New, Old World Order

I am, finally, returning to a thesis not widely supported but which I believe is rapidly taking shape: the world has returned to a pre-1939 political structure where regional powers are making more foreign policy decisions based on national interests rather than within alliances. Blocs like NATO, ASEAN and even Shanghai Cooperation Organization are have become largely clubs without transnational impact, except at times militarily like NATO, and even then are severely constrained by the conflicting international interests of their members.  This is also true of the European Union where the political (and perhaps fiscal) unraveling of the Eurozone is proceeding apace.

Some caveats.  First, this is not about the perceived decline of the United States because it is not a decline except in relative terms.  It is about the reality of multi-polarity and local dominance and not absolute decline and fall – something a vast number of Europeans and Americans simply are too reluctant or obtuse to understand. The United States is still the leading military power on a planet-wide basis in general.  Its navy with accompanying air power can go anywhere, anytime and push anyone out of the way. No one can project military power like the US and no one is going to be able to do so for a very long time. In the wrong hands, as we have seen, that has been a problem.  But, there is simply no competition.

Nevertheless, on land and in foreign affairs, it is a different matter. The ill-conceived war in Iraq and the seemingly endless war in Afghanistan have drained the power of the United States militarily, economically and politically.  The policies of the neo-cons and the far right in the US have destroyed the “city on the hill” image that Ronald Reagan tried to push both domestically and internationally. The eight year Bush administration buried the credibility, economy and good will felt toward the US with its astonishingly arrogant, incompetent (but unsurprising) foreign policy otherwise known as the ‘go-it-alone’, ‘with us or against us’ and ‘international agreements be damned’ posturing. 

Second, the European Union remains a creation with enormous potential; but the failure to push for more political integration is now fraying the edges of its economic foundation.  If it is able to resolve the fiscal issues of its member states fairly, then the opportunity to conduct a unified foreign policy will have a chance.  It is not, in my opinion, likely.  Which is why the EU is not included in my list as an entity – just a few member states.

Third, a seismic event could reverse the trend toward the nation-centric foreign policy of pre-1939. I believe in the improbable and dismiss facile bell curves, models and forecasts based on hindsight. It’s what you have dismissed as improbable that will hurt you – usually badly.  The fiscal crises which began in 2008 could have been such an event and should not have been unforeseen, but that moment has dissipated with the uneven recovery – some countries doing much better than others such as in the case of Germany which unfortunately, also proceeded to vocally relegate some member states –the southern tier and Greece in particular - to second citizen status with some distasteful,  nationalistic  remarks bordering on bigotry.   

So, on a region by region basis I believe we are looking at an old, new world order.  It may last a decade or fifty years.  My bet is that it will last longer than anyone expects.  Its structure is that of the realpolitik world of pre-1939 which largely came crashing to a bloody end in 1945 with the rise of the blocs. Some blocs are still around but in reality began a rapid disintegration with the collapse of the Soviet Union. 

Viewing the political map from this geo-political perspective, there are several clear, locally powerful players – China and India; Russia; Turkey; Germany and France; the Visegrad group; and, of course, the US.  Oh – and BRIC is not a bloc – it is a label of convenience mostly for economists who, like Linus and his blanket, need to pigeon-hole un-related countries into nice chewable morsels. 

I have not included Iran because, compared to the others and despite the hysterics of the galactically stupid right wing in the US, it simply doesn’t count.  Its economy is in shambles and it is politically unstable and cannot risk going to war or cutting off the Strait of Hormuz because that would invite retaliation of the most unpleasant sort by almost everyone.  It’s not near to building a single nuclear bomb and couldn’t afford to toss it in any direction even it did manage that amazingly difficult task because then it would be wiped out.

I did not include any African country because, well, if you can name one that is a regional power with enough influence both economically and militarily to do anything with significant impact except very locally, you win a cookie.  South Africa is the sub-Sahara elephant in the room– but its absurd attempts to play on the world stage as it has in Libya make it more of an annoying busybody than effective player.  The African Union in general is an old boys’ club intent on maintaining the status quo. Just look at the lack of effective condemnation of Mugabe’s reign by the AU. 

I also do not include any South American country despite my strong temptation to present Brazil as a player.  Maybe soon, but not now.

That’s my pre-amble.  Next time, and as a first choice, let’s look at Turkey or, more to the point, how Turkey looks at everyone else and their reaction.

African Union Damaging Interference

As mentioned in the sidebar, we normally don't take sides unless provoked.  Consider me provoked.

I have little time to spare from my day job, but watching al Jazeera here in Kampala, where there is a Qaddafi Mosque and the president has said he would accept him in exile, I can’t help but be appalled, again, by the antics of the vaunted African Union in its attempt to promote negotiations between Qaddafi and the rebel movements.


The delegation led by President Jacob Zuma of South Africa is a joke. They have presented a clearly absurd plan, benefiting only Qaddafi (naturally immediately accepted by him) and are now bouncing along the road to Benghazi with Qadhafi’s approval to tell the rebel leadership that the murderer and dictator should be reasoned with. How convenient. Qaddafi funds about 15% of the AU’s budget and their hands are in his pockets so they don't care that his soldiers are firing deliberately at civilians and into their neighborhood.  They don't care the UN voted to protect rebelious civilians and that neither Russia nor China chose to oppose the resolution.  They know what's best for Africa. How's that working out?

They did nothing when he invaded Chad, brutally occupying the north and initiating the beginning of the Darfur crises back in the late 1980s following up with full support to Khartoum – Muslims against black Christians and animists. They said nothing when he indulged in the vilification of black Africans in Libya, making them targets of his followers. They said nothing as he supported Charles Taylor, among others of similar ilk. Both the South African government and the African Union are, quite simply, a useless bunch of prevaricators intent on preserving the status quo. They have done so with a dictator and murderer in Zimbabwe, Robert Mugabe, simply because prior to his slippage into senility, depravity, racism and lust for power, he was a heroic front liner. They have done damn little in Somalia, nothing in Mozambique and taken little action in the DRC. Now sub-Sahara Africa wants to end a revolution in Muslim, Arab North Africa which could care less about below-the-equator states except as a market. What buffoons.

The rebels in Benghazi should treat Zuma and his camp followers as the ludicrous coterie of paid-for sycophants they are and send them packing. Zuma can deal with the pressing issues of South Africa in Pretoria.