Jan 10
15
World Power Games
Sometimes it is useful to remember that countries, particularly those countries that see themselves as world powers, have people that sit around and dream about scenarios that may take place… They think of “what if” situations based on the best intelligence that they can get.
The best intelligence was clearly not available when the US and its allies presented the rationale for attacking Iraq. Instead there was an end game that was desired and facts created to support the invasion. Ultimately it is not helpful to base actions on incorrect information because it leads to the profligate expenditure of resources without the need. This is one of the reasons that the US continues to bleed cash. I'll come back to that.
Imagine that you are a wannabe world power. There are a number of them around at the moment. Imagine for a moment that you want to become #1 – and you have your reasons…
How could you most effectively take on the incumbent?
I would hazard a guess that you would have a lot of people thinking through as many scenarios as you possibly could, you would use sophisticated computer modeling and you would be thinking long and hard about how much money it is going to take… And then you would be looking at how to use natural events to your advantage too. That is why it was interesting to hear on the radio yesterday that the first people from foreign countries that had people on the ground in Haiti after the earthquake in order to address supply chain issues were Venezuela and China. And I assume this point would be one that would ensure that the US would want to secure the airports as quickly as possible.
But how would you take on the incumbent?
The key issue here is that if the information that we read (particularly online) every day is correct, the world has a number of critical resource issues that are going to create a big problem:
1. We have the oil problem. And regardless of whether we have hit peak oil or not, which is one of those things like climate change that generates a whole lot of assumption based beliefs, we do know, because it can be measured, what the refinery output maximums are. In 2007 NPR in the US ran a story about the fact that no new refineries had been built in the US in three decades and one that was planned could not secure a robust supply of oil. So if demand is increasing and supply is maxed out it seems pretty logical to assume that price will continue to be driven northwards. Granted that is the US and not the whole world, but lets say that for the purposes of this bit of speculation the key issue is what the US economy looks like.
2. Then you have the big elephant in the room – Climate Change. Let's just figure for a moment that in the PR wars, the US has to deal with how it manages the fact that everyone has concluded that the individual in the US, the consumer, has a huge carbon impact – so regardless of what other nations consume, the US is starting from a negative position, just as Australia is… So for the “wanna be #1 contender” all they really have to do is to stymie negotiations and the US and Australia look like they are not doing enough…
3. The Financial System. Any country that has been watching closely, and I imagine that they all are right now, would have to figure that the US is spending more than it can possibly ever pay back at the moment to maintain its wars in foreign lands.
So if I were looking at this from the outside and I didn't have as much financial clout as the US, and didn't have the weapons that they had, etc etc, I would never want to have a war with them. In fact I would never want that at any time anyway. I would want to turn them on themselves and try to put them off balance as much as possible…
Isn't that exactly what has been happening essentially since 9/11?
The US has been led into a war that is siphoning off all its wealth. Instead of maintaining a standing military force that is able to deliver stability as a result of its presence, its presence seems to drive insurgency wherever it is, which causes both loss of life of ordinary citizens and requires for ordnance to be replaced. That just sucks more men into the firing line and requires more expenditure on armaments.
If you were the contender power, surely you would have to look at that and take heed and vow to never get caught in such a situation. If you really wanted to set the US back, you might want to try to disrupt the nation even further. Not that you would have to try that hard really, because the US seems intent on doing the wrong strategic thing at every opportunity. The wanna be superpowers that are out there would have to be laughing up their sleeves at the moment at the way that the ordinary people in the US are being treated by the banking system, for instance. And by the way, it isn't the banks' fault that they are doing what they are doing. It is the system that decrees that they need to deliver the maximum profit to shareholders using all means that are legal and fair. And that is precisely what the banks are doing.
As this happens you have to figure that at some point there will be a very angry domestic population. For the wanna be superpower, all they have to do is to just push a little bit at the right time and the system goes over the edge.
I can imagine that the scenario planners are working overtime at the moment to figure out how to erode trust faster.
And that is why it is so interesting to see the Google announcement about possibly pulling out from China. You have to wonder what is really happening right now in the world, and what the events of the last few days are going to mean once the ripples die down. 2010 is turning into a really big year and we haven't gotten through January yet!