The return of geo-politics

This is supposed to be the age of globalisation when the productive forces of global capitalism are let loose to generate unprecedented wealth for all. Under this meta-logic politics was supposed to be superseded by economics, nation-states by markets. But there are signs that big-picture politics is back in the driver’s seat, that real problems are emerging on the international scene, and that over the next few decades we are in for a very interesting time indeed.

During the Cold War it was generally believed that world affairs were dominated by political relations between the major powers, generally known as geo-politics. This geo-politics reached its apogee with the nuclear stand-off between the two great powers of east and west, Russia and America.

These were the two survivors out of a centuries long struggle between the great European powers, the United States, China, Japan, Russia and, for a while, Turkey.

In geo-politics, geography, national resources, spheres of influence and military capability were considered of primary importance.

The US was the classic example of a country whose destiny had been decided by geography. It was separated from bellicose Europe and any other potential rival by oceans, and its wide open and resource-rich spaces promoted continental expansion. Eventually, a combination of American strength and the failure of its rivals meant that the US came to dominate the world.

As the 19th century concluded, a decadent China was broken up by industrialised imperial countries, and then actually invaded by the neo-imperialist Japanese, while in Europe the old global empire of Britain fought it out with traditional rivals France, newly united Germany and always imperialist Russia for supremacy. After two horrific world wars, the almost untouched US and the ravaged but militarily strong Russia were left facing each other over a weakened world.

But the Cold War ended in 1991 and the age of geo-politics was supposedly finished. Instead the world was supposed to enter a new era where economics was king and boundaries hardly mattered.

Transnational corporations seemed to be claiming more and more power, and global markets reached extraordinary levels of value. As for the geo-political powers, Russia was a basket case and the US was just another nation-state in a world where the driving forces were no longer national politics but global markets.

Sure, there were a few problems, like the emergence of concern about climate change due to global pollution and the depletion of key resources like fresh water and oil, but none of this seriously impacted on the great surge of wealth. Wealth which, in the more developed parts of the world at least, was making lots of people very rich indeed.

Well, how quickly things have changed. Led by an unusually incompetent and ideologically driven government, the US has managed to entangle itself in a complete disaster in the Gulf. Along the way, Washington basically undermined any and all attempts to create a stable world governance system through multilateral agreements.

America, the neo-imperialists in Washington proclaimed, would go it alone. It also managed to inadvertently empower an anti-modernist political movement, Islamic terrorism, that has generated an unusual amount of panic. The world now seems to be a much less secure place, and hardly ideal for the business of making money.

Furthermore, the erstwhile enemy, now under the traditional strong and authoritarian leadership of Vladimir Putin, is beginning to play the energy card, acting to control supplies of oil and gas - so vital to Europe - coming from the Caspian region. Meanwhile, that engine of so much of the economic growth after the 1990s, China, is flexing its muscles, again in regard to oil.

China makes little pretence about what it is up to as it makes new connections with the undeveloped world, especially Africa.

In a highly significant diplomatic cum trade initiative, China hosted two major summits last year - the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation which involved leaders from nations with about half the world’s population, and another involving 48 African nations.

Some of these countries are led by international pariahs like Robert Mugabe, but unlike the West, China will deal with anyone to ensure its material needs.

Nobody seriously doubts that Peak Oil (the point where as much oil as has been produced is available in reserves) is at hand, that oil will become ever more scarce and that prices will rise steeply. The oil companies know it and governments know it.

Oil is not only the lifeblood of modern industrial societies, it is also the essential necessity of military force. The US military machine is the single largest user of oil in the world, and all armies, air forces and navies run on it.

We have recent experience of how disastrous global resource wars can be: World War II was largely about resources, and specifically oil - the Allies basically won by starving Germany and Japan of oil.

No one seriously doubts that oil security is behind the American move into the Gulf, the American bases in the ex-Soviet Stans, or the sudden interest by Washington in oil-rich regions of Africa. However, the US is in direct competition with booming China, rich Europe and Japan, newly assertive Russia, and a gaggle of other more or less developed nations, including fast-growing India.

This is not the “all boats are raised by the rising tide” situation of globalisation, but closer to old style naked imperial competition.

This already tricky situation is compounded by the growing realisation that global warming is indeed serious and imminent. There are currently no serious attempts to deal with the problem, and no signs that anything is about to happen. In fact, the rapid rise of China and India, and the determination of the rich world to maintain its privileged position suggest that the problem will not be resolved by some decisive collective action.

There is no sign that the developed nations will pay any price or that the developing nations will forgo economic development to in order to curtail the worst of global warming.

So all of a sudden it’s back to the all-against-all jungle of the late 19th century, a predicament that was eventually resolved by two world wars. And in those days there was not an environmental crisis looming.

With each model from the climatologists looking worse than the last, with world order falling apart just as nuclear weapons proliferation is growing (as I write, reports are circulating that Israel is preparing to launch a nuclear attack on Iran to prevent that country from developing nuclear weapons: as soon as any nuclear power uses such weapons on a non-nuclear power, any genuine attempts to head off a global nuclear arms race will be over) and the global economy looking ever more shaky, “crisis” is almost too tame a word.

There is of course only one solution: effective global governance, with a real commitment to cultural diversity and economic fairness to neutralise violence and ensure collaboration. And a decision-making process that values the evidence from scientists over the wishes of economists.

But of course, such a thing would require a new kind of politics in the rich countries where this project would have to originate, because only these countries have the necessary resources. And such a transformation would necessarily rest on informed and open debate involving a decent proportion of the world’s population.

Globalisation was never as great as it was cracked up to be, but the preceding age of geo-politics was absolutely fraught with danger. Any return to such a condition, in an age when the real problems are now inherently global, would likely signal the death for civilisation itself on this pretty blue planet.