Ricochet is the best place on the internet to discuss the issues of the day, either through commenting on posts or writing your own for our active and dynamic community in a fully moderated environment. In addition, the Ricochet Audio Network offers over 50 original podcasts with new episodes released every day.
Geopolitical Predictions: Place Your Bets
So where is it all going, folks? Does anyone have an instinct?
When I wrote about why Margaret Thatcher mattered, I concluded “that the political figures who matter have two rare gifts.”
First, they are able to perceive the gathering of historical forces in a way their contemporaries were unable to do. What do I mean by “the gathering of historical forces?” I mean, they are able to sense the big picture. Lenin was able to discern a convergence of trends in Czarist Russia — the migration of the peasants, the rise of revolutionary consciousness, the weakness of the Czarist government, the debilitation inflicted upon Russia by the First World War — and to recognize what this convergence implied: The old order could now be toppled — not merely reformed, but destroyed. Czar Nicholas II could not perceive this. It is thus that Lenin now matters and Nicholas II does not.
Second, when promoted to power, those who matter are able to master those historical forces. Chiang understood perfectly that China was vulnerable to communism and understood as well what communism in China would mean. But he was unable, for all his energy and efforts, to master them. And so, tragically, he does not matter.
Churchill perceived the forces of history and then mastered them. In 1933, Hitler was widely regarded outside of Germany as no more than a buffoon. Churchill knew better. His assessment of Hitler was at the time astonishingly prescient and singular. He perceived the unique danger of Nazism when others could not see it or refused to believe it. He was steadfast in his warnings. When at last Churchill acquired power, he discharged his responsibilities in a fashion as to gain him immortality.
When politicians matter, they matter because of these gifts.
Thatcher had these gifts. She perceived — as did many of her contemporaries — that Britain was in decline. She perceived that the effects of Marxist doctrine upon Britain had been pernicious. But unlike her contemporaries, she perceived that Britain’s decline was not inevitable. And she perceived too that socialism was not — as widely believed — irreversible.
Simultaneously, she sensed a wider and related tide in history that no other leader, apart from Reagan, sensed at all. She understood that the Soviet Union was far from the invulnerable colossus it was imagined to be. She sensed, in fact, that it was unable to satisfy the basic needs of its population. It was corrupt, moribund, and doomed.
Having perceived the gathering of historical forces, she mastered them. She reversed the advance of socialism in Britain, proving both that a country can be ripped from a seemingly overdetermined trajectory and that it takes only a single figure with an exceptionally strong will to do so. She did not single-handedly cause the Soviet empire to crumble, but she landed some of the most devastating punches of the Cold War, and extraordinarily, emerged unblooded from the fight.
I wrote those words in 2007, and as you can see immediately, my own ability to perceive the gathering of historical forces will not leave me numbered among the immortals. Shortly after I wrote that conclusion, Lehman Brothers collapsed. The world’s confidence in capitalism was shaken by the subsequent events nearly as greatly as its confidence in communism after the fall of the Berlin Wall.
If you had told me then that in 2015, the better part of the Islamic world would be consumed in anarchy and savagery; that hundreds of thousands of desperate refugees would be streaming across Europe’s borders, threatening its unity and stability; that Russia would determine to re-prosecute the Cold War; that China would surpass America as the world’s largest economy and expand its military influence beyond its own shores; that the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty would be in shreds, that the United States would begin a long, slow, melancholy retreat from the world stage — or even that Jeremy Corbyn would be the leader of a Labour Party whose own former director of media relations said, in 2002, “We are all Thatcherites now” — I suppose I wouldn’t have published that book.
So I don’t have the gift. I did grasp that Turkey was by no means a model democracy, and I said so before it was a truism. I saw exactly how serious the events in Syria were, and what their implications would be. But I have no strategy now for mastering these disasters, and I’m not sure at this point what one might even look like, or how I would recognize it.
So let’s hear from you. What will the world be like in six months, next year, in five years, in twenty? What are the most important gathering historical forces? What is the big picture? Which political figure, if any, has shown a sign that he — or she — has the ability to master them? If none of them do, and if the task by some accident fell to you, how would you approach it?
Published in Foreign Policy, History
You win comment of the day.
Claire,
Perhaps I’ll need more space but let’s try.
First, I would present my basic thesis that a constitutional democratic capitalist state is the most efficient economically and the most upright ethically. We know this by two analyses. One, Hayek’s recognition that the market has no substitute and command economies are destined to fail. Two, Gawron’s recognition that socialism is a form of feudalism with a pseudo-scientific ideology instead of a religion as its basis.
From this I can’t make any straight line predictions as so much “depends on”. First, we must be conscious and sure that our system is the proper system to encourage the rest of the world to follow. Second, we must possess the will to fight off aggressors that will try to destroy us both internally and externally. We must martial our forces and use them judiciously. We must play our own cards well. America limited to 1.5% growth and a shrinking military presence doesn’t cut it. America that questions its own fundamental values and undercuts the institutions that support them won’t cut it. There is no doubt in my mind that we can do better, however, it takes the will & leadership to do so.
Once the West has its own mind right then we must be aware of the many differences we will find in the rest of the world. Each society will have its own set of problems. We should not expect them to all follow some fixed schedule moving forward. We must recognize that the temptation of socialism-authoritarianism command economies will be strong with cultures resistant to change. We can only expect so much from them. Our own temptation to lose patience must be resisted. We have great new tools. The net makes the underdeveloped societies aware of us in an immediate way that was never there before. We shouldn’t underestimate their desire to emerge onto the world market. This is a powerful force that can lead a society away from authoritarianism towards a peaceful & prosperous result. The carrot is always better than the stick. Of course, we must keep those sticks ready to be used against hegemonist authoritarians who want to bully their way to power.
So many “depends on”. The video driver for my crystal ball is on the fritz so I can’t use the visionary mode. Not likely to be fixed anytime soon.
Regards,
Jim
History is predictive insomuch as the only thing that doesn’t change is the nature of mankind.
What man really desires is a life eternal as a 17-year old. Our deepest desires are for a benevolent king. Even in the history of America, our Judeo-Christian heritage had us yearning for a father who provides.
The problem is that no king can be benevolent to all people at all times without doing a lot of non-benevolent, very violent things. You can not have material goods provided to you without seizing the wealth of another or appropriating someone else’s labor.
You can not have your dignity and your respect (as you see it) without extracting revenge or suppressing the dignity and respect of another. (Think about that in relation to the simple designation of gender specific bathrooms.)
In today’s America, we talk more and more about wanting that “strong leader.” More and more of our political discourse is consumed with talk about destroying and revenge. (Destroy Capitalism! Smash the Patriarchy! Kill the Racists!) How then can we react to those same forces that are operating internationally?
Besides the nature of man, the other thing history has taught us is the impermanence of all things – except the job security of the cartographer.
I think this is part of the motivation for Saudi’s current campaign in Yemen. If I recall correctly, the southern regions of Saudi Arabia (e.g. Najran) have a sizeable Shia population, tribal ties to northern Yemen, and used to be ruled by an Imam from the same sect as the Houthi rebels that control most of the Yemeni highlands at the moment. So if the Houthis prevail in Yemen, that could embolden some separatist movements in Saudi Arabia.
Until a couple of years ago, I thought that one or two Western European countries (e.g., the Netherlands or Denmark) would suffer mass Islamic violence in time for the others to come to their senses.
The distribution of the current wave of immigrants jeopardizes this dynamic. Virtually all of Western Europe may fall at once.
Here’s an optimistic prediction for y’all.
Russia starts a war with NATO/The US. America finishes it. No nukes are detonated.
Nothing in 2015 disproves the thrust of the paragraphs you quote, or demonstrates that Margaret Thatcher, Prime Minister from 1979-1990, did not matter. Vladimir Putin and Barack Obama and Jeremy Corbyn prove only that no victory is permanent, and that even the greatest leadership can secure freedom only for a few years at a time anyway.
Which are things we should have known anyway. D-Day did not matter less because the Cold War lay waiting.
I can see things that matter… I do not pretend to be able to predict how they turn out. A change in American leadership could change so much. I don’t know if any presidential candidate has that gift. Maybe Rubio. Maybe Paul Ryan.
I admit, though, that the rise of Jeremy Corbyn has a surreal feel to it. I do not know that ends. The pundits are probably right that he leads Labour to a decisively disastrous election defeat. But what then? Are Labour voters going to simply decide that didn’t work out and turn back to some new form of Blairism? I don’t think so.
I suspect the kind of populism showing itself in the rise of Corbyn and Sanders and Trump, and even in Scottish nationalism — the cynical disenchantment with established politics, the willingness to suspend disbelief, the eagerness for something different — will be seen again. Effective genuine leadership can address that cynical disenchantment. But if we don’t get that leadership, that populist protest will assert itself until some form of it gains power — whether from the Left or Right, I don’t pretend to know. But it is not a healthy moment, and we desperately need that leadership.
“Simultaneously, she sensed a wider and related tide in history that no other leader, apart from Reagan, sensed at all. She understood that the Soviet Union was far from the invulnerable colossus it was imagined to be. She sensed, in fact, that it was unable to satisfy the basic needs of its population. It was corrupt, moribund, and doomed.”
I thought it was considered a triumvirate which also included the pope who drove for change in Poland and undermined Communist resolve. Did I miss something?
I’ll throw my two cents in.
Globalization peaks and goes into reverse. The TPP will be the last major trade deal of its kind. Nations will once more warm to the idea of trade barriers and tariffs, the disruption of global supply chains will have the inevitable economic consequences in export driven nations with expected political fall out quickly following. Even in the US there will be isolationist pressure of this kind with Smoot-Hawley type legislation being once more mooted and by those not generally considered cranks.
The de-globalization movement will be broadly based and not limited merely to trade. The Internet for example will devolve into a collection of segregated networks with controls on the nation-state level similar to Iran and China becoming the norm ( an effort that will not be limited solely to authoritarian regimes ) as leaders feel the necessity to exert greater control over this technology.
predictions are a lot more valuable when they are accompanied by rationale. What convinces you that de-globalization is going to increase in appeal??
Unable to be specific,but: Sturm. Drang. Repeat.
Ideas such as free trade rarely have broad popular appeal in advanced industrial nations, even in the US support is tepid at best. Whether voters support it or not depends entirely on how the argument is framed:
It is top down driven policy both globally and within nation states, any populist with a brain could easily turn voters against it and as economic conditions worsen here it will happen.
Globally the British Empire and currently the United States have fulfilled the role of promoting trade. I do not expect this to continue in the US and I do not anticipate any nation stepping forward and taking on this role when the US steps back.
On a global note I anticipate a severe balance of payments crisis in several nations, restricting trade is often a popular policy when such economic downturns occur. Populists will not hesitate to use this tool.
Obama fails to make a required lease payment on Guantanamo Bay.
Peter Zeihan predicts fracking will make US energy independent, leading to retrenchment, meaning less protection of commercial sea lanes worldwide.
The next 2-3 years will see a economic crash that probably originates in China. The demographic trends and economic cycles pretty much bake that into the cake.
The European Union will break up as a trans-national entity and at best a free-trade zone will be preserved. With any luck, the UK will leave the EU (confirming Thatcher’s view that the EU was not a good thing).
The invasion of the North by people fleeing the “Global South” (e.g. Africa, Central and South America) will interact with the global jihad to the detriment of both Europe and the US.
The civil war between the major sects of Islam will continue and the big issue will be whether it’s fought with nukes — thanks to Obama’s sell out to Iran.
If a Republican from the conservative wing of the party wins the nomination (Cruz, Fiorina or Rubio), that person will win in 2016 and have a decent chance of pulling off a Thatcherite/Reaganite revival of American power.
The five years of 2016-2021 will be filled with conflict and, if we are lucky, we will not see a city (not necessarily American) destroyed or ruined by nuclear or radiological warfare.
Globally the political forces during the next five years will be: Islamism, Socialism/Statism (see EU), revived nationalism in Europe, demographic/economic decline in China and American Exceptionalism revived after the first Anti-American President tried to destroy it.
All in all: expect the worst and be thankful if we don’t experience a Zombie Apocalypse.
Not at these prices and regulatory environment.
It is irrelevant in either case.
Mr. Zeihan’s arguments even if correct only lend support to and lead to the exact same conclusion of economic isolationism becoming an ascendent popular policy and if he is wrong it hardly matters. Other significant forces are at work.
The borders today are under strain – or rather, the underlying differences that they created or papered over are rising to the top. This was not inevitable (or irreversible), but an unfortunate approach on the part of the local elites (how they ruled) and the great powers (whom they supported and why) has made it so.
Add IS to the mix –an avowedly cross border, world- wide Caliphate kind of organisation – it’s deeply destabilizing at an existential level (in terms of the very concept of legitimately separate nation states) to countries in the region with Sunni majorities where its political theology finds some echo.
The only borders not under threat of change are those of small countries which are rich enough per capita to buy the best defense for their tiny boundaries (UAE etc.), those countries which have a historical coherence and a functional hard State and Army (Iran, Turkey), or those whose borders are de facto guaranteed by the US (Israel, Egypt).
Afghan Pashtunistan joins Pakistan’s FATAs. Herat to Khyber, but not Kabul (depends on the fighting). Herat to Bala Murghab would be contested, but Iranian support will keep that “free”. Ghowrmach will be the western bastion of a rump Afghanistan with a de facto capital in Mazar-e-Sharif if Kabul is contested.
Northern borders would not change.
Pashtunistan may be part of Pakistan, or “independent”, and an ISI/ISIS joint either way. Taliban will have some hard choices to make.
Thank you Zafar. Good insight.
I believe the global urban real-estate bubble will burst and this will financially burn millions of people, and this will alter politics to a greater extent than the lehmann brothers collapse.
I think the Chinese middle-class will be the most hurt but it wont end there.
One consequence will be a return to nationalism, protectionism and a turn away from free-trade.
You can count me as a skeptic of the “I” part of that acronym. People having been saying that India is on the cusp for decades. It just never materialises.
India hosted the Commonwealth Games (an Olympics for former British colonies). It was their big chance to showcase the modern face of the nation to the world. It was a disaster. A hundred times more farcical than Sochi. Two friends of mine have been to India. One ended up hospitalised for two years with a mystery bug, the other said he found the place too overwhelming (I assume he means overpopulation and infrastructural chaos). So when people say India is the next China, I just struggle to believe it. I know I’m not basing my statement on a lot here, but I still need convincing that the place is taking off.
That’s us. Perennially “geared for take-off” : – (
Also: India will not be the next China. India will still be India, though what that is may evolve. (But will likely remain overwhelming, it’s hard to deny.)
A rolling bankruptcy of blue states -probably starting with Puerto Rico, then Illinois, Connecticut, NJ and onwards – will finally result in the breakdown of the current 50/50 gridlock in the American political order. Unfortunately it might start before the 2016 election and the 100,000+ Puerto Ricans that migrate to Florida will tip that swing state to Hillary, then we are doomed.
Now I feel bad! No hard feelings i hope Zafar!
If you want to see another way to do political chaos and squandered economic booms just look at Australia. That’s my lot.
I don’t care to make that kind of prediction. I don’t have a good record at it. For example, in the mid 1980s I did not expect Soviet imperialism to fall apart within my lifetime, no matter what my hero Ronald Reagan had been saying about the ash-heap of history.
I do think it’s useful to understand the forces at work; therefore, I like to learn how Putin is working the west to get the Russian empire back. How far he will get with it is hard to say. I vote for taking advantage of any reasonable opportunities to thwart the process, no matter how futile his effort may seem to those who specialize in finding excuses for doing nothing. The same for Chinese military expansionism, or the way China is pressuring others to take part in its censorship.
I’m convinced.
As an aside: Zafar, have you been following the elections in Bihar? I’d love to see a post about those on the Member Feed.
No, we say that all the time about ourselves, no offence taken at all!
(And – such serendipity – I live in Sydney.)