Wednesday, March 12, 2008

States of decline

The world has witnessed several seismic shifts in the last eight years, but these transformations to the international order have fallen beyond the traditional realm of the state system and in particular the leading Western powers plus China, India and Russia. Control is moving beyond the capacity of governments, statesman, alliances or treaties. The state system is becoming a redundant order – power has spread to every corner of the globe. We live now in a world where economic fluctuations are so complex that unitary political control is impossible. Climate change has reached unstoppable levels and measures taken now will only turn the catastrophe into disaster. Connected to these environmental forces is the rapid depletion of earth's natural resources as oil, water, gas are devoured with little thought of the long term impact. Finally religious forces have been revitalised in this period - both for the devout and the non-believer - with governments pushing extremists further but also unable to successfully defend the secularists. In this 21st century structure, transnational and virtual actors hold the cards. Governments can favour interest groups - corporates, secularists or scientists for example - but for the most part they are simply observers powerless to control what is occurring.

This perspective of international relations is embryonic though and has subsumed the world so quickly that it is as yet undefined. But before it becomes the norm, the old state structure is making a comeback and hopes to stamp its authority on this amorphic upstart. Although in a state of flux, America will - once a new President is elected - look to revive its traditional hegemonic position. Russia has had enough of the doldrums and is looking for new arenas and cause celebres to assert itself. Added to this Cold war redux is the rise of India and China, who are slowly transferring manpower and natural resources into economic, military and cultural influence. The EU is suffering from years of identity crisis but still as an economic bloc
surpasses the other superstates GDP and has centuries of culture to rely on.

But what about the wars in the Middle East, nuclear proliferation or civil wars in Africa and South America? Will these necessitate state structures to be resolved? These will continue to rage and draw in the major powers - but just as during the Cold war - will not alter the international system. Iraq like Vietnam has severely bruised America, but it still maintains it world status. Emerging forces like Iran will try and stake their claim to the top table, but years of economic neglect and a chaotic political scene limit any threat to the established order, regardless of recent
cosmic ambitions. Obviously a long and painful war in either Iraq or Afghanistan could seriously undermine America's position, likewise a nuclear armed Iran may well change the rules of the game, but simile other sleeping giants might emerge and others may regress. The traditional state system is trying to hang onto its position and still is very much calling the shots, but new emerging threats and dynamics are rapidly making state boundaries and their decision making irrelevant.

Take the global economy. The sub-prime mortgage crisis and ensuing credit crunch has led to
record losses for investment banks, widespread nerves and falls in stock markets, and the possibility of a full blown US recession in 2008. The cuts in Federal Reserves rates will be government's opportunity to turn the tide. Economists and lawmakers worldwide have devised a host of recovery plans to stimulate economic growth, but the sense of powerlessness is widespread. Opposition politicians will seek to blame economic mismanagement, but governments have been one of several guilty parties. Mortgage brokers, bankers, consumers are also to blame. In this fully integrated globalised market economy, government's role has been reduced - advocates say for the better - but control has been sacrificed. In our new economic world order, investment bankers, hedge fund managers, even the local mortgage broker, is as significant player as the treasury official. Greater mobility of labour has reduced state economic control further.

Climate change is also a global issue that crosses state boundaries and is so potentially devastating that political differences seem irrelevant. The leading industrialised powers are constantly debating what environmental policies to adopt without losing any economic advantage, but this will seem fairly irrelevant once serious climate change effects follow. The conflict between cuts in emissions and economic growth is being played out in the current US-China relationship. America feels threatened by Chinese growth, so is not prepared to make economic sacrifices. China wants to continue its ascendancy. Both states will need to
set aside their competiveness if global warming is to be slowed down. IPCC projections on the impact of climate change leave no continent untouched. China faces flooding and famine; India flooding and consequently disease; America will suffer from heat waves and coastal damage. When it comes to climate change – either the state system will evaporate as global co-operation becomes essential or state rivalry becomes more acute as the situation becomes more desperate. A similar case can be made for the threat of global pandemics. Global co-operation is essential – inter state rivalry would have devastating consequences. Influence would also shift to scientists and academics who generally act in transnational ways.

The depletion of the planet’s natural resources will also undermine the traditional state system. As resources become sparse, nations assume new geographical importance, strategic alliances will develop. Since 1973 oil producing states have challenged Western states economic dominance. The rise of the energy superpowers has been in parallel to the rise of influential oil companies. If energy resources or water supplies diminish then the state has less control. A government cannot always provide for these necessities. This is where the private sector steps in and overseas exploration (and exploitation) – although far from a new international concept – is developing further and increasingly transcending state boundaries with ease. A state’s own resources and sovereignty are threatened as importing state’s dependency increases. The global reach and influence of large corporates in industrialised nations can potentially create sub state systems in which cultural pockets thrive. The expat community in the Gulf has remained fairly isolated from the locals, although recent Chinese
exploration in Africa has seen unlikely cultural ties develop. Chinese companies have little interest in diplomatic relations - Africa’s resources are the target, state dynamics are an after thought. The absence of any significant natural resource commodity exchange in Africa highlights the disparity between resource extraction and financial gain.

Since oil’s discovery, state sovereignty has been threatened. Foreign oil speculators exploited reserves, gathered oil revenues and left their host states under developed – Iran is a prime historical example. Nationalisation did follow, but the oil companies – the Seven Sisters having rebranded themselves - still managed to have to carry an overt influence in the oil producing states. Securing oil supplies has been a priority for America since the
Carter doctrine. The establishment of aggressive global military strategies in oil rich regions and support of undemocratic regimes has secured supplies but state sovereignty has been compromised. But when it comes to oil, an inter state conflict is more likely than independent actions by non state actors. A war between China and the United States over oil could occur. An oil led Cold war or even a military conflict would re-establish – for the worse – the international traditional state system.

The final domain where the state system has lost its influence and been threatened is the realm of religious extremism. Transnational terrorism has existed since the late 1960s when state less Arab
radicals launched their socialist tinged campaign against Israel and its supporters. International counterterrorism co-operation followed, but lagged behind the growth of Islamist tinged terrorism that expanded in the 1990s. Post 9/11, a renewed state system effort has been designed to counter international jihadism. But whilst jihadists share a common ideology and goals – the state system is fragmented, un-coordinated and often contradictory in its response. The battle against Islamist terrorism has employed actors usually beyond the grip of governments. Intelligence officials have recruited warlords, former radicals, and religious leaders as their proxies in shady espionage campaign. Establishing a link between states and terrorists was one of the first policies in the U.S. War on terror and was also one of the first mistakes. This might have been easier for foreign policy novices to understand, but it represented a fundamental misunderstanding of how terrorist groups had come to interact with their state hosts in the preceding decade. The consequences of this policy have been played out in Afghanistan, Iraq and Lebanon.

The state seeks control, through the use of traditional mechanisms: law enforcement, military capability, central fiscal or public policy. But these tools are static – the state inevitably sticks to what it knows. This leads to predictable and often ineffective responses to the new threats and challenges of the 21st century. The individual is proving more adept and in tune with this age. The power of the non-state actor over the state is becoming clearer. This might range from the citizen journalist, the academic, the philanthropist on the benign side. It includes the terrorist cell, the corrupt oligarch and unscrupulous financier on the negative. Either way, states aren’t what they were and in - who knows - ten years may evaporate altogether, leading to a new international relations era.