mymhcexperience

We live in an era of change. Of that, I remain convinced. The geopolitical realities of a bipolar or colonial world have been shattered, but we still live with the consequences. Those consequences shape the world we live in now and will pave the way to a new political era. Change inherently means instability. I like to consider myself a realist. Instability is the bane of a realist while he strives to maintain stability. This will be a challenge, but how we respond to it will determine future global structures and the empowerment or oppression of billions around the world.

The Middle East cannot remain in its time warp forever: its oil reserves will eventually run dry and the monarchies and religious fundamentalism of the region will be swept up by the forces of modernism and technology. Israel and Palestine may have to be settled eventually and the Kurdish dilemma will have to be addressed. Europe will have to make a decision, either collectively within the EU or individually, of its place in the world: will it be a center of global institutions that the rest of the world can reliably turn to, or will it descend into bureaucracy or fascism with this new wave of immigration and bad economics? It will also have to decide whether to integrate East Europe and Russia; for a strong Europe to be possible, there must be a conscious effort to do so. India is slated to become the most populous country and one of the biggest economies of the world: it may be able for it to continue along its path, although it will have to do something about its environmental policies, lest we all suffer (and barring any calamity with Pakistan, which I do think is remote). China will have to make a very serious decision sooner rather than later about its continued economic growth in relation to its citizens’ repression: will it continue repressing individual human rights regardless of growth, or will it fulfill its promise of the “modernizing authoritarian” regime? This is particularly significant because how China answers this question may define an entire era of Chinese history, along with all the geopolitical and economic ramifications that the world’s current largest country entails. Several individual African countries are projected to be among the fastest growing in the 21st century, which is great, but there are many throughout the continent who report that liberalism and democracy are actually on the decline. Those growing African economies (Nigeria, Egypt, South Africa, [Rwanda?] etc.) may gain enough leverage to set the political discourse for the continent and will be in a position to develop other, less fortunate African countries.

And then there is the United States. We are also at a pivotal moment in our own history. Immigration will change the face of this country like never before and we have the opportunity to keep ourselves economically vibrant and relevant to the world because of it. I have always viewed the anti-immigration backlash and the Tea Party as the final push against the forces of change by the leading, white majority. I had thought, or rather wanted to believe, that this last push would result in failure because demographics and history would intersect to forge a new destiny for this country. I know that I’m right with regards to how this country will look by 2050 (Asian, African, Caribbean, Hispanic immigration). But if the current political and economic structures within the country don’t open the floodgates to higher power for these new people, then meaningful change for how this country operates may not occur. Economic power must be less concentrated along a single racial group, especially as that one group is actually shrinking; that’s just a recipe for disaster. Political power must also be diffused among the different minority groups, but I believe that the economic empowerment of minorities is perhaps even more important (e.g. the success of Chinese and Jewish Americans). Ultimately though, I think we need more representation along every sector of society. We need an Asian Chairperson of the Federal Reserve; we need a Hispanic President; we need successful black American tech leaders; we need black women held up as ideals, even standards, of beauty; we need more gay business executives; we need a Muslim Secretary of State; we need more black Africans in the most prestigious universities. We declare ourselves a meritocracy, but if most of the positions of power are filled by a singular group in such a diverse society, then something is clearly wrong. Either there is a structural problem in the system that we declare a meritocracy, or it is not possible for these other groups to attain such heights. The latter is obviously untrue, so the former must be it. Addressing the shifts of our era in this manner is to regress; this is a problem facing the United States and other countries around the world. History is set to change the world we live in; we need to face it head on. If I’m going to be working in this kind of global environment, then I want to at least be able to affect the changes to come for the better.

P.S. I also think history is a cycle. Just because I think the world is set to undergo radical changes over the next century doesn’t mean there won’t be parallels to previous eras.

The United States is the one country on Earth that all of humanity looks towards. It’s a shining beacon of hope for the security, opportunity, and ability for greatness that everyone yearns for. It was the Founding Fathers’ vision, and great unprecedented experiment, to create a country that could provide such things for everyone, but the treatment of our black neighbors has turned that into a failure. From slavery to Jim Crow, from segregation and the creation of black only neighborhoods to systematic denial of any kind of real opportunity, the U.S. in its history has actively oppressed an entire segment of its population. Yes, there have been extraordinary figures throughout that history that have led us closer to making that vision a reality, but we are still reaches away. So long as black teenagers can be executed by law enforcement with impunity, so long as ordinary Americans remain complacent with the gross ineptitude of the system, and so long as outrageous stories like this can be shared, our founders’ experiment will continue to be a failure.

With the U.S. set to become a minority majority by the year 2050, this issue has become more pressing than ever. The racial injustice that black Americans have been served is directly tied to whatever justice other minorities can hope to attain.  If the black members of our own society continue to be perceived with suspicion and are treated any differently, the other racial groups that are projected to grow will only be viewed on a scale from black to white, from worst to best. Asians will be seen as hardworking and intelligent, but not truly white or part of the majority. Arguably, they may be seen as “honorary whites.” Hispanics will be seen as illegal, border-crossing individuals who are destroying the culture of America, even changing its unofficial language from English to Spanish. Black Caribbean and African immigrants, a group that is insignificant now but is set to expand in the coming decades, will try to distinguish themselves from the black American community and attempt to make of themselves something different and unassociated with the other black community. And at the bottom of the totem pole will be black Americans themselves. Generations of social oppression and outright economic denial of opportunity has left a legacy that is one of this country’s worst records. Its shadow will leave a mark on every other group. And while this regurgitates every stereotype available about these very groups, the continued acceptance of the status quo regarding black Americans will only provide justification for the continued acceptance of such stereotypes.

There are many arguments counter to this, the most heard one being that such oppression of black individuals occurred decades ago and that the election of a black President is indicative of a country that has moved beyond race. This is correct regarding the social oppression of such people, as the lack of colored only bathrooms proves. But economically, the ramifications of earlier oppression are still being felt by the black community today. Housing, for example, is still greatly segregated, with entire neighborhoods often being statistically black American and are usually of inferior quality. From the GI Bill after World War II, which actively segregated black veterans from their lighter colored comrades, to the lack of loans and wealth building chances, black Americans have been given the short end of the stick. To this day, black Americans are statistically less likely to be able secure a good home, and all the perks that come with it, or open a business because of the lack of inheritable wealth their ancestors suffered from. Most white Americans, however, benefit from the exact inverse circumstances. Most black American children must endure poorer quality schools that can’t provide the kinds of opportunities that other schools can; most black American teenagers suffer from discrimination in employment because of perceptions of their work ethic and state of being; and most black American adults carry a lifetime experience of being seen as different, as deviant, as the “demon” that Mike Brown apparently became before he was murdered. I have no personal experience with this kind of discrimination because of my own race. Yet when most other black Americans report this kind of treatment, it is obvious that something is wrong.

The United States has been in a similar position before. During the second great wave of immigration, Jews, Irish, Italians, and Eastern Europeans arrived to this country and were seen in many of the same ways that modern groups of immigrants are currently being seen. That wave had many of the same issues, yet they were overcome and now such groups are seen as ordinary Americans, uniformly accepted in society. America will have to go through a similar transition if it is to come out of this era intact, strong, and ready for the challenges of globalization, but with groups of immigrants who look and vary far more differently. The way the black American community and its social and economic integrity are handled will be determinant of this future. Either we can have a distorted system that treats its citizens with bias, or we can make our founders’ little national experiment a success.

One of the major things that I think about is the continued progression of economic development among underdeveloped countries. This by definition involves social and technological development, so that more and more people have access to modern day conveniences, irrespective of their physical location. Pretty soon, everyone will have access to electricity (hopefully clean energy) and kids everywhere from Bangladesh to Nigeria will be able to go to school and make something of themselves, rather than being condemned to a life of poverty stricken hardship simply because of where they were born. The world is already headed there, but I think we should be approaching it by the end of the century.

Hmmm, what else is left? African countries of course need to continue to develop. Another war may be good, in terms of technological breakthroughs, but we seem to have done a good job regarding that without any major wars since World War 2. Maybe we really are reaching a point in human history where everyone sees war as the most ineffective form of politics. Maybe I’m just too optimistic. Renewable energy seriously needs to break major ground, and soon, if this little vision of mine is to come true. We can’t afford to have the N-11 economies depend even on natural gas; they need to transition to solar and all that good stuff, for all of our sakes’. Population will continue to grow, but it should be on the decline again by 2100; Thomas Friedman thinks the ensuing labor shortage could be filled with robotics. I think he may have a great point. But the population shouldn’t be too great of an issue, so long as good old human ingenuity is a step ahead. Barring that, everything else could theoretically go toward the end of the century.

But anyway, that’s not why I’m writing this. One of the main conundrums I’ve thought about has to do with the reduction of extreme poverty around the world. I remain thoroughly convinced that there is a certain virtue in such desperate poverty, in that people existing in such hardships inherently gain a greater appreciation and insight of life in general. And those of us who are not born into such poverty can watch and learn from it. How many works of art have been made about such people that have been successful? Khaled Hosseini’s books, accounts of the Rape of Nanking, stories of the Tibetan/Palestinian/so many other peoples’ struggle for independence, etc. HONY is wildly popular and it’s literally just some guy taking photos of people and listening to their stories. Some of them do deal with these kinds of hardships, especially the photos he took on his world tour. My question then, is this: will this aspect of the human story be lost if everything goes according to plan? Even now, the UN is busy making a new set of MDGs, at least one of which will address the elimination of poverty. We as the human race will be closer than ever before to making that dream a reality. And it would unquestionably be better for everyone when we do achieve that goal; or, at the very least, make it so that everyone has electricity, a fridge, etc. But will that aspect of growth through extreme hardship be lost? I don’t know and I think about it quite a lot. I suppose all hardship is relative and there will always be people who suffer more than others because of circumstances in their lives, but will the degree of that change as we move forward in time? I think it most certainly will, but that doesn’t necessarily have to be a bad thing.

Israel has started a new offensive against Hamas in the Gaza Strip. First, 3 Israeli teenagers were kidnapped in Hebron. Israel accused Hamas of the incident, yet offered no evidence to back up its assertion. Israel had also been accusing Hamas of rearming itself and firing rockets into southern Israeli territory for some time now. Hamas was the one to instigate the initial conflict when it fired its own rockets into Israel after the accusation were made. Israel then used this as a pretext to launch an offensive against Gaza. Netanyahu’s administration stated that its goals were to degrade Hamas’ infrastructure and weapons stockpiles so it would not be able to threaten Israeli civilians or property. As the death toll in Gaza reached a few hundred, Israeli forces revealed to the public what it had known from the beginning of the crisis: the 3 kidnapped teenagers were killed, most likely by some splinter of Hamas gone rouge. Israeli intelligence placed a gag order on this information to have a convenient excuse to enter Gaza. As Israeli forces showed intentions of leaving, however, events quickly took a life of their own. Many Israelis were outraged at this incident; they had just found out about the deaths, unlike those in the intelligence community. In response, Israeli settlers caught and burned alive a Palestinian youth.

Not only did this inflame the Palestinians, but it indicates a slow takeover of mainstream Israeli society by extremist elements that previously operated on its fringe, all perpetrated by the very people driving this change. Of course, Palestinians are guilty of the same thing, as the existence of Hamas is a testament to that. But Israel, the self-professed island of stability in the Middle East, does not face nearly the same destitution that such extremism thrives on. Rather, recent Israeli governments have allowed certain groups to build settlements over land that is not legally theirs. This Zionist movement, which has historically simply meant the creation of a Jewish state over modern Israel, has come to encompass all the land over which Palestinians now call home. Because of this, it has led to an ever increasing desire to claim more land with settlements, land that the global community considers Palestinian, not Israeli. And while Netanyahu has in fact blocked many settlement plans, he has permitted the construction of far more along the West Bank. He has also refused to lift the naval blockade of Gaza, sealed off the territory’s borders, and retained control over much of its power and water supplies. In the West Bank, Palestinians are subjected to border patrols, segregated roads, and towns of settlements that are taking over their lands. The results are the slow colonization of the West Bank by settlements and the Gaza Strip effectively made into a maximum security prison where its residents need express permission to do much of anything. Israel cannot honestly say that it seeks a two state solution, or even a legitimate peace, so long as it maintains this status quo. Any statements made otherwise are simply lies.

It’s clear to any rational minded observer that a two state solution is in the best interest of all involved parties, including the United States. While some have explored the possibility of a one state solution, it can never be. If Israel were to annex the land and people of the West Bank and Gaza, notwithstanding the international reaction, it would be faced with a choice: fully integrate the Palestinians into Israeli society with full rights, or systematically deny them rights and relegate them to a legally entrenched second class status. The Arab citizens already inside Israel and the Palestinians outside it have a higher population growth rate than Jewish Israelis. If the first choice were made, Israel would lose its Jewish identity in a few decades by simply being outnumbered in their own democratic state. After all the horror of the Holocaust, Jewish people all over Europe wanted a state where such a thing could never happen again. Israel was the fulfillment of that wish; its identity should not be compromised. The second choice, however, will lead Israel to become a full fledged apartheid state, reminiscent of South Africa. This would put Israel and, by extension, the US in an untenable position with the rest of the world. That outcome is unacceptable for moral and geopolitical reasons and must be avoided at all costs. The only conceivable scenario that does not lead to a dead end is a two state solution, with agreed upon borders and a dismantling of most settlements.

Netanyahu, despite all his statements to the contrary, clearly favors preserving the status quo and postponing making any meaningful decisions to resolve this situation indefinitely. Whether he’s incapable or simply unwilling to retain his right-wing colleagues who would continue to build settlements and oppress Gaza, Netanyahu is acting in the way of a real peace process. And so long as Israel refuses to improve conditions in Gaza and stop its illegal constructions in the West Bank, it will continue to face Palestinian resistance, as is the Palestinians’ right. The UN has enshrined the right of a people to resist occupation by an occupying force into international law. The Palestinians’ most recent initiative to resist their occupation was a unity government between both Hamas in Gaza and the comparatively peaceful Fatah in the West Bank to seek negotiations with Israel and legitimacy from the international community. Netanyahu, fearing the upset this would cause to the status quo and corner him into negotiations, is seeking to nip this Palestinian “peace offensive” in its bud. That’s why this new assault on Gaza began. Netanyahu is evidently more interested in the illusion of security for the Israeli state by undermining the Palestinians at any and every turn and Israelis will continue to support him as long as he can provide that illusion. Yet this is just another dead end: Israel will continue to be ostracized by the international community and the US will continue to shield its actions regarding the Palestinians. And if Israel really does slide toward apartheid statehood, then it will be cornered into a back wall that it can’t just airstrike its way out of.

I have this vision of the geopolitical future. While it might be a stretch to see the current trends and extrapolate the vision I have, I think the underlying structure is present in the current “world order” that exists that can allow for that future to come to pass. Namely, I think that regions and entire continents will become unified under consolidated governments that have social and economic integration. Political integration may be more difficult to achieve, since I can easily imagine nations being very reluctant in giving up aspects of their sovereignty. However, all of this does seem to be the general trend that Europe is heading towards, as the European Union continues to pave the way toward a greater union. The European Central Bank is gaining greater regulatory power over individual economies to maintain stability. The latest EU elections were arguably the most important in the union’s history and indicates a greater consciousness among Europeans that they are part of a continent and not just a particular country. Countries all over Europe are giving up bits of their independence and heading towards a unified continent. Of course, this is all assuming that countries like Russia don’t mess all of this up with aggressive actions, in which case this whole theory could just blow up in its own face. However, assuming that not too many distracting actions take place, then Europe will probably be a much more powerful union by the end of the century. That could make the continent more peaceful (which is a relief, considering that 2 of the most violent wars were fought there).

Then there is the African Union. I don’t know too much about this organization, but tighter economic and political integration are two explicit goals in its mission statement. In addition, its member states have participated in a number of military interventions in other member states that have been hotbeds of conflict, from Darfur to Somalia. Needless to say, the AU hasn’t been very successful in many of its own goals, but as individual African states rise and even prosper, then it is conceivable that the AU itself may become more effective and grow teeth. By the end of the century then, assuming that Europe continues full speed ahead as it is doing now and that the AU is somewhat behind it, can the rest of the world ignore two incredibly large and increasingly powerful consolidated entities? Perhaps not.

Envisioning a consolidated Asian government is difficult to imagine or process. Asia is huge and extremely diverse. So is Africa, but that continent already has the AU as a launching pad in this little scenario of mine; Asia has no comparable equivalent. The closest comparisons are the regional blocs, like ASEAN. To be honest though, I’m not too concerned about an Asian consolidation; whatever happens will obviously be a huge deal as it has the potential to combine the largest countries and the largest economies. India and China will most likely play important roles and other countries might also be important players (Bangladesh, Indonesia, Vietnam). However, there are many pathways from there. South Asia and East Asia can consolidate separately, with India and China as the leaders respectively. Or they could somehow fit together. In fact, I just read a piece by another individual who brought up the idea of a Sino-Russian union. I hadn’t thought of that given the contentious and often uncooperative history between the 2 countries, but it sounds intriguing. (This idea actually comes from a Mr. Timothy Williamson and his essay “The Rise of Regional Federalism, which I coincidentally discovered while writing this) There is also the oddball of Japan (no offense to Japan). Japan has a severe population problem and an almost total lack of immigration: these are 2 huge problems that will come to bite Japan in its ass. This will have repercussions on its economy and society. Relative to the rest of Asia, I find it difficult to place Japan in this whole scenario. That area of the world could go in any number of ways.

And of course there is the United States. As a country that pioneered federalism from the ratification of the Constitution, you would think that the US could potentially take the initiative in this kind of global movement, which really revolves around the idea of federalism among entire countries. However, things are rarely that easy. Having said that, I do think it could be in the United State’s interest to create a larger union among itself and its neighbors. Mexico is rising economically in a way that I don’t think most Americans understand. Based on the media and Republicans, most Americans are only concerned about Mexicans illegally hopping the border. However, recent data shows that fewer of those illegal immigrants are neither hopping the border nor Mexican (a growing share of illegal immigrants now come from more unstable countries further south). In fact, Mexico is growing and stabilizing by many accounts and is now providing better opportunities for its own people. If this continues, then most Mexicans soon won’t have a good reason to move north. Could the rise of a country directly to the south of the United States pose a significant geopolitical challenge to the United States? George Friedman, author of “The Next 100 Years,” believes so and I think its a credible enough scenario that could happen. In fact, Friedman believes that Mexico could pose a direct challenge to American power by the 22nd century, similar to what China is doing now. While I don’t see it going quite that far, a nice solution to this conundrum may be a union between those countries and Canada.

Lastly, just so I don’t appear negligent, Brazil could be a leader in regional/continental consolidation in South America. Although this union could also be a smaller part of the greater union to the north. The Middle East is also an interesting area that Turkey could emerge out of, if it doesn’t get sucked into the whole affair in Europe. Their Majesties in the Middle East, however, will need to find a new source of economic activity to leech off once the region’s oil is depleted and the world shifts to renewable energy. I only use derogatory language in that last statement because many monarchs of the Middle East deprive their citizens of real economic development just so they can enrich themselves off the oil boom.

The anime Code Geass takes place in an alternate timeline where the majority of the world is conquered by three superpowers. While I don’t think that could happen in the real world by force of arms, I guess it was the anime that first put the idea in my head. Then watching world affairs and also consuming other pieces of artwork, like Mass Effect, the notion of regional and continental entities began taking shape in my head. It also seems more practical to me, as larger entities can commit greater resources to doing different things. The United States alone has produced so many things in terms of technology and advances in healthcare. What would a United States of North America (working title…) be able to accomplish, I wonder. Of course, this is all just one of many ways that the world could head towards in terms of geopolitics. I see it as the next logical evolution of governing, but I could be mistaken, or some unforeseen event(s) could change the dynamics.

The human rights situation of North Korea is the most severe and under reported human rights atrocity currently going on the world. Its 24 million citizens have little to no Internet access, state propagated TV and radio channels, and omnipresent posters of Kim Il Sung, founder of the Kim regime of North Korea and the nation’s “Eternal President.” It sounds like a rip off George Orwell’s 1984, which would be comical if it weren’t so oppressively true. Pyongyang, the capital city, stands as the one and only model of development in a country gone to ruin. Chronic food shortages, energy blackouts, and constant lies of a Communist “worker’s paradise” plague the country, while ordinary North Koreans are forced to survive off what scraps they find.

The most news people in the Western world hear of North Korea are reports about nuclear tests. Of course, this is an international security issue, and one that the United States should remain on alert for. However, North Korea’s nuclear capability is simply a deterrent, used to ensure the Kim regime of its survival in a world where it only has China as a lukewarm ally. Many argue that the real danger North Korea poses is if its Kim regime collapses. This scenario would create an exodus of millions of refugees, many of whom would head to China, but also to South Korea, thus creating a refugee problem no nation would want on its borders. There is also the danger of the country’s nuclear arsenal falling into rogue hands in the resultant power vacuum.

This would be a geopolitical nightmare for the entire world. It is for this reason that China continues to prop up its neighbor with substantial food and economic aid, despite that North Korea offers incredibly little in return to China in its trade relations, mostly because North Korea has little to spare. This preserves the status quo, helping the Kim regime stand on its own feet and saving the region from a security disaster. Ultimately though, this is a losing battle for China. It only isolates itself from the international community by continuing to support a rogue state that is increasingly condemned for its nuclear tests. Furthermore, it antagonizes South Korea and Japan by helping North Korea, a known troublemaker in that region. Normally, this in itself would not be a terrible consequence for China. However, this comes at a time when China should be making calm with all its neighbors in the face of its strong economic rise.

There is still that remote possibility that North Korea will reform. It has been speculated that Kim Jong Un, the third and current generation of the Kim regime, is interested in reforming his nation’s economy to include small scale improvements. This has already been happening in the country for quite for a few years, where merchants privately sell goods for a profit in the black market. It has been speculated that if Kim Jong Un were to liberalize the economy through the government, it could pave the way for a sort of “soft landing,” one that changes the status quo but doesn’t end in an implosion. If this were to happen, though, the Kim regime would do all it can to ensure it remains firmly in power. This may be the best bet for China as it can secure its national interests and not compromise its support for the regime to the world. If it can also aid North Korea in the process, it can use that as even greater leverage over its nuclear weapons program. The United States can then use that to diplomatically bring an end to this recurring problem, since it is in fact a mutual problem of both China and the U.S.

China can ultimately live with the current reality for quite some time. There have been no major signs of regime or social collapse and Kim Jon Un has successfully shown that he can hold on to power. His regime is also the world’s first Communist dynasty. It’s a unique position, but one that most likely will not last indefinitely. Small-scale reform within the country does seem a good alternative for China, one that it can help North Korea with along the way, but the Kim regime would still do everything it can to hold onto power. Personally, I think the Kim regime should be destroyed. If the Bashar al-Assad regime is illegitimate for killing its citizens for the past two years, the Kim regime is nefarious for starving its citizens for the past many decades. I believe they should be tried for crimes against humanity, but the interests of larger countries may get in the way of that.  Still, if North Korea’s economy were to liberalize even a little bit, it might at least quell the hunger of its people.

It’s obvious that Vladimir Putin is an opportunistic and intelligent leader. Whatever his end game may be with the dramatic path he has led Russia down, I am confident that it will pose a competent challenge to the United States and to the global financial and economic system. His actions also threaten European stability, at a time when many actually thought that Europe was heading toward a future of centralization and greater governance by the European Union and less of that by individual states. His annexation of the Crimean Peninsula, the general chaos he has forced Ukraine to deteriorate into, and the threat he poses to other former Soviet satellite states may very well set the EU back by several notches in terms of European governance (the EU’s financial integration, however, will probably continue). The United States and some of its allies have resorted to some half-assed attempt at damage control by placing economic sanctions around certain Russian individuals. This means that some high-profile and very wealthy Russian citizens have some of their assets located outside of Russia frozen and rendered useless. I highly doubt that any of that matters to most of them, since most of Russia’s lucrative markets are dominated by those very same people; they can keep living their comfortable, luxurious lives. Moreover, as long as there are even a handful of European countries that continue to depend on Russia for its natural gas and energy imports, then the rest of Europe really can’t threaten Russia in a credible way. Even Germany, the economic powerhouse of Europe, has so far refrained from criticizing Russia in a major way.

There are also two new deals on the horizon for Russia that can aid its hand in this hot mess: the natural gas deal with China and a military transaction with France. As I was reading about these two different deals, it struck me how awfully convenient it was that both of these deals were finalized around this time period, as Russia takes increasingly bolder action. Of course, each of these deals began years ago and are the results of many negotiations. Still, wouldn’t it be exceedingly clever of Putin to have timed the Crimean annexation with the finalization of both of these deals? The man was Prime Minister from 2008 to 2012, during which time both deals began. It would imply a great deal of foresight on Putin’s part if he did in fact time both of these deals and the Crimean annexation, all to strengthen his position and capabilities in the international scene. It might also mean that he has been planning this whole Crimean affair and all of its repercussions since at least that time, if not even earlier. I mean, his inauguration speech from when he entered Russian politics was about how he wanted to make the Russian state great once again, so it’s not inconceivable. Also, the French deal involves Russia purchasing two warships that its navy currently does not have. The ~$1.5 billion price tag is hefty, made heftier when maintenance and training costs are taken into account; this is made worse by the all the “capital flight” phenomenon happening now, as investors are suddenly deciding that Russia may no longer be a good place to do business. Those costs, however, are more that offset by the ~$400 billion natural gas deal that Russia just finalized with China. Putin may have already done this cost-benefit analysis in his head years ago. He’s already proven that he’s opportunistic and daring. If this hypothetical of mine is correct, he is also really perceptive and has foresight.

Of course, now I feel obligated to state how the U.S. can react to all this. Obama has shown that he is only willing to use military force as the absolute last resort, and even then, he prefers it to be multilateral action. I find this doctrine of his so frustrating. That’s because I know that this is the way the world should be headed, especially as underdeveloped countries start to become more assertive and the United States is no longer the only power that matters in a geopolitical sense; on the other hand, the U.S. is still the world’s only superpower. We could be doing more throughout the world, with the civil war in Syria being the most forefront example. Perhaps armed engagement would not the most effective course of action in Crimea, but this whole “sanctioning specific people in Russia” definitely isn’t either. I’m positive that the individuals that D.C. has targeted have far greater wealth than that which is being sanctioned. European countries really need to limit their energy trade with Russia to make a credible threat and the U.S. needs to export its own natural gas to those same European countries to fill the void.

African economic growth is an under reported success story. Perhaps rapid development of Asian countries and the simultaneous downturn in Europe and the United States overshadows growth rates in Africa, which are projected to be the fastest growing over the next decade. However, growth has spread throughout Africa and while poverty and corruption are still rampant, millions of people are doing better economically speaking than ever before. Strides in commodity production have been made, while the use of information technology such as phones and personal computing has exploded. The continent enjoys a demographic advantage in the form of a majority of young, working age populations that are increasingly becoming tech savvy. Perhaps more remarkable is that these young people are not just consuming technology, but producing it as well.
Apps for mobile phones are being developed to improve economic activity, so that customers can easily find things to purchase and owners can easily sell products. Banking has become more convenient while social networking and messaging have made Africans more interconnected. Fiber optic cables and mobile data have proliferated, linking entire regions to the rest of the world. Such rapid technological growth has in many ways become the backbone of broader economic growth throughout Africa. One illuminating example is that Kenya has recently announced its plans to build a “Silicon Savannah,” just a few miles away from its capital city of Nairobi. According to plans, the site will provide homes, a university, and tens of thousands of tech related jobs. What is perhaps even more striking is that the European Union was calling for more tech workers to fill labor gaps at roughly the same time.
Commodity production, from minerals to agriculture to natural energy resources, has skyrocketed as well. Exports of such resources are of course valuable, though they are also vulnerable to declined global demand and changing market conditions. Fortunately for Africa, China has been a huge customer of resource exports and business between the two partners has boomed (something the United States should be watchful of). However, manufacturing production has not kept pace and still remains rather consistently low throughout the continent. This factor, combined with a fickle global market for exports, can easily turn into a spot of economic contention for Africans. Still though, commodity and natural resource production remain economically fruitful.
Furthermore, investment in human capital has improved as well. Micro loans are increasingly being issued to Africans in various countries, driving local growth and businesses. This money often comes from foreign capital, but much of it also comes from local banks, indicating greater economic responsibility. Political situations, which was perhaps Africa’s worst affliction over the past few decades, have largely, but not completely, stabilized as well. The number of civil wars has decreased, leading to a corresponding increase in peaceful transitions of power and political stability. Most recently, Sudan was able to split off into two sovereign nations, a northern and southern Sudan. This partition did not result in a full scale revolt as many had feared and what little violence that did occur only slightly overshadowed the largely successful parting.
News regarding Africa is usually about the famine in Somalia, the resurgence of terrorists in northern Africa, or the obscene rapes of South Africa. Throughout the continent, however, there is a quiet yet emerging story of successful economics, increased trade, and people being lifted out of poverty. Of course, if nations that are already considered as rapidly developing, such as China and Brazil, still have a ways to go, then Africa certainly still has a mountain to climb. However, for once in a very long time, that mountain seems a little more surmountable for Africa.

I think the main theme of this age of the world will be development. Countries all over the world are growing economically, technologically, socially. There are more stable democracies in the world than there ever have been, and they exist in all their messy and democratic political glory. The major blips for this are the possible governmental transition of China and the autocracies of the Middle East. The development and proliferation of technology all over the world has improved the lives of billions, providing everything from clean water to free wi-fi, and ongoing innovation promises even more improvement (and responsibility). Economic development is occurring at breakneck speeds. Hundreds of millions have been uplifted from extreme poverty in a fraction of the time it took earlier industrializing countries to uplift people. Countries all over the world, from the BRICS to the Next-11 and others, have achieved astonishing growth rate and impressive strides. When this current recession ends, I (want to) believe that the developing world will be the force that drives the bulk of future growth. I want Haiti to be a country that donates aid when an earthquake hits a country; I want China to work closely with likewise ascendant Asian nations over critical issues; I want Bangladesh to host the FIFA World Cup and Nigeria to host the Olympic Games before the end of the century; I envision a single Korea; I wish for an Afghani woman to develop some revolutionary technology in her own country. And wouldn’t it be nice to have the United States at the forefront of this new age leading by example? Our political paralysis will eventually end; it will have to. And when it does, I want America to realize the changes going on without its involvement and get involved. It’s the only way we can secure our own future while everyone else secures their own.

Is it possible to reach the stars? Mankind’s progress has been exponential throughout history. It took thousands of years to create the wheel, hundreds of years to make the car, then only decades to go to the moon. By the 23rd, 24th, maybe 25th century, I think we will have access to other planets of our solar system. We already have cameras taking pictures of Mars, so why not send a person up there? A lot of fiction entertainment from literature to video games build stories around these concepts, but that doesn’t mean the concepts themselves are also fiction. The Mass Effect trilogy revolves around an intergalactic organization, like the UN but for entire planets. I doubt something like that would come to pass, but I think we can and probably will have access to other planets. The possibilities as to what we could do are endless: we could import raw materials, build colonies, create tourism sites, and other things that I can’t think of right now. I’m sure there would be ethical questions that would be raised up appropriate for the times, but that occurs with every new breakthrough. And I’m assuming that there are no aliens within our solar system, so the only beings we would have to deal with are ourselves, like every other point in history. Who knows what the technology will be like at that distant future, so I certainly think it’s possible and even probable. Maybe we can even have access to Pluto and use it for some purpose.