What’s the current state of geopolitics in the world? How has the global geopolitical arena changed over the years?<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Before globalization fully took hold, maintaining geopolitical stability was about armed forces, nuclear weapons, and regulation of weapons\u2014essentially, conventional military power. Today, conventional military power still matters, but global stability also requires taking into account the three accelerations.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
In this article, we’ll discuss the history of geopolitics, its current state, and what we can do to adapt to the upcoming changes.<\/p>\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n
Before we can discuss the state of geopolitics today, we need to cover a brief history of geopolitics. After World War I, nations fell and new ones rose, for example, the Austro-Hungarian Empire became Yugoslavia, Hungary, Austria, and Czechoslovakia and after World War II, many nations, such as India and Senegal, gained their independence<\/a> from colonizers. In between World War II and the fall of the Berlin Wall<\/a>, the geopolitical arena was fairly stable.<\/strong>\u00a0<\/p>\n\n\n\n Most of the new nations didn\u2019t have the resources to create strong governments or industries. However, at this period in time, they didn\u2019t need to be strong, just average. The internet didn\u2019t exist yet, so people couldn\u2019t compare their situations with those of others around the world, automation wasn\u2019t a threat yet, and China was keeping to itself and wasn\u2019t competing for low-wage jobs. Most countries hadn\u2019t used up all their natural resources and climate change hadn\u2019t yet affected agriculture. Most countries also had young populations thanks to decreased child mortality and better health care, so pensions weren\u2019t an economic burden yet either.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Additionally, there was plenty of help. During the Cold War, the major geopolitical conflict was between two superpowers, the US and the Soviet Union, and both nations needed allies. <\/strong>Both the US and the Soviet Union provided new nations with money to build infrastructure, leadership training, and citizen education. If funding wasn\u2019t enough to secure an allyship, the US or the Soviet Union would put people on the ground. For example, the Soviet Union rebuilt Syria\u2019s army several times.<\/p>\n\n\n\n During this period of time, US foreign policy was easy\u2014the goal was simply to not let Russia take over. <\/strong>While the US and the Soviet Union were technically at war, both had reasonable leaders who were in communication with each other and kept each other in check. Both had enough nuclear power to destroy each other, so neither wanted to start a war because it would result in mutually assured destruction.<\/p>\n\n\n\n In between the Cold War and the early 2000s, Russia lost its superpower status and more nations gained independence, such as Ukraine and Kazakhstan, and America became the single superpower.<\/strong> The major geopolitical conflict was between the US and the rest of the world. As there were no wars going on, foreign policy was mainly the US involving itself with the governance of other countries.<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n After the failure of the US intervention in Afghanistan<\/a> and Iraq and after the 2008 recession, the US lost power and confidence and pulled out of the Middle East. This resulted in two things: The rise of ISIS and the migration of refugees from ISIS states. The migration caused fear of immigration in Europe.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Today, conventional military power still matters, but global stability also requires taking into account the three accelerations. <\/strong>Threats are no longer obviously galvanizing (for example, in the way Nazism galvanized the Western world to oppose it) and can\u2019t be solved simply with armies and a conclusive victory on a particular date. The US and European countries don\u2019t have the resources to go into other countries anymore, and they also don\u2019t have the resources to handle people from other countries coming in.<\/p>\n\n\n\n US foreign policy used to be easy\u2014contain one other superpower, Russia\u2014but in the age of accelerations it’s far more complicated and has three major arms:<\/p>\n\n\n\n Today, there are three superpowers, the US, Russia, and China, and dealings with superpowers are no longer simply about containment and recruiting allies. The world is so interconnected now that the fall of other superpowers might actually be more dangerous for the US than the rise, and allies can quickly become enemies.<\/p>\n\n\n\n In addition to superpowers, US foreign policy must manage state failure, which is the fall of governments and the takeover of countries by tribes, gangs, and extremist groups. Weak states in the Middle East and Africa are causing regions of disorder, and this disorder is spilling into more stable nations as migrants and refugees travel from weak states to Europe or the US.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The final arm US foreign policy must address is containing breakers. Breakers are individuals or groups who want to cause chaos. (Friedman contrasts breakers with \u201cmakers,\u201d people who use the accelerations to build new things or improve old things.)<\/p>\n\n\n\n Pre-acceleration, new technologies were first available to governments and it took some time for them to make their way into the hands of the general public, but now, it\u2019s easy to get destructive technology or find out how to build it online.<\/strong> A single person now has the ability to compete with superpowers and unlike superpowers, breakers often can\u2019t be deterred by mutually assured destruction\u2014some breakers are happy to commit suicide if it means hurting others too.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Additionally, single breakers are far harder to identify, predict, and take down than an organization.<\/strong> When a government is dealing with a terrorist organization, the strategy is to find the organization, disrupt it, and destroy it. Individual people are harder to keep track of and they can come out of nowhere. The rise of breakers is part of why radical Islamism is so persistent\u2014it\u2019s not an organization, it\u2019s a movement. There\u2019s no leadership structure, so taking out certain people doesn\u2019t have a major effect on the movement.<\/p>\n\n\n\n In the age of accelerations, average nations become weak nations for several reasons:<\/p>\n\n\n\n Madagascar is an example of a previously average nation that became weak in the age of accelerations. During the Cold War, Madagascar received a lot of foreign aid\u2014for example, the US built a NASA station, Cuba sent teachers, and North Korea built a Presidential Palace. Now, most of this aid has dried up, the population has exploded, cyclones have destroyed infrastructure, the island\u2019s topsoil is eroding, and education is only mandatory until age fifteen and taught in the local language, so it\u2019s difficult for people to connect to global flows.<\/p>\n\n\n\n It\u2019s always hard to come back from disorder, but it’s especially hard in the age of accelerations<\/strong> because a country can much more quickly get far behind, and there\u2019s so much to do to catch up and keep up\u2014set up flow access, lifelong learning<\/a>, infrastructure, and innovation. <\/p>\n\n\n\n As we learned earlier, to maintain global stability, we need to take the three accelerations into account. In this chapter, the author specifically focuses on the role of connectivity and geopolitics\u2014connectivity and the supernova have the potential to both free people from oppression and create political instability.<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n There are two types of freedom<\/a>:<\/p>\n\n\n\n Type #1: \u201cFreedom from\u201d <\/strong>is liberation from oppression such as dictators, consumerism, and anything you\u2019re forced to do against your will. This type of freedom is easier to create\u2014you just need to break the current system.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Type #2: \u201cFreedom to\u201d<\/strong> is the ability to do things you want to. This type of freedom is harder to create\u2014not only do you need to escape the current system, but you also have to build a new one that will support you in doing what you want.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Connectivity is an aid to \u201cfreedom from\u201d and a deterrent to \u201cfreedom to.\u201d <\/strong>Social media, cell phones, and other forms of digital communication excel at putting large groups of people in touch with each other quickly and give everyone a voice, and this group effort can topple existing systems. However, digital connection doesn\u2019t provide any opportunity for debate, help people to trust each other, unite organizations, or create strong leadership, all of which are needed to create a new system.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Wael Ghonim, who created the anonymous Facebook page that helped start the Egyptian revolution, sees five limitations to using social media for political ends:<\/p>\n\n\n\n These limitations are partly due to the existence of cyberbullying and trolls, but also partly due to the design of social media. Social media platforms<\/a> are currently set up so that writing inflammatory posts gets you more attention.<\/strong> If the platforms were changed to promote thoughtful reflection, social media might not be so polarized and destabilizing.<\/p>\n\n\n\n In these accelerating times, we need to rethink geopolitics. The days of occupation and aggressive foreign aid are over and the US can\u2019t come in from the outside and change things\u2014countries will have to make changes themselves. The US can support these countries by using a three-step process: 1) amplify, 2) deter, and 3) degrade.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Amplifying is giving people educational opportunities and economic opportunities, both of which allow people to stay in their countries instead of migrating in search of resources or work.<\/p>\n\n\n\n In terms of educational opportunities, education is empowering and allows youth to make changes to their countries. <\/strong>Educated youth can use their knowledge of history and human rights to call their governments on inappropriate action, and youth who get an American-style education can compete with anyone in the world.<\/p>\n\n\n\nAverage Nations<\/strong><\/h3>\n\n\n\n
Post-Cold War<\/strong><\/h4>\n\n\n\n
Current State of Geopolitics<\/strong><\/h3>\n\n\n\n
US Foreign Policy<\/strong><\/h4>\n\n\n\n
Arm #1: Manage Superpowers <\/h5>\n\n\n\n
Arm #2: Stabilize the Globe<\/h5>\n\n\n\n
Arm #3: Contain Breakers<\/h5>\n\n\n\n
Weak Nations<\/strong><\/h4>\n\n\n\n
Connectivity and Geopolitics<\/strong><\/h3>\n\n\n\n
Adapting<\/strong><\/h3>\n\n\n\n
Step #1: Amplify<\/strong><\/h4>\n\n\n\n