"Why The World Is Spinning Into Crisis Everywhere"

[applegrove]

Why The World Is Spinning Into Crisis Everywhere

by Howard Fineman at the Huffington Post

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/07/23/world-in-crisis_n_5614634.html?utm_hp_ref=politics

"SNIP............................



President Barack Obama is paying a political price at home, with 55 percent of Americans polled by Pew now disapproving of his handling of foreign affairs -- a dramatic reversal from 2009, when his approval rating was 56 percent. While experts argue about how much Obama and his policies are really to blame, the truth is that he occupies the Oval Office at a time of historic flux and of diminished clout, not only for the U.S. but also for the idea of a dominant global power.

To understand that, you need to revisit an influential article published in Foreign Affairs in 2008 by Richard Haass. It’s called “The Age of Nonpolarity,” and Haass wrote it as he was advising presidential candidates behind the scenes in both parties.

Haass, the longtime president of the nonpartisan Council on Foreign Relations (and before that a staffer for President Jimmy Carter and the two Bushes), painted a grim picture of an unsettled, chaotic and dangerously diffuse world Familiar methods of diplomacy, statecraft and war had become feeble, if not useless, in the 21st century, he wrote. The ages of “unipolar” power (i.e., a dominant United States) were over; so were the times of “multi-polar” power, such as the first half of the 20th century.

Now the world faced a free-for-all in which “non-state actors” -- terrorists, global corporations, religious and ethnic tribes, sovereign wealth funds and nonprofit charities, to name a few -- were as crucial as countries in shaping the order of a “nonpolar” world.

.............................SNIP"

[applegrove]

1. No doubt the GOP knew this was coming and are bent on Obama taking responsibility

for cultural strife the world over.

[Jackpine Radical]

2. I think you give them more credit for intellect and foresight than they deserve.

Remember, vultures never know where their next carrion is coming from, but they can detect their next meal from a helluva distance when it presents itself.

[applegrove]

4. Remember the soviet union was falling apart on its own when Reagan decided to take responsibility

for it with an arms race and supporting Osama bin Laden in Afghanistan to create a GOP myth. The vultures do think ahead.

[abelenkpe]

3. global corporations, sovereign wealth funds, non profits only have power

because governments don't act to break them up.

[Louisiana1976]

5. True.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

17. Don't act to break them up? It's an incestuous marriage!

The pols are just as corrupt as the mega-CEOs. One chose power the other chose money. The one uses the other's money to gain and keep power; the other uses their partner's power to earn more money.

[abelenkpe]

20. You are right.

Not sure what can be done to change that either.

[Uncle Joe]

6. Nowhere does Fineman mention Bush's invasion of Iraq as a destabilizing force, and

yet it played a major role in that region, both in Syria and Iraq.

It didn't have to be that way.

He also sells the Internet short, as the Internet enables drawing wisdom across the board from all human history, exposes inhumanity and injustice to peoples long denied this information, they're only correcting or trying to correct that previous top down imposed, silenced imbalance.

The Internet and international floods of capital were empowering these non-state players, Haass wrote in 2008. No nation or set of nations was “in charge.” Ethnic, religious and regional rivalries had been set free by the weakness of nation-states, and by an Internet that enables digital forces who couldn't care less about the wisdom of Metternich or Gorbachev-Reagan diplomacy.

He doesn't mention the so called "War on Drugs fallout," long time policies of undermining democracies and the propping up of brutal dictators or our destructive over reliance on fossil fuels as contributing causes.

The world is boiling over both literally and figuratively as a result of the dysfunctional bi-polar system, the you're with us or against us mentality that has existed for the past half+ century.

Should human societies reach equilibrium it will be a result of political leadership catching up to the people, not the other way around.

Thanks for the thread, applegrove.

[malaise]

9. Typical Fineman

That is a major omission.

[Samantha]

14. And many Democrats warned that would be a consequence of taking down Saddam Hussein

While admitting that he was a truly miserable excuse for a human being, acknowledging all of the crimes he had committed against his own people, many said the only reason for the somewhat stability in the region came from fear of the man. Remove the man, destabilize the area.

I am so glad you brought this point up, Uncle Joe. I have thought about that warning so many times, as well as the fact no one ever mentions it. I guess it is the same as an "I told you so" but in matters as serious as wars, it is extremely important to address in the aftermath the fact that those who promoted and prompted the commencement of the attack on Iraq had full warning of the potential consequences -- but they did it anyway.

History will not hold these people as accountable as it should unless we the people refuse to let the matter drop.

Sam

[Uncle Joe]

15. I agree, Sam and history is what they're determined to forget, of course we know the consequences

of doing that.

History is what shaped today and greatly influences tomorrow, all this chaos didn't just happen in a vacuum, the suppressed, binary, bi-polar world that Fineman seems to long for is precisely what built up the sociological stresses to this level in the first place.

Peace to you.

Joe

[HooptieWagon]

7. Lets not forget "Free" Trade agreements...

... that destabilize economies for corporate profit.

[amandabeech]

8. China now has us by the short and curlies just as much as the Russians

have much of Europe in the same way.

This article is very sanguine about the Chinese, and seems to assume that the problems in the South and East China Seas, which constitute major, major trade routes, may be managed in a diplomatic manner.

The only way I see China's conflicts being managed away is if everyone else manages to do what China wants. However, the Japanese may have something to say about it, and the Japanese are our treaty allies and a very tough bunch.

[HooptieWagon]

12. Yes and no.

China owns a lot of US debt (not as much as some other countries, though), and could destabilize our economy depending how they handle that debt. There is little China sells us that we can't make ourselves, buy elsewhere, or do without. OTOH, China is rather dependant on technology that we sell them. Also, China is very dependant on imported oil (thus their interest in drilling South China Sea), and the US is in a position to cut much of China's imported oil supplies, if they become hostile, with a far superior navy.

Russia could be a bigger problem, as much of Europe is dependant on Russian natural gas. US could take up much of the slack for our allies, if the supply is disrupted. However, transporting the gas by ship is more logistically difficult and costly than by pipeline.... are there enough ships to keep up a constant supply, and are there enough shore facilities to handle and store the shipments? Natural gas is the under-current of the Syrian situation. Saudis want to build a pipeline to compete with Russian monopoly. Thus they are supporting the rebels (who will presumeably permit it). Russia wants to prevent a Saudi pipeline, thus are supporting their puppet Assad.

[amandabeech]

13. "There is little China sells us that we can't make ourselves, buy elsewhere, or do without. "

The factories and the equipment in them were dismantled here (and in Mexico) and shipped there, or were brand new factories with brand new equipment built there. Building new factories and fabricating new equipment cannot be done as quickly as a war in a hot zone can be started. And of course, we have a very limited supply of skilled industrial workers that could train new ones. All of that takes an enormous amount of time. One crucial industry that we have lost is machine tooling. Certainly, the Europeans, particularly the Germans, could pick up some of the slack, but wars start quickly. Prior to WWII, a good portion of our industrial capacity was sitting unused, and look how much time it took to get them going full blast even with a 2-3 year run-up in orders from Britain and France. You are seriously underestimating the de-industrialization that has occurred here in the past 30 years. I see it every time I return to the Midwest to visit my family.

And then there are the ships, both military and cargo. The US merchant marine is basically non-existent. We don't have the yards to build up a military and a cargo capacity at the same time, and there is no guarantee of commandeering ships sailing under flags of convenience let alone finding enough merchant mariners willing to sail into hostile situations.

I studied energy issues very carefully until just a handful of years ago. Not only must we frack like crazy, build very complex liquification facilities, but also find someone to build the incredibly complicated ships that transport liquid methane.

You have a point about the Straits of Malacca, but we are not prepared to close that shipping lane while protecting our allies and friends from a hostile Chinese Navy that has been expanding rapidly.

As to our debt, it is not redeemable. The Chinese can only sell it, which they have been doing. If they dump all on the market at once, they will lose most of their investment, which they may be willing to do.

And Americans doing without? The Greatest Generation grew up in the Depression, and could do without a lot. I know. Two of them were my parents. But they're almost gone, and the younger people that I know would have a rough time adjusting.

[HooptieWagon]

18. China....

If hostilities were to occur with China, it won't be a prolonged land war. Neither country is capable of mounting a successful invasion of the other. ICBM attacks would be horrific, but ineffective in influencing a short war.... which is what military hostilities with China would be. Several naval-based based engagements over disputed territory, and a prolonged economic war. The US Navy is quite prepared right now. The Chinese Navy is decades behind the US.
Economically, the US has the upper hand. From the US, China needs raw materials, technology, and a consumer market. US is not so reliant on China's cheap labor. Whether an economic war is long term or short term, China loses badly. US also able to drastically reduce China's oil imports, which it needs badly.
You are correct about US merchant fleet being all but defunct. Not crucial in a short war. Much of the world's merchant shipping is owned by US allies, like Greece, Japan, and S Korea. US is superior to China in air cargo transport, both military and civilian. I disagree about US shipbuilding. Military ships are built in just a handful of shipyards, like Bath Iron Works. There are many commercial shipyards that are virtually idle, they can build merchant ships if that proves to be a need. Merchant Marines could be quickly trained, if required.
You are correct about machine tooling industry. That should be rebuilt, but lack of it not crucial in a short term military or economic conflict. Long term, yes.

[amandabeech]

21. Thanks for your response.

You've given me some real food for thought.

[FSogol]

10. LOL, Fineman phones one in before going on summer vacation?

[moondust]

11. Somebody tell McCain & Co.

They seem to be stuck in the "unipolar"/"multipolar" world of the past when some chest pounding and bombs were enough to remind the world who was boss. Of course the "bigfoot" approach backfired in Iraq and Iran came out the big winner--a lesson lost on the McCain gang.

Haass' theory begins to explain the situation the NSA is dealing with in terms of "non-state actors" as well as the difficulty in getting European countries to enact tough sanctions on Putin since there are now so many non-state global interests involved.

[NaturalHigh]

16. I was thinking of the "people are crazy" thing...

but yeah, I can see his point.

[conservaphobe]

19. A nice, objective article.

I see some didn't like it because he didn't include a laundry list of things they like to blame all the problems in the world on, but I thought it was good piece.