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 the United States. Show all posts
Showing posts with label the United States. Show all posts
4 February 2010
Eurasian Food Security in 2020: Two Scenarios
Eurasian populations face an unprecedented challenge over the coming decade to secure adequate nutrition and healthy food for their populations, and at the same time an extraordinary opportunity. The main problem we face is not a problem of an exploding population. Rather it is a problem of the nutritional quality of the food we produce and consume across Eurasia from Turkey to China to Russia and Central Asia.
Why do I state the problem thus? First, to dismiss the false “over-population” argument, it should be noted that the net reproduction rate across the world over the past four decades of aggressive birth control programs sponsored by the US Government and by private interests, above all the Rockefeller Population Council, is intended to drastically reduce population growth among developing country peoples. It has succeeded to the point the greatest potential problem the world will face in the next several decades will be like that Japan, Germany, Italy and other industrialized nations already face: lack of young growing populations, a demographic “population death.” The present birth rates across the EU are below net replacement levels meaning slow demographic death. The same is the case across much of Eurasia especially the former Soviet Union countries. Population growth will not be our problem.
The greatest danger to Eurasia’s food security over the next decade will come from the threat of agribusiness, the industrial production of food purely for profit. Some historical background is helpful.
Why do I state the problem thus? First, to dismiss the false “over-population” argument, it should be noted that the net reproduction rate across the world over the past four decades of aggressive birth control programs sponsored by the US Government and by private interests, above all the Rockefeller Population Council, is intended to drastically reduce population growth among developing country peoples. It has succeeded to the point the greatest potential problem the world will face in the next several decades will be like that Japan, Germany, Italy and other industrialized nations already face: lack of young growing populations, a demographic “population death.” The present birth rates across the EU are below net replacement levels meaning slow demographic death. The same is the case across much of Eurasia especially the former Soviet Union countries. Population growth will not be our problem.
The greatest danger to Eurasia’s food security over the next decade will come from the threat of agribusiness, the industrial production of food purely for profit. Some historical background is helpful.
Central Asia, Ten Years into the Future
Since 2002, geopolitical struggle in Central Asia has become a multifaceted affair. Alongside the formerly hegemonic Russia, China has become a regional economic force, and the United States is trying to balance the game with its military supremacy. The struggle for influence that determines Asia today will become more concrete over the next 10 years.
Apart from these two nations, the presence of second tier powers pursuing their own strategic interests in the region both demonstrates the region’s strategic significance and suggests that the future will see Central Asia become the arena for even larger struggles, since interests to be achieved in dynamic multiple interactions include geopolitical power, national and religious influence, security and economic opportunities. Currently, the struggle in this region, which can be seen as the heart of the world, focuses on the factors that connect the region to the outside world: roads, pipelines and the management of natural resources, as well as political issues. Whoever can control these factors will be the region’s geopolitical and economic conqueror.
For political and economic reasons, the Russian Federation still has imperial designs on its former territories, and it is seriously concerned about the United States’ goals in the region since the occupation of Afghanistan made that nation the second force in the region. For this reason, Russia established the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO) with China and the four nations of Turkestan in 1996. In 2001, Uzbekistan joined the organization.
This organization has made successful moves in recent years, proving its ability to maintain security in Central Asia and to resolve border disputes, and increasing its political significance during the process. Major Asian powers such as India, Pakistan and Iran felt a need to join the organization as observers, and this significant fact is proof of the SCO’s increasing power.
However, the organization, which came on the international scene with the slogan of “Eurasia for Eurasians,” has as a primary deficiency for becoming a balancing mechanism against the US and NATO superpowers, and it has have always been known: its lack of a joint military force.
Apart from these two nations, the presence of second tier powers pursuing their own strategic interests in the region both demonstrates the region’s strategic significance and suggests that the future will see Central Asia become the arena for even larger struggles, since interests to be achieved in dynamic multiple interactions include geopolitical power, national and religious influence, security and economic opportunities. Currently, the struggle in this region, which can be seen as the heart of the world, focuses on the factors that connect the region to the outside world: roads, pipelines and the management of natural resources, as well as political issues. Whoever can control these factors will be the region’s geopolitical and economic conqueror.
For political and economic reasons, the Russian Federation still has imperial designs on its former territories, and it is seriously concerned about the United States’ goals in the region since the occupation of Afghanistan made that nation the second force in the region. For this reason, Russia established the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO) with China and the four nations of Turkestan in 1996. In 2001, Uzbekistan joined the organization.
This organization has made successful moves in recent years, proving its ability to maintain security in Central Asia and to resolve border disputes, and increasing its political significance during the process. Major Asian powers such as India, Pakistan and Iran felt a need to join the organization as observers, and this significant fact is proof of the SCO’s increasing power.
However, the organization, which came on the international scene with the slogan of “Eurasia for Eurasians,” has as a primary deficiency for becoming a balancing mechanism against the US and NATO superpowers, and it has have always been known: its lack of a joint military force.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
