their hardware and software to spy, and they are assumed to do so even more in the 5G-future. Therefore they should be stopped. But in fact there is very little proof of spying by Huawei.
Have the disclosures by Mr. Snowden already been forgotten? The Americans already DO abuse their IT dominance to spy. They sit heavily on the servers and arteries of communications in large parts of the world.
Here to refresh our memory, a few examples of US espionage and control. Some are well-known facts, some were disclosures by Mr. Snowden and others.
- The American intelligence agencies are connected directly to servers and IT communications in Europe.
- American spy-hardware is built into computers sold to China and who knows where else.
- The NSA is spying on ordinary citizens in the USA and abroad. Metadata from many mobile phones in the world are stored.
- Also the position of cellphone users is tracked.
- Apparently also all internet activity from almost all users in the world is registered.
- As has turned out, foreign statesmen, ambassadors, EU politicians etc. are being listened to, and other forms of their communication spied.
- Through the british vassals the Americans are also spying in hotels where foreign politicians stay.
- All the thus gained information is being used for political purposes and also economic gains in connection with negotiations at conferences and meetings.
- The methods are also used for economic espionage against foreign firms competing with American companies.
- The Swift system for int'l financial transactions permits US control. The EU was forced to accept this.
- Generally the United States controls financial transactions in dollars all over the world. And as we see in connection with sanctions against Iran only valid in the United States, this is abused to control independent countries.
The points are examples of real US espionage and abuse of IT-dominance. Obviously also China and Russia spy on other countries using IT. But in light of the examples of known massive US activities, the accusations against China are highly hypocritical. And even if Huawei is being used for espionage or may be so in the future (!), the arrest in Canada is difficult to justify. Obviously a suspected breech of sanctions against Iran is only a pretext. The suspicions are at least 6 years old. Why suddenly act in 2018?
There has been much outrage over President Trump inside and outside of the United States. But in some countries there does not seem to be a serious will to liberate themselves from US dominance. Partly it is a question of lack of ability to stand on own feet in matters of IT and security. Partly it is a lack of guts.
For Europe it would be wise to have a diversification of their IT-providers and gradually develop its own IT-competences. Europe will be more independent if it from case to case choses which of more than one IT-providing countries to use. This will give a position of strength. With the extreme importance of information technology today, relying on providers from only one country leads to vulnerability, dependency and submission as simple vassals. Many US allies have already been moving in this direction for decades. Remember the embarrassing episode in 2013, where European countries forced the plane with the Bolivian president to land in Vienna and searched it to see if it carried Mr. Snowden. This showed an astonishing degree of European submission. But who except for the Brexiteers wants to be vassals with members of the present US administration as puppeteers?
The arrest of Huawei’s Meng Wanzhou is a sign of an increasing US ruthlessness, unthinkable a few years ago. What would be the reaction if China arrested a leading official of Apple? What may come next? The arrest of leaders of European companies? Or even of a member of the European Commission who works to tax and reduce the monopoly of big US companies? Or why not arrest a PM from an irritating European country? Beware Europe and Canada! It is frightening, but such methods can become a normal part of trade relations and politics.
Friday, December 7, 2018
Sunday, December 2, 2018
Gilets jaunes
The centralization of people and social life into bigger and bigger metropoles is typical for later modernities. This phenomenon is obviously evident today all over the world. The process is partly due to an almost diabolic attraction from the big cities and partly due to bad living conditions outside. In some cases in earlier civilizations such processes went very far. Landscapes could be depopulated, and peasants had to be replaced by ‘coloni’ from other parts of the known world.
But the process of centralization should be a voluntary movement and not be driven by disadvantageous and painful living circumstances. Such motivations should only be the driving force in third-world countries unable to do something about it. As we see today, it creates resentment favoring the political wings to be living in the outback without services, without nearby jobs and looked upon with disrespect or even disgust from city elites. Elites who feel themselves far above people who do not eat organic food, but often themselves are guided by internet-borne viral superstitions like the belief that lactose and gluten are dangerous. In earlier modernities comparable processes could end with insurrections, often started because of taxations. We saw such phenomena in the Oriental modernity in numerous revolts in provinces away from Bagdad and the other big cities which were perceived as exploiting the smaller cities and the countryside. In the Greco-Roman late modernity the peoples in Italy (91-88 BC) revolted against being exploited by the Romans without equal influence. In the second Chinese modernity in the Sung Dynasty there were truly anti-globalist riots in South China. They resembled right -wing populism in our time by often targeting Arab immigrants.
In our case the protests are difficult to ignore because the marginalized people have the same voting rights as the chosen few in the big cities. Also, through modern means of transportation protesters can easily reach the capital, smash the shining facades (so embarrassing that the tourists should see this) and demonstrate in front of the government.
Right- and left-wing populism is boosted from the margins, not least the geographical margins. Those who want to be an alternative to populism should not marginalize these margins further. Instead the margins could simply be given positive special treatment to counteract their disadvantages. This could be through eg. a tax reduction or a remboursement, both scaled after distance to work, or whatever.
But the process of centralization should be a voluntary movement and not be driven by disadvantageous and painful living circumstances. Such motivations should only be the driving force in third-world countries unable to do something about it. As we see today, it creates resentment favoring the political wings to be living in the outback without services, without nearby jobs and looked upon with disrespect or even disgust from city elites. Elites who feel themselves far above people who do not eat organic food, but often themselves are guided by internet-borne viral superstitions like the belief that lactose and gluten are dangerous. In earlier modernities comparable processes could end with insurrections, often started because of taxations. We saw such phenomena in the Oriental modernity in numerous revolts in provinces away from Bagdad and the other big cities which were perceived as exploiting the smaller cities and the countryside. In the Greco-Roman late modernity the peoples in Italy (91-88 BC) revolted against being exploited by the Romans without equal influence. In the second Chinese modernity in the Sung Dynasty there were truly anti-globalist riots in South China. They resembled right -wing populism in our time by often targeting Arab immigrants.
In our case the protests are difficult to ignore because the marginalized people have the same voting rights as the chosen few in the big cities. Also, through modern means of transportation protesters can easily reach the capital, smash the shining facades (so embarrassing that the tourists should see this) and demonstrate in front of the government.
Right- and left-wing populism is boosted from the margins, not least the geographical margins. Those who want to be an alternative to populism should not marginalize these margins further. Instead the margins could simply be given positive special treatment to counteract their disadvantages. This could be through eg. a tax reduction or a remboursement, both scaled after distance to work, or whatever.
Tuesday, November 27, 2018
Responsible rulers instead of rules
The recent developments around the Sea of Azov represent a good example of one aspect of the end of rule-based int'l politics: the lack of inhibition of escalation. No doubt the dispatch of the three naval ships was a childish Ukrainian provocation. Russia reacts with a disproportionate escalation by using military force, and no doubt the West will react with a further escalation in the form of more sanctions. The ease with which such escalations get started today is a striking newcomer. The diplomatic rules which would earlier have counteracted the spirals, are disappearing. Instead political acts are carried out in the media.
I have been somewhat ambivalent towards the emerging declined late modernity. Should this condition be rejected or embraced?
The historical philosopher Oswald Spengler together with Arnold Toynbee has conceived the ideas on historical periodicity from which this blog has departed. In parts of his major work Spengler seems to regard it as nostalgia leading to weakness if one clings to the good old days of humaneness and rule-based behavior. Thus a man like Cicero who in the late Greco-Roman modernity fought against chaos and the approaching dictatorship, is called a weakling. Instead politicians should embrace the new era, adapt to it and ruthlessly use it in the competition for internal and international power. Otherwise one will be left behind as a looser. As Spengler puts it: Fate guides those who will and drags those who will not.
Another good example of such thinking are the Legalists in the first Chinese modernity, men like eg. Han Feizi (3. century BC). For the Legalists the power of the state/country was the only important thing. People and other countries were subordinated under this need for power of the state. The Ghaznavid state (around AD 1000) in the late Oriental modernity functioned along the same lines. The ultimate consequences of Legalist reasoning were the raids of the Chinese country Qin into enemy countries with the purpose of killing parts of the male population in order to reduce the number of potential soldiers. Compared to such excesses the Romans seem rather humane. Nevertheless they started their late modernity by destroying Carthage and Corinth in146 BC because these cities were trade competitors.
Now, should we go along with such rule-less excesses of late modernities? Clearly, if powerful politicians and states ignore humane behavior and rules, those who do not will have a disadvantage, unless they are in majority amongst the community of nations and have big strength. This was the case in 1939-1945. Today the forces in favor of rules and int'l organizations are becoming a minority.
Thus let us accept that the new era with politics not based on rules and restraints is a fact, and the only rule is the wish for political, economic, military and cyber- power. Should this acceptance be unconditional? Should everything be allowed? No rules or limits whatsoever?
No. Certain facts are new and unseen compared to late modernities before our:
1) Weapons of mass destruction can kill millions and billions of people and ultimately destroy all civilization. In this category we may add the possibilities of cyber-warfare.
2) The threatening and eminent climatic changes can destroy life spaces, produce enormous suffering and cause huge numbers of refugees. Here teargas over the border will not suffice.
Maybe we should all agree on a minimum of rules of behavior to avoid escalations bringing us close to the use of any weapons of mass destruction. And of course continue the efforts to limit climate change. Could such rules be accepted ?
Even agreement on this minimum of rules seem difficult to achieve with rulers like Bolsonaro, Trump and MBS. Therefore a continuance of the rule-based int'l politics seems outright impossible. Thus we may as well embrace the unavoidable. But let us agree on avoiding destroying civilization and our habitat.
Apart from these few rules you are free to unleash chaos.
But this does not take away responsibility. It should be self-evident that suffering is only acceptable insofar as it is necessary in order to prevent bigger suffering.
As history shows, if we open the box of Pandora we risk gruesome excesses of death and oppression.
I have been somewhat ambivalent towards the emerging declined late modernity. Should this condition be rejected or embraced?
The historical philosopher Oswald Spengler together with Arnold Toynbee has conceived the ideas on historical periodicity from which this blog has departed. In parts of his major work Spengler seems to regard it as nostalgia leading to weakness if one clings to the good old days of humaneness and rule-based behavior. Thus a man like Cicero who in the late Greco-Roman modernity fought against chaos and the approaching dictatorship, is called a weakling. Instead politicians should embrace the new era, adapt to it and ruthlessly use it in the competition for internal and international power. Otherwise one will be left behind as a looser. As Spengler puts it: Fate guides those who will and drags those who will not.
Another good example of such thinking are the Legalists in the first Chinese modernity, men like eg. Han Feizi (3. century BC). For the Legalists the power of the state/country was the only important thing. People and other countries were subordinated under this need for power of the state. The Ghaznavid state (around AD 1000) in the late Oriental modernity functioned along the same lines. The ultimate consequences of Legalist reasoning were the raids of the Chinese country Qin into enemy countries with the purpose of killing parts of the male population in order to reduce the number of potential soldiers. Compared to such excesses the Romans seem rather humane. Nevertheless they started their late modernity by destroying Carthage and Corinth in146 BC because these cities were trade competitors.
Now, should we go along with such rule-less excesses of late modernities? Clearly, if powerful politicians and states ignore humane behavior and rules, those who do not will have a disadvantage, unless they are in majority amongst the community of nations and have big strength. This was the case in 1939-1945. Today the forces in favor of rules and int'l organizations are becoming a minority.
Thus let us accept that the new era with politics not based on rules and restraints is a fact, and the only rule is the wish for political, economic, military and cyber- power. Should this acceptance be unconditional? Should everything be allowed? No rules or limits whatsoever?
No. Certain facts are new and unseen compared to late modernities before our:
1) Weapons of mass destruction can kill millions and billions of people and ultimately destroy all civilization. In this category we may add the possibilities of cyber-warfare.
2) The threatening and eminent climatic changes can destroy life spaces, produce enormous suffering and cause huge numbers of refugees. Here teargas over the border will not suffice.
Maybe we should all agree on a minimum of rules of behavior to avoid escalations bringing us close to the use of any weapons of mass destruction. And of course continue the efforts to limit climate change. Could such rules be accepted ?
Even agreement on this minimum of rules seem difficult to achieve with rulers like Bolsonaro, Trump and MBS. Therefore a continuance of the rule-based int'l politics seems outright impossible. Thus we may as well embrace the unavoidable. But let us agree on avoiding destroying civilization and our habitat.
Apart from these few rules you are free to unleash chaos.
But this does not take away responsibility. It should be self-evident that suffering is only acceptable insofar as it is necessary in order to prevent bigger suffering.
As history shows, if we open the box of Pandora we risk gruesome excesses of death and oppression.
Saturday, October 27, 2018
So what's ten million dead if it's keeping out the Iranians - and makes money for the weapons industry?
Lost sense of proportion has always characterized the parts of the media landscape which we call the tabloid press. A football star having broken his leg is more important than a major political crisis. In todays declining political climate this kind of focus also characterizes some of the political and governmental thinking and actions. A cleaning lady having stolen from an old gentleman can quickly lead to new laws.
This kind of shifted attention is also clear in connection with the murder of the dissident Saudi journalist Khashoggi. Clearly this brutal murder carried out by the Saudis is not a minor detail which should mainly be of interest for the tabloid press. It should indeed be sanctioned. But why is it catching so much more interest than the situation in Yemen? According to the UN and other aid organizations this country under constant bombardment from the Saudi led coalition is threatened by starvation and death on a massive scale unseen for decades.
It is bad enough that politicians of our time are destabilizing the world, as they remove rules, treaties and organizations regulating behavior in armament, international relations and trade AND replace this not with well-considered practices, but with actions determined by personal moods from ignorant politicians.
The decline of our modernity into unpredictable conflicts looks almost preprogrammed. But we do not need another disaster which in the number of dead caused by politicians, could be in the same order of magnitude as the genocide in Rwanda or worse. Do we want to end in future history books as those who added one more massive human-caused loss of life?
This kind of shifted attention is also clear in connection with the murder of the dissident Saudi journalist Khashoggi. Clearly this brutal murder carried out by the Saudis is not a minor detail which should mainly be of interest for the tabloid press. It should indeed be sanctioned. But why is it catching so much more interest than the situation in Yemen? According to the UN and other aid organizations this country under constant bombardment from the Saudi led coalition is threatened by starvation and death on a massive scale unseen for decades.
It is bad enough that politicians of our time are destabilizing the world, as they remove rules, treaties and organizations regulating behavior in armament, international relations and trade AND replace this not with well-considered practices, but with actions determined by personal moods from ignorant politicians.
The decline of our modernity into unpredictable conflicts looks almost preprogrammed. But we do not need another disaster which in the number of dead caused by politicians, could be in the same order of magnitude as the genocide in Rwanda or worse. Do we want to end in future history books as those who added one more massive human-caused loss of life?
Sunday, October 21, 2018
Rules or suffering
Often modernities have seen a succession of violations of established unwritten and written rules for conduct. This both on the internal political level and in the relations between countries. In the beginning of a modernity this process can serve the fight for freedom from traditional oppression, especially when we are talking of internal politics. But in the latest third of modernities these rule-breaking processes clearly lead into barbary. And when we are talking about relations between countries, the rule-breaking processes during most of a modernity means ruthless treatment of peoples and countries, not least in wars. The end of rule-governed behavior between countries lead to destabilizations, more conflicts and the easier start of wars.
An end of modernities in the civilizations before us and probably also including us looks like a rule. It also looks like a rule that this ending involves conflicts and wars. But it is not a law that every modernity and all phases in modernities should be characterized by chaos, wars and suffering caused by rule-breaking decisions. In history we see many very different versions. The Orient was utterly chaotic in most of its modernity 750-1071. The second Chinese modernity in the Sung Dynasty and its neighbors 960-1279 was ordered and relatively peaceful. At least up till the onslaught of the Mongolians.
Specific political decisions play a crucial role in deciding the path of a modernity. Therefore it is very worrying to follow the present US president and administration, the triumvirate Trump - Bolton - Pompeo. They systematically retreat from deals and treaties. They break down rules and int'l alliances, organizations and institutions regulating the relations between countries. Of course they are aided in this by declined politicians all over the world and proteges like MBS. The triumvirate and their likes risk going down in history as those who turned the rest of the modernity of the Western civilization into a series of conflicts and wars (cyber and field).
In the light of the annihilative power of weapons of mass destruction an end to treaties regulating nuclear weapons like the INF Treaty is potentially catastrophic. And this so much more if the end of rule-based behavior in general destabilizes the world.
Monday, October 1, 2018
Betrayals of our history
The recent speech by the French President Macron before the UN General Assembly 2018 deserves to be heard and read again and to be remembered as a passionate warning to the World against the final decline which can destroy the democratic, cooperative and rule-based world order. Centuries from now it may be read by historians who will wonder why and how a historically minded civilization with a strong ability to work with the future in mind could stumble into chaos, demagogy and ultimately authoritarian rule.
Here I repeat the end of the speech.
__________________________________________
I know, my dear friends, that many people may be tired of multilateralism. I know that in a world where information clashes, where we have entered a world of showbiz, in a sense, freed of inhibitions, and where saying the worst things means being in fashion, making the news; I know that denouncing consequences whose causes one has cherished can be a crowd-pleaser; I know that championing cooperation and multilateralism may no longer be in fashion.
Then let’s not be in fashion any more, because we owe it to those who have enabled us to be seated here, because never forget that the genocides that led to your being here today were fuelled by the language we are growing accustomed to, because they were fuelled by the demagoguery we applaud, because we are currently seeing this international law and all forms of cooperation crumbling, as if it were business as usual – out of fear, out of complicity, because it looks good!
No, I can’t agree to that, because I come from a country which promoted the declarations that brought us here, because I come from a country which stands up, which has made a lot of mistakes and done a lot of bad things but has, throughout its history and international history, had something universal about it! It’s today, it’s now!
So don’t grow accustomed, let’s not accept all these forms of unilateralism! I can’t get used to these pages being torn every day, these betrayals of our history!
So I say to you very clearly: the century which has begun is watching us, and our children are waiting for us! Let’s resolve the crises! Let’s work together to combat all these inequalities, but let’s do so in a human way and with the stringency of our principles, our history, passionately driven by our universalism!
In any case, this will be my commitment to you, and I am counting on you for it.
Here I repeat the end of the speech.
__________________________________________
I know, my dear friends, that many people may be tired of multilateralism. I know that in a world where information clashes, where we have entered a world of showbiz, in a sense, freed of inhibitions, and where saying the worst things means being in fashion, making the news; I know that denouncing consequences whose causes one has cherished can be a crowd-pleaser; I know that championing cooperation and multilateralism may no longer be in fashion.
Then let’s not be in fashion any more, because we owe it to those who have enabled us to be seated here, because never forget that the genocides that led to your being here today were fuelled by the language we are growing accustomed to, because they were fuelled by the demagoguery we applaud, because we are currently seeing this international law and all forms of cooperation crumbling, as if it were business as usual – out of fear, out of complicity, because it looks good!
No, I can’t agree to that, because I come from a country which promoted the declarations that brought us here, because I come from a country which stands up, which has made a lot of mistakes and done a lot of bad things but has, throughout its history and international history, had something universal about it! It’s today, it’s now!
So don’t grow accustomed, let’s not accept all these forms of unilateralism! I can’t get used to these pages being torn every day, these betrayals of our history!
So I say to you very clearly: the century which has begun is watching us, and our children are waiting for us! Let’s resolve the crises! Let’s work together to combat all these inequalities, but let’s do so in a human way and with the stringency of our principles, our history, passionately driven by our universalism!
In any case, this will be my commitment to you, and I am counting on you for it.
Boring but Competent
Members of the German Constitutional Court
Nominee for the US Supreme Court
In North Europe Brett Kavanaugh's suitability as judge in a Supreme Court would be questioned also without him being suspected by some of attempted rape. This because of his partisanship and his belief in conspiracy theories. But no doubt a Liberal candidate could have shown an equal lack of neutrality.
Also, the reason for showing this picture of Brett Kavanaugh is not to show a "bad" or angry character. The purpose is to illustrate how derailed political processes have become in the United States. As earlier I use Germany as a counterexample. Here the Constitutional or Supreme Court is strictly neutral and its members are chosen in an undramatic procedure. Serious and conscientious work characterize its proceedings. Compared to the American way this may be boring, but exactly this is the ideal condition. Parts of the explanation for the difference between America and Germany is the greater specificity of the German constitution leaving less room for differing interpretations and also the confounding in the American constitution of the highest executive power and Supreme Court. But clearly the main reason is the downward spiraling of US politics.
This said, Brett Kavanaugh has some interesting and prophetic ideas concerning the power of the president. In the future we will indeed see a stronger and more sacrosanct presidency. This will be enforced by presidents and their followers either simply to gain personal power or in order to better control chaos. But in 2018 and with an unpredictable president the idea is premature...
Nominee for the US Supreme Court
In North Europe Brett Kavanaugh's suitability as judge in a Supreme Court would be questioned also without him being suspected by some of attempted rape. This because of his partisanship and his belief in conspiracy theories. But no doubt a Liberal candidate could have shown an equal lack of neutrality.
Also, the reason for showing this picture of Brett Kavanaugh is not to show a "bad" or angry character. The purpose is to illustrate how derailed political processes have become in the United States. As earlier I use Germany as a counterexample. Here the Constitutional or Supreme Court is strictly neutral and its members are chosen in an undramatic procedure. Serious and conscientious work characterize its proceedings. Compared to the American way this may be boring, but exactly this is the ideal condition. Parts of the explanation for the difference between America and Germany is the greater specificity of the German constitution leaving less room for differing interpretations and also the confounding in the American constitution of the highest executive power and Supreme Court. But clearly the main reason is the downward spiraling of US politics.
This said, Brett Kavanaugh has some interesting and prophetic ideas concerning the power of the president. In the future we will indeed see a stronger and more sacrosanct presidency. This will be enforced by presidents and their followers either simply to gain personal power or in order to better control chaos. But in 2018 and with an unpredictable president the idea is premature...
Saturday, September 8, 2018
Worst case scenario for America
Meghan McCain at the memorial service for her father John McCain:
"We gather here to mourn the passing of American greatness"
Prophetic indeed.
One should always be careful in using historical parallels to predict the future. As said earlier, despite the parallel development of civilizations on the large scale, this is not a law, and above all, the details can vary considerably, both because of the distinct character of each civilization and because unique decisions and specific developments can have a large impact. This said, the parallels between America today and the Roman Republic in the last 100 years before Augustus (130 - 30 BC) begin to look frightening. Before I turn to these, I will mention three important dissimilarities:
- It is unlikely that we will see violence on the same scale as in Rome.
- We will not as in Rome see political leaders with private armies.
- Thus the conflicts will not be fought militarily understood as fights between regular armies.
The similarities that do exist, can be seen in several fields. Here three important aspects.
1) Violence
Rome degenerated into outright civil wars lasting most of the 100 years up to 30 BC. As said, this is unlikely in the case of the United States. But violence on a smaller scale is likely. Generally spoken, actions violating the spirit of the Constitution and extreme and polarized decisions will lead to bitter counteractions, and when power shifts, to opposite extreme decisions. The resulting bitterness can lead to violence.
When I talk about violence, it is not in the sense of ridiculous conspiracy theories. Obviously the Democrats will not start a new civil war or use violence if they win the next midterm elections. The only political leader tending in this direction is Trump, who in certain cases may be tempted to use a mob to intimidate opponents.
But what we begin to see now are self-started mobs demonstrating and disturbing political procedures. This was seen under the beginning procedure to appoint a further conservative Supreme Court judge, an act which in itself is a provocation against the liberals and against the Constitution.
But it can be feared that later, maybe after a decade or two, other political leaders than Trump may begin to command violent mobs. How far this will go is difficult to say. But one can fear ugly scenes in a country which gets torn by anger, and where the population is armed....
2) Mutually opposing institutions
The Roman constitution was a complicated mixture of different positions of power like Senate, Peoples Assembly, Consuls and Peoples Tribune, some having been added at new situations in history demanding a share of power to new societal forces. Together such institutions secured an intricate system of checks and balances like the American Constitution. Both systems of balance and mutual control were admirable and both constitutions functioned reasonably well for a couple of centuries. But at a certain time the tensions in society and the polarization between people from the two major political parties Peoples Party / Democrats and Senate Party / Republicans became too big. The tension and polarity could not any longer be channeled through and within the means of the Constitution. This happened in Rome around 130 BC and in America around 2000.
At this point different institutions of the state risk to be monopolized by one party while others try to remain neutral controls, and again others are used by the other party. They make opposing decisions and try to obstruct each other. This increases societal and political tensions further. This process began in Rome from around 130 BC and is now increasingly clear in the United States. The White House and the Republican right have their extreme agenda, the neutral FBI try to carry on its duties, Congress may soon be run by Democrats, Supreme Court will be taken over by conservatives etc. Such developments can be expected to continue and worsen and create much bitterness on the street and between the parties. Politicians will use drastic means to get and keep control of institutions and positions and to seize them from other politicians.
3) Divisions between the states
The Republic of Rome with its possessions was in practical terms often functioning very un-centralized, not least because the leaders of provinces were behaving as if the provinces were their private property. In case of conflicts between these men, the provinces were de facto run independently, and their troops fought each other.
American states are not the property of their governors. But politically seen the states are quite autonomous. This can be seen as another part of the system of checks and balances. In the case of disagreements with decisions from Washington this has tended to lead to the states partly following their own ways disregarding central orders. This will be increasingly likely if shifting leaders in Washington issue extreme and mutually contradicting decisions. We are already seeing examples of such increased opposition and denial of obeying Washington now under Donald Trump.
Separatism as such is unlikely (no Ecotopia), but states will de facto follow quite independent policies when they disagree with or feel disturbed by decisions from a chaotic center. Federal police may be used to force states to obey.
In sum, instead of checking and balancing each other, the different institutions and states will try to overrule and obstruct each other. In the worst case scenario we could see an America with different centers of power, each doing different things. Different institutions and different states carrying out different policies and a Washington with chaotic power-struggles and radically different policies substituting each other.
Increasingly, leaders using the voters or mobs as instruments will dominate over and reduce the parties to mere groups of followers. The Republicans are already showing signs of this. Periods of de facto dictatorship may be seen.
In a such future the conflicts, the chaos and the incoherence may tempt the military to contemplate seizing power, not so much because of the power in itself, but to create order and to let the country regain outward strength. As opposed to some politicians parts of the military and the intelligence agencies know that the United States do not operate in a self-sustained vacuum.
These developments offer sad prospects for the people of the United States, who will suffer under instability, violence and misgovernment. It could also be dangerous for the world because foreign policies will be unpredictable and because internal conflicts can be sought channeled outwards or overcome through external actions against common enemies. Still, as said earlier, the US position in the world will suffer. Hence the only beneficiaries from a thus declining America could be its enemies. As said in other posts, a major difference between America and Rome is that the Romans had no serious competitors and therefore could be torn apart by internal conflicts without loss of position in their world. Some US politicians behave as if the same was the case for America.
The sketched developments may continue several decades and eventually end with a permanent and hereditary dictatorship under leaders euphemistically called something like for example Supreme President.
"We gather here to mourn the passing of American greatness"
Prophetic indeed.
One should always be careful in using historical parallels to predict the future. As said earlier, despite the parallel development of civilizations on the large scale, this is not a law, and above all, the details can vary considerably, both because of the distinct character of each civilization and because unique decisions and specific developments can have a large impact. This said, the parallels between America today and the Roman Republic in the last 100 years before Augustus (130 - 30 BC) begin to look frightening. Before I turn to these, I will mention three important dissimilarities:
- It is unlikely that we will see violence on the same scale as in Rome.
- We will not as in Rome see political leaders with private armies.
- Thus the conflicts will not be fought militarily understood as fights between regular armies.
The similarities that do exist, can be seen in several fields. Here three important aspects.
1) Violence
Rome degenerated into outright civil wars lasting most of the 100 years up to 30 BC. As said, this is unlikely in the case of the United States. But violence on a smaller scale is likely. Generally spoken, actions violating the spirit of the Constitution and extreme and polarized decisions will lead to bitter counteractions, and when power shifts, to opposite extreme decisions. The resulting bitterness can lead to violence.
When I talk about violence, it is not in the sense of ridiculous conspiracy theories. Obviously the Democrats will not start a new civil war or use violence if they win the next midterm elections. The only political leader tending in this direction is Trump, who in certain cases may be tempted to use a mob to intimidate opponents.
But what we begin to see now are self-started mobs demonstrating and disturbing political procedures. This was seen under the beginning procedure to appoint a further conservative Supreme Court judge, an act which in itself is a provocation against the liberals and against the Constitution.
But it can be feared that later, maybe after a decade or two, other political leaders than Trump may begin to command violent mobs. How far this will go is difficult to say. But one can fear ugly scenes in a country which gets torn by anger, and where the population is armed....
2) Mutually opposing institutions
The Roman constitution was a complicated mixture of different positions of power like Senate, Peoples Assembly, Consuls and Peoples Tribune, some having been added at new situations in history demanding a share of power to new societal forces. Together such institutions secured an intricate system of checks and balances like the American Constitution. Both systems of balance and mutual control were admirable and both constitutions functioned reasonably well for a couple of centuries. But at a certain time the tensions in society and the polarization between people from the two major political parties Peoples Party / Democrats and Senate Party / Republicans became too big. The tension and polarity could not any longer be channeled through and within the means of the Constitution. This happened in Rome around 130 BC and in America around 2000.
At this point different institutions of the state risk to be monopolized by one party while others try to remain neutral controls, and again others are used by the other party. They make opposing decisions and try to obstruct each other. This increases societal and political tensions further. This process began in Rome from around 130 BC and is now increasingly clear in the United States. The White House and the Republican right have their extreme agenda, the neutral FBI try to carry on its duties, Congress may soon be run by Democrats, Supreme Court will be taken over by conservatives etc. Such developments can be expected to continue and worsen and create much bitterness on the street and between the parties. Politicians will use drastic means to get and keep control of institutions and positions and to seize them from other politicians.
3) Divisions between the states
The Republic of Rome with its possessions was in practical terms often functioning very un-centralized, not least because the leaders of provinces were behaving as if the provinces were their private property. In case of conflicts between these men, the provinces were de facto run independently, and their troops fought each other.
American states are not the property of their governors. But politically seen the states are quite autonomous. This can be seen as another part of the system of checks and balances. In the case of disagreements with decisions from Washington this has tended to lead to the states partly following their own ways disregarding central orders. This will be increasingly likely if shifting leaders in Washington issue extreme and mutually contradicting decisions. We are already seeing examples of such increased opposition and denial of obeying Washington now under Donald Trump.
Separatism as such is unlikely (no Ecotopia), but states will de facto follow quite independent policies when they disagree with or feel disturbed by decisions from a chaotic center. Federal police may be used to force states to obey.
In sum, instead of checking and balancing each other, the different institutions and states will try to overrule and obstruct each other. In the worst case scenario we could see an America with different centers of power, each doing different things. Different institutions and different states carrying out different policies and a Washington with chaotic power-struggles and radically different policies substituting each other.
Increasingly, leaders using the voters or mobs as instruments will dominate over and reduce the parties to mere groups of followers. The Republicans are already showing signs of this. Periods of de facto dictatorship may be seen.
In a such future the conflicts, the chaos and the incoherence may tempt the military to contemplate seizing power, not so much because of the power in itself, but to create order and to let the country regain outward strength. As opposed to some politicians parts of the military and the intelligence agencies know that the United States do not operate in a self-sustained vacuum.
These developments offer sad prospects for the people of the United States, who will suffer under instability, violence and misgovernment. It could also be dangerous for the world because foreign policies will be unpredictable and because internal conflicts can be sought channeled outwards or overcome through external actions against common enemies. Still, as said earlier, the US position in the world will suffer. Hence the only beneficiaries from a thus declining America could be its enemies. As said in other posts, a major difference between America and Rome is that the Romans had no serious competitors and therefore could be torn apart by internal conflicts without loss of position in their world. Some US politicians behave as if the same was the case for America.
The sketched developments may continue several decades and eventually end with a permanent and hereditary dictatorship under leaders euphemistically called something like for example Supreme President.
Saturday, August 18, 2018
In continuation
In continuation: To see it from the point of view of the superpower USA.
If Donald Trump wins a second presidency dominated by hardline Republicans, things could begin to look bleak for the United States. Polarization and tensions will continue to rise to dangerous levels. The Democratic Party may not have the patience to continue to act as relatively maturely as it does. An eight year long period of hardline and chaotic administration would be harmful for both internal and external politics of the United States.
To achieve power in int'l affairs, both political tactics and longterm strategy is needed. It is not enough only to increase military expenditure ever more. This would suffice in a world like the Mediterranean 2100 years ago where no major opponents existed, and no weapons were too horrific to be used. But obviously neither is the case today. One just needs to compare US and Russian influence in the world. The Russians through strategy and tactics have achieved a remarkable influence despite a military budget which is microscopic compared to the American.
One important purpose for politics in a big power which is in competition with other powers, is to make ones own country fit for competition and potential conflicts. This both with respect to political efficiency and with respect to ones influence in the world. Societal tensions, political polarization and obstructionism combined with a foreign policy which is discontinuous in time and space, will not bring about this fitness.
A limitation to one presidency under Donald Trump aided by his followers could reduce these problems for the immediate future. But the tensions in American society and politics are very strong and deeply rooted and will continue to disturb efficient government also under other presidents. A fundamental change may demand an unlikely reorganization of the American party-landscape.
Of course Russia has been trying to influence US elections. Not to do so would be stupid for a power with limited economic and military resources. But to claim that Russia is causing the US political decline and tensions is obviously absurd. Also the United States have interfered in the politics of several countries for decades. The present US ambassador in Germany openly declared it to be one of his tasks to support rightwing populists in Europe. Thus mutual political interference is normal. But if it can be proven that a US president has colluded with foreign interference in America, then this collusion is of course another matter.
One last point: Denying former intelligence chiefs access to important information will not help building a base of experience important for strategic thought...
If Donald Trump wins a second presidency dominated by hardline Republicans, things could begin to look bleak for the United States. Polarization and tensions will continue to rise to dangerous levels. The Democratic Party may not have the patience to continue to act as relatively maturely as it does. An eight year long period of hardline and chaotic administration would be harmful for both internal and external politics of the United States.
To achieve power in int'l affairs, both political tactics and longterm strategy is needed. It is not enough only to increase military expenditure ever more. This would suffice in a world like the Mediterranean 2100 years ago where no major opponents existed, and no weapons were too horrific to be used. But obviously neither is the case today. One just needs to compare US and Russian influence in the world. The Russians through strategy and tactics have achieved a remarkable influence despite a military budget which is microscopic compared to the American.
One important purpose for politics in a big power which is in competition with other powers, is to make ones own country fit for competition and potential conflicts. This both with respect to political efficiency and with respect to ones influence in the world. Societal tensions, political polarization and obstructionism combined with a foreign policy which is discontinuous in time and space, will not bring about this fitness.
A limitation to one presidency under Donald Trump aided by his followers could reduce these problems for the immediate future. But the tensions in American society and politics are very strong and deeply rooted and will continue to disturb efficient government also under other presidents. A fundamental change may demand an unlikely reorganization of the American party-landscape.
Of course Russia has been trying to influence US elections. Not to do so would be stupid for a power with limited economic and military resources. But to claim that Russia is causing the US political decline and tensions is obviously absurd. Also the United States have interfered in the politics of several countries for decades. The present US ambassador in Germany openly declared it to be one of his tasks to support rightwing populists in Europe. Thus mutual political interference is normal. But if it can be proven that a US president has colluded with foreign interference in America, then this collusion is of course another matter.
One last point: Denying former intelligence chiefs access to important information will not help building a base of experience important for strategic thought...
Sunday, August 12, 2018
Please help, we are trapped in a dystopian nightmare
This is one of the political statements displayed during the concerts by former Pink Floyd member Roger Waters as part of his world tour "Us + Them".
The quote very precisely underlines the severity of the changes happened and happening to politics this decade. Many are not aware of the implications. Populism, mob rule or rather mobs ruled by demagogues and authoritarian rulers are destroying democracy. Diplomacy as a skillful art disappears and will be replaced by dictates, economic sanctions and the use of force from the big powers. Most people and even politicians seem not to be aware of the full scope of what is going on. After hearing or reading news about a new grotesque tweet from Donald Trump people go on to view the last cat-video on Youtube or read the latest social updates from the friends on Facebook. The postmodern loss of political interest in the public makes people accept Dystopia as the natural background.
What or who is responsible for the political decay? As must be clear from my earlier posts, I see the pattern of a political decline in the end of modernities as a typical phenomenon in civilizations. But it is no law . It does not happen by itself as the result of a such law. For each civilization it happens because of other developments, which are also not the result of laws. Hence in principle the decline can be influenced. But for a a total ending of the development in our case it is probably too late. It would have demanded early and concerted actions decades ago. By now the process has moved too far to be completely stopped and reversed.
But the decline is not a monolithic development affecting all with the same speed. When it concerns the degree of decline, there are differences between countries, between leaders and between political parties. This gives a possibility to influence the speed, the degree and the form of the development in a country as a whole and in the world. The balance of influence over society between such sources can be altered. More influence and power given to more declined leaders and parties can accelerate and aggravate the general decline as we see in a frightening degree with Mr. Trump and parts of his party. But more power given to less declined leaders and parties can postpone and dampen it. And here I take it as an obvious truth that the political decline is negative because it causes economic and political instability, tensions, conflicts and suffering. Therefore a postponement and weakening of the development is desirable.
Compared to Obama the contrast could not be bigger. Obama was probably one of the best presidents in the newer history of the United States. The policies were intelligent, well-considered, as consistent as is possible in a multi-facetted world, and they aimed at reducing social inequality and thus reducing dangerous tensions in American society. Trumps policies are on a level nobody would have thought possible except for pessimistic futurologists like me. And even for us, the shift is too big and comes too soon and too sudden. But this fact may entail hope.
I have earlier predicted that the Democrats could end like the Republicans and become irresponsible populists as well. But by now we are still far from this. The contrast between the parties is very large in the level of the decline. Parts of the Republican party have for some years been characterized by opportunist hunger for power no matter the cost for good governance of their country. Their obstruction of Democrat rule is notorious and is now even being extended into the future through the establishment of a large conservative majority in Supreme Court. In this way l'esprit des lois is blatantly disrespected. And the president is driving the decline to new depths.
But fortunately these forces are only one part of American society and politics. The Democratic Party is miles behind in decline, and many Republicans are very responsible people. Thus there are strong forces which can counterbalance the bad developments.
There is even the possibility that Trump as head of the Republicans is a such caricature -like and exaggerated version of the decline that it leads to general resentment and embarrassment. The possibility that his administration makes serious errors in its uncoordinated erratic policies, errors which result in so many problems that it makes people and politicians rethink. All this could lead to a counter-development in the form of a wish for a return to the more stable and well-governed days, a bit like a vaccine against too extreme decline. This could give support for both Democrats and moderate Republicans. Even though the comparison is not perfect, it could be a bit like the Roman republic which after the dictatorial and violent excesses under the "Democrat" Marius and the "Republican" Sulla returned to more orderly forms.
Roger Waters wants us to resist the decline. We should, but how? One way is to make people see the absurdities of the present developments. If the voters do not realize that they live in a dystopian nightmare, they will not vote to change it. The consequences must be made clear. Who is longing for conflicts, violence and authoritarian rule? But the message should not repeat the errors of the populists by polarizing society and degrading the voters of the opponents. Polarizations and tensions in society are fueling the decline. Also, it is important to remember that even though the Republicans are presently mostly affected by the decline, the problem is not political attitudes as such. It is not about left vs right. It is about extreme political views and actions creating polarization and tensions and about the modus agendi.
The quote very precisely underlines the severity of the changes happened and happening to politics this decade. Many are not aware of the implications. Populism, mob rule or rather mobs ruled by demagogues and authoritarian rulers are destroying democracy. Diplomacy as a skillful art disappears and will be replaced by dictates, economic sanctions and the use of force from the big powers. Most people and even politicians seem not to be aware of the full scope of what is going on. After hearing or reading news about a new grotesque tweet from Donald Trump people go on to view the last cat-video on Youtube or read the latest social updates from the friends on Facebook. The postmodern loss of political interest in the public makes people accept Dystopia as the natural background.
What or who is responsible for the political decay? As must be clear from my earlier posts, I see the pattern of a political decline in the end of modernities as a typical phenomenon in civilizations. But it is no law . It does not happen by itself as the result of a such law. For each civilization it happens because of other developments, which are also not the result of laws. Hence in principle the decline can be influenced. But for a a total ending of the development in our case it is probably too late. It would have demanded early and concerted actions decades ago. By now the process has moved too far to be completely stopped and reversed.
But the decline is not a monolithic development affecting all with the same speed. When it concerns the degree of decline, there are differences between countries, between leaders and between political parties. This gives a possibility to influence the speed, the degree and the form of the development in a country as a whole and in the world. The balance of influence over society between such sources can be altered. More influence and power given to more declined leaders and parties can accelerate and aggravate the general decline as we see in a frightening degree with Mr. Trump and parts of his party. But more power given to less declined leaders and parties can postpone and dampen it. And here I take it as an obvious truth that the political decline is negative because it causes economic and political instability, tensions, conflicts and suffering. Therefore a postponement and weakening of the development is desirable.
Compared to Obama the contrast could not be bigger. Obama was probably one of the best presidents in the newer history of the United States. The policies were intelligent, well-considered, as consistent as is possible in a multi-facetted world, and they aimed at reducing social inequality and thus reducing dangerous tensions in American society. Trumps policies are on a level nobody would have thought possible except for pessimistic futurologists like me. And even for us, the shift is too big and comes too soon and too sudden. But this fact may entail hope.
I have earlier predicted that the Democrats could end like the Republicans and become irresponsible populists as well. But by now we are still far from this. The contrast between the parties is very large in the level of the decline. Parts of the Republican party have for some years been characterized by opportunist hunger for power no matter the cost for good governance of their country. Their obstruction of Democrat rule is notorious and is now even being extended into the future through the establishment of a large conservative majority in Supreme Court. In this way l'esprit des lois is blatantly disrespected. And the president is driving the decline to new depths.
But fortunately these forces are only one part of American society and politics. The Democratic Party is miles behind in decline, and many Republicans are very responsible people. Thus there are strong forces which can counterbalance the bad developments.
There is even the possibility that Trump as head of the Republicans is a such caricature -like and exaggerated version of the decline that it leads to general resentment and embarrassment. The possibility that his administration makes serious errors in its uncoordinated erratic policies, errors which result in so many problems that it makes people and politicians rethink. All this could lead to a counter-development in the form of a wish for a return to the more stable and well-governed days, a bit like a vaccine against too extreme decline. This could give support for both Democrats and moderate Republicans. Even though the comparison is not perfect, it could be a bit like the Roman republic which after the dictatorial and violent excesses under the "Democrat" Marius and the "Republican" Sulla returned to more orderly forms.
Roger Waters wants us to resist the decline. We should, but how? One way is to make people see the absurdities of the present developments. If the voters do not realize that they live in a dystopian nightmare, they will not vote to change it. The consequences must be made clear. Who is longing for conflicts, violence and authoritarian rule? But the message should not repeat the errors of the populists by polarizing society and degrading the voters of the opponents. Polarizations and tensions in society are fueling the decline. Also, it is important to remember that even though the Republicans are presently mostly affected by the decline, the problem is not political attitudes as such. It is not about left vs right. It is about extreme political views and actions creating polarization and tensions and about the modus agendi.
Thursday, June 7, 2018
Merkel, Trump and Macron
"The guerrilla must move amongst the people as a fish swims in the sea."
This quote is by Mao Zedong.
With purpose I here distort and use the quote for another purpose and say
"The populist leader must move in the mobs as a fish swims in the sea"
And should be added: "and must have wise and long term aims".
The new declined or late modern era both fosters and needs new types of politics and not least new types of leaders. These can be termed populist no matter if they are rightwing, leftwing or centrists, and no matter if there is a formal western-style democracy or not. Important is only that public opinion plays a major role, that this opinion is easily changed, and it is actively used in populist ways. We cannot see this as in itself good or bad, but rather as a fact. Politicians must adapt to the new changed political climate with its new rules or rather lack of rules of behavior, this no matter if they are of the old type from mature modernity, or they are of a type produced by the emerging new times.
The new era per se should not simply be lamented with nostalgic longing for the good old days. It is already there. But the new type of populist leaders can be judged. Some are qualified, some are not. Some want autocratic rule in order to gain personal power, some want autocratic rule in order to control the decline, some do not want autocratic rule. Some only seek immediate gains out of shifting moods, others plan for many years. But unfortunately, with the shallowing of many countries, the influence of leaders is increasing. Thus their quality is becoming crucial.
The present US and French presidents, Trump and Macron are good examples or personifications of two very different types of late modern rulers.
Both bypass political parties of the classically organized types and build on populist movements of people. They understand how to guide and use the sentiments of their voters. Both think in untraditional ways which can help solve old problems in new ways. But otherwise they are very different:
Trump is unpredictable, acts for the here and now.
Macron is well-considered and has long term plans.
The rule in the coming decades belongs to leaders of both types. Rulers of the first type can break down and even destroy politics and the world. Rulers of the second type can build the future.
Of course the plans of Macron are not meant to be simply accepted and implemented as they are, but as proposals. They should be taken seriously and negotiated. It is a vision on how to tackle the new times. How to adapt France and not least the EU. It might be the last chance for this organization. The idea is to seek a way to limit the rising influence of populists of the irresponsible types we see in East Europe, Turkey and the United States.
Long term careful planning and organization is a characteristic of our Western civilization. To a large extent it is lost in the present declined modernity. Those who have retained or regained the ability and willingness to plan ahead, have an immense advantage.
A few countries uphold stable modernity of the type dominant in the rich world since WW 2, and they have leaders of this type. Here Germany and Merkel is a good example. Unfortunately there are too few Merkels left, and there are too many Trumps and not yet enough Macrons as successors.
Also the old type politicians like Merkel must adapt. Understand and deal fittingly with, or if possible manipulate, the big egos among the new leaders. Put forward reforms to adapt countries and int'l organizations to the new times or at least support leaders like Macron who do this. Upholding mature stable modernity in our times is in itself a remarkable achievement of the political system in Germany. It is admirable and a clear advantage for ones own country. But as no country can exist in splendid isolation, it is important to relate to and influence the outside world. One cannot live after the principle
After us and beyond us the deluge / die Sintflut.
In the end it will devour even the stable island.
Germany has a formidable ability to organize and plan ahead. This could indeed be used in the present troubled world.
Thursday, May 24, 2018
Modernity and The Middle East
One may gain a deeper understanding of developments in the Middle East by seeing the present period as a revival of the Oriental modernity from roughly 750 to 1070. The modernity of a civilization is a period of about 300 years occurring after the classical period. In the Greco-Roman civilization it was around 330 to 30 BC, in the first Chinese, it was around 530-220, in the Oriental as said 750-1070 and in our case the Western civilization 1776 or 1789 - roughly 2080 to 2100. These periods are characterized by rationalism, reason, atheism, revolutions, political ideas, pluralism, wars. In their later parts modernities become less characterized by pluralism, ideas and more by struggle for power and mob-rule, see my post The Decline of Modernity. After modernities typically comes Caesarian one-man rule, and most countries in the civilization are under rule of one (or two) powers like Rome, Qin (old China) and the Seljuks (the Orient). In our case the United States or/and present Westernized China. After modernities, the mental situation of civilizations typically gradually reverts to apolitical religioucity, superstition and passivity.
BASIC IDEA
Often we have seen the dominance of a younger civilization over older ones. This typically gives rise to opposition. This is not least the case if the dominating civilization is in its expanding modernity. We see this in phenomena like the Sepoy rising in India against the British in 1857-8 and the Boxer rebellion in China 1899-1901. And we certainly see it the the anti-western sentiments in the Middle East today like in the anti-Roman feelings 2000 years ago. I have earlier also written that the present Middle Eastern situation is aggravated by barbarians outside every civilization like the so-called Islamic State. If given enough time the dominated civilization is almost completely assimilated into the dominating one like today China and India into the West. Thus in my posts "the West" refers to most of the world, the parts dominated by the present civilization.
These analyses though, only give an overall picture. As said, a more nuanced understanding could be gained if we view the Middle Eastern situation today as a partial revival of the Oriental modernity. This civilization had its own modernity 1000 years earlier than ours. As described by others, in the Oriental culture, religion is impossible to separate from religion. The two spheres are interwoven. Modernities are normally characterized by the retreat of religion and instead the politicization of the public. Political ideologies gather adherents. Examples could be Marxism and Mohism (in old China). In the Oriental world this development took the form of a rising amount of political elements entering into movements of a type which had earlier been dominated by religious elements.
Interestingly, before our modernity, we in the Western civilization often had the same mixture of politics and religion. In the Middle Ages and not least around the Reformation and indeed in Puritan England and the Netherlands political and religious interests were indistinguishable. Around the Reformations in the 16th century Christian groups in central Europe combined religious reformative ideas with almost Communist political demands. In the Oriental Persian Sassanid Empire in the 6th century the Zoroastrian Mazdakite movement had a comparable combination of religious and political ideas.
Thus before modernity the Western and the Oriental civilizations had a similar confluence of religion and politics. As modernities approached, the roads were divided. In the West like in many other cases like China, politics was separated from the religion. In the Orient they continued being united. Here we see the development as the mentioned greater weight of politics in the movements. The Neo-Mazdakites, now under Islamic overrule were now revolutionary movements fighting to overthrow the upper class and the rulers and to get more egalitarian societies. But they never lost their also religious nature. Such Zoroastrian groups were followed by Islamic groups, not least the Kharijite and Shiite movements with comparable agendas. The Oriental modernity was full with politico-religious thought and parties, conflicts and insurrections and revolutions in an almost unbelievable extent. In fact the modernity of this civilization was one of the most revolutionary we have seen, at least before ours. Insurrections, crack-downs, revolutions and reactionary policies followed each other. The rebel-groups often had their insurrections used by political leaders, who after a revolution let them down. Revolutionaries split into numerous isms like Marxists in modern time.
These developments are very comparable to those in the Greco-Roman and in the Present Western modernities. But with the important differences that:
1) Religion was always a part. And
2) The fact that politico-ethnico-religious groups tended to live in the classical Oriental patchwork manner, where people with the same conviction lived together between each other in small areas, which can also be called ghettos. This phenomenon is still natural for many people from this part of the world. Hence the tendency for such people to form so-called ghettos or parallel societies in Western cities today.
When the Oriental civilization reached its modernity, the groups became politicized and should now be called politico-ethnico-religious. In the latter part of Oriental modernity 1000 years ago in Bagdad the groups occupied different small enclaves of the city. From these enclaves they fought each other with words and weapons.
In the end of a modernity the populations are de-politisized. We see this clearly in the West these decades, just like in Rome in the last century before Christ and in old China in the third century BC. Political parties degenerate or become tools for leaders to gain power. The importance of ideas disappear in the so-called postmodern periods which are in fact rather late modern. In the Orient 1000 years ago the politico-ethnico-religious parties lost much of their political aspects and became orthodox religious organizations, both Sunnnis and Shias. Now we must talk of apolitical ethnico-religious groups.
The influence of western modernity has destabilized the for centuries passive peoples of the Orient. It has awoken resistance and energized and thus revitalized the long dead modernity. During the last 100 years we have seen numerous major and minor upheavals beginning with the breakup of the Ottoman Empire. Insurrections, revolutions, reactionary movements etc. strongly resembling what we saw 1000 years ago. A Such awakening of a modernity is most likely if the disturbing force itself is in the modernity phase. Here the new intruding modern ideas fertilizes the older local ones.
The influence of the dominating West lead to both 1) the revitalization of the old modernity with its repoliticization, again making the groups politico-ethnico-religious, and ultimately to 2) Westernization. But the two processes are not simultaneous.
Normally the still very Orientally flavored politicization is the first step, and it dominates. Even the nominally socialist Baathist leaders in Syria and Iraq were still very Oriental.
In parallel with the politicization, but with a displacement in time, Westernization goes on. That this process will reach complete assimilation is unlikely except for some places and groups. But clearly the antagonism between Westernization and traditionalism adds one more conflict to the re-awoken old ones.
Another effect of the influence of the West is a greater importance of ethnicity. Since the beginning of our modernity, ethnicity has been an important aspect of nations in the Western civilization. In the Middle East it has played a role, but a minor one. With Westernization also our idea of nation as ethnically defined enters the Orient. Thus we see for example the Kurds fight for the right to their own country.
Thus the idea is that parts of what is going on in the Middle East today can be viewed as a replay of what happened 1000 years ago. Examples:
INTERPRETATIONS
Lebanese and Syrian civil wars
Beiruth today and especially in the Lebanese civil war looks very much like Bagdad around1000. The same compartmentalization of different politico-ethnico-religious groups in different city-quarters. Several Syrian cities have looked in comparable ways under the present civil war.
Iran and Saudi Arabia
The regime of the Shah of Iran was an attempt at an extreme degree of Westernization. This clearly went too far and had to lead to a reversal in the Islamic Revolution in 1979. Since then Shiite Iran can be seen as a competitor to the orthodox Sunni regime in Saudi Arabia, the official guardian of the Holy Cities of Mecca and Medina. In this way the two regimes may be compared to the Sunni Abbasid Caliphate and the competing Fatimid alternative Shiite competitor in North Africa, Egypt and Syria 1000 years ago. In those days the two empires were religious, but the competition was also highly political. The Fatimids started revolutionary cells in the Abbasid areas and tried to subvert the Abbasids, often with great success. Today also The Iranians and the Saudis compete in a highly political manner. Like the Fatimids Iran operates to undermine the Saudis. Both have also been affected by the Westernization. Iran is already a quite modern state with a well-educated Western-style middle and upper class. The Saudi crown Prince is likewise working to reduce the religious aspects. Both states are becoming the sole dominant powers the their spheres of interest in the Islamic world between Pakistan and Libya and partly beyond, and they use proxies to fight each other. Clearly the Saudis have not been very successful in the competition. In the eyes of the West this together with the alliance of Riyadh with the "right side", Washington, make he Iranians look as the sole evil-doers, but this is one-sided. Just look at Yemen and the Saudi support of Wahhabism as far away as to Morocco and Afghanistan, and the sponsorship of Jihadis over many years. And imagine the reaction if Iran had abducted the prime minister of Lebanon.The fight between the two countries is about power, but it is also about ideas and winning the heart of Muslims. It will probably not help the Saudi rate of success if the defender of two holy places seems to abandon the third to the Israelies.
The de facto alliance between Riyadh with its allies and Israel also point to the politicization of the Saudis and the Middle East. The conflict with Iran is becoming more important than the religious obligations.
Syria and Iraq and Iran
Under the Baathist parties or rather dictators, Saddam Hussein and the older Assad, Iraq and Syria may be seen as revived Muʿtazilite or rationalist states. Politics and religion were intertwined, but the will of God concerning correct government could be deduced through reason. Until the US invasion and the Arab Spring.
In the Oriental modernity the areas from Lebanon to Afghanistan were some of the most violent in the world, torn by civil wars, insurrections and revolutions. Myriads of rulers and politico-ethnico-religious groups and parties fought each other. With the revitalization of the old modernity, the areas have tended to revert to a comparable condition. The old groups become repoliticized, and new conflicting groups emerge in a similar pattern. The Baathist rules in Iraq and Syria prevented open conflicts. So did the Shah and the Ayatollahs in Iran. But with the removal and weakening of the dictatorships, chaos returned in both Iraq and Syria in the form of fights between the many groups.
Pompeo has announced extreme sanctions against Iran unless the country surrenders completely. Knowing that a such surrender is ruled out, the plan can only be to add to the economic crisis of Iran and thereby provoke a revolution, maybe with the aid of bombings of nuclear and other facilities by Israel and the United States.
But even if possible, why should a regime change in Iran be more smooth than the ones in Iraq, Syria and Libya? The removal of a strong government in Teheran could like in Syria and Iraq set free conflicts between politico-ethnico-religious groups. And there can be many. The country is today again like in the very chaotic modernity 1000 years ago filled with groups of different ethnicity, religion and political adherence and viewpoints. To these comes the dimension of degree of Westernization. Iran has one of the most heavily Westernized upper/middle classes in the Middle East and at the same time very strong anti-western feelings in other parts of the population. This adds to the many other antagonisms. Also, Iran is an extremely ethnically diverse country, more than most others in the Middle East. Thus there are many antagonisms. Open conflicts may break out if the central power weakens or disappears.The conflicts could be on a scale which in the worst case would make those in Syria look like a picnic and create huge streams of refugees (Iran has a common border with Turkey). This would certainly not bring stability to the Middle East and less terror to the World. Two thousand years ago Pompeius subdued Pontos by using brute force. It is unlikely that Pompeo wants to and can do the same with a country of over 80 million inhabitants and over1.6 million square kilometers.
OVERALL PREDICTIONS
If we only see the revived Oriental modernity as a static condition, the main thing which can be learned, is that they are in a continuos state of religious and political revolutions and reactions. But as the disturbing West is itself in a declining modernity, we may see the Oriental modernity as sooner or later beginning to follow the western counterpart.
In places and phases where Westernization moves forward, the politicization of the politico-ethnico-religious parties and movements will progress. But gradually the depoliticization of the West will affect the Middle East too. In the West this process leads to the transformation of the political parties into the mentioned tools for power-hungry people or mere groups of mobs. In the Middle East the development will often lead to the strengthening of the religious aspects of political life. This even more if Western leaders provoke with ignorant mob-like attitudes and decisions.
Thus it is not improbable that the political decline in the West will end and revert the politicization in the Middle East AND at the same time end and revert Westernization. There will not have been enough time for a complete assimilation of all of the Orient into the West, before the latter reverts to power struggles without ideas.
NOTE 1
If the framework is correct, we should be able to see comparable revivals of modernities in other cases. Carthage and the Phoenicians in general under influence from the Greeks in the fifth and fourth century BC may be seen as a revival of the second Mesopotamian modernity (around 850-540). The self-ruling merchants of the city-states competing with the Greeks look more like signs of a vibrant modernity than like the dull peoples of the despotic Caesarian Persian Empire after Cyrus the Great.
Japan's rapid development in the 19th century may be seen as a revival of the second Chinese modernity (around 950-1279). We see a society which with respect to good organization resembled the Song Dynasty. Later Carthage and later Japan were completely Greco-Romanized and Westernized respectively.
NOTE 2
Syria's new law allowing the taking over of property and houses of people having fled the country is easily interpreted as ethnic cleansing. These people are potentially political opponents of the government. As religion, ethnicity, politics and nations are confluent in the Oriental civilization, these people are other nations than the one represented by the government. As described in earlier posts, the Oriental patchwork nations are under transformation to Western style territorial nations. This means that the Assad nation wants to get rid of other nations.
BASIC IDEA
Often we have seen the dominance of a younger civilization over older ones. This typically gives rise to opposition. This is not least the case if the dominating civilization is in its expanding modernity. We see this in phenomena like the Sepoy rising in India against the British in 1857-8 and the Boxer rebellion in China 1899-1901. And we certainly see it the the anti-western sentiments in the Middle East today like in the anti-Roman feelings 2000 years ago. I have earlier also written that the present Middle Eastern situation is aggravated by barbarians outside every civilization like the so-called Islamic State. If given enough time the dominated civilization is almost completely assimilated into the dominating one like today China and India into the West. Thus in my posts "the West" refers to most of the world, the parts dominated by the present civilization.
These analyses though, only give an overall picture. As said, a more nuanced understanding could be gained if we view the Middle Eastern situation today as a partial revival of the Oriental modernity. This civilization had its own modernity 1000 years earlier than ours. As described by others, in the Oriental culture, religion is impossible to separate from religion. The two spheres are interwoven. Modernities are normally characterized by the retreat of religion and instead the politicization of the public. Political ideologies gather adherents. Examples could be Marxism and Mohism (in old China). In the Oriental world this development took the form of a rising amount of political elements entering into movements of a type which had earlier been dominated by religious elements.
Interestingly, before our modernity, we in the Western civilization often had the same mixture of politics and religion. In the Middle Ages and not least around the Reformation and indeed in Puritan England and the Netherlands political and religious interests were indistinguishable. Around the Reformations in the 16th century Christian groups in central Europe combined religious reformative ideas with almost Communist political demands. In the Oriental Persian Sassanid Empire in the 6th century the Zoroastrian Mazdakite movement had a comparable combination of religious and political ideas.
Thus before modernity the Western and the Oriental civilizations had a similar confluence of religion and politics. As modernities approached, the roads were divided. In the West like in many other cases like China, politics was separated from the religion. In the Orient they continued being united. Here we see the development as the mentioned greater weight of politics in the movements. The Neo-Mazdakites, now under Islamic overrule were now revolutionary movements fighting to overthrow the upper class and the rulers and to get more egalitarian societies. But they never lost their also religious nature. Such Zoroastrian groups were followed by Islamic groups, not least the Kharijite and Shiite movements with comparable agendas. The Oriental modernity was full with politico-religious thought and parties, conflicts and insurrections and revolutions in an almost unbelievable extent. In fact the modernity of this civilization was one of the most revolutionary we have seen, at least before ours. Insurrections, crack-downs, revolutions and reactionary policies followed each other. The rebel-groups often had their insurrections used by political leaders, who after a revolution let them down. Revolutionaries split into numerous isms like Marxists in modern time.
These developments are very comparable to those in the Greco-Roman and in the Present Western modernities. But with the important differences that:
1) Religion was always a part. And
2) The fact that politico-ethnico-religious groups tended to live in the classical Oriental patchwork manner, where people with the same conviction lived together between each other in small areas, which can also be called ghettos. This phenomenon is still natural for many people from this part of the world. Hence the tendency for such people to form so-called ghettos or parallel societies in Western cities today.
When the Oriental civilization reached its modernity, the groups became politicized and should now be called politico-ethnico-religious. In the latter part of Oriental modernity 1000 years ago in Bagdad the groups occupied different small enclaves of the city. From these enclaves they fought each other with words and weapons.
In the end of a modernity the populations are de-politisized. We see this clearly in the West these decades, just like in Rome in the last century before Christ and in old China in the third century BC. Political parties degenerate or become tools for leaders to gain power. The importance of ideas disappear in the so-called postmodern periods which are in fact rather late modern. In the Orient 1000 years ago the politico-ethnico-religious parties lost much of their political aspects and became orthodox religious organizations, both Sunnnis and Shias. Now we must talk of apolitical ethnico-religious groups.
The influence of western modernity has destabilized the for centuries passive peoples of the Orient. It has awoken resistance and energized and thus revitalized the long dead modernity. During the last 100 years we have seen numerous major and minor upheavals beginning with the breakup of the Ottoman Empire. Insurrections, revolutions, reactionary movements etc. strongly resembling what we saw 1000 years ago. A Such awakening of a modernity is most likely if the disturbing force itself is in the modernity phase. Here the new intruding modern ideas fertilizes the older local ones.
The influence of the dominating West lead to both 1) the revitalization of the old modernity with its repoliticization, again making the groups politico-ethnico-religious, and ultimately to 2) Westernization. But the two processes are not simultaneous.
Normally the still very Orientally flavored politicization is the first step, and it dominates. Even the nominally socialist Baathist leaders in Syria and Iraq were still very Oriental.
In parallel with the politicization, but with a displacement in time, Westernization goes on. That this process will reach complete assimilation is unlikely except for some places and groups. But clearly the antagonism between Westernization and traditionalism adds one more conflict to the re-awoken old ones.
Another effect of the influence of the West is a greater importance of ethnicity. Since the beginning of our modernity, ethnicity has been an important aspect of nations in the Western civilization. In the Middle East it has played a role, but a minor one. With Westernization also our idea of nation as ethnically defined enters the Orient. Thus we see for example the Kurds fight for the right to their own country.
Thus the idea is that parts of what is going on in the Middle East today can be viewed as a replay of what happened 1000 years ago. Examples:
INTERPRETATIONS
Lebanese and Syrian civil wars
Beiruth today and especially in the Lebanese civil war looks very much like Bagdad around1000. The same compartmentalization of different politico-ethnico-religious groups in different city-quarters. Several Syrian cities have looked in comparable ways under the present civil war.
Iran and Saudi Arabia
The regime of the Shah of Iran was an attempt at an extreme degree of Westernization. This clearly went too far and had to lead to a reversal in the Islamic Revolution in 1979. Since then Shiite Iran can be seen as a competitor to the orthodox Sunni regime in Saudi Arabia, the official guardian of the Holy Cities of Mecca and Medina. In this way the two regimes may be compared to the Sunni Abbasid Caliphate and the competing Fatimid alternative Shiite competitor in North Africa, Egypt and Syria 1000 years ago. In those days the two empires were religious, but the competition was also highly political. The Fatimids started revolutionary cells in the Abbasid areas and tried to subvert the Abbasids, often with great success. Today also The Iranians and the Saudis compete in a highly political manner. Like the Fatimids Iran operates to undermine the Saudis. Both have also been affected by the Westernization. Iran is already a quite modern state with a well-educated Western-style middle and upper class. The Saudi crown Prince is likewise working to reduce the religious aspects. Both states are becoming the sole dominant powers the their spheres of interest in the Islamic world between Pakistan and Libya and partly beyond, and they use proxies to fight each other. Clearly the Saudis have not been very successful in the competition. In the eyes of the West this together with the alliance of Riyadh with the "right side", Washington, make he Iranians look as the sole evil-doers, but this is one-sided. Just look at Yemen and the Saudi support of Wahhabism as far away as to Morocco and Afghanistan, and the sponsorship of Jihadis over many years. And imagine the reaction if Iran had abducted the prime minister of Lebanon.The fight between the two countries is about power, but it is also about ideas and winning the heart of Muslims. It will probably not help the Saudi rate of success if the defender of two holy places seems to abandon the third to the Israelies.
The de facto alliance between Riyadh with its allies and Israel also point to the politicization of the Saudis and the Middle East. The conflict with Iran is becoming more important than the religious obligations.
Syria and Iraq and Iran
Under the Baathist parties or rather dictators, Saddam Hussein and the older Assad, Iraq and Syria may be seen as revived Muʿtazilite or rationalist states. Politics and religion were intertwined, but the will of God concerning correct government could be deduced through reason. Until the US invasion and the Arab Spring.
In the Oriental modernity the areas from Lebanon to Afghanistan were some of the most violent in the world, torn by civil wars, insurrections and revolutions. Myriads of rulers and politico-ethnico-religious groups and parties fought each other. With the revitalization of the old modernity, the areas have tended to revert to a comparable condition. The old groups become repoliticized, and new conflicting groups emerge in a similar pattern. The Baathist rules in Iraq and Syria prevented open conflicts. So did the Shah and the Ayatollahs in Iran. But with the removal and weakening of the dictatorships, chaos returned in both Iraq and Syria in the form of fights between the many groups.
Pompeo has announced extreme sanctions against Iran unless the country surrenders completely. Knowing that a such surrender is ruled out, the plan can only be to add to the economic crisis of Iran and thereby provoke a revolution, maybe with the aid of bombings of nuclear and other facilities by Israel and the United States.
But even if possible, why should a regime change in Iran be more smooth than the ones in Iraq, Syria and Libya? The removal of a strong government in Teheran could like in Syria and Iraq set free conflicts between politico-ethnico-religious groups. And there can be many. The country is today again like in the very chaotic modernity 1000 years ago filled with groups of different ethnicity, religion and political adherence and viewpoints. To these comes the dimension of degree of Westernization. Iran has one of the most heavily Westernized upper/middle classes in the Middle East and at the same time very strong anti-western feelings in other parts of the population. This adds to the many other antagonisms. Also, Iran is an extremely ethnically diverse country, more than most others in the Middle East. Thus there are many antagonisms. Open conflicts may break out if the central power weakens or disappears.The conflicts could be on a scale which in the worst case would make those in Syria look like a picnic and create huge streams of refugees (Iran has a common border with Turkey). This would certainly not bring stability to the Middle East and less terror to the World. Two thousand years ago Pompeius subdued Pontos by using brute force. It is unlikely that Pompeo wants to and can do the same with a country of over 80 million inhabitants and over1.6 million square kilometers.
OVERALL PREDICTIONS
If we only see the revived Oriental modernity as a static condition, the main thing which can be learned, is that they are in a continuos state of religious and political revolutions and reactions. But as the disturbing West is itself in a declining modernity, we may see the Oriental modernity as sooner or later beginning to follow the western counterpart.
In places and phases where Westernization moves forward, the politicization of the politico-ethnico-religious parties and movements will progress. But gradually the depoliticization of the West will affect the Middle East too. In the West this process leads to the transformation of the political parties into the mentioned tools for power-hungry people or mere groups of mobs. In the Middle East the development will often lead to the strengthening of the religious aspects of political life. This even more if Western leaders provoke with ignorant mob-like attitudes and decisions.
Thus it is not improbable that the political decline in the West will end and revert the politicization in the Middle East AND at the same time end and revert Westernization. There will not have been enough time for a complete assimilation of all of the Orient into the West, before the latter reverts to power struggles without ideas.
NOTE 1
If the framework is correct, we should be able to see comparable revivals of modernities in other cases. Carthage and the Phoenicians in general under influence from the Greeks in the fifth and fourth century BC may be seen as a revival of the second Mesopotamian modernity (around 850-540). The self-ruling merchants of the city-states competing with the Greeks look more like signs of a vibrant modernity than like the dull peoples of the despotic Caesarian Persian Empire after Cyrus the Great.
Japan's rapid development in the 19th century may be seen as a revival of the second Chinese modernity (around 950-1279). We see a society which with respect to good organization resembled the Song Dynasty. Later Carthage and later Japan were completely Greco-Romanized and Westernized respectively.
NOTE 2
Syria's new law allowing the taking over of property and houses of people having fled the country is easily interpreted as ethnic cleansing. These people are potentially political opponents of the government. As religion, ethnicity, politics and nations are confluent in the Oriental civilization, these people are other nations than the one represented by the government. As described in earlier posts, the Oriental patchwork nations are under transformation to Western style territorial nations. This means that the Assad nation wants to get rid of other nations.
Wednesday, May 9, 2018
May God be with us
After the announcement of Mr. Trump to leave the nuclear deal with Iran, we may prepare for a new world (dis)order.
When we look at the int'l politics in the modernity of earlier civilizations, we see that they share overall characteristics. But there are no fixed rules for the details of the historical developments of such modernities. These details depend partly on coincidences and the balance of power between the leading countries. As long as there is a balancing of the power of the big countries, the most important conflicts are between these. But the level and frequency of the conflicts can not be predicted from a comparison with other civilizations. Each civilization has its own path determined by coincidences and by the characteristics of the civilization.
But there is one common trend in all modernities: The disrespect for written and unwritten rules rises as the period progresses. This often causes the conflicts no matter their frequency to become more and more brutal as a modernity approaches its end.
If one power has won hegemony before the end of a modernity, the important conflicts shift to be in internal politics in this leading country. This happened
for Rome with the victory - 202 at Zama over Cartage.
And in old China in - 260 when Qin defeated Zhao in the extremely bloody Battle of Changping.
In other cases the decisive victory of one country coincides with the end of modernity. This was the case in the Oriental civilization when the Seljuks defeated the Byzantine Empire at Manzikert in 1071. For us, the Western civilization (including most of the present world) the situation is somewhere between the Roman after Zama and the Chinese before Changping. America is dominant, but not as much as Rome was. Therefore the important conflicts of the last decades of our modernity until around 2070 - 2100 will be both internal in the United States and international. The declining US policies and the rise of China may partially reduce the weight of America.
With the rapid political decline in the present decades the rest of our own late modernity could be a much more tumultuous process than the time since 1945. Thus an outline of the modernity of the West could look roughly like this, at least in the more developed parts of its world:
1789 - 1815 Chaotic war-torn start.
1815 - 1914 Relative stability.
1914 - 1945 Increasingly violent wars.
1945 - 2015 Relative stability.
2015 - ca. 2080 Conflicts and wars on the field and in cyberspace.
Ca. 2080 Final death of democracy (except on the very local level) and total hegemony of one or two powers.
Thus the last decades of our modernity will be not as it for a long time looked, a peaceful increasing dominance of the World by the United States, but a time of conflict and violence.
So what must we be prepared to meet in the next decades. I and many others have already mentioned numerous trends. Here I will only repeat some of the most important.
- Middle East tensions and conflicts. This volatile region will destabilize further and may ignite into a major war. Iran is not as easily subdued as Iraq. Generally the anti-Western feelings will increase dramatically in the Middle East. As many have pointed out, a nuclear arms race may start in the region. Why not deliver US nuclear bombs to Saudi Arabia?
- The World will see escalations, conflicts and wars.
- American disrespect for allies will reach new levels. Leaders like Macron and Merkel are treated like leaders of banana republics. In the best case flattered with apparent respect, but in reality completely ignored and despised. Their appeasement will not help.
- Disrespect for treaties.
- Trade will be used as a weapon. This will of course happen as a part of trade wars about imports and exports and technological knowledge. Trade sanctions will also be increasingly used as political pressure. We see Trump threatening companies from countries dealing with Iran.
- Forcing even close allies to introduce sanctions on countries disliked by the United States once more shows the extreme arrogant treatment of even friends. These will increasingly be forced to follow US policies.
- Trade limitations will also be increasingly used over tax questions. The Americans may begin to punish countries demanding tax from US companies like Apple, Microsoft and Facebook.
Generally not least Europe is extremely dependent on IT -services provided from the United States. This leaves them open to political pressure, which under present and future arrogant and oppressive US governments could turn such countries into mere puppets. An interdict on the services of big IT firms could cripple Europe and remove the rest of the independence of such countries. Europe should use own and Chinese companies to achieve a better balance between providers.
Thus the ill-considered, but arrogant US policies like those of the present US president can increase the control over dependent countries. However at the same time the erratic nature of the policies counteracts their effectiveness in the world as a whole. And what is worse, because of the declined policies all over the world, the next decades risk being filled with conflict and suffering. The United States as a dominant world power and its present president are to a large extent responsible for limiting this development.
Politics and decisions are based on moods and sentiments instead of on the indispensable detailed knowledge and overview of the matter under consideration. A simple truth about the matter is decided on the basis of moods. And the response to this simplified picture of a situation is then decided from moods. A world as ours filled with such complexity and destructive potentials cannot be handled this way.
Fortunately the new conditions do not automatically entail rule by ignorants. Wise leaders are also possible in the new political reality as we saw exemplified in Julius Caesar.
When we look at the int'l politics in the modernity of earlier civilizations, we see that they share overall characteristics. But there are no fixed rules for the details of the historical developments of such modernities. These details depend partly on coincidences and the balance of power between the leading countries. As long as there is a balancing of the power of the big countries, the most important conflicts are between these. But the level and frequency of the conflicts can not be predicted from a comparison with other civilizations. Each civilization has its own path determined by coincidences and by the characteristics of the civilization.
But there is one common trend in all modernities: The disrespect for written and unwritten rules rises as the period progresses. This often causes the conflicts no matter their frequency to become more and more brutal as a modernity approaches its end.
If one power has won hegemony before the end of a modernity, the important conflicts shift to be in internal politics in this leading country. This happened
for Rome with the victory - 202 at Zama over Cartage.
And in old China in - 260 when Qin defeated Zhao in the extremely bloody Battle of Changping.
In other cases the decisive victory of one country coincides with the end of modernity. This was the case in the Oriental civilization when the Seljuks defeated the Byzantine Empire at Manzikert in 1071. For us, the Western civilization (including most of the present world) the situation is somewhere between the Roman after Zama and the Chinese before Changping. America is dominant, but not as much as Rome was. Therefore the important conflicts of the last decades of our modernity until around 2070 - 2100 will be both internal in the United States and international. The declining US policies and the rise of China may partially reduce the weight of America.
With the rapid political decline in the present decades the rest of our own late modernity could be a much more tumultuous process than the time since 1945. Thus an outline of the modernity of the West could look roughly like this, at least in the more developed parts of its world:
1789 - 1815 Chaotic war-torn start.
1815 - 1914 Relative stability.
1914 - 1945 Increasingly violent wars.
1945 - 2015 Relative stability.
2015 - ca. 2080 Conflicts and wars on the field and in cyberspace.
Ca. 2080 Final death of democracy (except on the very local level) and total hegemony of one or two powers.
Thus the last decades of our modernity will be not as it for a long time looked, a peaceful increasing dominance of the World by the United States, but a time of conflict and violence.
So what must we be prepared to meet in the next decades. I and many others have already mentioned numerous trends. Here I will only repeat some of the most important.
- Middle East tensions and conflicts. This volatile region will destabilize further and may ignite into a major war. Iran is not as easily subdued as Iraq. Generally the anti-Western feelings will increase dramatically in the Middle East. As many have pointed out, a nuclear arms race may start in the region. Why not deliver US nuclear bombs to Saudi Arabia?
- The World will see escalations, conflicts and wars.
- American disrespect for allies will reach new levels. Leaders like Macron and Merkel are treated like leaders of banana republics. In the best case flattered with apparent respect, but in reality completely ignored and despised. Their appeasement will not help.
- Disrespect for treaties.
- Trade will be used as a weapon. This will of course happen as a part of trade wars about imports and exports and technological knowledge. Trade sanctions will also be increasingly used as political pressure. We see Trump threatening companies from countries dealing with Iran.
- Forcing even close allies to introduce sanctions on countries disliked by the United States once more shows the extreme arrogant treatment of even friends. These will increasingly be forced to follow US policies.
- Trade limitations will also be increasingly used over tax questions. The Americans may begin to punish countries demanding tax from US companies like Apple, Microsoft and Facebook.
Generally not least Europe is extremely dependent on IT -services provided from the United States. This leaves them open to political pressure, which under present and future arrogant and oppressive US governments could turn such countries into mere puppets. An interdict on the services of big IT firms could cripple Europe and remove the rest of the independence of such countries. Europe should use own and Chinese companies to achieve a better balance between providers.
Thus the ill-considered, but arrogant US policies like those of the present US president can increase the control over dependent countries. However at the same time the erratic nature of the policies counteracts their effectiveness in the world as a whole. And what is worse, because of the declined policies all over the world, the next decades risk being filled with conflict and suffering. The United States as a dominant world power and its present president are to a large extent responsible for limiting this development.
Politics and decisions are based on moods and sentiments instead of on the indispensable detailed knowledge and overview of the matter under consideration. A simple truth about the matter is decided on the basis of moods. And the response to this simplified picture of a situation is then decided from moods. A world as ours filled with such complexity and destructive potentials cannot be handled this way.
Fortunately the new conditions do not automatically entail rule by ignorants. Wise leaders are also possible in the new political reality as we saw exemplified in Julius Caesar.
Wednesday, May 2, 2018
Trump and Iran
Once more we see approaching a crucial decision from Mr. Trump. This time on the Iran nuclear deal. The clumsy display by Mr. Nethanyahu of documents claiming to prove Iranian intentions of building a bomb is obviously an attempt at convincing simple minded people in the public and in the White House that the deal is broken by Teheran and should be abandoned. But the documents reveal nothing new. They only show the reason why the big powers worked so hard to reach the deal. Everybody including Mr. Macron and Ms. Merkel should also consider and remember that exactly because of the quasi impossibility in reaching the deal, other issues were excluded from the talks and were not part of the deal itself. To now demand more conditions from the Iranians will kill the deal. But exactly this is what the US president wants.
An Iranian acceptance of new terms is ruled out. Even negotiations would wipe out the moderate forces around the present Iranian president and thus radicalize the leadership to a definitely anti-Western stance. Obviously also the abandonment by the US of the nuclear deal will strengthen the anti-Westerners in Teheran. Having this coincide with the moving of the American embassy to Jerusalem and recognizing this city as the capital of Israel could increase Iranian influence in the Middle East further. In segments of the Arab populations in countries under conservative Sunni governments allied to Saudi Arabia, the alliance with the Americans will look increasingly distasteful. The alliance between the Saudis and Israel even more. It looks s if the Sunni governments are abandoning Al Quds to the enemy.
We may see that these segments could view the Israelis and Americans as a bigger problem than Shiite Iran. Thus we could see strengthened and broader united anti-Western sentiments in the Middle East from Morocco to Pakistan. An opposition which could give rise to groups becoming a problem for conservative regimes allied to the Americans. Of course such groups would be supported by Iranian radicals like the Revolutionary Guard strengthened by a decision by Mr. Trump to drop the nuclear deal. The Iranian support for Hamas show that a such Shia-Sunni collaboration is not impossible. Of course Iran is working to undermine its declared enemies around Riyadh and doing so not least by supporting groups opposing the weak conservative Sunni regimes. But such groups are not only products of Iranian interference. They are fueled by oppression and US policies supporting an irresponsible Israeli government and the Conservative regimes cooperating with Israel.
It is unwise for Western powers to feed anti-Western sentiments among Sunnis and Shias. Of course the West should prefer that its opponents are allied to Iran rather than ISIS, but further destabilization of the Middle East is not desirable. And here I have not mentioned consequences of possible renewed Iranian attempts at building a bomb in case Trump ends the deal. What is the next planned step? Bombings?
An Iranian acceptance of new terms is ruled out. Even negotiations would wipe out the moderate forces around the present Iranian president and thus radicalize the leadership to a definitely anti-Western stance. Obviously also the abandonment by the US of the nuclear deal will strengthen the anti-Westerners in Teheran. Having this coincide with the moving of the American embassy to Jerusalem and recognizing this city as the capital of Israel could increase Iranian influence in the Middle East further. In segments of the Arab populations in countries under conservative Sunni governments allied to Saudi Arabia, the alliance with the Americans will look increasingly distasteful. The alliance between the Saudis and Israel even more. It looks s if the Sunni governments are abandoning Al Quds to the enemy.
We may see that these segments could view the Israelis and Americans as a bigger problem than Shiite Iran. Thus we could see strengthened and broader united anti-Western sentiments in the Middle East from Morocco to Pakistan. An opposition which could give rise to groups becoming a problem for conservative regimes allied to the Americans. Of course such groups would be supported by Iranian radicals like the Revolutionary Guard strengthened by a decision by Mr. Trump to drop the nuclear deal. The Iranian support for Hamas show that a such Shia-Sunni collaboration is not impossible. Of course Iran is working to undermine its declared enemies around Riyadh and doing so not least by supporting groups opposing the weak conservative Sunni regimes. But such groups are not only products of Iranian interference. They are fueled by oppression and US policies supporting an irresponsible Israeli government and the Conservative regimes cooperating with Israel.
It is unwise for Western powers to feed anti-Western sentiments among Sunnis and Shias. Of course the West should prefer that its opponents are allied to Iran rather than ISIS, but further destabilization of the Middle East is not desirable. And here I have not mentioned consequences of possible renewed Iranian attempts at building a bomb in case Trump ends the deal. What is the next planned step? Bombings?
Saturday, March 24, 2018
A Shallow World
Bolton as security adviser only confirms the tendency to escalation. It is a really bad omen for the World. Trump, Pompeo and Bolton will now go on with extreme decisions and escalations and exaggerated quick reactions to real or perceived provocations.
For decades, maybe always, several US politicians in Congress and beyond have been and especially now are ignorant what concerns the complexity of modern American society and the World. Presidents from both parties and not least their ministers and advisors plus the administrative system have functioned as buffers limiting the harmful effects of decisions from ignorant politicians. Now we have both a president, ministers and advisors who are ignorant or extreme. The influence of the administrative system is being broken down. The ingenious mechanisms of mutual control in the American constitution do not function anymore. The buffer against harmful effects is gone. As said by several analysts, the deep state is getting shallow.
The Roman state in the republic was also a deep state. But because of the typical Greco-Roman principle of not letting administrators sit for longer periods, the Antique states were more easily shallowed. Until the second war with Cartage one of the reasons for the superiority of Rome in the Antique world was exactly the greater depth of the Roman republic compared to the other Mediterranean states. After this time the state was shallowed. Chaotic power struggles, shifts of power bypassing the constitution and violence prevailed. Now the superiority of Rome was only due to the weakness of the other states.
In comparison the Western civilization has been more stable. Its states including the United States took longer time to reach a similar level of shallowing. But now we are approaching it. The American state is clearly being shallowed under Trump. But what is even more dangerous, the int'l political system is also, both diplomatically, in trade relations, in the Internet and in military terms. Treaties and int'l organizations and the written and unwritten rules for behavior and interaction are beginning to be flagrantly ignored.
The Romans could let their destabilization happen and still win. But the world now is different from the Antique. The rivals are much stronger than those of Rome 146 BC. Also the US society and int'l interaction is much more complex in an infinitely intertwined world. Disturbances and conflicts can have disastrous consequences, also for the United States. And an America turned unstable can not expect to win easily over strong and more stable rivals.
America is now approaching the condition of the Roman Republic around 80 BC. Trump may be the modern Sulla. We may soon see the modern Marius. In the immediate future the next two US elections may bring relief. Still the Democratic Party is far less declined than the Republican. The contrast between the present ignorant rule and the wise rule under Obama could not be bigger. We must hope that the Republicans will accept defeat.
Thursday, March 15, 2018
The will to escalate
The sacking of the American foreign minister Tillerson and the conflict between the UK and Russia over the gas attack on two Russians in the UK show two tendencies, which are characteristics of the new declined int'l politics: 1)The collapsing of the spheres of diplomacy, the media and the mob. And 2) The will to escalate conflicts.
Episodes like this nerve gas attack would earlier have been solved in silence. Now with the lack of discrimination between tabloid press, the internet mobs, diplomacy and reality, what is the truth is quickly decided. We still have not seen any proof that Putin was behind. Also, it is difficult to see what advantages he could have from such a clumsy attack, disturbing Russian attempts to mend ties with other nations.
The extreme British reaction with expulsions and further sanctions also shows the other characteristic of our time: The will to escalate. This is of course related to the wish to satisfy the mob.
To put it more precisely, with the mental (but certainly not economical) immersion of the elites into the mob, populist governments like the British and the American are parts of the mobs. Childish and short tempered. Also it is not precise to say that diplomacy collapses with public opinion. Rather, diplomacy as an art disappears. Instead we see stubborn and/or erratic, often tension increasing acts. The chaotic results of one populist act, like the Brexit, lead to the next populist decisions to satisfy the public or rather moblic opinion.
The will to escalation is also clear in the sacking of the US foreign minister. Even though himself diplomatically inexperienced, Tillerson stopped several extreme acts from Trump. Apparently Pompeo does not wish to do the same.
With this foreign minister under this president in the major power, the world is entering even more unstable periods. Minor events can lead to quick escalations ultimately ending with wars on the field or in cyberspace.
Pompeo may be less erratic than his master, but this could be of little comfort as he is likely to deviate from the president only in cases where Trump should want to do something less hawkish. The Russia-hating rightwing republican hawks have clearly taken over. These are characterized by the same will to escalate as the president. Obviously the US administration supports the British accusations and reactions.
While UK politics have declined to pub level and parts of Europe also have been taken over by populists, the core of the EU, France and Germany make an effort for securing mature stable politics and institutions. It may be the last and these countries may follow the rest of the world into the post-mature populist future after one or two elections . But for now such Europeans could and should act as a bridge between Russia who has its own hawks, and Western politicians who seem to have an obsessive compulsion of blaming Russia and Putin in person for everything.
Like Trump Pompeo wants to end the Iran nuclear deal. We will see if Pompeo will have as much success in stabilizing the Middle East as Pompeius who subdued Pontos 2100 years ago.
Episodes like this nerve gas attack would earlier have been solved in silence. Now with the lack of discrimination between tabloid press, the internet mobs, diplomacy and reality, what is the truth is quickly decided. We still have not seen any proof that Putin was behind. Also, it is difficult to see what advantages he could have from such a clumsy attack, disturbing Russian attempts to mend ties with other nations.
The extreme British reaction with expulsions and further sanctions also shows the other characteristic of our time: The will to escalate. This is of course related to the wish to satisfy the mob.
To put it more precisely, with the mental (but certainly not economical) immersion of the elites into the mob, populist governments like the British and the American are parts of the mobs. Childish and short tempered. Also it is not precise to say that diplomacy collapses with public opinion. Rather, diplomacy as an art disappears. Instead we see stubborn and/or erratic, often tension increasing acts. The chaotic results of one populist act, like the Brexit, lead to the next populist decisions to satisfy the public or rather moblic opinion.
The will to escalation is also clear in the sacking of the US foreign minister. Even though himself diplomatically inexperienced, Tillerson stopped several extreme acts from Trump. Apparently Pompeo does not wish to do the same.
With this foreign minister under this president in the major power, the world is entering even more unstable periods. Minor events can lead to quick escalations ultimately ending with wars on the field or in cyberspace.
Pompeo may be less erratic than his master, but this could be of little comfort as he is likely to deviate from the president only in cases where Trump should want to do something less hawkish. The Russia-hating rightwing republican hawks have clearly taken over. These are characterized by the same will to escalate as the president. Obviously the US administration supports the British accusations and reactions.
While UK politics have declined to pub level and parts of Europe also have been taken over by populists, the core of the EU, France and Germany make an effort for securing mature stable politics and institutions. It may be the last and these countries may follow the rest of the world into the post-mature populist future after one or two elections . But for now such Europeans could and should act as a bridge between Russia who has its own hawks, and Western politicians who seem to have an obsessive compulsion of blaming Russia and Putin in person for everything.
Like Trump Pompeo wants to end the Iran nuclear deal. We will see if Pompeo will have as much success in stabilizing the Middle East as Pompeius who subdued Pontos 2100 years ago.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)