Model Power
By Kevin
Side-by-Side
In the recent report on China's rise in the world, The Economist featured a long discussion about China coming into the world order/framework that America has built and operated within as a new power. It then mentioned a problem:
But the picture is flawed. America has indeed been willing to be bound by rules in ways that 19th-century European powers never were. That is one reason why so many countries have been prepared to live under its sway. However, when America thinks important interests are at stake, it still ignores the rules, just like the next hegemon. In 2005 the bid of the China National Offshore Oil Company to buy America’s Unocal was, in effect, blocked after a public outcry. When America wanted a nuclear deal with India, it rode a coach and horses through the NPT. It fought in the Balkans in the 1990s and again in Iraq in 2003 without the endorsement of the United Nations. It may yet go to war with Iran on the same basis.
This is not to dispute the merits of each case, though some of those decisions looked foolish even at the time. Rather the point is that superpowers break the rules when they must—and nobody can stop them. Over time that logic will increasingly apply to China too. America must decide whether “accommodating China” means living with this or denying it.
Perhaps America would do better if it starts abiding by its own rules more and set a good example of what kind of superpower a nation ought to be in its perspective and allow China to follow. If they are hoping to influence the power equation of the future, the first step would be to behave (in the world affairs) in they way they hope China would in the future.
Replotting the map of Europe
By Wei Seng
How does New Europe look to you?
In yet another geopolitical write-up, I feature an article from The Economist that proposes replotting the map of Europe to group within Europe the countries with cordial relations and seperate the countries with souring relations. Sounds like an easy exercise isnt it? The Economist also provides justifications for the relocation of countries. It is quite interesting to see the map of Europe adjusted as such, as an indication of which countries have similarities or get along better.
What you see very obviously being adjusted is off the coast of continental Europe. Britain has shifted southwards next to Spain and Portugal because of "similar position(s)" in its "dire public finances". Britain has also broken up into England, Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales, which might make governance easier. In Britain's place is Poland, "which has suffered quite enough in its location between Russia and Germany" (think of World War 2 and Cold War) and deserves "the security of sea water between it and potential invaders".
In addition, Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania have shifted out of the Baltics to west of Ireland, forming a group of 4 countries that have undertaken "internal devaluation" to make their economy more competitive. In place of these 3 Baltic states comes Belarus, which deserves some Nordic influence to "shed (its) Soviet legacy", much as how the 3 Baltic states have benefitted from being in the area.
Another obvious change is the split of the south of Italy into a seperate state of its own called Bordello, "to form a currency union with Greece, but nobody else". Probably a depiction of the messy state of finance as well as the amount of organised crime in south Italy.
Some other still-obvious changes include:
1. The northward shift of neutral Switzerland into Scandinavia, accompanying other generally neutral countries like Sweden (which people often mix up with Switzerland) and Norway (happy to see another country not in the EU next to it)
2. Swapping of places between Belgium and Czech Republic, since Belgium suffers from so much squabbling within its fractious Flemish-French coalition government that it deserves to be in Central Europe, while Czech Republic being peaceful suffers from much of the nationalist squabbling in its neighbours. Birds of a feather should flock together huh?
More changes occur in the Balkans, and there's even new fictional countries created to fill some of the gaps created from the shifting of states. The changes here are so messy that I wont elaborate though you could check out the original article for the full explanations.
What makes a state?
By Wei Seng
Taiwan: flag = country?
I have written in the past about geopolitics, in particular the nation-state quandary: what differentiates a state from a nation, and what do each definition encompass. This time, an article in The Economist in April questions what makes a state a state.
Is an independent state one that is recognised by nations? Is participation in global organisations an indication of statehood? Is there a minimum size (people, land, services) to it before it can qualify as an independent state? To illustrate, here are some comparisons of supposed states that are not universally recognised as states, or may not exactly be construed as states under different definitions.
Kosovo. It is recognised by 65 states as independent of Serbia since 2008, including USA and much of Western Europe, but not by Russia and much of Asia. The European Union and United Nations have not recognised the independence of Kosovo yet, though some countries in the EU and UN have recognised Kosovo, so is it considered a state?
Taiwan. It is recognised by only 23 countries, far cry from its heyday when communist People's Republic of China was shunned in favour of democractic Republic of China, based in Taiwan. It is not represented in the United Nations, but has observer status in many global bodies and is recognised to have a government and some form of de facto "sovereignty". Taiwan is rare amongst disputed "states" for having its own domain name (.tw) and phone prefix (+886).
Vatican City. The smallest state on Earth, at 44 hectares, located inside Rome. However the diplomats of Vatican City work for the pope (Holy See) and not the state itself, and the Holy See is represented in the UN and not Vatican City.
The article in The Economist gives more illustrations and possible definitions that complicate matters, but really, it seems like when asks "What makes a nation?" one should also ask "What makes a state?". Because conventional definitions of statehood with regard to fixed, internationally recognised borders is one that deserves some questioning.
Redrawing Borders
By Wei Seng
Time to reconfigure the world?
In the '10 Ideas for the next 10 Years' column in Time magazine's 22 March issue, some bold ideas with regard to the coming decade are introduced. What caught my eye, while I was reading this in India, was this article by Parag Khanna titled 'Remapping the World'. It reminded me a lot of my H3 Geopolitics course in NUS when I took it in 2008, the concept of borders and their wider consequences beyond geopolitics. Quite bold and outrageous yet impossible as well; it could have well-meaning consequences but things can turn equally disastrous.
Essentially, Khanna suggests redrawing a new map of the world to reduce conflict and reverse the damage of poorly-drawn borders. Regions and nations with different cultures are haphazardly pieced together, often remnants of colonial rule where colonial masters did not give regard to cultural composition in the drawing up of borders. Borders are, after all, an arbitrary line drawn that demarcates where a country's jurisdiction ends and where another country's begin. A state is contained within its borders, but a nation need not be contained within these borders. The difference between a nation and a state is that people identify with a nation because of language, cultural or historical belonging, whereas a state can be formed devoid of cultural identity. Examples of states that encompass nations (with poorly-drawn borders) include Iraq (the Kurds are divided by the Iraq-Turkey border, leading to Kurds being the minority in an Arab nation), Sudan and Nigeria (Muslim-Christian divide).
So where borders are poorly drawn, should we press the Reset button and allow remapping and regrouping? Despite all the benefits (such as creating cultural unity and reducing conflict as a result of disharmony) this can be very messy as there could be new tussles over wealth and resources in the process of remapping. How to determine which resource goes to which state, should borders be redrawn? How to accurately determine the proportion of people of a certain race or religion in an area, and hence decide which country to belong to? Wars between and within countries can result. A vivid example of how drawing new boundaries by religion may fail: the 1947 partition of India into Muslim-majority Pakistan and Hindu-majority India. While well-intentioned, the act was controversial and resulted in a bloody war that led to the seperation of East Pakistan as Bangladesh and the unresolved dispute of Jammu and Kashmir. And the Muslim minority in India today tend to be disadvantaged and of impoverished upbringing compared to their Hindu peers in India or even with their fellow Muslims in Pakistan.
Borders need not be added, according to Khanna. They could even be erased or neglected, such as in the case of the EU whereby 27 countries came together to join an economic and trading bloc. This would then contradict the idea of having more borders to demarcate the jurisdiction of various nations and peoples. While an amalgamation of small nations could allow them to punch above their weight in the global arena, problems of power-sharing could arise. People have suggested, and continue to suggest, that Singapore merge back into the fold of Malaysia to tap into the greater hinterland, and given that the culture and history of Malaysia and Singapore have been similar. Perhaps a merger today might be more palatable compared to in the 1960s and 1970s, post-Merger and Seperation when people were fighting valiantly for Singapore's independence and sustenance in the global arena. But whether it would be beneficial economically, socially and politically, for both Malaysians and Singaporeans, remains to be seen.
Meanwhile, forces of globalisation are actually the true powers that transcend borders: the development of transportation (from railways and ships to airplanes) as well as the Internet. These forces allow the negating of borders, and this is perhaps what citizens of various nations and states need to tap into for their survival in the future, while keeping in mind that the borders created in the yesteryear are unlikely to go away anytime soon given the territorial nature of Man.
Carving up the USA?
By Wei Seng
Equal Frags
I stumbled upon this creative but mad article that proposes cutting up the United States of America into 50 states of equal population size. The aim of this exercise is to equalise "congressional overrepresentation" from small states and rural areas. This would be quite important today considering that Congress representation is such that each state, regardless of population size, gets the same number of votes, which makes the small, rural states wield extra power. This extra power can come in handy to block bills unfavourable to them, as witnessed in the process to pass the cap-and-trade bill where small rural states, expected to be severely disadvantaged due to their agricultural economy, have used their votes to block the passing of the bill or try squeeze some concessions and caveats in return for votes. Neil Freeman discusses some advantages and disadvantages on his website.
Erasing the current borders of the USA is not a new idea. From as early as 1975, people have proposed the notion of carving up the USA into 38 states based on cultural and physical aspects of the territory. Professor C Etzel Pearcy realigned the boundaries based on newer and evolved concepts such as population density, urban sprawl and transport routes. Not quite how one normally decides a boundary (usually based on physical relief: rivers or mountain ranges for example), but still worth considering for the better of jurisdiction and administration. But of course, such measures are really controversial: will the people in power today want to yield their power to someone else, or have their powers curtailed? I am quite sure not.
And I am reminded of closer to home, when electoral boundaries are redrawn every now and then to accomodate for changing population sizes, according to the government.
Some entertaining ideas for you to think about this Lunar New Year.
When Economics clashes with (Geo)politics
By Wei Seng
First published in The New York Times on Wednesday, Thomas Friedman writes about the low likelihood of a "benign 2010" given the economic and geopolitical conditions currently brewing. I read the reprinted article on mypaper on Thursday and was rather amused by his arguments.
He started off by saying that 2009 was a pleasant surprise for being a rather peaceful year for "the world's biggest economies" to heal without any major wars or political / geopolitical disruptions, and then asserts that 2010 would probably not be as peaceful. I do not really agree with him about the "three major struggles" we face (the banks vs President Obama, China vs Google & Iran vs the world), but he has managed to make rather substantial arguments.
Struggle 1: The banks vs President Obama
I did not quite think that this was a significant issue, but that is probably because Singapore is / was pretty sheltered from the full force of the economic breakdown in the West. At least in Singapore, the banks appear to be in rather good shape. But Singapore still bore some brunt from the crisis, thanks to our open economy. I will not go into an argument about how globalized our economy should be (suffice to say that I am for globalization, but not the "free-for-all" some Republicans seem to want) but I must agree that banking regulations need to be stiffened. President Obama has a very tough job balancing giving free rein to the banks to operate and continually grow their wealth (and hence America's economy too) and managing expectations that as president he should be concerned more about his people who are suffering as a result of the folly of these bankers (and hence should punish the bankers). Either way, this tough balancing act is going to take much more than just "change we can believe in" or "yes we can" as President Obama promised before becoming president. His actions will have direct or indirect impact on the WHOLE world.
Struggle 2: China vs Google
Again, I never thought of this as a huge issue too, but it must certainly be one of much concern to quite a few if columnists keep writing every day about the relations between China and America and whether the trough in relations they are going through marks a change in tact or just posturing. The G2 (Group of 2 - China & America) notion aside, the assault on Google was certainly daring and bellicose. I am more inclined to side with Google and America, but you must also take into consideration the views of millions (of Chinese netizens) that the Chinese government have to assuage and calm. Many of them see the China-bashing as unwarranted and colonial bullying that is behind the times given the ascendant status of China, so I do not foresee that China and America's retaliatory actions are going to end at just sanctions. I sure hope they do things calmly though... recall the saying "when elephants fight, the grass gets trampled".
Struggle 3: Iran vs the World
Now this is an issue that I think people do not believe is a sufficiently major problem. Iran's nuclear proliferation will be very dangerous to America as well as the world, and it will derail all the economic efforts put in by the world's major economies given the potential changes it will cause to the geopolitical arena. This I think would be the most difficult struggle to resolve, given the ramifications that could spillover into the economic and social spheres (e.g. war). Unfortunately, given all the other problems that America and the world is facing now, it is inevitable for the Iran issue to be placed on the back-burner. But there must be understanding that neglecting the Iran issue and letting it fester will not make it any easier to solve.
I echo Friedman's wishes that "cooler heads prevail" this year. Or else, as he says, "fasten your seat belts".