Monthly Archives: January 2012

“The Long Peace,” or Harbinger of Doom?

Posted by Matt on January 31, 2012 6 comments

There has not been one war between the major powers in over 60 years. Historians say this is unprecedented and call it the “the Long Peace.” It seems to suggest that we have entered a new era of declining war and more peace. If your view of looking into the future is through a rear-view mirror, then this historical analysis is great. But what about the rest of us?

Please watch this video titled, “The Mathematics of War”:

There is a mathematical process underlying conflicts and war. Attacks and wars precisely follow a power-law distribtion process. So what?

Well, power-law processes work through a feedback loop mechanism and exhibit self-organizing criticality. Periods of peace represent the time that tension can build. Longer periods of peace mean more tension can build. Eventually, the tension builds to the point where the system undergoes a phase change – collapse (war). What that means is that if one suppresses conflict and war, then eventually you will get one that is orders of magnitude (powers of 10) larger. So a period of unprecedented peace MUST be followed by a period of unprecedented war.

The Human Security Report, an annual study compiled by researchers at Simon Fraser University in Canada, spells out the changes since the end of World War II. In the 1950s, there was an average of just over six international wars being fought every year. In the new millennium, there has been an average of less than one. Even more remarkable, there has not been a single war between the major powers in more than 60 years. This is unprecedented. Historians call it “the Long Peace”.

Not only are there fewer international wars, they have become less deadly. The average war of the 1950s caused 20,000 battle deaths a year. In the past decade it’s fewer than 3000 per war.

But what of civil wars? The trend was ugly from the 1960s to the 1990s, when they trebled. A great many were proxy struggles by the superpowers. As soon as the Soviet Union gave up the fight, the Cold War ended and so did many civil wars. Their number halved from 1992 to 2003, when it reached 29. Last year there were 30 being waged.

Wars On The Wane | Syria | Iraq | Afghanistan

China infuriated by US-Philippines defense plans — RT

Posted by Matt on January 31, 2012 Comments Off

The US decision to station forces in the Philippines could have dangerous repercussions. Beijing may enact economic sanctions after Manila invited in US troops in response to an escalating territorial dispute over the South China Sea.

Dr. Pak-Nung Wong of the City University of Hong Kong told RT that the Philippines is merely cashing in on America’s move.

“At the international level, the Philippines knows that the US has definitely returned to Asia – refocusing its military and security deployment in the Middle East and Asia-Pacific, targeting China and Iran as the primary security concern,” he said.

China infuriated by US-Philippines defense plans — RT

The world’s 10 most dangerous countries | David Rothkopf

Posted by Matt on January 31, 2012 Comments Off

Yesterday, I spent a little time ruminating as to whether Pakistan was really the most dangerous country in the world. And I promised to consider today which countries were, in fact, should worry us the most.

To begin with, let’s consider criteria and that means we need to ask “dangerous to whom?” There are plenty of local actors who are the nearest, greatest threats to the neighbors. So, let’s limit ourselves to actors who can cause the greatest disruption through their actions to the most people over the next decade or so.

Here are my top 10:

10. Venezuela

The world’s 10 most dangerous countries | David Rothkopf

On a Knife’s Edge | Foreign Policy

Posted by Matt on January 31, 2012 Comments Off

The global economy is balanced precariously between total collapse and salvation. Here are four tipping points toward disaster and four things that could get it back on track.

The year 2012 is Europe’s moment of truth. If their dithering continues, European politicians will soon lose control of the continent’s economic and financial future. After all the excitement of 2011, it is also a make-or-break year for some Middle Eastern countries in the midst of tricky political transitions. Even the United States is being shaken out of its social slumber as concerns mount about income inequality and, more generally, the fairness of the “system.”

All this speaks to an increasingly bimodal outlook for the world economy in the years ahead. At one end, timely and proactive policy measures can help with the healing and put the globe back on the path toward higher growth, job creation, and better social justice. At the other, political dysfunction and financial deleveraging could lead to economic fragmentation, higher unemployment, trade wars, and social unrest.

In an attempt to shed light on the key issues in play, what follows is an attempt to identify four factors that could wreck the global economy in the next few years, and four factors that could propel it to greater stability and prosperity. Let’s hope our leaders choose wisely.

On a Knife’s Edge – By Mohamed El-Erian | Foreign Policy

Russia, and the Putin Rules: A Pessimistic Assessment – Forbes

Posted by Matt on January 31, 2012 Comments Off

Realize that Putin is the CEO of Kremlin, Inc., a state-capitalist network of state companies, political directorships, and offshore companies, which runs the “national champions” of industry, finance, commerce, media, and even state religion. As CEO of Kremlin, Inc., Putin’s remit is to enrich himself and fellow board members, promote state interests as defined by Kremlin, Inc., and insure political survival by all means no matter how unsavory. If the CEO falls, he threatens to pull down Kremlin Inc. with him. The powers that be cannot allow political competition. Only Kremlin Inc. can replace Putin, but with a clone. Regime opponents, basking in the afterglow of their huge demonstrations, must grasp this reality.

Putin’s first decade of rule traded economic stability (compared to the Yeltsin years) for the people ignoring his corruption, lawlessness, repression and murder of journalists and defectors, and decimation of opposition forces. Putin staked his legitimacy on the high ratings cranked out by “neutral” survey organizations. I suspect they, and the State Statistics Office, will become much less “independent” during his third term.

Russia, and the Putin Rules: A Pessimistic Assessment – Forbes

State capitalism is defined by the pretense of private ownership with heavy state control over the use and disposal of property. This is equivalent to fascism which is not to be confused with Naziism.

Definition of State Capitalism or Fascism as Given by the Ayn Rand Lexicon

The difference between [socialism and fascism] is superficial and purely formal, but it is significant psychologically: it brings the authoritarian nature of a planned economy crudely into the open.

The main characteristic of socialism (and of communism) is public ownership of the means of production, and, therefore, the abolition of private property. The right to property is the right of use and disposal. Under fascism, men retain the semblance or pretense of private property, but the government holds total power over its use and disposal.

The dictionary definition of fascism is: “a governmental system with strong centralized power, permitting no opposition or criticism, controlling all affairs of the nation (industrial, commercial, etc.), emphasizing an aggressive nationalism . . .” [The American College Dictionary, New York: Random House, 1957.]

Under fascism, citizens retain the responsibilities of owning property, without freedom to act and without any of the advantages of ownership. Under socialism, government officials acquire all the advantages of ownership, without any of the responsibilities, since they do not hold title to the property, but merely the right to use it—at least until the next purge. In either case, the government officials hold the economic, political and legal power of life or death over the citizens.

Fascism/Nazism — Ayn Rand Lexicon