💾 Archived View for spam.works › mirrors › textfiles › politics › comanrky.pap captured on 2023-06-16 at 19:57:24.
-=-=-=-=-=-=-
2/94 THE COMING ANARCHY (part 1)
How scarcity, crime, overpopulation, tribalism, and disease are rapidly
destroying the social fabric of our planet
by Robert D. Kaplan
The Minister's eyes were like egg yolks, an aftereffect of some of the many
illnesses, malaria especially, endemic in his country. There was also an
irrefutable sadness in his eyes. He spoke in a slow and creaking voice, the voice
of hope about to expire. Flame trees, coconut palms, and a ballpoint-blue
Atlantic composed the background. None of it seemed beautiful, though. "In
forty-five years I have never seen things so bad. We did not manage ourselves
well after the British departed. But what we have now is something worse--the
revenge of the poor, of the social failures, of the people least able to bring up
children in a modern society." Then he referred to the recent coup in the West
African country Sierra Leone. "The boys who took power in Sierra Leone come from
houses like this." The Minister jabbed his finger at a corrugated metal shack
teeming with children. "In three months these boys confiscated all the official
Mercedes, Volvos, and BMWs and willfully wrecked them on the road." The Minister
mentioned one of the coup's leaders, Solomon Anthony Joseph Musa, who shot the
people who had paid for his schooling, "in order to erase the humiliation and
mitigate the power his middle-class sponsors held over him."
Tyranny is nothing new in Sierra Leone or in the rest of West Africa. But it is
now part and parcel of an increasing lawlessness that is far more significant
than any coup, rebel incursion, or episodic experiment in democracy. Crime was
what my friend--a top-ranking African official whose life would be threatened
were I to identify him more precisely--really wanted to talk about. Crime is what
makes West Africa a natural point of departure for my report on what the
political character of our planet is likely to be in the twenty-first century.
The cities of West Africa at night are some of the unsafest places in the world.
Streets are unlit; the police often lack gasoline for their vehicles; armed
burglars, carjackers, and muggers proliferate. "The government in Sierra Leone
has no writ after dark," says a foreign resident, shrugging. When I was in the
capital, Freetown, last September, eight men armed with AK-47s broke into the
house of an American man. They tied him up and stole everything of value. Forget
Miami: direct flights between the United States and the Murtala Muhammed Airport,
in neighboring Nigeria's largest city, Lagos, have been suspended by order of the
U.S. Secretary of Transportation because of ineffective security at the terminal
and its environs. A State Department report cited the airport for "extortion by
law-enforcement and immigration officials." This is one of the few times that the
U.S. government has embargoed a foreign airport for reasons that are linked
purely to crime. In Abidjan, effectively the capital of the Cote d'Ivoire, or
Ivory Coast, restaurants have stick- and gun-wielding guards who walk you the
fifteen feet or so between your car and the entrance, giving you an eerie taste
of what American cities might be like in the future. An Italian ambassador was
killed by gunfire when robbers invaded an Abidjan restaurant. The family of the
Nigerian ambassador was tied up and robbed at gunpoint in the ambassador's
residence. After university students in the Ivory Coast caught bandits who had
been plaguing their dorms, they executed them by hanging tires around their necks
and setting the tires on fire. In one instance Ivorian policemen stood by and
watched the "necklacings," afraid to intervene. Each time I went to the Abidjan
bus terminal, groups of young men with restless, scanning eyes surrounded my
taxi, putting their hands all over the windows, demanding "tips" for carrying my
luggage even though I had only a rucksack. In cities in six West African
countries I saw similar young men everywhere--hordes of them. They were like
loose molecules in a very unstable social fluid, a fluid that was clearly on the
verge of igniting.
"You see," my friend the Minister told me, "in the villages of Africa it is
perfectly natural to feed at any table and lodge in any hut. But in the cities
this communal existence no longer holds. You must pay for lodging and be invited
for food. When young men find out that their relations cannot put them up, they
become lost. They join other migrants and slip gradually into the criminal
process."
"In the poor quarters of Arab North Africa," he continued, "there is much less
crime, because Islam provides a social anchor: of education and indoctrination.
Here in West Africa we have a lot of superficial Islam and superficial
Christianity. Western religion is undermined by animist beliefs not suitable to a
moral society, because they are based on irrational spirit power. Here spirits
are used to wreak vengeance by one person against another, or one group against
another." Many of the atrocities in the Liberian civil war have been tied to
belief in juju spirits, and the BBC has reported, in its magazine Focus on
Africa, that in the civil fighting in adjacent Sierra Leone, rebels were said to
have "a young woman with them who would go to the front naked, always walking
backwards and looking in a mirror to see where she was going. This made her
invisible, so that she could cross to the army's positions and there bury charms
. . . to improve the rebels' chances of success."
Finally my friend the Minister mentioned polygamy. Designed for a pastoral way of
life, polygamy continues to thrive in sub-Saharan Africa even though it is
increasingly uncommon in Arab North Africa. Most youths I met on the road in West
Africa told me that they were from "extended" families, with a mother in one
place and a father in another. Translated to an urban environment, loose family
structures are largely responsible for the world's highest birth rates and the
explosion of the HIV virus on the continent. Like the communalism and animism,
they provide a weak shield against the corrosive social effects of life in
cities. In those cities African culture is being redefined while desertification
and deforestation--also tied to overpopulation--drive more and more African
peasants out of the countryside.
A Premonition of the Future
West Africa is becoming the symbol of worldwide demographic, environmental, and
societal stress, in which criminal anarchy emerges as the real "strategic"
danger. Disease, overpopulation, unprovoked crime, scarcity of resources, refugee
migrations, the increasing erosion of nation-states and international borders,
and the empowerment of private armies, security firms, and international drug
cartels are now most tellingly demonstrated through a West African prism. West
Africa provides an appropriate introduction to the issues, often extremely
unpleasant to discuss, that will soon confront our civilization. To remap the
political earth the way it will be a few decades hence--as I intend to do in this
article--I find I must begin with West Africa.
There is no other place on the planet where political maps are so
deceptive--where, in fact, they tell such lies--as in West Africa. Start with
Sierra Leone. According to the map, it is a nation-state of defined borders, with
a government in control of its territory. In truth the Sierra Leonian government,
run by a twenty-seven-year-old army captain, Valentine Strasser, controls
Freetown by day and by day also controls part of the rural interior. In the
government's territory the national army is an unruly rabble threatening drivers
and passengers at most checkpoints. In the other part of the country units of two
separate armies from the war in Liberia have taken up residence, as has an army
of Sierra Leonian rebels. The government force fighting the rebels is full of
renegade commanders who have aligned themselves with disaffected village chiefs.
A pre-modern formlessness governs the battlefield, evoking the wars in medieval
Europe prior to the 1648 Peace of Westphalia, which ushered in the era of
organized nation-states.
As a consequence, roughly 400,000 Sierra Leonians are internally displaced,
280,000 more have fled to neighboring Guinea, and another 100,000 have fled to
Liberia, even as 400,000 Liberians have fled to Sierra Leone. The third largest
city in Sierra Leone, Gondama, is a displaced-persons camp. With an additional
600,000 Liberians in Guinea and 250,000 in the Ivory Coast, the borders dividing
these four countries have become largely meaningless. Even in quiet zones none of
the governments except the Ivory Coast's maintains the schools, bridges, roads,
and police forces in a manner necessary for functional sovereignty. The Koranko
ethnic group in northeastern Sierra Leone does all its trading in Guinea. Sierra
Leonian diamonds are more likely to be sold in Liberia than in Freetown. In the
eastern provinces of Sierra Leone you can buy Liberian beer but not the local
brand.
In Sierra Leone, as in Guinea, as in the Ivory Coast, as in Ghana, most of the
primary rain forest and the secondary bush is being destroyed at an alarming
rate. I saw convoys of trucks bearing majestic hardwood trunks to coastal ports.
When Sierra Leone achieved its independence, in 1961, as much as 60 percent of
the country was primary rain forest. Now six percent is. In the Ivory Coast the
proportion has fallen from 38 percent to eight percent. The deforestation has led
to soil erosion, which has led to more flooding and more mosquitoes. Virtually
everyone in the West African interior has some form of malaria.
Sierra Leone is a microcosm of what is occurring, albeit in a more tempered and
gradual manner, throughout West Africa and much of the underdeveloped world: the
withering away of central governments, the rise of tribal and regional domains,
the unchecked spread of disease, and the growing pervasiveness of war. West
Africa is reverting to the Africa of the Victorian atlas. It consists now of a
series of coastal trading posts, such as Freetown and Conakry, and an interior
that, owing to violence, volatility, and disease, is again becoming, as Graham
Greene once observed, "blank" and "unexplored." However, whereas Greene's vision
implies a certain romance, as in the somnolent and charmingly seedy Freetown of
his celebrated novel The Heart of the Matter, it is Thomas Malthus, the
philosopher of demographic doomsday, who is now the prophet of West Africa's
future. And West Africa's future, eventually, will also be that of most of the
rest of the world.
Consider "Chicago." I refer not to Chicago, Illinois, but to a slum district of
Abidjan, which the young toughs in the area have named after the American city.
("Washington" is another poor section of Abidjan.) Although Sierra Leone is
widely regarded as beyond salvage, the Ivory Coast has been considered an African
success story, and Abidjan has been called "the Paris of West Africa." Success,
however, was built on two artificial factors: the high price of cocoa, of which
the Ivory Coast is the world's leading producer, and the talents of a French
expatriate community, whose members have helped run the government and the
private sector. The expanding cocoa economy made the Ivory Coast a magnet for
migrant workers from all over West Africa: between a third and a half of the
country's population is now non-Ivorian, and the figure could be as high as 75
percent in Abidjan. During the 1980s cocoa prices fell and the French began to
leave. The skyscrapers of the Paris of West Africa are a facade. Perhaps 15
percent of Abidjan's population of three million people live in shantytowns like
Chicago and Washington, and the vast majority live in places that are not much
better. Not all of these places appear on any of the readily available maps. This
is another indication of how political maps are the products of tired
conventional wisdom and, in the Ivory Coast's case, of an elite that will
ultimately be forced to relinquish power.
Chicago, like more and more of Abidjan, is a slum in the bush: a checkerwork of
corrugated zinc roofs and walls made of cardboard and black plastic wrap. It is
located in a gully teeming with coconut palms and oil palms, and is ravaged by
flooding. Few residents have easy access to electricity, a sewage system, or a
clean water supply. The crumbly red laterite earth crawls with foot-long lizards
both inside and outside the shacks. Children defecate in a stream filled with
garbage and pigs, droning with malarial mosquitoes. In this stream women do the
washing. Young unemployed men spend their time drinking beer, palm wine, and gin
while gambling on pinball games constructed out of rotting wood and rusty nails.
These are the same youths who rob houses in more prosperous Ivorian neighborhoods
at night. One man I met, Damba Tesele, came to Chicago from Burkina Faso in 1963.
A cook by profession, he has four wives and thirty-two children, not one of whom
has made it to high school. He has seen his shanty community destroyed by
municipal authorities seven times since coming to the area. Each time he and his
neighbors rebuild. Chicago is the latest incarnation.
Fifty-five percent of the Ivory Coast's population is urban, and the proportion
is expected to reach 62 percent by 2000. The yearly net population growth is 3.6
percent. This means that the Ivory Coast's 13.5 million people will become 39
million by 2025, when much of the population will consist of urbanized peasants
like those of Chicago. But don't count on the Ivory Coast's still existing then.
Chicago, which is more indicative of Africa's and the Third World's demographic
present--and even more of the future--than any idyllic junglescape of women
balancing earthen jugs on their heads, illustrates why the Ivory Coast, once a
model of Third World success, is becoming a case study in Third World
catastrophe.
President Felix Houphouet-Boigny, who died last December at the age of about
ninety, left behind a weak cluster of political parties and a leaden bureaucracy
that discourages foreign investment. Because the military is small and the
non-Ivorian population large, there is neither an obvious force to maintain order
nor a sense of nationhood that would lessen the need for such enforcement. The
economy has been shrinking since the mid-1980s. Though the French are working
assiduously to preserve stability, the Ivory Coast faces a possibility worse than
a coup: an anarchic implosion of criminal violence--an urbanized version of what
has already happened in Somalia. Or it may become an African Yugoslavia, but one
without mini-states to replace the whole.
Because the demographic reality of West Africa is a countryside draining into
dense slums by the coast, ultimately the region's rulers will come to reflect the
values of these shanty-towns. There are signs of this already in Sierra
Leone--and in Togo, where the dictator Etienne Eyadema, in power since 1967, was
nearly toppled in 1991, not by democrats but by thousands of youths whom the
London-based magazine West Africa described as "Soweto-like stone-throwing
adolescents." Their behavior may herald a regime more brutal than Eyadema's
repressive one.
(continued in part 2)
Transmitted: 94-01-26 17:10:03 EST
2/94 THE COMING ANARCHY (part 2)
(continued from part 1)
The fragility of these West African "countries" impressed itself on me when I
took a series of bush taxis along the Gulf of Guinea, from the Togolese capital
of Lome, across Ghana, to Abidjan. The 400-mile journey required two full days of
driving, because of stops at two border crossings and an additional eleven
customs stations, at each of which my fellow passengers had their bags searched.
I had to change money twice and repeatedly fill in currency-declaration forms. I
had to bribe a Togolese immigration official with the equivalent of eighteen
dollars before he would agree to put an exit stamp on my passport. Nevertheless,
smuggling across these borders is rampant. The London Observer has reported that
in 1992 the equivalent of $856 million left West Africa for Europe in the form of
"hot cash" assumed to be laundered drug money. International cartels have
discovered the utility of weak, financially strapped West African regimes.
The more fictitious the actual sovereignty, the more severe border authorities
seem to be in trying to prove otherwise. Getting visas for these states can be as
hard as crossing their borders. The Washington embassies of Sierra Leone and
Guinea--the two poorest nations on earth, according to a 1993 United Nations
report on "human development"--asked for letters from my bank (in lieu of prepaid
round-trip tickets) and also personal references, in order to prove that I had
sufficient means to sustain myself during my visits. I was reminded of my visa
and currency hassles while traveling to the communist states of Eastern Europe,
particularly East Germany and Czechoslovakia, before those states collapsed.
Ali A. Mazrui, the director of the Institute of Global Cultural Studies at the
State University of New York at Binghamton, predicts that West Africa--indeed,
the whole continent--is on the verge of large-scale border upheaval. Mazrui
writes, "In the 21st century France will be withdrawing from West Africa as she
gets increasingly involved in the affairs [of Europe]. France's West African
sphere of influence will be filled by Nigeria--a more natural hegemonic power. .
. . It will be under those circumstances that Nigeria's own boundaries are likely
to expand to incorporate the Republic of Niger (the Hausa link), the Republic of
Benin (the Yoruba link) and conceivably Cameroon."
The future could be more tumultuous, and bloodier, than Mazrui dares to say.
France will withdraw from former colonies like Benin, Togo, Niger, and the Ivory
Coast, where it has been propping up local currencies. It will do so not only
because its attention will be diverted to new challenges in Europe and Russia but
also because younger French officials lack the older generation's emotional ties
to the ex-colonies. However, even as Nigeria attempts to expand, it, too, is
likely to split into several pieces. The State Department's Bureau of
Intelligence and Research recently made the following points in an analysis of
Nigeria: "Prospects for a transition to civilian rule and democratization are
slim. . . . The repressive apparatus of the state security service . . . will be
difficult for any future civilian government to control. . . . The country is
becoming increasingly ungovernable. . . . Ethnic and regional splits are
deepening, a situation made worse by an increase in the number of states from 19
to 30 and a doubling in the number of local governing authorities; religious
cleavages are more serious; Muslim fundamentalism and evangelical Christian
militancy are on the rise; and northern Muslim anxiety over southern [Christian]
control of the economy is intense . . . the will to keep Nigeria together is now
very weak."
Given that oil-rich Nigeria is a bellwether for the region--its population of
roughly 90 million equals the populations of all the other West African states
combined--it is apparent that Africa faces cataclysms that could make the
Ethiopian and Somalian famines pale in comparison. This is especially so because
Nigeria's population, including that of its largest city, Lagos, whose crime,
pollution, and overcrowding make it the cliche par excellence of Third World
urban dysfunction, is set to double during the next twenty-five years, while the
country continues to deplete its natural resources.
Part of West Africa's quandary is that although its population belts are
horizontal, with habitation densities increasing as one travels south away from
the Sahara and toward the tropical abundance of the Atlantic littoral, the
borders erected by European colonialists are vertical, and therefore at
cross-purposes with demography and topography. Satellite photos depict the same
reality I experienced in the bush taxi: the Lome-Abidjan coastal
corridor--indeed, the entire stretch of coast from Abidjan eastward to Lagos--is
one burgeoning megalopolis that by any rational economic and geographical
standard should constitute a single sovereignty, rather than the five (the Ivory
Coast, Ghana, Togo, Benin, and Nigeria) into which it is currently divided.
As many internal African borders begin to crumble, a more impenetrable boundary
is being erected that threatens to isolate the continent as a whole: the wall of
disease. Merely to visit West Africa in some degree of safety, I spent about $500
for a hepatitis B vaccination series and other disease prophylaxis. Africa may
today be more dangerous in this regard than it was in 1862, before antibiotics,
when the explorer Sir Richard Francis Burton described the health situation on
the continent as "deadly, a Golgotha, a Jehannum." Of the approximately 12
million people worldwide whose blood is HIV-positive, 8 million are in Africa. In
the capital of the Ivory Coast, whose modern road system only helps to spread the
disease, 10 percent of the population is HIV-positive. And war and refugee
movements help the virus break through to more-remote areas of Africa. Alan
Greenberg, M.D., a representative of the Centers for Disease Control in Abidjan,
explains that in Africa the HIV virus and tuberculosis are now "fast-forwarding
each other." Of the approximately 4,000 newly diagnosed tuberculosis patients in
Abidjan, 45 percent were also found to be HIV-positive. As African birth rates
soar and slums proliferate, some experts worry that viral mutations and
hybridizations might, just conceivably, result in a form of the AIDS virus that
is easier to catch than the present strain.
It is malaria that is most responsible for the disease wall that threatens to
separate Africa and other parts of the Third World from more-developed regions of
the planet in the twenty-first century. Carried by mosquitoes, malaria, unlike
AIDS, is easy to catch. Most people in sub-Saharan Africa have recurring bouts of
the disease throughout their entire lives, and it is mutating into increasingly
deadly forms. "The great gift of Malaria is utter apathy," wrote Sir Richard
Burton, accurately portraying the situation in much of the Third World today.
Visitors to malaria-afflicted parts of the planet are protected by a new drug,
mefloquine, a side effect of which is vivid, even violent, dreams. But a strain
of cerebral malaria resistant to mefloquine is now on the offensive.
Consequently, defending oneself against malaria in Africa is becoming more and
more like defending oneself against violent crime. You engage in "behavior
modification": not going out at dusk, wearing mosquito repellent all the time.
And the cities keep growing. I got a general sense of the future while driving
from the airport to downtown Conakry, the capital of Guinea. The
forty-five-minute journey in heavy traffic was through one never-ending
shantytown: a nightmarish Dickensian spectacle to which Dickens himself would
never have given credence. The corrugated metal shacks and scabrous walls were
coated with black slime. Stores were built out of rusted shipping containers,
junked cars, and jumbles of wire mesh. The streets were one long puddle of
floating garbage. Mosquitoes and flies were everywhere. Children, many of whom
had protruding bellies, seemed as numerous as ants. When the tide went out, dead
rats and the skeletons of cars were exposed on the mucky beach. In twenty-eight
years Guinea's population will double if growth goes on at current rates.
Hardwood logging continues at a madcap speed, and people flee the Guinean
countryside for Conakry. It seemed to me that here, as elsewhere in Africa and
the Third World, man is challenging nature far beyond its limits, and nature is
now beginning to take its revenge.
Africa may be as relevant to the future character of world politics as the
Balkans were a hundred years ago, prior to the two Balkan wars and the First
World War. Then the threat was the collapse of empires and the birth of nations
based solely on tribe. Now the threat is more elemental: nature unchecked.
Africa's immediate future could be very bad. The coming upheaval, in which
foreign embassies are shut down, states collapse, and contact with the outside
world takes place through dangerous, disease-ridden coastal trading posts, will
loom large in the century we are entering. (Nine of twenty-one U.S. foreign-aid
missions to be closed over the next three years are in Africa--a prologue to a
consolidation of U.S. embassies themselves.) Precisely because much of Africa is
set to go over the edge at a time when the Cold War has ended, when environmental
and demographic stress in other parts of the globe is becoming critical, and when
the post-First World War system of nation-states--not just in the Balkans but
perhaps also in the Middle East--is about to be toppled, Africa suggests what
war, borders, and ethnic politics will be like a few decades hence.
To understand the events of the next fifty years, then, one must understand
environmental scarcity, cultural and racial clash, geographic destiny, and the
transformation of war. The order in which I have named these is not accidental.
Each concept except the first relies partly on the one or ones before it, meaning
that the last two--new approaches to mapmaking and to warfare--are the most
important. They are also the least understood. I will now look at each idea,
drawing upon the work of specialists and also my own travel experiences in
various parts of the globe besides Africa, in order to fill in the blanks of a
new political atlas.
The Environment as a Hostile Power
For a while the media will continue to ascribe riots and other violent upheavals
abroad mainly to ethnic and religious conflict. But as these conflicts multiply,
it will become apparent that something else is afoot, making more and more places
like Nigeria, India, and Brazil ungovernable.
Mention "the environment" or "diminishing natural resources" in foreign-policy
circles and you meet a brick wall of skepticism or boredom. To conservatives
especially, the very terms seem flaky. Public-policy foundations have contributed
to the lack of interest, by funding narrowly focused environmental studies
replete with technical jargon which foreign-affairs experts just let pile up on
their desks.
It is time to understand "the environment" for what it is: the national-security
issue of the early twenty-first century. The political and strategic impact of
surging populations, spreading disease, deforestation and soil erosion, water
depletion, air pollution, and, possibly, rising sea levels in critical,
overcrowded regions like the Nile Delta and Bangladesh--developments that will
prompt mass migrations and, in turn, incite group conflicts--will be the core
foreign-policy challenge from which most others will ultimately emanate, arousing
the public and uniting assorted interests left over from the Cold War. In the
twenty-first century water will be in dangerously short supply in such diverse
locales as Saudi Arabia, Central Asia, and the southwestern United States. A war
could erupt between Egypt and Ethiopia over Nile River water. Even in Europe
tensions have arisen between Hungary and Slovakia over the damming of the Danube,
a classic case of how environmental disputes fuse with ethnic and historical
ones. The political scientist and erstwhile Clinton adviser Michael Mandelbaum
has said, "We have a foreign policy today in the shape of a doughnut--lots of
peripheral interests but nothing at the center." The environment, I will argue,
is part of a terrifying array of problems that will define a new threat to our
security, filling the hole in Mandelbaum's doughnut and allowing a post-Cold War
foreign policy to emerge inexorably by need rather than by design.
Our Cold War foreign policy truly began with George F. Kennan's famous article,
signed "X," published in Foreign Affairs in July of 1947, in which Kennan argued
for a "firm and vigilant containment" of a Soviet Union that was imperially,
rather than ideologically, motivated. It may be that our post-Cold War foreign
policy will one day be seen to have had its beginnings in an even bolder and more
detailed piece of written analysis: one that appeared in the journal
International Security. The article, published in the fall of 1991 by Thomas
Fraser Homer-Dixon, who is the head of the Peace and Conflict Studies Program at
the University of Toronto, was titled "On the Threshold: Environmental Changes as
Causes of Acute Conflict." Homer-Dixon has, more successfully than other
analysts, integrated two hitherto separate fields--military-conflict studies and
the study of the physical environment.
In Homer-Dixon's view, future wars and civil violence will often arise from
scarcities of resources such as water, cropland, forests, and fish. Just as there
will be environmentally driven wars and refugee flows, there will be
environmentally induced praetorian regimes--or, as he puts it, "hard regimes."
Countries with the highest probability of acquiring hard regimes, according to
Homer-Dixon, are those that are threatened by a declining resource base yet also
have "a history of state [read 'military'] strength." Candidates include
Indonesia, Brazil, and, of course, Nigeria. Though each of these nations has
exhibited democratizing tendencies of late, Homer-Dixon argues that such
tendencies are likely to be superficial "epiphenomena" having nothing to do with
long-term processes that include soaring populations and shrinking raw materials.
Democracy is problematic; scarcity is more certain.
(continued in part 3)
Transmitted: 94-01-26 17:09:54 EST
2/94 THE COMING ANARCHY (part 3)
(continued from part 2)
Indeed, the Saddam Husseins of the future will have more, not fewer,
opportunities. In addition to engendering tribal strife, scarcer resources will
place a great strain on many peoples who never had much of a democratic or
institutional tradition to begin with. Over the next fifty years the earth's
population will soar from 5.5 billion to more than nine billion. Though optimists
have hopes for new resource technologies and free-market development in the
global village, they fail to note that, as the National Academy of Sciences has
pointed out, 95 percent of the population increase will be in the poorest regions
of the world, where governments now--just look at Africa--show little ability to
function, let alone to implement even marginal improvements. Homer-Dixon writes,
ominously, "Neo-Malthusians may underestimate human adaptability in today's
environmental-social system, but as time passes their analysis may become ever
more compelling."
While a minority of the human population will be, as Francis Fukuyama would put
it, sufficiently sheltered so as to enter a "post-historical" realm, living in
cities and suburbs in which the environment has been mastered and ethnic
animosities have been quelled by bourgeois prosperity, an increasingly large
number of people will be stuck in history, living in shantytowns where attempts
to rise above poverty, cultural dysfunction, and ethnic strife will be doomed by
a lack of water to drink, soil to till, and space to survive in. In the
developing world environmental stress will present people with a choice that is
increasingly among totalitarianism (as in Iraq), fascist-tending mini-states (as
in Serb-held Bosnia), and road-warrior cultures (as in Somalia). Homer-Dixon
concludes that "as environmental degradation proceeds, the size of the potential
social disruption will increase."
Tad Homer-Dixon is an unlikely Jeremiah. Today a boyish thirty-seven, he grew up
amid the sylvan majesty of Vancouver Island, attending private day schools. His
speech is calm, perfectly even, and crisply enunciated. There is nothing in his
background or manner that would indicate a bent toward pessimism. A Canadian
Anglican who spends his summers canoeing on the lakes of northern Ontario, and
who talks about the benign mountains, black bears, and Douglas firs of his youth,
he is the opposite of the intellectually severe neoconservative, the kind at home
with conflict scenarios. Nor is he an environmentalist who opposes development.
"My father was a logger who thought about ecologically safe forestry before
others," he says. "He logged, planted, logged, and planted. He got out of the
business just as the issue was being polarized by environmentalists. They hate
changed ecosystems. But human beings, just by carrying seeds around, change the
natural world." As an only child whose playground was a virtually untouched
wilderness and seacoast, Homer-Dixon has a familiarity with the natural world
that permits him to see a reality that most policy analysts--children of suburbia
and city streets--are blind to.
"We need to bring nature back in," he argues. "We have to stop separating
politics from the physical world--the climate, public health, and the
environment." Quoting Daniel Deudney, another pioneering expert on the security
aspects of the environment, Homer-Dixon says that "for too long we've been
prisoners of 'social-social' theory, which assumes there are only social causes
for social and political changes, rather than natural causes, too. This
social-social mentality emerged with the Industrial Revolution, which separated
us from nature. But nature is coming back with a vengeance, tied to population
growth. It will have incredible security implications.
"Think of a stretch limo in the potholed streets of New York City, where homeless
beggars live. Inside the limo are the air-conditioned post-industrial regions of
North America, Europe, the emerging Pacific Rim, and a few other isolated places,
with their trade summitry and computer-information highways. Outside is the rest
of mankind, going in a completely different direction."
We are entering a bifurcated world. Part of the globe is inhabited by Hegel's and
Fukuyama's Last Man, healthy, well fed, and pampered by technology. The other,
larger, part is inhabited by Hobbes's First Man, condemned to a life that is
"poor, nasty, brutish, and short." Although both parts will be threatened by
environmental stress, the Last Man will be able to master it; the First Man will
not.
The Last Man will adjust to the loss of underground water tables in the western
United States. He will build dikes to save Cape Hatteras and the Chesapeake
beaches from rising sea levels, even as the Maldive Islands, off the coast of
India, sink into oblivion, and the shorelines of Egypt, Bangladesh, and Southeast
Asia recede, driving tens of millions of people inland where there is no room for
them, and thus sharpening ethnic divisions.
Homer-Dixon points to a world map of soil degradation in his Toronto office. "The
darker the map color, the worse the degradation," he explains. The West African
coast, the Middle East, the Indian subcontinent, China, and Central America have
the darkest shades, signifying all manner of degradation, related to winds,
chemicals, and water problems. "The worst degradation is generally where the
population is highest. The population is generally highest where the soil is the
best. So we're degrading earth's best soil."
China, in Homer-Dixon's view, is the quintessential example of environmental
degradation. Its current economic "success" masks deeper problems. "China's
fourteen percent growth rate does not mean it's going to be a world power. It
means that coastal China, where the economic growth is taking place, is joining
the rest of the Pacific Rim. The disparity with inland China is intensifying."
Referring to the environmental research of his colleague, the Czech-born
ecologist Vaclav Smil, Homer-Dixon explains how the per capita availability of
arable land in interior China has rapidly declined at the same time that the
quality of that land has been destroyed by deforestation, loss of topsoil, and
salinization. He mentions the loss and contamination of water supplies, the
exhaustion of wells, the plugging of irrigation systems and reservoirs with
eroded silt, and a population of 1.54 billion by the year 2025: it is a
misconception that China has gotten its population under control. Large-scale
population movements are under way, from inland China to coastal China and from
villages to cities, leading to a crime surge like the one in Africa and to
growing regional disparities and conflicts in a land with a strong tradition of
warlordism and a weak tradition of central government--again as in Africa. "We
will probably see the center challenged and fractured, and China will not remain
the same on the map," Homer-Dixon says.
Environmental scarcity will inflame existing hatreds and affect power
relationships, at which we now look.
Skinhead Cossacks, Juju Warriors
In the summer, 1993, issue of Foreign Affairs, Samuel P. Huntington, of Harvard's
Olin Institute for Strategic Studies, published a thought-provoking article
called "The Clash of Civilizations?" The world, he argues, has been moving during
the course of this century from nation-state conflict to ideological conflict to,
finally, cultural conflict. I would add that as refugee flows increase and as
peasants continue migrating to cities around the world--turning them into
sprawling villages--national borders will mean less, even as more power will fall
into the hands of less educated, less sophisticated groups. In the eyes of these
uneducated but newly empowered millions, the real borders are the most tangible
and intractable ones: those of culture and tribe. Huntington writes, "First,
differences among civilizations are not only real; they are basic," involving,
among other things, history, language, and religion. "Second . . . interactions
between peoples of different civilizations are increasing; these increasing
interactions intensify civilization consciousness." Economic modernization is not
necessarily a panacea, since it fuels individual and group ambitions while
weakening traditional loyalties to the state. It is worth noting, for example,
that it is precisely the wealthiest and fastest-developing city in India, Bombay,
that has seen the worst intercommunal violence between Hindus and Muslims.
Consider that Indian cities, like African and Chinese ones, are ecological time
bombs--Delhi and Calcutta, and also Beijing, suffer the worst air quality of any
cities in the world--and it is apparent how surging populations, environmental
degradation, and ethnic conflict are deeply related.
Huntington points to interlocking conflicts among Hindu, Muslim, Slavic Orthodox,
Western, Japanese, Confucian, Latin American, and possibly African civilizations:
for instance, Hindus clashing with Muslims in India, Turkic Muslims clashing with
Slavic Orthodox Russians in Central Asian cities, the West clashing with Asia.
(Even in the United States, African-Americans find themselves besieged by an
influx of competing Latinos.) Whatever the laws, refugees find a way to crash
official borders, bringing their passions with them, meaning that Europe and the
United States will be weakened by cultural disputes.
Because Huntington's brush is broad, his specifics are vulnerable to attack. In a
rebuttal of Huntington's argument the Johns Hopkins professor Fouad Ajami, a
Lebanese-born Shi'ite who certainly knows the world beyond suburbia, writes in
the September-October, 1993, issue of Foreign Affairs, "The world of Islam
divides and subdivides. The battle lines in the Caucasus . . . are not
coextensive with civilizational fault lines. The lines follow the interests of
states. Where Huntington sees a civilizational duel between Armenia and
Azerbaijan, the Iranian state has cast religious zeal . . . to the wind . . . in
that battle the Iranians have tilted toward Christian Armenia."
True, Huntington's hypothesized war between Islam and Orthodox Christianity is
not borne out by the alliance network in the Caucasus. But that is only because
he has misidentified which cultural war is occurring there. A recent visit to
Azerbaijan made clear to me that Azeri Turks, the world's most secular Shi'ite
Muslims, see their cultural identity in terms not of religion but of their Turkic
race. The Armenians, likewise, fight the Azeris not because the latter are
Muslims but because they are Turks, related to the same Turks who massacred
Armenians in 1915. Turkic culture (secular and based on languages employing a
Latin script) is battling Iranian culture (religiously militant as defined by
Tehran, and wedded to an Arabic script) across the whole swath of Central Asia
and the Caucasus. The Armenians are, therefore, natural allies of their fellow
Indo-Europeans the Iranians.
Huntington is correct that the Caucasus is a flashpoint of cultural and racial
war. But, as Ajami observes, Huntington's plate tectonics are too simple. Two
months of recent travel throughout Turkey revealed to me that although the Turks
are developing a deep distrust, bordering on hatred, of fellow-Muslim Iran, they
are also, especially in the shantytowns that are coming to dominate Turkish
public opinion, revising their group identity, increasingly seeing themselves as
Muslims being deserted by a West that does little to help besieged Muslims in
Bosnia and that attacks Turkish Muslims in the streets of Germany.
In other words, the Balkans, a powder keg for nation-state war at the beginning
of the twentieth century, could be a powder keg for cultural war at the turn of
the twenty-first: between Orthodox Christianity (represented by the Serbs and a
classic Byzantine configuration of Greeks, Russians, and Romanians) and the House
of Islam. Yet in the Caucasus that House of Islam is falling into a clash between
Turkic and Iranian civilizations. Ajami asserts that this very subdivision, not
to mention all the divisions within the Arab world, indicates that the West,
including the United States, is not threatened by Huntington's scenario. As the
Gulf War demonstrated, the West has proved capable of playing one part of the
House of Islam against another.
True. However, whether he is aware of it or not, Ajami is describing a world even
more dangerous than the one Huntington envisions, especially when one takes into
account Homer-Dixon's research on environmental scarcity. Outside the stretch
limo would be a rundown, crowded planet of skinhead Cossacks and juju warriors,
influenced by the worst refuse of Western pop culture and ancient tribal hatreds,
and battling over scraps of overused earth in guerrilla conflicts that ripple
across continents and intersect in no discernible pattern--meaning there's no
easy-to-define threat. Kennan's world of one adversary seems as distant as the
world of Herodotus.
Most people believe that the political earth since 1989 has undergone immense
change. But it is minor compared with what is yet to come. The breaking apart and
remaking of the atlas is only now beginning. The crack-up of the Soviet empire
and the coming end of Arab-Israeli military confrontation are merely prologues to
the really big changes that lie ahead. Michael Vlahos, a long-range thinker for
the U.S. Navy, warns, "We are not in charge of the environment and the world is
not following us. It is going in many directions. Do not assume that democratic
capitalism is the last word in human social evolution."
Before addressing the questions of maps and of warfare, I want to take a closer
look at the interaction of religion, culture, demographic shifts, and the
distribution of natural resources in a specific area of the world: the Middle
East.
(continued in part 4)
Transmitted: 94-01-26 17:09:45 EST
2/94 THE COMING ANARCHY (part 4)
(continued from part 3)
The Past Is Dead
Built on steep, muddy hills, the shantytowns of Ankara, the Turkish capital,
exude visual drama. Altindag, or "Golden Mountain," is a pyramid of dreams,
fashioned from cinder blocks and corrugated iron, rising as though each shack
were built on top of another, all reaching awkwardly and painfully toward
heaven--the heaven of wealthier Turks who live elsewhere in the city. Nowhere
else on the planet have I found such a poignant architectural symbol of man's
striving, with gaps in house walls plugged with rusted cans, and leeks and onions
growing on verandas assembled from planks of rotting wood. For reasons that I
will explain, the Turkish shacktown is a psychological universe away from the
African one.
To see the twenty-first century truly, one's eyes must learn a different set of
aesthetics. One must reject the overly stylized images of travel magazines, with
their inviting photographs of exotic villages and glamorous downtowns. There are
far too many millions whose dreams are more vulgar, more real--whose raw energies
and desires will overwhelm the visions of the elites, remaking the future into
something frighteningly new. But in Turkey I learned that shantytowns are not all
bad.
Slum quarters in Abidjan terrify and repel the outsider. In Turkey it is the
opposite. The closer I got to Golden Mountain the better it looked, and the safer
I felt. I had $1,500 worth of Turkish lira in one pocket and $1,000 in traveler's
checks in the other, yet I felt no fear. Golden Mountain was a real neighborhood.
The inside of one house told the story: The architectural bedlam of cinder block
and sheet metal and cardboard walls was deceiving. Inside was a home--order, that
is, bespeaking dignity. I saw a working refrigerator, a television, a wall
cabinet with a few books and lots of family pictures, a few plants by a window,
and a stove. Though the streets become rivers of mud when it rains, the floors
inside this house were spotless.
Other houses were like this too. Schoolchildren ran along with briefcases
strapped to their backs, trucks delivered cooking gas, a few men sat inside a
cafe sipping tea. One man sipped beer. Alcohol is easy to obtain in Turkey, a
secular state where 99 percent of the population is Muslim. Yet there is little
problem of alcoholism. Crime against persons is infinitesimal. Poverty and
illiteracy are watered-down versions of what obtains in Algeria and Egypt (to say
nothing of West Africa), making it that much harder for religious extremists to
gain a foothold.
My point in bringing up a rather wholesome, crime-free slum is this: its
existence demonstrates how formidable is the fabric of which Turkish Muslim
culture is made. A culture this strong has the potential to dominate the Middle
East once again. Slums are litmus tests for innate cultural strengths and
weaknesses. Those peoples whose cultures can harbor extensive slum life without
decomposing will be, relatively speaking, the future's winners. Those whose
cultures cannot will be the future's victims. Slums--in the sociological
sense--do not exist in Turkish cities. The mortar between people and family
groups is stronger here than in Africa. Resurgent Islam and Turkic cultural
identity have produced a civilization with natural muscle tone. Turks, history's
perennial nomads, take disruption in stride.
The future of the Middle East is quietly being written inside the heads of Golden
Mountain's inhabitants. Think of an Ottoman military encampment on the eve of the
destruction of Greek Constantinople in 1453. That is Golden Mountain. "We brought
the village here. But in the village we worked harder--in the field, all day. So
we couldn't fast during [the holy month of] Ramadan. Here we fast. Here we are
more religious." Aishe Tanrikulu, along with half a dozen other women, was
stuffing rice into vine leaves from a crude plastic bowl. She asked me to join
her under the shade of a piece of sheet metal. Each of these women had her hair
covered by a kerchief. In the city they were encountering television for the
first time. "We are traditional, religious people. The programs offend us," Aishe
said. Another woman complained about the schools. Though her children had
educational options unavailable in the village, they had to compete with
wealthier, secular Turks. "The kids from rich families with connections--they get
all the places." More opportunities, more tensions, in other words.
My guidebook to Golden Mountain was an untypical one: Tales From the Garbage
Hills, a brutally realistic novel by a Turkish writer, Latife Tekin, about life
in the shantytowns, which in Turkey are called gecekondus ("built in a night").
"He listened to the earth and wept unceasingly for water, for work and for the
cure of the illnesses spread by the garbage and the factory waste," Tekin writes.
In the most revealing passage of Tales From the Garbage Hills the squatters are
told "about a certain 'Ottoman Empire' . . . that where they now lived there had
once been an empire of this name." This history "confounded" the squatters. It
was the first they had heard of it. Though one of them knew "that his grandfather
and his dog died fighting the Greeks," nationalism and an encompassing sense of
Turkish history are the province of the Turkish middle and upper classes, and of
foreigners like me who feel required to have a notion of "Turkey."
But what did the Golden Mountain squatters know about the armies of Turkish
migrants that had come before their own--namely, Seljuks and Ottomans? For these
recently urbanized peasants, and their counterparts in Africa, the Arab world,
India, and so many other places, the world is new, to adapt V. S. Naipaul's
phrase. As Naipaul wrote of urban refugees in India: A Wounded Civilization,
"They saw themselves at the beginning of things: unaccommodated men making a
claim on their land for the first time, and out of chaos evolving their own
philosophy of community and self-help. For them the past was dead; they had left
it behind in the villages."
Everywhere in the developing world at the turn of the twenty-first century these
new men and women, rushing into the cities, are remaking civilizations and
redefining their identities in terms of religion and tribal ethnicity which do
not coincide with the borders of existing states.
In Turkey several things are happening at once. In 1980, 44 percent of Turks
lived in cities; in 1990 it was 61 percent. By the year 2000 the figure is
expected to be 67 percent. Villages are emptying out as concentric rings of
gecekondu developments grow around Turkish cities. This is the real political and
demographic revolution in Turkey and elsewhere, and foreign correspondents
usually don't write about it.
Whereas rural poverty is age-old and almost a "normal" part of the social fabric,
urban poverty is socially destabilizing. As Iran has shown, Islamic extremism is
the psychological defense mechanism of many urbanized peasants threatened with
the loss of traditions in pseudo-modern cities where their values are under
attack, where basic services like water and electricity are unavailable, and
where they are assaulted by a physically unhealthy environment. The American
ethnologist and orientalist Carleton Stevens Coon wrote in 1951 that Islam "has
made possible the optimum survival and happiness of millions of human beings in
an increasingly impoverished environment over a fourteen-hundred-year period."
Beyond its stark, clearly articulated message, Islam's very militancy makes it
attractive to the downtrodden. It is the one religion that is prepared to fight.
A political era driven by environmental stress, increased cultural sensitivity,
unregulated urbanization, and refugee migrations is an era divinely created for
the spread and intensification of Islam, already the world's fastest-growing
religion. (Though Islam is spreading in West Africa, it is being hobbled by
syncretization with animism: this makes new converts less apt to become
anti-Western extremists, but it also makes for a weakened version of the faith,
which is less effective as an antidote to crime.)
In Turkey, however, Islam is painfully and awkwardly forging a consensus with
modernization, a trend that is less apparent in the Arab and Persian worlds (and
virtually invisible in Africa). In Iran the oil boom--because it put development
and urbanization on a fast track, making the culture shock more intense--fueled
the 1978 Islamic Revolution. But Turkey, unlike Iran and the Arab world, has
little oil. Therefore its development and urbanization have been more gradual.
Islamists have been integrated into the parliamentary system for decades. The
tensions I noticed in Golden Mountain are natural, creative ones: the kind
immigrants face the world over. While the world has focused on religious
perversity in Algeria, a nation rich in natural gas, and in Egypt, parts of whose
capital city, Cairo, evince worse crowding than I have seen even in Calcutta,
Turkey has been living through the Muslim equivalent of the Protestant
Reformation.
Resource distribution is strengthening Turks in another way vis-a-vis Arabs and
Persians. Turks may have little oil, but their Anatolian heartland has lots of
water--the most important fluid of the twenty-first century. Turkey's Southeast
Anatolia Project, involving twenty-two major dams and irrigation systems, is
impounding the waters of the Tigris and Euphrates rivers. Much of the water that
Arabs and perhaps Israelis will need to drink in the future is controlled by
Turks. The project's centerpiece is the mile-wide, sixteen-story Ataturk Dam,
upon which are emblazoned the words of modern Turkey's founder: "Ne Mutlu Turkum
Diyene" ("Lucky is the one who is a Turk").
Unlike Egypt's Aswan High Dam, on the Nile, and Syria's Revolution Dam, on the
Euphrates, both of which were built largely by Russians, the Ataturk Dam is a
predominantly Turkish affair, with Turkish engineers and companies in charge. On
a recent visit my eyes took in the immaculate offices and their gardens, the
high-voltage electric grids and phone switching stations, the dizzying sweep of
giant humming transformers, the poured-concrete spillways, and the prim unfolding
suburbia, complete with schools, for dam employees. The emerging power of the
Turks was palpable.
Erduhan Bayindir, the site manager at the dam, told me that "while oil can be
shipped abroad to enrich only elites, water has to be spread more evenly within
the society. . . . It is true, we can stop the flow of water into Syria and Iraq
for up to eight months without the same water overflowing our dams, in order to
regulate their political behavior."
Power is certainly moving north in the Middle East, from the oil fields of
Dhahran, on the Persian Gulf, to the water plain of Harran, in southern
Anatolia--near the site of the Ataturk Dam. But will the nation-state of Turkey,
as presently constituted, be the inheritor of this wealth?
I very much doubt it.
The Lies of Mapmakers
Whereas West Africa represents the least stable part of political reality outside
Homer-Dixon's stretch limo, Turkey, an organic outgrowth of two Turkish empires
that ruled Anatolia for 850 years, has been among the most stable. Turkey's
borders were established not by colonial powers but in a war of independence, in
the early 1920s. Kemal Ataturk provided Turkey with a secular nation-building
myth that most Arab and African states, burdened by artificially drawn borders,
lack. That lack will leave many Arab states defenseless against a wave of Islam
that will eat away at their legitimacy and frontiers in coming years. Yet even as
regards Turkey, maps deceive.
It is not only African shantytowns that don't appear on urban maps. Many
shantytowns in Turkey and elsewhere are also missing--as are the considerable
territories controlled by guerrilla armies and urban mafias. Traveling with
Eritrean guerrillas in what, according to the map, was northern Ethiopia,
traveling in "northern Iraq" with Kurdish guerrillas, and staying in a hotel in
the Caucasus controlled by a local mafia--to say nothing of my experiences in
West Africa--led me to develop a healthy skepticism toward maps, which, I began
to realize, create a conceptual barrier that prevents us from comprehending the
political crack-up just beginning to occur worldwide.
Consider the map of the world, with its 190 or so countries, each signified by a
bold and uniform color: this map, with which all of us have grown up, is
generally an invention of modernism, specifically of European colonialism.
Modernism, in the sense of which I speak, began with the rise of nation-states in
Europe and was confirmed by the death of feudalism at the end of the Thirty
Years' War--an event that was interposed between the Renaissance and the
Enlightenment, which together gave birth to modern science. People were suddenly
flush with an enthusiasm to categorize, to define. The map, based on scientific
techniques of measurement, offered a way to classify new national organisms,
making a jigsaw puzzle of neat pieces without transition zones between them.
"Frontier" is itself a modern concept that didn't exist in the feudal mind. And
as European nations carved out far-flung domains at the same time that print
technology was making the reproduction of maps cheaper, cartography came into its
own as a way of creating facts by ordering the way we look at the world.
In his book Imagined Communities: Reflections on the Origin and Spread of
Nationalism, Benedict Anderson, of Cornell University, demonstrates that the map
enabled colonialists to think about their holdings in terms of a "totalizing
classificatory grid. . . . It was bounded, determinate, and therefore--in
principle--countable." To the colonialist, country maps were the equivalent of an
accountant's ledger books. Maps, Anderson explains, "shaped the grammar" that
would make possible such questionable concepts as Iraq, Indonesia, Sierra Leone,
and Nigeria. The state, recall, is a purely Western notion, one that until the
twentieth century applied to countries covering only three percent of the earth's
land area. Nor is the evidence compelling that the state, as a governing ideal,
can be successfully transported to areas outside the industrialized world. Even
the United States of America, in the words of one of our best living poets, Gary
Snyder, consists of "arbitrary and inaccurate impositions on what is really
here."
(continued in part 5)
Transmitted: 94-01-26 17:09:36 EST
2/94 THE COMING ANARCHY (part 5)
(continued from part 4)
Yet this inflexible, artificial reality staggers on, not only in the United
Nations but in various geographic and travel publications (themselves by-products
of an age of elite touring which colonialism made possible) that still report on
and photograph the world according to "country." Newspapers, this magazine, and
this writer are not innocent of the tendency.
According to the map, the great hydropower complex emblemized by the Ataturk Dam
is situated in Turkey. Forget the map. This southeastern region of Turkey is
populated almost completely by Kurds. About half of the world's 20 million Kurds
live in "Turkey." The Kurds are predominant in an ellipse of territory that
overlaps not only with Turkey but also with Iraq, Iran, Syria, and the former
Soviet Union. The Western-enforced Kurdish enclave in northern Iraq, a
consequence of the 1991 Gulf War, has already exposed the fictitious nature of
that supposed nation-state.
On a recent visit to the Turkish-Iranian border, it occurred to me what a risky
idea the nation-state is. Here I was on the legal fault line between two clashing
civilizations, Turkic and Iranian. Yet the reality was more subtle: as in West
Africa, the border was porous and smuggling abounded, but here the people doing
the smuggling, on both sides of the border, were Kurds. In such a moonscape, over
which peoples have migrated and settled in patterns that obliterate borders, the
end of the Cold War will bring on a cruel process of natural selection among
existing states. No longer will these states be so firmly propped up by the West
or the Soviet Union. Because the Kurds overlap with nearly everybody in the
Middle East, on account of their being cheated out of a state in the post-First
World War peace treaties, they are emerging, in effect, as the natural
selector--the ultimate reality check. They have destabilized Iraq and may
continue to disrupt states that do not offer them adequate breathing space, while
strengthening states that do.
Because the Turks, owing to their water resources, their growing economy, and the
social cohesion evinced by the most crime-free slums I have encountered, are on
the verge of big-power status, and because the 10 million Kurds within Turkey
threaten that status, the outcome of the Turkish-Kurdish dispute will be more
critical to the future of the Middle East than the eventual outcome of the recent
Israeli-Palestinian agreement.
America's fascination with the Israeli-Palestinian issue, coupled with its lack
of interest in the Turkish-Kurdish one, is a function of its own domestic and
ethnic obsessions, not of the cartographic reality that is about to transform the
Middle East. The diplomatic process involving Israelis and Palestinians will, I
believe, have little effect on the early- and mid-twenty-first-century map of the
region. Israel, with a 6.6 percent economic growth rate based increasingly on
high-tech exports, is about to enter Homer-Dixon's stretch limo, fortified by a
well-defined political community that is an organic outgrowth of history and
ethnicity. Like prosperous and peaceful Japan on the one hand, and war-torn and
poverty-wracked Armenia on the other, Israel is a classic national-ethnic
organism. Much of the Arab world, however, will undergo alteration, as Islam
spreads across artificial frontiers, fueled by mass migrations into the cities
and a soaring birth rate of more than 3.2 percent. Seventy percent of the Arab
population has been born since 1970--youths with little historical memory of
anticolonial independence struggles, postcolonial attempts at nation-building, or
any of the Arab-Israeli wars. The most distant recollection of these youths will
be the West's humiliation of colonially invented Iraq in 1991. Today seventeen
out of twenty-two Arab states have a declining gross national product; in the
next twenty years, at current growth rates, the population of many Arab countries
will double. These states, like most African ones, will be ungovernable through
conventional secular ideologies. The Middle East analyst Christine M. Helms
explains, "Declaring Arab nationalism "bankrupt," the political "disinherited"
are not rationalizing the failure of Arabism . . . or reformulating it.
Alternative solutions are not contemplated. They have simply opted for the
political paradigm at the other end of the political spectrum with which they are
familiar--Islam."
Like the borders of West Africa, the colonial borders of Syria, Iraq, Jordan,
Algeria, and other Arab states are often contrary to cultural and political
reality. As state control mechanisms wither in the face of environmental and
demographic stress, "hard" Islamic city-states or shantytown-states are likely to
emerge. The fiction that the impoverished city of Algiers, on the Mediterranean,
controls Tamanrasset, deep in the Algerian Sahara, cannot obtain forever.
Whatever the outcome of the peace process, Israel is destined to be a Jewish
ethnic fortress amid a vast and volatile realm of Islam. In that realm, the
violent youth culture of the Gaza shantytowns may be indicative of the coming
era.
The destiny of Turks and Kurds is far less certain, but far more relevant to the
kind of map that will explain our future world. The Kurds suggest a geographic
reality that cannot be shown in two-dimensional space. The issue in Turkey is not
simply a matter of giving autonomy or even independence to Kurds in the
southeast. This isn't the Balkans or the Caucasus, where regions are merely
subdividing into smaller units, Abkhazia breaking off from Georgia, and so on.
Federalism is not the answer. Kurds are found everywhere in Turkey, including the
shanty districts of Istanbul and Ankara. Turkey's problem is that its Anatolian
land mass is the home of two cultures and languages, Turkish and Kurdish.
Identity in Turkey, as in India, Africa, and elsewhere, is more complex and
subtle than conventional cartography can display.
A New Kind of War
To appreciate fully the political and cartographic implications of
postmodernism--an epoch of themeless juxtapositions, in which the classificatory
grid of nation-states is going to be replaced by a jagged-glass pattern of
city-states, shanty-states, nebulous and anarchic regionalisms--it is necessary
to consider, finally, the whole question of war.
"Oh, what a relief to fight, to fight enemies who defend themselves, enemies who
are awake!" Andre Malraux wrote in Man's Fate. I cannot think of a more suitable
battle cry for many combatants in the early decades of the twenty-first century.
The intense savagery of the fighting in such diverse cultural settings as
Liberia, Bosnia, the Caucasus, and Sri Lanka--to say nothing of what obtains in
American inner cities--indicates something very troubling that those of us inside
the stretch limo, concerned with issues like middle-class entitlements and the
future of interactive cable television, lack the stomach to contemplate. It is
this: a large number of people on this planet, to whom the comfort and stability
of a middle-class life is utterly unknown, find war and a barracks existence a
step up rather than a step down.
"Just as it makes no sense to ask 'why people eat' or 'what they sleep for,'"
writes Martin van Creveld, a military historian at the Hebrew University in
Jerusalem, in The Transformation of War, "so fighting in many ways is not a means
but an end. Throughout history, for every person who has expressed his horror of
war there is another who found in it the most marvelous of all the experiences
that are vouchsafed to man, even to the point that he later spent a lifetime
boring his descendants by recounting his exploits." When I asked Pentagon
officials about the nature of war in the twenty-first century, the answer I
frequently got was "Read Van Creveld." The top brass are enamored of this
historian not because his writings justify their existence but, rather, the
opposite: Van Creveld warns them that huge state military machines like the
Pentagon's are dinosaurs about to go extinct, and that something far more
terrible awaits us.
The degree to which Van Creveld's Transformation of War complements Homer-Dixon's
work on the environment, Huntington's thoughts on cultural clash, my own
realizations in traveling by foot, bus, and bush taxi in more than sixty
countries, and America's sobering comeuppances in intractable-culture zones like
Haiti and Somalia is startling. The book begins by demolishing the notion that
men don't like to fight. "By compelling the senses to focus themselves on the
here and now," Van Creveld writes, war "can cause a man to take his leave of
them." As anybody who has had experience with Chetniks in Serbia, "technicals" in
Somalia, Tontons Macoutes in Haiti, or soldiers in Sierra Leone can tell you, in
places where the Western Enlightenment has not penetrated and where there has
always been mass poverty, people find liberation in violence. In Afghanistan and
elsewhere, I vicariously experienced this phenomenon: worrying about mines and
ambushes frees you from worrying about mundane details of daily existence. If my
own experience is too subjective, there is a wealth of data showing the sheer
frequency of war, especially in the developing world since the Second World War.
Physical aggression is a part of being human. Only when people attain a certain
economic, educational, and cultural standard is this trait tranquilized. In light
of the fact that 95 percent of the earth's population growth will be in the
poorest areas of the globe, the question is not whether there will be war (there
will be a lot of it) but what kind of war. And who will fight whom?
Debunking the great military strategist Carl von Clausewitz, Van Creveld, who may
be the most original thinker on war since that early-nineteenth-century Prussian,
writes, "Clausewitz's ideas . . . were wholly rooted in the fact that, ever since
1648, war had been waged overwhelmingly by states." But, as Van Creveld explains,
the period of nation-states and, therefore, of state conflict is now ending, and
with it the clear "threefold division into government, army, and people" which
state-directed wars enforce. Thus, to see the future, the first step is to look
back to the past immediately prior to the birth of modernism--the wars in
medieval Europe which began during the Reformation and reached their culmination
in the Thirty Years' War.
Van Creveld writes, "In all these struggles political, social, economic, and
religious motives were hopelessly entangled. Since this was an age when armies
consisted of mercenaries, all were also attended by swarms of military
entrepreneurs. . . . Many of them paid little but lip service to the
organizations for whom they had contracted to fight. Instead, they robbed the
countryside on their own behalf. . . ."
"Given such conditions, any fine distinctions . . . between armies on the one
hand and peoples on the other were bound to break down. Engulfed by war,
civilians suffered terrible atrocities."
Back then, in other words, there was no "politics" as we have come to understand
the term, just as there is less and less "politics" today in Liberia, Sierra
Leone, Somalia, Sri Lanka, the Balkans, and the Caucasus, among other places.
Because, as Van Creveld notes, the radius of trust within tribal societies is
narrowed to one's immediate family and guerrilla comrades, truces arranged with
one Bosnian commander, say, may be broken immediately by another Bosnian
commander. The plethora of short-lived ceasefires in the Balkans and the Caucasus
constitute proof that we are no longer in a world where the old rules of state
warfare apply. More evidence is provided by the destruction of medieval monuments
in the Croatian port of Dubrovnik: when cultures, rather than states, fight, then
cultural and religious monuments are weapons of war, making them fair game.
Also, war-making entities will no longer be restricted to a specific territory.
Loose and shadowy organisms such as Islamic terrorist organizations suggest why
borders will mean increasingly little and sedimentary layers of tribalistic
identity and control will mean more. "From the vantage point of the present,
there appears every prospect that religious . . . fanaticisms will play a larger
role in the motivation of armed conflict" in the West than at any time "for the
last 300 years," Van Creveld writes. This is why analysts like Michael Vlahos are
closely monitoring religious cults. Vlahos says, "An ideology that challenges us
may not take familiar form, like the old Nazis or Commies. It may not even engage
us initially in ways that fit old threat markings." Van Creveld concludes, "Armed
conflict will be waged by men on earth, not robots in space. It will have more in
common with the struggles of primitive tribes than with large-scale conventional
war." While another military historian, John Keegan, in his new book A History of
Warfare, draws a more benign portrait of primitive man, it is important to point
out that what Van Creveld really means is re-primitivized man: warrior societies
operating at a time of unprecedented resource scarcity and planetary
overcrowding.
Van Creveld's pre-Westphalian vision of worldwide low-intensity conflict is not a
superficial "back to the future" scenario. First of all, technology will be used
toward primitive ends. In Liberia the guerrilla leader Prince Johnson didn't just
cut off the ears of President Samuel Doe before Doe was tortured to death in
1990--Johnson made a video of it, which has circulated throughout West Africa. In
December of 1992, when plotters of a failed coup against the Strasser regime in
Sierra Leone had their ears cut off at Freetown's Hamilton Beach prior to being
killed, it was seen by many to be a copycat execution. Considering, as I've
explained earlier, that the Strasser regime is not really a government and that
Sierra Leone is not really a nation-state, listen closely to Van Creveld: "Once
the legal monopoly of armed force, long claimed by the state, is wrested out of
its hands, existing distinctions between war and crime will break down much as is
already the case today in . . . Lebanon, Sri Lanka, El Salvador, Peru, or
Colombia."
(continued in part 6)
Transmitted: 94-01-26 17:09:27 EST
2/94 THE COMING ANARCHY (part 6)
(continued from part 5)
If crime and war become indistinguishable, then "national defense" may in the
future be viewed as a local concept. As crime continues to grow in our cities and
the ability of state governments and criminal-justice systems to protect their
citizens diminishes, urban crime may, according to Van Creveld, "develop into
low-intensity conflict by coalescing along racial, religious, social, and
political lines." As small-scale violence multiplies at home and abroad, state
armies will continue to shrink, being gradually replaced by a booming private
security business, as in West Africa, and by urban mafias, especially in the
former communist world, who may be better equipped than municipal police forces
to grant physical protection to local inhabitants.
Future wars will be those of communal survival, aggravated or, in many cases,
caused by environmental scarcity. These wars will be subnational, meaning that it
will be hard for states and local governments to protect their own citizens
physically. This is how many states will ultimately die. As state power
fades--and with it the state's ability to help weaker groups within society, not
to mention other states--peoples and cultures around the world will be thrown
back upon their own strengths and weaknesses, with fewer equalizing mechanisms to
protect them. Whereas the distant future will probably see the emergence of a
racially hybrid, globalized man, the coming decades will see us more aware of our
differences than of our similarities. To the average person, political values
will mean less, personal security more. The belief that we are all equal is
liable to be replaced by the overriding obsession of the ancient Greek travelers:
Why the differences between peoples?
The Last Map
In Geography and the Human Spirit, Anne Buttimer, a professor at University
College, Dublin, recalls the work of an early-nineteenth-century German
geographer, Carl Ritter, whose work implied "a divine plan for humanity" based on
regionalism and a constant, living flow of forms. The map of the future, to the
extent that a map is even possible, will represent a perverse twisting of
Ritter's vision. Imagine cartography in three dimensions, as if in a hologram. In
this hologram would be the overlapping sediments of group and other identities
atop the merely two-dimensional color markings of city-states and the remaining
nations, themselves confused in places by shadowy tentacles, hovering overhead,
indicating the power of drug cartels, mafias, and private security agencies.
Instead of borders, there would be moving "centers" of power, as in the Middle
Ages. Many of these layers would be in motion. Replacing fixed and abrupt lines
on a flat space would be a shifting pattern of buffer entities, like the Kurdish
and Azeri buffer entities between Turkey and Iran, the Turkic Uighur buffer
entity between Central Asia and Inner China (itself distinct from coastal China),
and the Latino buffer entity replacing a precise U.S.-Mexican border. To this
protean cartographic hologram one must add other factors, such as migrations of
populations, explosions of birth rates, vectors of disease. Henceforward the map
of the world will never be static. This future map--in a sense, the "Last
Map"--will be an ever-mutating representation of chaos.
The Indian subcontinent offers examples of what is happening. For different
reasons, both India and Pakistan are increasingly dysfunctional. The argument
over democracy in these places is less and less relevant to the larger issue of
governability. In India's case the question arises, Is one unwieldy bureaucracy
in New Delhi the best available mechanism for promoting the lives of 866 million
people of diverse languages, religions, and ethnic groups? In 1950, when the
Indian population was much less than half as large and nation-building idealism
was still strong, the argument for democracy was more impressive than it is now.
Given that in 2025 India's population could be close to 1.5 billion, that much of
its economy rests on a shrinking natural-resource base, including dramatically
declining water levels, and that communal violence and urbanization are spiraling
upward, it is difficult to imagine that the Indian state will survive the next
century. India's oft-trumpeted Green Revolution has been achieved by overworking
its croplands and depleting its watershed. Norman Myers, a British development
consultant, worries that Indians have "been feeding themselves today by borrowing
against their children's food sources."
Pakistan's problem is more basic still: like much of Africa, the country makes no
geographic or demographic sense. It was founded as a homeland for the Muslims of
the subcontinent, yet there are more subcontinental Muslims outside Pakistan than
within it. Like Yugoslavia, Pakistan is a patchwork of ethnic groups,
increasingly in violent conflict with one another. While the Western media gushes
over the fact that the country has a woman Prime Minister, Benazir Bhutto,
Karachi is becoming a subcontinental version of Lagos. In eight visits to
Pakistan, I have never gotten a sense of a cohesive national identity. With as
much as 65 percent of its land dependent on intensive irrigation, with wide-scale
deforestation, and with a yearly population growth of 2.7 percent (which ensures
that the amount of cultivated land per rural inhabitant will plummet), Pakistan
is becoming a more and more desperate place. As irrigation in the Indus River
basin intensifies to serve two growing populations, Muslim-Hindu strife over
falling water tables may be unavoidable.
"India and Pakistan will probably fall apart," Homer-Dixon predicts. "Their
secular governments have less and less legitimacy as well as less management
ability over people and resources." Rather than one bold line dividing the
subcontinent into two parts, the future will likely see a lot of thinner lines
and smaller parts, with the ethnic entities of Pakhtunistan and Punjab gradually
replacing Pakistan in the space between the Central Asian plateau and the heart
of the subcontinent.
None of this even takes into account climatic change, which, if it occurs in the
next century, will further erode the capacity of existing states to cope. India,
for instance, receives 70 percent of its precipitation from the monsoon cycle,
which planetary warming could disrupt.
Not only will the three-dimensional aspects of the Last Map be in constant
motion, but its two-dimensional base may change too. The National Academy of
Sciences reports that "as many as one billion people, or 20 per cent of the
world's population, live on lands likely to be inundated or dramatically changed
by rising waters. . . . Low-lying countries in the developing world such as Egypt
and Bangladesh, where rivers are large and the deltas extensive and densely
populated, will be hardest hit. . . . Where the rivers are dammed, as in the case
of the Nile, the effects . . . will be especially severe."
Egypt could be where climatic upheaval--to say nothing of the more immediate
threat of increasing population--will incite religious upheaval in truly biblical
fashion. Natural catastrophes, such as the October, 1992, Cairo earthquake, in
which the government failed to deliver relief aid and slum residents were in many
instances helped by their local mosques, can only strengthen the position of
Islamic factions. In a statement about greenhouse warming which could refer to
any of a variety of natural catastrophes, the environmental expert Jessica
Tuchman Matthews warns that many of us underestimate the extent to which
political systems, in affluent societies as well as in places like Egypt, "depend
on the underpinning of natural systems." She adds, "The fact that one can move
with ease from Vermont to Miami has nothing to say about the consequences of
Vermont acquiring Miami's climate."
Indeed, it is not clear that the United States will survive the next century in
exactly its present form. Because America is a multi-ethnic society, the
nation-state has always been more fragile here than it is in more homogeneous
societies like Germany and Japan. James Kurth, in an article published in The
National Interest in 1992, explains that whereas nation-state societies tend to
be built around a mass-conscription army and a standardized public school system,
"multicultural regimes" feature a high-tech, all-volunteer army (and, I would
add, private schools that teach competing values), operating in a culture in
which the international media and entertainment industry has more influence than
the "national political class." In other words, a nation-state is a place where
everyone has been educated along similar lines, where people take their cue from
national leaders, and where everyone (every male, at least) has gone through the
crucible of military service, making patriotism a simpler issue. Writing about
his immigrant family in turn-of-the-century Chicago, Saul Bellow states, "The
country took us over. It was a country then, not a collection of 'cultures.'"
During the Second World War and the decade following it, the United States
reached its apogee as a classic nation-state. During the 1960s, as is now clear,
America began a slow but unmistakable process of transformation. The signs hardly
need belaboring: racial polarity, educational dysfunction, social fragmentation
of many and various kinds. William Irwin Thompson, in Passages About Earth: An
Exploration of the New Planetary Culture, writes, "The educational system that
had worked on the Jews or the Irish could no longer work on the blacks; and when
Jewish teachers in New York tried to take black children away from their parents
exactly in the way they had been taken from theirs, they were shocked to
encounter a violent affirmation of negritude."
Issues like West Africa could yet emerge as a new kind of foreign-policy issue,
further eroding America's domestic peace. The spectacle of several West African
nations collapsing at once could reinforce the worst racial stereotypes here at
home. That is another reason why Africa matters. We must not kid ourselves: the
sensitivity factor is higher than ever. The Washington, D.C., public school
system is already experimenting with an Afrocentric curriculum. Summits between
African leaders and prominent African-Americans are becoming frequent, as are
Pollyanna-ish prognostications about multiparty elections in Africa that do not
factor in crime, surging birth rates, and resource depletion. The Congressional
Black Caucus was among those urging U.S. involvement in Somalia and in Haiti. At
the Los Angeles Times minority staffers have protested against, among other
things, what they allege to be the racist tone of the newspaper's Africa
coverage, allegations that the editor of the "World Report" section, Dan Fisher,
denies, saying essentially that Africa should be viewed through the same rigorous
analytical lens as other parts of the world.
Africa may be marginal in terms of conventional late-twentieth-century
conceptions of strategy, but in an age of cultural and racial clash, when
national defense is increasingly local, Africa's distress will exert a
destabilizing influence on the United States.
This and many other factors will make the United States less of a nation than it
is today, even as it gains territory following the peaceful dissolution of
Canada. Quebec, based on the bedrock of Roman Catholicism and Francophone
ethnicity, could yet turn out to be North America's most cohesive and crime-free
nation-state. (It may be a smaller Quebec, though, since aboriginal peoples may
lop off northern parts of the province.) "Patriotism" will become increasingly
regional as people in Alberta and Montana discover that they have far more in
common with each other than they do with Ottawa or Washington, and
Spanish-speakers in the Southwest discover a greater commonality with Mexico
City. (The Nine Nations of North America, by Joel Garreau, a book about the
continent's regionalization, is more relevant now than when it was published, in
1981.) As Washington's influence wanes, and with it the traditional symbols of
American patriotism, North Americans will take psychological refuge in their
insulated communities and cultures.
Returning from West Africa last fall was an illuminating ordeal. After leaving
Abidjan, my Air Afrique flight landed in Dakar, Senegal, where all passengers had
to disembark in order to go through another security check, this one demanded by
U.S. authorities before they would permit the flight to set out for New York.
Once we were in New York, despite the midnight hour, immigration officials at
Kennedy Airport held up disembarkation by conducting quick interrogations of the
aircraft's passengers--this was in addition to all the normal immigration and
customs procedures. It was apparent that drug smuggling, disease, and other
factors had contributed to the toughest security procedures I have ever
encountered when returning from overseas.
Then, for the first time in over a month, I spotted businesspeople with attache
cases and laptop computers. When I had left New York for Abidjan, all the
businesspeople were boarding planes for Seoul and Tokyo, which departed from
gates near Air Afrique's. The only non-Africans off to West Africa had been
relief workers in T-shirts and khakis. Although the borders within West Africa
are increasingly unreal, those separating West Africa from the outside world are
in various ways becoming more impenetrable.
But Afrocentrists are right in one respect: we ignore this dying region at our
own risk. When the Berlin Wall was falling, in November of 1989, I happened to be
in Kosovo, covering a riot between Serbs and Albanians. The future was in Kosovo,
I told myself that night, not in Berlin. The same day that Yitzhak Rabin and
Yasser Arafat clasped hands on the White House lawn, my Air Afrique plane was
approaching Bamako, Mali, revealing corrugated-zinc shacks at the edge of an
expanding desert. The real news wasn't at the White House, I realized. It was
right below.
--------------------
Robert D. Kaplan is a contributing editor of The Atlantic Monthly. His article in
this issue (February, 1994) will be expanded into a book he is writing for Random
House, with support from the U.S. Institute of Peace and the Foreign Policy
Research Institute.
Transmitted: 94-01-26 17:09:17 EST