Present and Future

So what’s going on in Ukraine right now?

Lets start with a brief summary of events.  Late last year, Ukrainian president Viktor Yanukovych reneged on a deal to foster ties with the European Union; instead he embraced Vladimir Putin’s Russia.  In doing so, Yanukovych betrayed a long-standing promise to the people of Ukraine, prompting a protest movement in the streets of Kiev.  It is important to note that this was not the sole event which caused the protests, though it acted as a trigger for other, larger, longstanding processes.  The protesters coalesced in the Maidan - Kiev’s independence square - and remained there, peacefully, for months.  Weeks ago, Yanukovych decided to send in the police, touching off a series of fights culminating in the bloodiest day in Ukrainian history, and that ultimately led to his own deposition: Yanukovych fled the country and took shelter in Moscow.

A separate movement erupted almost immediately - in favor of Yanukovych and Russia.  Ukraine is a deeply divided country:

The above graphic is an electoral map of Ukraine’s 2010 presidential election.  Yulia Tymoshenko - imprisoned by Yanukovych and only released upon his ousting - won the territories in red, yellow, and orange.  Yanukovych won the territories in blue.  The map, however, represents deeper divisions within Ukrainian society.  The western part of the country, which voted for Tymoshenko, speaks Ukrainian, and identifies more with the European Union than Russia.  The eastern part, Yanukovych’s section, is more industrialized, speaks Russian, and identifies with Russia.  Though both halves of the country are dependent for the moment upon Russian energy imports and financial aid, the eastern half is more closely linked with the Russian economy.  

All of these centrifugal trends would combine to make Ukraine a difficult country to govern at the best of times - but now is not the best of times.  A predatory neighbor lurks to the east, and an expansive one to the west.  The legally elected head of state is hiding from his electorate in the house of the person most interested in seeing him retain his position.  The hastily thrown-together transition government may lack legitimacy, much less power.  

Several days ago, protestors in the Crimean peninsula - the most heavily Russian enclave in Ukraine - tore down a Ukrainian flag and replaced it with a Russian one.  The Crimean Parliament considered actions to secede from Ukraine - which the Ukrainian Parliament, predictably, ruled a constitutional impossibility.  Given Ukraine’s current position at the center of the European geopolitical chessboard, these competing forces would not be left to sort themselves out.

International Actors

Russia:  

Perhaps the most obvious actor, and the one with the most at stake.  Putin’s Russia sees strategic necessity, the glory days of old, and potential for the future all wrapped up in Ukraine.

First of all, it serves as a strategic breathing space for Russia.  European geopolitics have traditionally revolved around the German heartland, with those controlling it enjoying an immense advantage over those who do not.  Putin, when he looks west, must see a London-Paris-Berlin axis - despite the centrifugal problems of the European Union - and enter full on panic mode.  Russia needs the Ukrainian steppes as space to withdraw from in case of invasion, as it did in the Second World War.

The second and third reasons are wrapped up into each other.  Ukraine was once a stalwart Soviet Republic.  Russian looks back to a time it nearly ruled the world, and desires it once again.  This desire has seen full form in Vladimir Putin’s Eurasian Union: a poor man’s neo-USSR.  The Ukrainian economy was to form a key piece of this union, and losing it puts the entire project in jeopardy.

European Union:

The European Union is seeking to draw Ukraine into its economic and political union.  Why?  For starters, participating in such a large common market would greatly benefit each party economically, as well as fulfill the EU’s goals of spreading democracy, human rights, and increased social well being.  There may well also be a geopolitical component - Russia has made itself an enemy of many EU states in issues in the Middle East, and has long standing and relevant historical grievances with many Eastern EU states.  There is also a chance the London-Paris-Berlin axis, or a subset of that group, would take preemptive action to head off Putin in Ukraine.

America:

The least involved of all interested and major international actors.  The only things America has to gain from Ukraine are spreading democracy and human rights, heading off Putin’s attempts to expand his personal empire, aid its ally the EU, or, if one subscribes to particular neoconservative thought patterns, to head off a Moscow-Berlin-Paris axis.  Given Obama’s realist track record (http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2014/02/barack-obama-realist-foreign-policy-103861.html?hp=f2#.UxFoF_ldWRY), and his comments that Ukraine is not a Cold War chess board, it seems unlikely that America will do much outside of limited economic sanctions.

Obviously, the most invested actor is Russia, but the other states have taken actions as well.  The EU is reportedly organizing a financial relief bill for Ukraine’s transition government, as well as preparing to ease a Ukrainian entry.  American senators promised sanctions against Yanukovych while he was still in power, and Obama is now warning Putin against any action in Ukraine (http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/feb/28/ukraine-accuses-russia-of-taking-over-airports-live-updates?view=desktop#block-5310d7cfe4b093d4729c2efa).  

However, Russia has taken the most drastic steps, as befits what it believes to be at stake.  Russia’s continued financial and energy domination of Ukraine - and the implicit threat that Putin could turn off the monetary and oil valves - exert pressure on the transition government, but are perhaps somewhat lessened in the view that the EU, IMF, and US are organizing the requisite financial relief.   So Putin is massing troops along Ukraine’s northeastern border (http://www.cnn.com/2014/02/27/politics/russia-ukraine-troop-movements/), where pro-Russian support is strong.

More disturbingly, there are early reports of a Russian invasion of the Crimean peninsula.  According to Reuters, unidentified armed men took over the two largest airports in the region, at Sevastopol and Simferopol (http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/02/28/ukraine-crisis-balaklava-idUSL6N0LX3ET20140228 and http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/02/28/us-ukraine-crisis-idUSBREA1Q1E820140228).  Images out of the Crimea tentatively identify them as Russian

The men in the picture are wearing state of the art Russian helmets and gear.  How state of the art?  State of the art enough that not all Russian troops even have them yet.  It is incredibly unlikely that an independent actor would be able to collect the resources necessary to take over the two largest airports in the Crimea and acquire Russian gear before all of the Russian troops even have them.  Ergo, having eliminated all other options, they must be Russian.

But Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov declared to John Kerry that Russian troops had not, in fact, done anything of the sort.  Baring the possibility that Lavrov is outright lying, or unaware of the situation on the ground, what’s going on?  One possibility is that the troops actually belong to Vnevedomstvenaya Okhrana, a private military contractor group and the Russian equivalent to Blackwater (http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2014/02/28/exclusive-russian-blackwater-takes-over-ukraine-airport.html) [granted, any information taken from a source entitled “The Daily Beast” should be taken with a grain of salt].  

Even if their identity is unclear, though, it may not matter.  The Ukrainian Parliament started breathing fire the instant the first boot hit the ground, accusing Russia of invading its homeland.  They have to respond now, or lose all legitimacy.

So what happens with Ukraine in the future?

This prognosis may change with every single bit of new information which becomes available, but a partition of Ukraine is looking increasingly likely.  The major international actors, which will have to approve any peace settlement, would not settle for anything less.  The EU and the US would not let a Russian-puppet state predominate, while Russia would not let the entirety of Ukraine westernize.  Neither side will be satisfied if the entire country swings the other way, so it will be split.

The situation on the ground encourages this.  As was pointed out above, Ukraine is divided along ethnic, religious, economic, and cultural terms which just so happen to follow geographical lines.  As it is, they two halves are not so far away from civil war that it is inconceivable, and the goals of the two sides - to join either the EU or the Eurasian Union - are incompatible at a basic level.  They will go their separate ways.

What will it look like in particulars?

Ukraine’s first priority is to not turn into Georgia.  Russia’s invasion of the Crimea - without actually invading it - is a provocation, clear and simple.  If Ukraine acts like Georgia did in 2008, Russia will have a casus belli and invade.  Russia’s already mobilized military would be able to conquer Ukraine before the US could arrive - if it even wants to - and before the EU could mobilize and send aid.  Even if they could help, the EU and the US might not want to enter a conventional war with a major nuclear power: since God does not play dice with the universe there is no reason humans should.

The Crimea will then attempt to secede, and will or will not depending on whether you believe Moscow or Kiev.  The rest of eastern Ukraine will gradually fall in line, as the transitional government becomes increasingly panicked.  The EU and the US will impose sanctions on Russia, though the severity could vary: the EU depends on Russia for energy imports, while the US does not.  “Caving” to the pressure, Putin will go to the negotiating table.  Eastern Ukraine, led by Yanukovych, will remain a Russian puppet state and join the Eurasian Union, while Western Ukraine will make the first steps to join the EU.

The most pressing problem facing the world today is human-induced climate change and all of its repercussions.  

During the later part of the 19th century - and continuing into the 20th and 21st - the world experienced an unprecedented and exponential increase in global temperatures in the midst of what was a general cooling trend.  At the same time a second, dirtier, Industrial Revolution began, pumping out ton after ton of CO2 into the atmosphere.  CO2 concentrations, in parts per million, went from around 250 to over 400 in a mere century and a half.

These two trends are not coincidental.  CO2, and various other gases, contribute to the greenhouse effect, in which radiation emitted from the sun is trapped inside the Earth’s atmosphere, like locking your dog inside a car on a hot summer’s day.

Unfortunately, we can’t just stop producing CO2, and halt climate change in its tracks.  

Among developed countries, its a matter of game theory - if any country by itself adopts carbon regulations, it puts itself at an economic disadvantage in the global forum, since carbon regulations, by their nature, are inefficient.  All multilateral attempts - Kyoto, Copenhagen - have failed.

The billions of people living in underdeveloped countries, on the other hand, will seek to lift themselves out of poverty and raise their standards of living.  Historically, this is done by industrializing, and releasing veritable tons of carbon into the atmosphere.  How to balance the environmental needs of the planet with the physical needs of the impoverished billions of the world will be a key question in coming years.

It is unlikely the question will be resolved before the world hits the point of no return, and a runaway climate change begins.

The physical costs of climate change will be immense.

Almost every major human population center is located along a body of water, to benefit from trade.  When the ice caps melt and sea levels rise, the majority of the planet’s population will be underwater and have to relocate.

Increasing aridity and temperature will make agriculture in the traditional sense increasingly infeasible.  

Droughts and famines will become commonplace.  Malthusian conflicts, and water wars, could very well spring into being, especially in places such as Pakistan which depend on melting glaciers for their water.

Megastorms, such as Typhoon Haiyan and Hurricane Katrina, will become more frequent and more devastating.

Nostromo

Nostromo is set in the fictional South American country of Costaguana, which resembles the real life country of Colombia and is ruled by the dictator Ribiera.  Charles Gould, a native-born Costaguanan of English descent, owns a silver mine near the port of Sulaco.  Fed up with instability and corruption, Gould sponsors Ribiera’s regime.  Predictably, his silver merely inspires another round of civil war.  During this engagement, the General Montero invades Sulaco to seize Gould’s silver; Gould tells Nostromo - the capataz de los cargadoes (head longshoremen) of Sulaco - to take his silver offshore and sell it internationally.  Nostromo, original name Giovanni Battista Fidanza, is an Italian expat renowned for bravery and daring exploits.

Nostromo is widely respected, but, instead of gaining entrance to the upper class, serves as its tool.  Accompanied by journalist Martin Decoud, Nostromo smuggles the silver out of Sulaco.  Then, disaster strikes.  Nostromo and Decoud’s barge collides with a transport containing troops under Colonel Sotillo.  To save the silver, Nostromo and Decoud make off with it in a small lifeboat.  Nostromo leaves Decoud and the silver on the island of Great Isabel while swimming to shore himself.  After a daring nighttime ride over mountainous terrain, Nostromo summons an army to save the town and leadership of Sulaco, which promptly declares its independence.  Decoud, in the meantime, has gone insane.  He rows out to sea in the small lifeboat, shoots himself, and falls overboard weighted down by silver ingots.

Nostromo, in spite of all his heroism, feels slighted.  He expected fame, fortune, and riches; he got nothing.  Descending into a black pit of resentment, and obsessing over the silver, he keeps the true fate of the silver hidden from everyone, though he is puzzled by Decoud’s absence and the missing silver ingots.  When a lighthouse is constructed on Great Isabel, Nostromo has a close acquaintance, Giogrio Viola, named its keeper.  Nostromo, attempting one night to recover the silver, is mistaken by Giorgio for a trespasser, and shot and killed.

Lord Jim

Jim is an English sailor aboard the Patna, a ship taking Muslim pilgrims to Mecca, for the hajj.  When the ship starts going down, Jim and the crew abandon ship, but the ship survives and is picked up by a passing boat.  Facing a board of inquiry, the entire crew of the Patna besides Jim manages to evade investigation except for Jim, who is stripped of his navigation certificate.  

At the trial he meets sea captain Charles Marlow, who greets Jim as “one of us” and gets him a job as a ship chandler’s clerk.  Despite his best attempts to hide his identity, Jim is outed as abandoning the Patna, and flees east.

Marlow’s friend Stein finds Jim a place in Patusan - a remote island settlement with Malays and Bugis.  Jim becomes the leader of the people by defeating the bandit Sherif Ali and protecting them from the Malay chief Rajah Tunku Allang.  Jim is called Tuan, or lord.  After he won the love of Jewel, Jim is “satisfied...nearly”.

Years later, the town is attacked by “Gentleman” Brown, who is defeated and forced to flee.  However, Dain Waris, the son of the leader of the Bugis community, dies in the fighting.  Jim willingly goes to Doramin, Waris’s father, and accepts a bullet in the chest in retribution for the fallen son.

Heart of Darkness

Easily Conrad’s most famous novel.  It opens with Charles Marlow and other unnamed sailors gathered aboard the Nellie, a boat anchored in the Thames.  Marlow tells the others about his time working for the ivory-trading Company as a river-steamer captain in the heart of Africa.  At his station in Africa, Marlow sees a white-uniformed officer clutching a rifle leading a chain gang of enslaved africans, and meets the Company’s chief accountant, who tells him Mr. Kurtz is a first class agent.

Marlow, and a caravan, journey by foot to the Central Station, where his steamboat is supposed to be.  However, the steamboat has already departed - it is needed to check on the safety of Mr. Kurtz’s station.  In the months long ordeal of fishing his boat out of the river, and repairing it, Marlow learns that the Company men, or “pilgrims”, bicker and fight with each other incessantly for standing within the company.  He also learns that Kurtz is resented, at least by the manager of Central Station.

Marlow, several “pilgrims”, the manager, and twenty “cannibals” set out on the two-months long journey to Inner Station and Kurtz.  Eight miles downriver of their destination, they are surrounded by an eerily white fog in a scene reminiscent of the a Twilight Zone episode.  Meanwhile, screams break out from the riverbank.  Hours later, the steamboat is hit with the ever-effective weaponry that was stones and spears.  The “pilgrims” fire back with Winchesters, as does the native helmsman, leaving Marlow to pilot the boat.  The helmsman is improbably hit by a spear, and later dies.  Marlow blows the boat’s whistle, which of course causes the natives to run away in terror.

Assuming Kurtz to be long dead, Marlow doesn’t think him worth the lives spent attempting to save him.  The manager agrees, and selflessly orders the boat back to safety; however, just as he does this the Inner Station comes into view.  

There is a man dressed as a “harlequin” on the bank of the Inner Station, because of course there is.  He is Russian, because of course he is, and why wouldn’t a Russian be in the middle of British Africa.  A wanderer there by accident, the Russian admires Kurtz’s intellect, love, life, justice, and willingness to use power.  [Conrad being Polish, there’s probably some jab of some sort going on here]  Kurtz is revealed to be wanton in use of power, encouraging the natives to all but worship him, and very, very, sick.

Using a telescope, Marlow observes disembodied heads stuck on the roofs of the village.  The manager and the pilgrims come into sight with a parade of natives carrying Kurtz in tow.  The pilgrims carry him into the steamer, and a beautiful women - presumably Kurtz’s mistress - has a brief moment on the river bank.  The Russian reveals that Kurtz ordered the attack on the steamer, and remarks that Kurtz was absolutely fantastic at poetry, before departing.

Kurtz make a mad dash to shore in the middle of the night.  Marlow follows him, then realizes that following an evident maniac into the arms of natives entirely under his control wasn’t the best idea.  Kurtz begins to threaten him, but Marlow remarks “success in Europe is assured in any case”, and Kurtz comes back onto the steamer.  The natives riot, and by dawn the situation has escalated to gunfire.  Marlow beats a hasty retreat, again using the steamer’s whistle.

Kurtz becomes more sick, and Marlow becomes sick.  Kurtz gives Marlow a packet, and whispers “the horror, the horror” before dying.  Kurtz’s pamphlet contains a footnote: “Exterminate all the brutes!”.  Charming.

Marlow pretends nothing is wrong, and goes upstairs.  Soon, the “manager’s boy” remarks: “Mistah Kurtz - he dead.”  Marlow pays little attention to the pilgrims as they bury “something” the next day.

The Industrial Revolution was the single most fundamental revolution in human history.  Agrarian societies turned to fire and steel; factories dotted the landscape; an entire way of life vanished; a geopolitical revolution naturally followed.  Europe, led by Britain, rose to global dominance - a dominance which is only now beginning to erode.  The Industrial Revolution was so fundamentally significant because, at its heart, it changed everything about society:  the entire social structure of the existing world was upended.  

The Robotic Revolution promises to do all of that and more.

Robots will replace humans in the workplace.  The number of jobs will be small at first - and is indeed already underway - but will swell to consume the majority of jobs in the country.  A neo-luddite movement will arise, to contest the growing automation of the workplace.  Against the interests of the corporate and political classes they will not succeed.  Eventually new jobs will be generated, or the entire economy will cease to function.  A geopolitical revolution will have taken place during the midst of this transformation.

The first sector of the economy to experience this revolution will be the industrial and manufacturing center.  As demonstrated in the graph below, manufacturing employment has plummeted while at the same time its output has increased exponentially.  The reason for this gigantic increase in productivity is automation; robot workers replace human ones, decreasing employment and increasing output.  This transformation will continue, as machinery becomes more and more productive while humans continue to demand pesky things like a living wage or health benefits.  

Automation will spread out of the manufacturing sector into all sectors of society.  Self-driving cars will be one of the next breakthrough innovations.  A study from IHS Automotive (http://www.autoblog.com/2014/01/02/all-cars-autonomous-self-driving-by-2050-study/) claims that there will be 230,000 self-driving cars in 2025, and 11.8 million by 2035; the half century will see virtually all cars replaced by robotic ones.  The benefits will be mixed.  Traffic and automobile related deaths will decrease, yet at the same time any individual who drives for a living will be out of a job.  Automation will also spread into sectors such as retail, services, mining, oil, and more.

Productivity will experience an unprecedented increase, yet many will find themselves jobless and wandering the streets.   A neo-luddite movement will arise.

Displace workers, with nowhere to go, will blame their predicament on machines.  And they will have nowhere to go, no place to work.  Even if the economy is capable of sustaining them in some fashion, it will many years for it do so, and as the noted economist John Maynard Keynes observed, “In the long run, we are all dead”.  Like the displaced workers of the early nineteenth century, they will attempt to ban machines - or destroy them.  They will not be successful.  Any legislative attempt to ban machines will not work; populism, if it can be called that, will not win out when arrayed against the entrenched interests of the corporate class.  

It is the story of offshoring write large.  Where will the workers go?  They will attempt to move into a sector which is not performed by machines.  Some will become mechanics for the machines that replace them, but not nearly enough for all of the displaced workers to be employed.  Perhaps they can find retail jobs to replace the jobs they once had, but perhaps not.  The retail industry is already employing many people, and any increase in employment would require an increase in sales; an increase which could be driven by an increase in manufacturing output.  The supply side shock could open up free jobs, and it is likely another sector of the economy would develop, much as it did during the Industrial Revolution.  However, what sector that could be is wide open, if it even exists.  With hindsight’s guiding hand it is trivially easy to predict that industrial jobs would grow during the Industrial Revolution - and hindsight is not so easily discarded.  

The foremost social problem of that generation will be to decide what to do with the masses of unemployed people.  Likely, they will be young, and a country never wants its young males to be unemployed and hungry - especially when they are used to food.  Ask the King of France.  

If jobs are slow in their creation, and there is every reason to expect they would be, then America will be required to implement a social safety net of the type it has never seen before.  Unemployment benefits and healthcare will have to rise.  Theoretically, America could create a society where only those who wanted to work would have to, but that utopian dream seems like it could never come to fruition.

If sufficient benefits, enough to live, enough for spending money, are not created, America’s basic economic structure would come under fire.  America would have a consumer driven economy when a significant amount of people would not have the means to gain or spend money.  This could create a negative feedback loop where unemployment drives a loss in sales, which drives downsizing, which drives unemployment.  Hopefully, that would not be the case.  It would be ironic if America’s greatest revolution created its own depression.

One remote possibility remains.  America’s legions of unemployed could seek employment in the military, if it would have them.  Fueled by an economic revolution, America’s industrial-military complex would undoubtedly grow.  The domestic conditions would be right for war.  War with other powers seems unlikely, but what of a subjugation of the third world?  Again, unlikely, but foreign political pressure would not matter so much to a President under siege at home.  A full analysis of the relevant geopolitics will be available in part 3.

The Robotic Revolution, domestically, promises to be as fundamental as the Industrial Revolution - with all of its gains and woes, benefits and sorrows, winners and losers.

The historians of the future will look back upon the present day and mark the rise of China as one of the most significant forces on the world stage.  Doubtless, they will quibble as to when, exactly, China reached superpower status; one of the dates will be when it’s GDP overtakes America’s.

When will this happen?  That is a trivially easy question for the historian of the future - they need only to google the appropriate date - but for us, looking forwards, it is not so easy.  The Economist, has recently put forwards a date of 2018 as the moment of equality between the two economies.  This seems unlikely: China’s current GDP is only half the size of America’s.  For them to be equal in 4 years time, and assuming America experiences no economic growth whatsoever, China would need to experience a breakneck growth rate of 14%.  That will not happen.

A more accurate prediction would be to assume that the current rates of GDP growth will continue indefinitely.  While the assumption will almost certainly not remain accurate, it provides a sort of best case scenario to China; China’s economy is likely to slow slightly, while America’s will gradually normalize to 3%.  

Using the above assumption, I constructed a model to simulate the growth in GDP for both countries over the next 30 years

The above graph was generated in Mathematica.  The blue line - situated above the other line when both are on the y axis - represents the US economy, while the red line represents China’s.  The y axis is the GDP, in trillions of dollars (American), while the x axis is the time frame.

There is a specter haunting humanity.  Just behind the horizon of the future lurks a force with the potential to change the world on a fundamental level not seen since the industrial revolution.  It’s coming is all but assured at the current point in time.  The force of automation, of robotics, threatens a worldwide economic revolution.

Of course, like the agricultural and industrial revolutions before it, the robotic revolution will not start as a global force; the necessary conditions for its implementation do not, cannot, exist everywhere.  The prerequisites for a robotic revolution - and this is by no means a complete list - figure to be: infrastructure for robotics, means of developing robotics, and a pressing economic need for robotics.  The country which most fits these three criteria is the United States of America.

The infrastructure necessary to support large scale automation exists in only a handful of countries.  The infrastructure includes power grids, cultural acceptance, and trained technicians.  The regions and countries which most fit these criteria are America, Canada, Europe, Japan, the Republic of Korea, and parts of China and India; that is not to say other countries could not have a robotic revolution, just that it would not be naturally developing.  

Hand in hand with the above, companies or governments need to pour money into research and development for robots, else they will not exist in the first place.  The two world-wide leaders in robotic research are America and Japan; while other countries and regions can of course pour money into the relevant R&D if they desire, it stands to reason that it will not be a natural process.  Those other countries can force a robotic revolution, if they so desire, but they are not and it will not occur naturally.  The field is narrowed down to America and Japan.  

The final requirement is that a robotics revolution needs to make economic sense.  In the mid 1800’s, America remained the only developed European country that burned wood instead of coal.  This was not an indication that America was backwards, as many have read it; instead, it was merely a sign that wood costed significantly less than coal.  As soon as the forests were cut, and the price of wood skyrocketed, American’s began to burn coal.

As it was then, so it is now.  A robotic revolution will only happen when the robots cost less than the equivalent human labor would.  This point has been crossed in America.  A $22,000 robot would only have a maintenance cost of $3/hour (http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2013/12/overlooked-trends-of-2013-101491_Page5.html), for a worker that would work 24 hours a day, seven days a week, never complain, never take a day off, and require no expensive health benefits.  It now makes economic sense for American companies to fully industrialize their workforce, and bring it back home.

The consequences of such a game-changing revolution will be dealt with in a later update.  Nevertheless, they are staggering.  The robotics revolution has all the potential to be more fundamentally powerful than the industrial revolution.  As a result of its generation criteria, it will likely occur naturally only within the borders of the United States of America.

There is a fundamental paradox underlying international relations in Eastern and Southeastern Asia: nations in the region will become intertwined with two, opposing, poles of power.  As China grows, its economic influence will continue to grow amongst its neighboring countries - China is already the largest trading partner of most of its neighbors.  However, imperialistic Chinese policies better suited for the Emperor Qianlong will drive China’s partners, in military and political terms, into the hands of the United States of America, which will then proceed to attempt to draw those very same countries into its own orbit.

(China is the number one trading partner of the countries in red.  It is the number two trading partner of the countries in orange.)

A significant amount of countries in Southeast and East Asia have China as their primary trading partner.  This subjects them to an undue, if not unwelcome, amount of Chinese economic and soft power.  China, looking down from its newfound perch, will - and has - seek to advance its own ambitions.  The numerous island conflicts - over the Shatleys with the Philippines, the Senkakus with the Japanese, and more - testify to that.  China also sesk to impose its suzerainty, and sovereignty, over what it deems historically Chinese areas: Taiwan, the aforementioned islands, China’s Nine-Dash Line in the China Sea.

These aggressions scare the nation states in the region.  Frightened by Chinese jingoism, they turn to the only other superpower in the world for protection, the United States of America.  Or at least some of them do, with more likely to do so in the future.  The nations seek military and political alliances with America, to defend their borders against the perceived Chinese threat.  The US will be more than willing to help, assuming the Pivot to Asia continues as planned.  At any rate, it should be ecstatic at such an opportunity, and seek to use it to its own advantage; this will mean countering the Chinese economic clout in the region.

(Countries involved in the Trans-Pacific Partnership(TPP))

Enter the TPP.  By tying its erstwhile allies to itself economically, America seeks to supplant China as an economic power in the region.  Needless to say, this is a fairly difficult goal, perhaps even impossible - or near enough to make no difference.  China won’t take that lying down, and will doubtless fire back with more free trade pacts of its own.

Negotiators say they have reached a deal on Iran's nuclear program and sanctions

For nearly a millennia, Germany was divided into hundreds of competing statelets.  They fought amongst each other, and against outside powers.  They were weak; year after year the principal powers of Europe would fight over the fight of the weak and divided states in the center.  Then, in the 19th century, Germany unified under the leadership of Otto von Bismarck - overnight, Germany transformed  from a great power, under Prussia, to a state which could dominate the continent.  But why did this happen?

This question can be generalized - why do states unify into larger ones?  Conquest poses itself as an obvious solution, but then why do states that have not been conquered unify?  They need to fulfill several criteria: cultural compatibility, economic benefits, and a common threat.

Without cultural compatibility, a unification will fall apart.  Granted, the definition of compatibility changes over time - in Medieval Europe, having the same king was oftentimes enough, while in the modern era the citizens have to actively agree.  This gets at the heart of the matter: in the modern era, the people of the unified states need to desire a union, or else it will fall apart.  The European Union, when it puts its proposed changes to the members of its member states, lost referendum after referendum.  If the population had been willing to embrace the unification, on a cultural level, then it would have, if it did not happen, then at least have advanced itself.

If unified states are not culturally compatible, then the unification has fundamental flaws which will return to rear their ugly heads.  When the American colonies unified in 1787, the northern and southern states had many fundamental differences despite being mostly the same.  These flaws, and their basic cultural incompatibility, eventually drove the union into a civil war.

  Another factor which can aid political integration is economic integration.  This enriches all parties involved, and plants a seed in the minds of the people that perhaps they would be better off together.  However, this is by no means a guaranteed process.  The Zollverien, or German Customs Union following the Treaty of Vienna, did not lead to the political integration of the German states.  Nor has NAFTA led to the unification of North America, nor ASEAN the unification of Southeast Asia.  Therefore, it follows that economic integration does not lead to political union.

The same arguments can be applied to cultural compatibility.  The United Kingdom and the United States, despite their cultural similarities and Special Relationship, have not unified.  Nor has Britain unified with the rest of the Commonwealth.  Culture and Economics do not, by themselves, necessarily cause political unification, though they do make a strong case for it.  

The driving force, then, must be a common threat.  States, when presented with a threat which endangers all of them, can unify in the interests of the common defense.  They also can fall apart.

The process of German unification, before Bismarck, stalled under its own devices.  The Frankfurt Parliament of 1848 called upon Friedrich Wilhelm IV of Prussia to lead the German peoples as one nation, but he refused; he had no reason to accept.  Bismarck changed all of that.  Under King Wilhelm I, Bismarck called upon first the Danes, and then French revanchism - with an Austrian War thrown in for good measure - as common enemies.  The German states unified to defend themselves against these outside powers as much as anything.

American unification, too, took place against a common threat: the dual threat of internal war and European aggression.  If the states were not unified, they would come into conflict; any conflict between the American states would be long and bloody.  European powers, too, were waiting in the wings.  Britain had not withdrawn from the American west, as she had promised in the 1783 Treaty of Paris, and Spain’s forces loomed large on all sides.  To defend themselves against warfare of any kind, the Americans unified.

Historically, the quest to control the world has been written in European dominance.  The colonial empires of the great powers, for all their overseas glory, served to give their motherlands a leg up on the Central European plains.  Which areas will prove the focal point of world geopolitics in the future?

Europe will remain a key area.  While not as strong as it was, it is still riven with political division, and is one of the world's largest economies.  Asia, too, will prove a battleground, as the Asian Tigers leave themselves open to the influence of more powerful nations.

Africa, Latin America, and the Middle East will be sideshows.  They will help the the superpowers and the great powers to accumulate power, but domination - or the lack thereof - will not decisively influence a power's position unless they effect either Europe or Asia.

Russia and Egypt recently came to what they described as a historic agreement.  Russian foreign minister Sergei Lavrov stated that the two countries would seek to tighten their relationship.  This deal would extend to military, political, and economic support against the various enemies of the Egyptian regime.  

Egypt has changed sides in the Middle East.  While it used to be solidly in the American camp, it now aligns itself with Russia.  This move will, obviously, increase Russia's influence in the region while decreasing America's.  Indeed, America will have difficulty getting so much as a foothold in the Middle East, outside of Israel.

Asia Times Online. The Asia News Hub providing the latest news and analysis regarding economics, events and trends in business, economy and politics throughout Asia.

Two years after the earthquake and tsunami which caused its first crisis, the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear plant continues to cause problems.  During the summer it was discovered that the plant was leaking radioactive material into the Pacific Ocean for what has been an undefined period of time.  Corruption charges plagued the Tokyo Electric Power Company (TEPCO), especially since yakuza agents have been staffing the lower level positions in the plant, as well as providing relief to the victims.  Despite these irregularities, TEPCO is now attempting to remove the fuel rods from the plant.

The fuel rods, if left in the plant, will eventually release a catastrophic amount of radiation into the atmosphere.  They may do so anyway, during the removal process; however such an attempt is vastly superior to letting them do as they will.  This way, an event of catastrophic proportions is unlikely.

Adam Smith published his immortal Wealth of Nations in 1776.  In it, he lambasted the existing mercantilist theories so prevalent in the European geopolitics of the day, instead advocating the invisible hand of laissez-faire economics.  David Ricardo later took up Smith’s banner, as did a long chain of economists leading to the present day.  As a result, mercantilism has been largely discredited; however, the last vestiges of mercantilism remain - especially in times of economic trouble.  Why does this happen?  If mercantilism is so discredited, why does it remain?  Though there are undoubtedly a large number of cultural or social reasons why this might be the case, we will analyze it in terms of geopolitics.

First, we should define our terms.  Mercantilism, in its purest form, is the theory that there is only a limited amount of capital in the world; countries are best able to strengthen themselves by controlling this capital.  Therefore, exports should exceed imports.  Why?  Exporting involves selling and importing involves buying; exporting gives other country’s cash to you, and importing gives your cash away.  Exporting strengthens your economy; importing weakens it.  Two factors caused this theory to lose favor.  The first is that it only applied while there was a finite amount of capital existing in the world - a fundamental change has occurred;with today’s fiat currencies that is no longer the case.  The second is the rise of the theory of free trade, championed by Smith and Ricardo.  It holds that all countries benefit when free trade is allowed, and that there are no winners, no losers.  

It would therefore be proper to say that today;s mercantilist theories are not properly mercantilist, but instead protectionist.  That is the definition which will be used from this point forwards.

A key fundamental difference between the advocates of protectionism and the advocates of free trade is the way in which they view the dynamics of international trade: protectionists see winners and losers, while free trade advocates see only winners.  

One of the tenets of free trade is that everyone benefits in absolute terms.  Ricardo amply demonstrated this when he compared trade between Britain and Portugal.  A more relevant modern day-example is that of trade between China and the US.  While it is by no means free trade, its benefits are universal.  American investment, to a large extent, funded the Chinese industrialization; Chinese exports and credit made the American economic boom of the 1990’s and early 2000’s possible.  A free trade advocate would look at such a scenario and conclude that everyone has benefitted in absolute terms.

A protectionist would agree that everyone benefits in absolute terms - there is simply too much information to think otherwise.  However, that same protectionist would argue that the amount of economic power possessed by any one country can change - even decrease - in real terms.  The driving force behind this line of logic is that power is relative.  Let’s consider the case of free trade between country A and country B.  The GDP of country A increases by 200%, while the GDP of country B increases by 150%.  Both countries have obviously benefited immensely in the meantime, but country A has benefited more.  Because its economy increased more in relation to country B, country A has gained more economic power than country B has.  Country A is therefore, in a perfectly rational world, more likely to be free trade, while Country B is more likely to be protectionist.

American officials appear to be seeking a solution in which Iran would be allowed to enrich uranium at the low level of 3.5 percent during an interim agreement and also under a comprehensive accord.

American official stated that they are nearing a breakthrough in negotiations with Iran.  One of the toughest points of the talks - Iran's nuclear problem - may have been solved.  This highly tentative agreement would limit Iran's nuclear program to only 3.5% enriched uranium, in return for an easing of US sanctions; however, the deal would not be permanent.  It is intended to give the parties more time to negotiate.

America should take this deal.  While Iran will still have the same potential as ever to own nuclear weapons, they will not.  Under the current system of international affairs, they will in only a brief amount of time - US sanctions have proved ineffective in bending Iran to America's will, and, if anything, have only reinforced Iran's notion that it deserves nuclear status.  The sanctions only serve to detract from America's image abroad.

Why do nations go to war?  War is oftentimes a senseless, violent, activity whose only seems to be to send countless thousands of humans to their grave.  Surely, someone, somewhere, must benefit from it; surely there is a point - even if it’s a bad one.  Nations go to war to defend their interests, or to acquire new interests to defend.  Countries make war upon each other for security purposes, for ideology, and for greed.

In the classical sense, nations go to war in self-defense.  An enemy is encroaching upon their territory, or their people, and refuses to compromise, so the encroached upon nation takes up arms.  It seems simple enough, but what complexities lie beneath the surface?  Self-defense is not always so obvious as an invasion and a defense.  What of a nation which finds itself encircled?  In the sixteenth century, France was surrounded on land by assorted Habsburg holdings.  So, France went to war - a series of disastrous wars in Italy, then a civil war at home.  These wars were offensive tactically, obviously, as they involved French invasions of Habsburg lands, but were defensive strategically: France was preventing a Habsburg encirclement, and all of the fundamental security issues that would entail.  Wars, then, even offensive wars, can be undertaken in the name of national security.

(France is encircled)

Security can also be extended to cover resources: minerals, human capital, capital, and agriculture.  If a country loses anyone of these things, it can face devastating consequences, and it is in that country’s security interests to secure them.  If an outside power attacks these necessities, the home country must defend them; if the home country lacks these necessities, it must acquire them by any means necessary.  Thus, a preemptive strike of the sort outlined above is fully justified in the context of national security.

Another historically convincing argument for countries to go to war is that they possess clashing ideologies.  This is ideology in the broadest sense of the term - liberalism, conservatism, capitalism, communism, religion, etc.  Conflicts arise when two mutually exclusive ideologies stare each other straight in the eye.  When two competing ideologies are mutually incompatible, either because they seek to extinguish the other or because aspects of one are utterly repulsive to the other, they will fight.  Such wars are not inevitable, of course - the Concert of Europe should prove the fallacy of that argument - but they heighten tensions: any one spark can light the powder keg.

(The arrest of Gavrilo Princip)

Unfortunately, self-defense is not the only reason countries go to war; if it were, war would be far less prevalent.  Sometimes nations do go to war to defend themselves; in the other cases, it is usually for reasons of naked greed - greed for territory, for resources, for population, for power.  These are given fancy names: expansionism, imperialism, exceptionalism; however, they are the same at heart.  American expansion into the west; Russian expansion westwards; British colonialism - all were driven by greed.  What some have, others want.

On Tuesday, the Third Plenary Session of the 18th council of the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) concluded.  In its report, it included some of the changes it seeks to make to the Chinese nation:(http://sinosphere.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/11/12/chinas-leaders-urge-more-market-control-of-economy/?hp&_r=1)

CCP vows to push through changes that will give it a “decisive role” in the economy

Closed door meeting

Xi and Li vow to rid China of its highly-polluting industries, state-driven construction, grabbing of farmer’s land, and to share the wealth of urbanization equally

Market competition and improved government - tax reforms, integrating urban and rural society, improved government service, and building a more effective legal system

Key issue - handling of relationship between markets and the government

“Measured Change” and “Shared Prosperity”

Stifle political opposition and take a more hard line foreign policy

New State Security Committee - National Security Council

Reforms “Comprehensively deepening”, but not explained in the plenum’s report.

Reduce government controls, but keep governments as highly influential.