Certainly we are neither diviners, nor trying to report news from the future. We are just providing some insights about what could have happen in the world in the next 10 years under the light of science. We tried present arguments with provocative articles to social scientists. In some areas, we brought philosophical underpinnings. Possible developments were tackled with the perspective of historical dialectic. The reflections of developments that have been experienced during the Cold War, post-Cold War environment until 2001 and since 2001 were the landmarks of the analysis.
As much as what we are experiencing today are reflection of the recent past, it also have footsteps of what we will experience tomorrow. The foundation of this dictum is the fact that since the end of the Cold War, there have been no signed peace agreement. Processes like Dayton and Oslo included just the ceasefire. Talking about a full fledged peace is impossible. Furthermore, this new period was defined as, with a great illusion, New World Order. 1989-2001 passes as a historical intermission. Relative wealth that humanity experienced made the deep abyss more clear. Behind the shadow of artificial alliances, the infrastructure for conflict have been laid. While the victorious US enjoyed this period, other were busy with their preparations. The post-2001 period offered extra time and opportunities for those, who are preparing.
Showing posts with label Middle East. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Middle East. Show all posts
4 February 2010
Potential Conflict Zones in Eurasia: The End of a Historical Intermission
Raiding shepherd tribes is like a bear who destroys the bee hive while trying to steal from it. Oppenheimer uses this analogy while describing how people submit during state formation as transformation from bear to bee-master. No doubt, since Oppenheimer many new ideas have been added to theories of the state. However, none of them have described the contemporary age with such aptitude while presenting the birth of state.
At the end of the Cold War, contemporary models of the state were reduced to a single option. The state was proclaimed an endless ‘civitas diaboli.’ Society, on the other hand, was the eternal ‘civitas dei.’ However, the historical intermission that began with the end of the Cold War has come to an end. As the twentieth century began with the assassination of Franz Ferdinand, September 11 was the starting point of the twenty-first century, and it points to three fundamental changes that will determine the age’s ideological identity:
With the political activation of the Third World, the entire human race has become politically active for the first time.
The Far East is winning for itself the hegemony of the Atlantic World.
Global problems (climate change, hunger, poverty, insufficient resources, etc.) will trigger new polarizations.
Eurasia is the primary region where all of these things will be experienced, since this is the region where the powers that threaten US dominance over the oceans are rising. Low intensity and short term conflicts, the aftershocks of the New World Order, have been occurring in Eurasia. The pressure of Western bloc is causing an accumulation of energy in Central Asia and the Pacific. In these regions, low intensity and short term tremors will be experienced, but this time they will be forerunners.
We see that the work of Western strategists and scientists in particular focuses on Third World countries as potential conflict and war zones. However, it would be incorrect to say that Third World countries are the only communities at risk, with the potential transformation of this risk into crisis. Thus, warnings of some potential risk are to be found in every region and nation, and in certain regions these warnings have been intensifying as a function of regional and national economic, political, social and cultural indicators.
The shift of economic development to the East is a plain reality. The emergence of new markets implies new alliances and conflicts. The natural resource needs of the rapidly growing East have the potential to cause conflict between old and new powers. Competition for the control new markets has the potential to cause conflict between old powers. We may include ethnic problems and disagreements, some more than a hundred years old. Furthermore, the weaponization of space brings dangers that may mark the next ten years.
Beyond this general view, there are ten regions that have the potential for conflict due to their special structures.
At the end of the Cold War, contemporary models of the state were reduced to a single option. The state was proclaimed an endless ‘civitas diaboli.’ Society, on the other hand, was the eternal ‘civitas dei.’ However, the historical intermission that began with the end of the Cold War has come to an end. As the twentieth century began with the assassination of Franz Ferdinand, September 11 was the starting point of the twenty-first century, and it points to three fundamental changes that will determine the age’s ideological identity:
With the political activation of the Third World, the entire human race has become politically active for the first time.
The Far East is winning for itself the hegemony of the Atlantic World.
Global problems (climate change, hunger, poverty, insufficient resources, etc.) will trigger new polarizations.
Eurasia is the primary region where all of these things will be experienced, since this is the region where the powers that threaten US dominance over the oceans are rising. Low intensity and short term conflicts, the aftershocks of the New World Order, have been occurring in Eurasia. The pressure of Western bloc is causing an accumulation of energy in Central Asia and the Pacific. In these regions, low intensity and short term tremors will be experienced, but this time they will be forerunners.
We see that the work of Western strategists and scientists in particular focuses on Third World countries as potential conflict and war zones. However, it would be incorrect to say that Third World countries are the only communities at risk, with the potential transformation of this risk into crisis. Thus, warnings of some potential risk are to be found in every region and nation, and in certain regions these warnings have been intensifying as a function of regional and national economic, political, social and cultural indicators.
The shift of economic development to the East is a plain reality. The emergence of new markets implies new alliances and conflicts. The natural resource needs of the rapidly growing East have the potential to cause conflict between old and new powers. Competition for the control new markets has the potential to cause conflict between old powers. We may include ethnic problems and disagreements, some more than a hundred years old. Furthermore, the weaponization of space brings dangers that may mark the next ten years.
Beyond this general view, there are ten regions that have the potential for conflict due to their special structures.
The Middle East in 2020
Although it may be presumptuous to predict the future of the Middle East and what kind of changes we should expect by 2020, the political volatility of the region and the nature of the conflicts that have been raging for decades have created certain facts on the ground that cannot be changed, short of catastrophic events. These facts will eventually determine certain outcomes, regardless of the continued instability or even the possibility of another major violent eruption. To envision what the Middle East will look like in 2020, it is necessary to identify these facts in each conflicting area and place them in their historical perspectives. The five most likely conflicts that will be subject to a dramatic change for better or worse are the Israeli-Palestinians conflict, the dispute between Israel and Syria over the Golan Heights, the future stability of Iraq, Iran’s nuclear ambitions, and the war in Afghanistan.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
