Harvard professor, Niall Ferguson, in an article in Foreign Policy Magazine, The Axis of Upheaval, is predicting a coming “Age of Upheaval.” He writes, “Forget Iran, Iraq, and North Korea — Bush’s ‘Axis of Evil.’ As economic calamity meets political and social turmoil, the world’s worst problems may come from countries like Somalia, Russia, and Mexico. And they’re just the beginning.”
Ferguson sees a lethal combination of forces propelling coming upheavals: Economic volatility, plus ethnic disintegration, plus an empire in decline. “We now have all three,” he says, “The age of upheaval starts now.” Ferguson writes, “The resources available for policing the world are certain to be reduced for the foreseeable future.”
Excerpts from the article:
- The bad news for Bush’s successor, Barack Obama, is that he now faces a much larger and potentially more troubling axis — an axis of upheaval. This axis has at least nine members, and quite possibly more. What unites them is not so much their wicked intentions as their instability, which the global financial crisis only makes worse every day. Unfortunately, that same crisis is making it far from easy for the United States to respond to this new “grave and growing danger.”
- The axis of upheaval is reminiscent of the decade before the outbreak of World War II, when the Great Depression unleashed a wave of global political crises.
- There is reason to fear that the biggest financial crisis since the Great Depression could have comparable consequences for the international system.
- For more than a decade, I pondered the question of why the 20th century was characterized by so much brutal upheaval. I pored over primary and secondary literature. I wrote more than 800 pages on the subject. And ultimately I concluded, in The War of the World, that three factors made the location and timing of lethal organized violence more or less predictable in the last century. The first factor was ethnic disintegration: Violence was worst in areas of mounting ethnic tension. The second factor was economic volatility: The greater the magnitude of economic shocks, the more likely conflict was. And the third factor was empires in decline: When structures of imperial rule crumbled, battles for political power were most bloody.
- But no matter how low interest rates go or how high deficits rise, there will be a substantial increase in unemployment in most economies this year and a painful decline in incomes. Such economic pain nearly always has geopolitical consequences. Indeed, we can already see the first symptoms of the coming upheaval.
- The problem is that, as in the 1930s, most countries are looking inward, grappling with the domestic consequences of the economic crisis and paying little attention to the wider world crisis. This is true even of the United States, which is now so preoccupied with its own economic problems that countering global upheaval looks like an expensive luxury.
- The resources available for policing the world are certain to be reduced for the foreseeable future. That will be especially true if foreign investors start demanding higher yields on the bonds they buy from the United States or simply begin dumping dollars in exchange for other currencies.
- Economic volatility, plus ethnic disintegration, plus an empire in decline: That combination is about the most lethal in geopolitics. We now have all three. The age of upheaval starts now.
Why does ethnic tension rise? Much of the time people live together in peace. Virtually every warring and genocidal group has had long periods without violence. What changes this?
Economic decline obviously increases tensions and contributed to the rise of fascists in the 30s (though other factors like national pride in Germany were significant and amplified each other). Arguably rising expectations increases them more when they are not fulfilled, as in the American “long hot summer” racial disorders of the 1960s. In hindsight we can now look at our recent periods of “propserity” with illusory wealth, concentration of welath, and disasterous effects of deregulating the financial system which is lifeblood to the real economy as setting us up for a fall. Part of the problem is that boom times, like bust times, generate their own psychological momentum. People believed in sunny days that they thought would never end.
And as to the empire, which empire? It is probably the global capitalist empire of which the US has functioned as Sparta providing military services. Is this empire in decline? It seems that the resource draining invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan have squandered resources in an unsustainable way, certainly have worn out the US military personnel. How many additional wars could there be? Or should the military be used only for quick strikes and then quick disengagement, rather than the debilitating work of occupation? Perhaps the mercenary armies that have been spawned are the wave of the future, although they have been even more costly. Mercenaries also do not have a great record historically. But is the empire in decline? Empires are always at war and under attack, particularly on their frontiers, where they are always unwanted. When did this decline begin? Certainly US military power would be challenged if additional wars were to break out. Most likely if oil is not involved, and if groups do not attempt 9/11 type attacks on the US, the military will not be able to do much. Again alternatives to military violence may be needed to resolve the world’s problems, with violence being at most a short term tool that ultimately renders itself ineffective.
The other observation is that the Obama Administration is viewing this economic crisis less as a global crisis and more as a US crisis. Compare with what British PM Gordon Brown and the Europeans are doing to act the same way in dealing with the crisis. This may be the natural effects of a new administration, the relentless media coverage and the expectations of US voters. Or it may be that all the Europeans together have the same size economy as the US, so they have to work together. However the economy is so global it overwhelms both the US and Europe. And probelms of limited resources and environmental consequences may overwhelm all.
Niall Ferguson states: There is reason to fear that the biggest financial crisis since the Great Depression could have comparable consequences for the international system.
Everything I have seen in print says this economic downturn has not reached the levels of the 1981-1982 recession when put in proportion. Why do Obama and the press exaggerate the depth of this economic situation? We are not even close to the economic turmoil of the thirties, could we get there, yes. Unemployment and proportional economic wealth has to triple before we are at Depression levels. Maybe Obama, Barney, and Chris could lighten up the drumbeat of economic doom. Obama should follow Bill Clinton’s advice and begin leading authoritatively and more positively.
Stan, Iraq and Afghanistan, as wars go, minor league when compared to the first and second world wars. WWII in particular, we were still in the horror of the great depression when it started. In proportional dollars, Iraq and Afghanistan probably do not even represent a quarter of what was spent in WWII.
Empires come and go. History has shown repeatedly the strong will survive. Look at England, China, United States, France, and Vietnam. I suspect Ferguson needed to put out an article so some government funding could come Harvard’s way.
Unemployment and proportional economic wealth has to triple before we are at Depression levels. Misprint, should have said, unemployment and proportional economic wealth have to increase and decrease respectfully at least by a factor of 3 before we are at Depression era levels.
Sehr gute Seite. Ich habe es zu den Favoriten.