Today’s quote comes from the UK Ministry of Defence’s Development Concepts and Doctrine Centre, which recently published a report entitled Global Strategic Trends 2007-2036. The report’s purpose is to analyse a wide range of potential outcomes over the next thirty years, ranging from the impact of globalization, inequality, and poverty, to terrorism, climate change, and future technologies and weapons. There are several fantastic quotes scattered throughout the document, but one of the more interesting ones is this:

The middle classes could become a revolutionary class, taking the role envisaged for the proletariat by Marx. The globalization of labour markets and reducing levels of national welfare provision and employment could reduce peoples�?? attachment to particular states. The growing gap between themselves and a small number of highly visible super-rich individuals might fuel disillusion with meritocracy, while the growing urban under-classes are likely to pose an increasing threat to social order and stability, as the burden of acquired debt and the failure of pension provision begins to bite. Faced by these twin challenges, the world�??s middle-classes might unite, using access to knowledge, resources and skills to shape transnational processes in their own class interest.

I find that particularly fascinating (and promising, in fact). I’ve always found Marx’s works to be interesting and still relevant in today’s society, especially in the fields of sociology and political economy, despite some of my friends still having a chuckle and saying that he has absolutely no relevance in today’s world. In fact, one of the first lines of an economics text I read a while ago said that, with the fall of the Soviet Union, Marx was proved “wrong”, never mind that since the earliest days of the Bolshevik Revolution in 1917 it was recognised amongst the Left and others that Lenin’s revolution bore no resemblance to Marx’s ideas. At any rate, it seems he may have relevance in tomorrow’s world.

On a related note, this document ties in nicely with another paper I’ve started reading from the Oxford Research Group entitled Global Responses to Global Threats: Sustainable Security for the 21st Century, which argues “that international terrorism is actually a relatively minor threat when compared to other more serious global trends”, such as climate change and resource competition.

(And if you want a summarised version of the Global Strategic Trends report, the Guardian have done an article on it).

Keeping in mind that realism as a political school only appeared when first used by the international relations theorists E. H. Carr and Hans J. Morgenthau, the basic principles have a rich history. One of the most common historical examples of this tradition is the Ancient Greek historian Thucydides and his History of the Peloponnesian Wars, dating back more than 2400 years.

In a nutshell, Realism is considered to be a set of laws for elites that span both time and space i.e. history and geopolitics. Those laws have common strands threading throughout history. Of course, there are a wide variety of different schools within realism (far too many to cover here) but all of them contain some basic principles.

Continue reading »

Great article on BBC’s “Our Correspondent” website covering a recent US conference trying to see whether there was still anything in common with Europe. Apparently not:

“The West is an outdated concept,” declared one supremely self-confident senior American official at a lunch where he was the guest of honour. “And if there is still a West, then it includes Australia, Japan and South Korea. We have a global vision now” […] Seen through American eyes, it seemed the era of fixed alliances was over.

[…]

The name of the game would be selective and loose commitments: “Like an open marriage,” said one former US official […] “In my experience an open marriage tends to work only for one side,” [said] a British academic, “and I suspect it is the Americans who will benefit.”

When all’s said and done, there’s no real change in outlook. You’re still either with US, or against US.

AllAfrica.com is running a Business Day article on South Africa’s interests at the upcoming China-Africa Forum in Beijing. it would appear that, while South Africa is “keen to see increased aid to” Africa, it is particularly “interested in gaining greater access to the vast Chinese manufactured goods market”, mainly in the form of cuts “in Chinese tariffs on goods to which value has been added” since it is “the only country in Africa that exports manufactured goods to any large extent”.

Furthermore, much like happened when South Africa and China reached an agreement on SA’s textile industry, the article points out that “SA is likely to push for a Chinese commitment to voluntarily restrict exports when local industries are threatened”.

South Africa’s overall thinking was quite clearly expressed by its Reserve Bank governor, Tito Mboweni, who said: “Let’s strengthen our relations with China.” He pointed out that while “The US might still be portrayed by some as the major economic growth engine in the world … in reality that picture was changing”, with China contributing more now (24.5%) to global domestic product than the US (16.3%). This should no doubt worry the US and Western markets, since they are the largest trading partner of South Africa in terms of total trade, with Germany and the UK falling second and third respectively. Historically, South Africa has always been within the Western sphere of influence, but this may change.

From China’s point of view, South Africa is probably the key to the continent, for two main reasons. The first, obviously, is trade related, because South Africa is quick becoming Africa’s new “colonial” power. While SA woos China to try and restrict its exports, SA has not been so kind to the rest of Africa. As the Christian Science Monitor points out, “South African foreign assets throughout Africa totaled about $5.1 billion in 2004, spanning a wide range of sectors from telecommunications to mining”.

South Africa accounts for about 25 percent of Africa’s total GDP and has produced striking trade balances with less developed African economies - a concern to regional leaders.

In Zambia, South Africa has supplanted former colonial power Britain as the country’s largest foreign investor. South Africans have poured about $300 million into Zambia since 1993, according to the Zambia Investment Centre. In 2005, Zambia held a trade deficit of more than $600 million with South Africa. Moreover, nearly half of Zambia’s imports are South African.

As David Robins, Pick n’ Pay’s deputy chairman acknowledged “[South African firms] have kind of moved in with a significant amount of brute force on the African continent.” This has led to the same sort of criticisms against South Africa that have been used regarding China’s threat to local businesses. It would seem, then, that being a favoured ally with South Africa would secure access to the rest of the continent, at least by proxy.

Secondly, South Africa is viewed as a top priority in terms of a possible diplomatic ally on the UN Security Council. Currently, SA holds a two-year, non-permanent seat on the Council, but has been pushing for the inclusion of African and Latin-American countries to have permanent seats on the council and a veto. As the Business Day article noted, South Africa’s Foreign Minister Nkosazana Dlamini-Zuma held talks on Thursday with China’s equivalent, Li Zhaoxing “to discuss SA’s upcoming membership of the United Nations Security Council”.

Several studies have predicited that “globalization is likely to take on much more of a “non-Western face”", with China and India giving it “more of an Asian look and feel“. South Africa, it would seem, is fast becoming a poster-boy for this global trend, as is Africa as a whole.

There’s been a lot in the press recently regarding the upcoming China Africa forum to be held in Beijing this weekend. Officially, the purpose of the summit is clear: to promote political dialogue, and to boost trade ties between China and at least 48 Africa’s 53 states.

However, as the New York Times puts it, unofficially China is hoping to “redraw the world�??s strategic map by forming tighter political ties” with African states that have turned their back on Europe and the United States. No doubt this is both historical - African countries have never forgotten European colonial dominance, and US interference during the Cold War that led to such tyrrants as Mobutu - and it’s also pragmatic: China is the world’s fastest growing economy, has massive reserves of $US and, more importantly, they’re following a policy of don’t ask don’t tell:

“It is never our view that a country should interfere in another country’s internal affairs,” Deputy Foreign Minister Zhai Jun said last week. “We’ve never imposed on other countries our values … and we do not accept other countries imposing their values on us either.”

This has proven beneficial for such countries as the Sudan. President Omar Hassan al-Bashir, visiting China for the summit, “rejected a 22,500-strong U.N. peacekeeping force for Darfur”, while at the same time he “thanked China for its support in the face of western pressure over a humanitarian crisis”. Another beneficiary has been Zimbabwe’s Mugabe, who has been shunned by the West due to his human-rights abuses, and has found support from China in helping to continue to sustain his regime in the face of massive unemployment, food and energy shortages, and economic meltdown. A deal with China and Angola for a $2 billion loan that helped that country avoid issues with the IMF regarding corruption.

The driving force for China’s interest in Africa is obviously driven by the need for oil and raw materials, such as iron ore and copper, to sustain its economic growth. Trade in the first ten months of 2005 jumped by a massive 39% on the back of massive investment into oil - primarily in Angola and the Sudan (25% of its oil imports come from these two countries), but also Nigeria, Gabon and Equatorial Guinea. According to the Council on Foreign Relations, “China’s manufacturing sector has created enormous demand for aluminum, copper, nickel, iron ore, and oil” and, because of instability in the Middle East, they are focusing elsewhere for suppliers instead, such as South America and Africa. In addition to raw materials, China also “sees Africa as a growth market for its military hardware”, and also “textile manufacturers, for example, are reportedly investing in African factories”.

The increase in Chinese influence and arms sales has drawn criticism because of the don’t ask, don’t tell, see no evil approach China has taken. The U.S. China Economic and Security Review Commission, for example, commented that “In Africa, as elsewhere in the world, the Chinese government has shown that it is eager to embrace dangerous and or unsavory regimes in order, among other goals, to secure access to oil.” Former US assistant secretary of state for Africa Walter Kansteiner adds: “Does it worry the U.S. government that China is aiding and abetting Robert Mugabe? Yeah, it does and it should. You know, he’s a bad guy, doing bad things to his people. And so, if Beijing is supporting and helping him, from a policy-maker’s point of view, that’s counter-productive.” World Bank President Paul Wolfowitz also recently criticised China because “Chinese lenders “do not respect” a set of internationally agreed principles to ensure that loans to African countries fund projects that meet high social and environmental standards”.

All this is, of course, highly hypocritcal in light of the fact that US arms sales and military aid to Africa continue to increase (the US accounts for roughly 40% of the world’s arms sales). Also, as David Kang, a visiting professor of East Asia Studies at Stanford University, notes: “The United States is highly selective about who we’re moral about. We support Pakistan, Egypt, Saudi Arabia�??huge human-rights violators�??because we have other strategic interests. China’s not unique in cutting deals with bad governments and providing them arms.” Lastly, if the World Bank wishes to talk of “high social and environmental standards”, one only has to look at the Chad debacle (see also here) to understand that the World Bank has no leg to stand on.

US businesses also deal with less than wholesome regimes, such as in Azerbaijan where western countries turned a blind eye to corrupt elections in 2005, as well as brutal crushing of dissidents because Azerbaijan was a strategic Western ally (contrasted with support for Georgia’s revolution primarily where the western world had less influence). Despite being one of the world’s most corrupt countries, BP happily pointed out that “The desire of the [Azerbaijan] government to make this work has been key to our decision to stay. Conditions are very favorable to foreign investors here.” Oil trumps human rights, since the new Baku-Ceyhan pipeline will soon be transporting around one million barrels of oil per day for Western markets.

The real reason for criticism of China’s actions is, of course, their growing influence in the Third World, specifically Africa, in a way that undermines US strategic goals. As the New York Times pointed out, China believes its African influence “will give their diplomats an advantage at the United Nations and other international organizations, where African countries can constitute a powerful voting bloc”. Couple that with their growing influence in the traditional sphere of South America, and its easy to understand US concerns, especially since they’re mired in an increasingly unstable Middle East.

The US’s goal in the Middle East has always been about securing oil and energy, not necessarily only for its own possible consumption needs, but to ensure control of “two of the world’s three most advanced and economically productive regions” which “would almost automatically entail Africa’s subordination” (Brzezinski, The Grand Chessboard). As noted in the Monthly Review, since the National Security Strategy of the United States was announced in 2002, it has focused on increasing “its activities in West Africa, centering on those states with substantial oil production and/or reserves in or around the Gulf of Guinea”. They cite Richard Haas, president of the Council of Foreign Relations, as saying that “sub-Saharan Africa is likely to become as important as a source of U.S. energy imports as the Middle East”, and point out that the US has stationed bases throughout the region, primarily under the guise of the “war on terror”, but mainly because “the real issues are not the African states themselves and the welfare of their populations but oil and China�??s growing presence in Africa”:

For the Council on Foreign Relations, all of this adds up to nothing less than a threat to Western imperialist control of Africa. Given China�??s role, the council report says, �??the United States and Europe cannot consider Africa their chasse gardé [private hunting ground], as the French once saw francophone Africa. The rules are changing as China seeks not only to gain access to resources, but also to control resource production and distribution, perhaps positioning itself for priority access as these resources become scarcer.�?� The council report on Africa is so concerned with combating China through the expansion of U.S. military operations in the region, that none other than Chester Crocker, former assistant secretary of state for African affairs in the Reagan administration, charges it with sounding �??wistfully nostalgic for an era when the United States or the West was the only major influence and could pursue its…objectives with a free hand.�?�

The unfortunate reality is that, if history is any judge, the scramble for Africa between China and the United States shall have the same effects on Africa that occured during the Cold War: regimes playing the fears of both interested parties off one another; dictators and tyrrants kept in power in order to further strategic aims; wars fought by proxies in the battle for mineral resources; and the continued suffering of local populations. Some do express hope that the Chinese “will be forced to take account” of issues such as corruption, as well as the concerns of the African people and not just their elites. But, as long as competition between China and America persists in Africa, such concerns may well not be in their self-interest.

Read some sad news today: The renowned Russian journalist Anna Politkovskaya was found murdered in a lift on Saturday, the 7th of October, believed to have been killed by a man “in his twenties dressed in a black cap, seen just before neighbours discovered her body in the lift”.
Continue reading »

Some recovered history here, one of my favourite pieces: the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan. It’s nothing “new” if you follow these things, but it’s worth writing down. Anyway, the “official” doctrine for many years had it that the USSR invaded long before the CIA began funding their opponents that later went on to become the Taliban. In fact, the CIA’s own website still refers to the invasion as being an “intelligence failure”: “Earlier intelligence reports on activities by the Soviet military units had not been accompanied by warnings that this activity might indicate Moscow’s intent to launch a major military intervention.” It goes on to say that:

“while the United States continued strict adherence to [US] President Carter’s injunction against direct US assistance and the use of US weapons to support the Afghan insurgency, the CIA did consult with the Pakistan Government on its support to the opposition forces”

The reality was very different, however. According to Eric Alterman, writing in The Nation, “former Director of Central Intelligence Robert Gates [revealed] in his 1996 memoir From the Shadows, the $500 million in nonlethal aid was designed to counter the billions the Soviets were pouring into the puppet regime they had installed in Kabul.”

According to Gates’s recounting, a key meeting took place on March 30, 1979. Under Secretary of Defense Walter Slocumbe wondered aloud whether “there was value in keeping the Afghan insurgency going, ’sucking the Soviets into a Vietnamese quagmire.’” Arnold Horelick, CIA Soviet expert, warned that this was just what we could expect.

National Security Advisor Zbigniew Brzezinski also revealed that, on the 3rd of July 1979, “President Carter signed the first directive for secret aid to the opponents of the pro-Soviet regime in Kabul”, which in Brzezinski’s opinion would “induce a Soviet military intervention”.

We didn’t push the Russians to intervene, but we knowingly increased the probability that they would.

All of this is rather amusing when you then go and read The Scholarship Editions’ “Afghanistan” declaring that “Soviet officials had made extensive efforts to frighten [Aghanistan’s Prime Minister Amin and the Revolutionary Council] about an imaginary danger directed at Afghanistan.”

But the Soviet government as well as the Karmal regime have fabricated stories contrary to this conclusion. In December 1979 Soviet officials told Amin that the �??revolution�?� was in danger from the United States, which was about to launch a massive assault from the Persian Gulf. To meet the assault, Afghanistan should be prepared militarily.

That’s not to say that the US were about to launch an assault from the Gulf, but their fears were hardly “imaginary”. (Oh, and I couldn’t find any reference to Brzezinski’s admission, either). The irony, of course, is when Brzezinski was questioned as to whether or not he regretted laying the Afghanistan trap, he answered:

Regret what? That secret operation was an excellent idea. It had the effect of drawing the Russians into the Afghan trap and you want me to regret it? The day that the Soviets officially crossed the border, I wrote to President Carter, in substance: We now have the opportunity of giving to the USSR its Vietnam war. Indeed, for almost 10 years, Moscow had to carry on a war unsupportable by the government, a conflict that brought about the demoralization and finally the breakup of the Soviet empire. … What is most important to the history of the world? The Taliban or the collapse of the Soviet empire? Some stirred-up Moslems or the liberation of Central Europe and the end of the cold war? … It is said that the West had a global policy in regard to Islam. That is stupid. There isn’t a global Islam. Look at Islam in a rational manner and without demagoguery or emotion. It is the leading religion of the world with 1.5 billion followers. But what is there in common among Saudi Arabian fundamentalism, moderate Morocco, Pakistan militarism, Egyptian pro-Western or Central Asian secularism? Nothing more than what unites the Christian countries.

Oops. Bet he forgot ever saying that. In fact, John Pilger reported that Brzezinski denied that this strategy was the beginning for al-Qaeda and terrorism; he said it was the Russian’s fault. Nevertheless, this was arguably the beginning of militarizing Islam to use as a US geo-political tool, something that continued long after the Soviets left Afghanistan.

Alternet has an interesting interview with historian Greg Grandin discussing his new book, Empire’s Workshop: Latin America, the United States, and the Rise of the New Imperialism, and “how ‘militant anti-Communists’ in the Reagan administration developed the model for the Bush doctrine.” (There is an excerpt from the book also available here on Alternet). As he explains, the book tries to “look at how U.S. corporate elites — the Guggenheims, the Rockefellers and so forth — first established themselves in Latin America with their overseas subsidiaries and how U.S. political elites viewed the region as the first place to project American power.” Another great quote from the interview:

The war on terror or its component parts — gaining public acceptance of torture, for example, or rendition or the war in Iraq — is as much a domestic affair as it is a foreign one. If you read the writings of neocon intellectuals like Christopher Caldwell or William Kristol, it�??s all about steeling America�??s domestic culture and making the population more resistant to pain, both ours and the pain we inflict on others. And it seems that it�??s not just that they look at America�??s political culture and see dissent or anti-militarism, but they really see a culture of weakness, and they expected that the war on terror would bring about a restoration of American strength.

I’ve ear-marked this book myself for future reading as it looks pretty interesting. I first stumbled across Greg Grandin while searching around for information of American involvement in South America during the Cold War. He’d given an interview to the University of Chicago about another book he wrote entitled The Last Colonial Massacre: Latin America in the Cold War, which argued that “the spread of Latin America’s guerrilla movements was driven by the frustration of efforts to consolidate post-World War II social democracies.” In particular, he points out that “The overthrow of Arbenz” in Guatemala “was an important milestone” in the transformation of Latin America from having “a degree of political liberalization” to US-backed repression of “domestic dissent”, whereby “The already cramped space for political negotiation became even more restricted.”

The overthrow of Arbenz convinced many Latin American reformers, democrats, and nationalists that the United States was less a model to be emulated than a danger to be feared. Che Guevara, for example, was in Guatemala working as a doctor and witnessed firsthand the effects of US intervention. He fled to Mexico, where he would meet Fidel Castro and go on to lead the Cuban Revolution. He taunted the United States repeatedly in his speeches by saying that “Cuba will not be Guatemala.” For its part, the United States promised to turn Guatemala into a “showcase for democracy” but instead created a laboratory of repression. Practices institutionalized there�??such as death squad killings conducted by professionalized intelligence agencies�??spread throughout Latin America in the coming decades.

He’s a fairly regular writer at The Nation, is a teacher of Latin American history (New York University), and also helped contribute to the UN report on human-rights violations in Guatemala during their civil war. You can read his articles for the Nation here.

In a recent report, Human Rights Watch condemned Hezbollah’s practice of packing their rockets with “hundreds of metal ball bearings that are of limited use against military targets but cause great harm to civilians and civilian property. The ball bearings lodge in the body and cause serious harm.” It’s worth looking at this point, to illustrate exactly why Hezbollah, Hamas and Israel are the same.

The accusation that this is a war crime is entirely legitimate, and is routinely mentioned and described in press reports. For the example, the BBC reported about casualties in the Israeli city of Haifa, commenting that “Many of the casualties have been wounded by some 14kg of ball-bearings packed into the missile warheads, designed to cause maximum damage.”

Alan Dershowitz, whom I’ve mentioned before, has referred to this terrible practice, stating that “Hezbollah and Hamas want to maximize civilian casualties on both sides” by “deliberately [operating] military wings out of densely populated areas”, “[launching] antipersonnel missiles with ball-bearing shrapnel, designed by Syria and Iran to maximize civilian casualties”. He concludes that “Israel must be allowed to finish the fight that Hamas and Hezbollah started, even if that means civilian casualties in Gaza and Lebanon. A democracy is entitled to prefer the lives of its own innocents over the lives of the civilians of an aggressor, especially if the latter group contains many who are complicit in terrorism.”

Firstly, it is highly questionable that Hezbollah do, in fact, use Lebanese civilians as shields. In a recent article for Salon.com about this “myth”, Mitch Prothero reports that “Hezbollah fighters — as opposed to the much more numerous Hezbollah political members, and the vastly more numerous Hezbollah sympathizers — avoid civilians … This is not for humanitarian reasons … but for military ones”, namely because they’re afraid of collaborators that can betray them.

“Israel” Prothero adds, “has chosen to treat the political members of Hezbollah as if they were fighters. And by targeting the civilian wing of the group, which supplies much of the humanitarian aid and social protection for the poorest people in the south, they are targeting civilians.” In comparison, this is the same as Hezbollah targetting and bombing all groups supplying “humanitarian aid and social protection” for people in Israel, something which no doubt would be condemned but, for Israel, it is considered entirely legitimate.

Secondly, as I’ve stated before, even if Hezbollah are using civilians as shields - a terrible act - this does not remove the character of the civilian population under international law, yet Israel clearly disregards this, viewing civilian infrastructure as a legitimate target and that the killing of civilians is morally legitimate, too. Since both Hamas and Hezbollah consider the targeting of civilians as legitimate, the terrorist tag is equally applicable to Israel. In comparison, it would be laughable to consider reading in the press no criticism over Hamas and Hezbollah’s claims that their attacks on civilians in Haifa in Israel are “morally justified” because they had “warned the civilians and gave them enough time to leave, and that the civilians who remained chose, themselves, not to leave” before raining rockets down on them (quotes from Professor Asa Kasher, the author of the Israeli Defense Force’s code of ethics). It’s also worth asking, if all the transportation networks had been destroyed preventing Israelis to leave Haifa, would the media also have no comment about whether or not they could actually leave?

Thirdly, if we are to condemn Hezbollah’s practice of filling their missiles with ball-bearings and use this as evidence of their terrorism and barbarism seperating them from the Israelis who do “everything reasonable to minimize civilian casualties” (Dershowitz), what are we to make of the accusation made by the General Manager of Ambulances and Emergencies for the Ministry of Health in Gaza, Dr. Muawiya Hassanei, that “The Israeli forces are using internationally prohibited missiles that contain chemical materials and burning metals and in addition, have shrapnel in the shape of nails”.

He pointed out that the injuries received in the hospitals as a result of these missiles are very dangerous because the human tissues and muscles are torn and in addition, the injured suffer from severe bleeding, loss of limbs and broken bones.

The International Middle East Media Center (IMEMC) gained interviews with several doctors working in different hospitals in the Gaza strip, and all confirmed the use of non-conventional weapons. One of the doctors, Dr. Saeed Jodah, said, “When the Shrapnel hits the body, it causes very strong burns that destroy the tissues around the bones. When this shrapnel enters the body, it burns and destroys internal organs, like the liver, kidneys, the spleen and other organs, and makes saving the wounded almost impossible. As a surgeon, I have seen thousands of wounds during the Intifada, but nothing was like this weapon.”

The latest case that matched these symptoms was Muhammad Muhra, 17, from Al Bureij refugee camp. He was killed on Thursday. His body arrived at the hospital in an almost unrecognizable condition.

This went unreported in Western media, and a search on Google News showed this mentioned only in the International Middle East Media Center (see also Google Cache).

Where are the voices of condemnation from Dershowitz and others who (rightly) complain about Hezbollah’s “antipersonnel missiles with ball-bearing shrapnel” being designed “to maximize civilian casualties”? And, since Palestinians voted in a democratic election (but are still under occupation) and the Lebanese voted in a democratic election, while Israel clearly supports terrorism against Lebanese and Gazian civilians, does this then justify Hamas and Hezbollah in using Dershowitz’s argument to say they “prefer the lives of its own innocents over the lives of the civilians of an aggressor, especially if the latter group contains many who are complicit in terrorism”?

I’ve expanded a bit more on some of the themes I wrote about in my recent article, Israel’s Rational Prospect. You can read it here.