George Friedman is the founder of Stratfor, a Texas-based strategic intelligence consultancy advising many major US corporations. Although described as a conservative Republican, his views would mirror those of many foreign policy realists in both parties. He assumes that military and economic power determine the future. As he puts it, “anger does not make history, power does”.
He believes the United States will remain the dominant global power for the rest of the 21st century, because of its huge natural resources of coal and oil, its geographic immunity from attack in its fortress of North America, and its control of the world’s seas and of space.
Just as England’s strategic goal, as an island nation and a naval power, was to prevent Europe’s unification under one power coalition, America will pursue a similar policy on the Eurasian land mass. It will not want any one coalition – be it of Russia, China, Turkey or Japan – to dominate that land mass.
He is critical of the way American politicians sometimes approach foreign policy. Because America is so powerful, it has a much bigger margin for error than others, and it sometimes overuses that luxury. He says America is “adolescent in its simplification of issues, and in its use of power”.
Other less powerful countries have less margin to make mistakes.
Russia, following the eastward expansion of NATO to within 100 miles of St. Petersburg, is he claims “in an untenable political position” and “unless it exerts itself to create a sphere of influence, it could itself fragment”.
Both China and Japan are vulnerable because they are export economies and they rely on the all powerful US Navy to keep sea lanes open for their exports of goods and their imports of raw material.
Friedman says that the European Union is a schizophrenic entity in that its “primary purpose is the creation of an integrated economy, while leaving sovereignty in the hands of individual nations”. The current economic crisis will put this proposition to the test, and I believe that Friedman will be proven wrong. But he has a point. EU’s states often set ambitious common objectives for themselves, but fail to match them with the necessary central authority.
He argues that there is a divergence of interest between Germany and others who will want easy relations with Russia, and more easterly EU members who will fear again being sucked into Russia’s sphere of influence.
Surprisingly, Friedman does not see China becoming as a great power because of its inefficient allocation of capital, its corruption, its profitless exports and its unhealthy reliance on US consumers to buy its goods. He sees Japan emerging as the major Asian power, notwithstanding its lack of resources and its very elderly population. He ignores India. I believe this analysis of the long-term balance of power in Asia is quite unconvincing.
He sees Turkey emerging as the major power across all the former Ottoman lands from North Africa to Central Asia. But he believes Islamic fundamentalism will run out of steam because its real target, the liberation of women, is irreversible.
Friedman speculates about the likely conflicts of the twenty-first century – including its wars. He believes the wars will be conducted by unmanned aircraft using high precision weaponry and guided from space. They will be backed up by small numbers of highly equipped infantry. The aim will be to destroy the electricity generation capacity and close sea lanes of the enemy. There will be modest casualties. Wars will be limited, and will end with negotiated treaties. Pursuit of unconditional surrender will be off the agenda, because nuclear weapons will make it too dangerous.
This book shows why and how population trends, military technology, and economic policy interact to give some countries more power than others and will create real sources of conflict. Although some of its speculations have a touch of science fiction about them, its basic assumptions about the realities of military power are credible and sobering, especially for those who might think that neutrality would protect a country from the conflicts foreseen.
No comments:
Post a Comment