Thursday, May 6, 2010
Security in the 21st Century
Without my knowing anything about it, there has occurred an international on-line "Security Jam" where experts from a number of organizations brainstormed (or maybe it was a bull session) about the new global security landscape. New York Times article here. Heavily leaning on Western experts, most of the focus was on NATO-EU collaboration. There appear to be fewer specifics on how other large countries such as Russia, China, India, and Brazil (all with a limited commitment to multilateralism) might approach this issue or Western leadership. Speaking of leadership, especially of the political kind, as in: the ability to take effective decisions at the appropriate time (relevant in light of EU dithering during the Greek financial crisis, an economic security threat if there ever was one), the report is remarkably quiet on that. Still, this seems to be a weakness of multilateral organizations such as NATO and the EU, to say nothing of the UN. On the one hand, they're fine mechanisms for consultation and common planning for long-term problems; whether they're good for handling acute crises unfortunately remains to be seen. Perhaps they can be, but it appears that for these organizations to be effective here, it would require political leaders to stand up, put their political capital on the table, and make some tough calls. The report of the Jam can be downloaded here.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
3 comments:
I skimmed through the full report. Couldn't resist posting about it, since I'm still a sucker for exercises in international relations forecasting.
I'm struck by how the "jammer" document claiming to depict a broad range of outside-the-box views, including views of non-specialists, is actually a remarkably bland, unimaginative hodgepodge of conventional bromides. By, um, specialists. Elite business/academia/governent policy wonks, every one. Do we really need an online "jam" by such people to tell us that we face a complex, ambiguous, multipolar world with a multiplying array of non-traditional security threats? That could have been written in 1995, so how is this report in any way insightful or useful?
These sorts of "survey the strategic landscape" compilations, besides being mind-numbingly boring to read, are almost totally useless. Even for you guys who believe the global US-led capitalist empire is a good thing. The basic assumption in these antiseptic wonkeries is that the near-to-medium future will continue to be mostly like the present, with minor variations and incremental evolution.
This sort of incrementalist thinking is evident throughout the "Security Jam" report. Multilateral institutions will continue to face strains and difficulties; they'll have to deal with increasing regional and global multipolarity; they will have to make adjustments to newly emerging, non-traditional threats, like environmental degradation, financial instability, and, um, pirates.
Nobody wants to think about potentially huge, world-transforming events that might be on the horizon. It's the same sort of myopia that afflicted the foreign policy elites in the years leading up to November 9, 1989 and September 11, 2001. The signs are there of similar changes in the works today, but the establishment will ignore them until they get smacked in the face by some monstrous upheaval that can't be denied.
One example: global energy supplies are headed towards a collapse within the next few years. See, for example, the remarks of John Hofmeister, former president of Shell Oil (i.e. not a commie like me), on page 3 of the document at http://www.worldoil.com/OTC_2010_Day_2.pdf?LS=EMS391352. See also reports that some in the Pentagon forecast a worldwide energy implosion within this decade, e.g. http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2010/apr/11/peak-oil-production-supply.
The "jammers" report pays lip service to the possibilities of such upheavals, e.g. the discussion of crisis preparedness on page 49. But it is just lip-service, anticipating the need for only minor technocratic tinkering with the existing order. For example, the crisis preparedness section uses the word "hiccup" to describe a new energy crisis, when in fact there is good reason to believe a global catastrophe is a real possibility. It's as if someone living in "tornado alley" in Oklahoma planned for a routine thunderstorm to hit their house, instead of the unspeakable whirlwind of destruction that could, and should, be anticipated in advance.
There are other global tectonic shifts building, some of which also receive similar superficial lip service treatment in the "jammer" report. Climate change and economic collapse are at the top of the list. Again, though, they're portrayed as disease-like conditions to be clinically managed by technocratic therapy. The real possibility of catastrophic (in the sense of sudden), world-transforming upheaval isn't really taken seriously. The security jammers can see the pressures on global food and water supplies, and the fragility of the computerized financial globo-casino. But they can't imagine such trends ever leading to a serious break with the past. Any more than Gorbachev and Shevardnadze could imagine the disappearance of their lovely little empire while they mused about reform in their strolls by the sea.
Now I'm going to get drunk.
I'm going to look at those oil articles because in a few weeks there will be a briefing on NATO's upcoming new strategic concept, and this briefing will be done by one of the authors of the plan: a former Shell CEO. Bet I'm going to get a good question out of this stuff ...
Kewel! You definitely need to do a blog post about what happens.
A really good news source for the "peak oil" super-pessimistic energy implosion viewpoint is www.theoildrum.com. It's how I found out about Hofmeister's remarks.
Post a Comment