Whose the Greater Destabilizer?

In geography, we talk about devolution. Devolution is the breakdown of a state [country/nation] due to internal division. Some other terms that are also associated with devolution are Balkanization, Shatterbelt, and Failing/Failed States. When people within a region, whether that region be a state, nation, or realm, become disenfranchised with their government or method of governance, conditions are ripe for devolution.

The United States is embroiled in a process of nation-building in Iraq. We are encouraging Iraqi people to reduce their cultural ties to their tribes or larger family units and increase their identification with the greater Iraqi state. However, admirable this action might seem, the United States has not proven to be the Great Unifier.

I begin my argument by submitting that the current state of U.S. affairs in Southwest Asia can be traced to 1953. In reality, the creation of the state of Israel might be the birth of the modern era of conflict in Southwest Asia. I choose 1953 as my baseline due to the U.S. support of the Iranian Coup that overthrew the democratically-elected government of Mohammed Mossadeq. The British petroleum company, BP, was the private oil industry in Iran at the time. The Iranians, weary of seeing their oil and oil profits siphoned off to the West, nationalized the oil industry. The West, namely the United States and Great Britain, saw this as a threat. Operation Ajax was born out of the desire to regain control of oil resources in Iran.

Eventually, this would lead to the overthrow of the Shah of Iran, Reza Pahlavi, in 1979, beginning the theocratic rule still in place today.

Let us not forget that Iran was once Persia, which was once the Persian Empire, and is a nation and a people whose history pre-dates that of any European nation.

In 1982, the United States threw their support behind Saddam Hussein in his war 8-yr war against Iran. At that time, the war was turning against Iraq, and the U.S. did not think that it was in its interests for Iraq to lose.

In the meantime, during the decade of the 1980's, the United States cast its lot with the Muslim Afghan rebels in Afghanistan. The effort to help the Afghans against the Soviet march resulted in the most successful covert action in the history of the CIA. We also helped train those we are at war with now, in Afghanistan, and Pakistan.

In 1990, two years after its war with Iran, Iraq found itself at war with its former weapons supplier, the United States.

In 2002, the United States instituted a policy of regime change in Afghanistan, a nation that we were the benefactor of for almost a decade.

In 2003, the United States implemented regime change within Iraq. The coup in Iran in 1953 might also be termed, "regime change."

Currently, the United States has engaged both Syria and Iran in helping resolve conflict within Iraq. Both Syria and Iran have been marginalized through the "Axis of Evil" label. Both the United States and Iran have engaged in finger-pointing - "You're responsible for making this worse!"

Iran is being accused of providing more sophisticated IEDs and other weapons to Iraqi insurgents. In April 2007, ABC News ran a story about our secret efforts in Iran.

Lebanon had parliamentary elections the other day. A predominantly Muslim nation, but with sizable Christian and Armenian minority populations, by the way. The candidate supported by the United States - lost. The former president, Amin Gemayel was trying to win the seat vacated by his son. Analysts believe that the support by the Bush Administration doomed his election.

In closing, I offer this. Destabilization of this region cannot be attributed to any single nation. Russia, China, France, Great Britain, the United States, Iran, Israel, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Libya - who am I leaving out? - are all responsible. Destabilization may have a core cause: Oil.

One thought I do have is this: discounting Oil, the basis for this destabilization is founded on the inherent disrespect that nations have for each other. Nations, and administrators of those nations, lack fundamental respect for differences among themselves, the people they government, and the lives in the far-flung reaches of our global that their policies directly or indirectly affect.

Islam and Democracy

Can Islam and Democracy co-exist? Or, in other words, is a democracy the best form of government for Iraq, or for any other nation in the region, for that matter? Iraq is not the only example of U.S. regime change within the region, only the latest.

To answer this question, I wanted to find evidence that Islam and Democracy were co-existing currently within our global neighborhood. I turned to the CIA World Factbook, the source of all things true.

Indonesia> Most muslims do not live in the Muslim World, in the Arab World, or in the Middle East. They live, among other places, in Indonesia. Over 200 million Muslims live in Indonesia, along side Christians, Buddhists, and Hindis. Indonesia is a republic, not a dictatorship or monarchy, but a representative-style governmental system.

Pakistan> Technically, Pakistan is also a republic. However, Pervez Musharraf in an army general who took over the government. Benazir Bhutto was once Prime Minister of Pakistan, the first woman president of Pakistan, the first woman president of a Muslim nation, and also democratically-elected. She was removed from office for corruption, further evidence that a democracy works. Pakistan is 97% Muslim, or about 159 million Muslims.

India> India? Yes, India is the 3rd most populous Muslim nation, having about 143 million Muslims. The former president of India was Muslim. The new incoming president of India, Pratibha Patil, is a 72-year old woman. India is also the largest democratic nation on the planet.

Egypt> Egypt, technically, is a republic. Egypt has elections (once in a while), and has a representative-style government. Egypt is also home to 80 million Muslims, coming in a #4. Also, living in Egypt are about 8 Million or so Christians, both Coptic and otherwise.

Turkey> Turkey is a republic, and has recently experience national elections, where the former president Erdogan was elected once again. The military got a little excited over his election as Erdogan leans toward mainstream Islam, and the military, forged from Ataturk's legacy, is very wary of people too expressive of Islam. Turkey is almost 99.8% Muslim, or 7o million Muslims.

Iran> Iran is a theocratic republic. Now, this is interesting. The Council of Ministers elects the president (Mahmoud Amadi-Nejad), and the Council of Experts elects the Supreme Leader, Ali Hoseini-KHAMENEI. The Council of Experts is a popularly-elected body of 86 religious scholars. So, Iran is a democracy of sorts, although it is run by religious tenets rather than secular laws. Iran is about 98% Muslim (64 Million Muslims).

Saudi Arabia> We have to traverse seven other nations before we reach the nation that supplied most of the 9/11 hijackers. SA is home to about 27 million Muslims. SA is NOT a democracy; SA is a monarchy and there is little chance that will change anytime soon.

At this point, I have an arguement to make.

I would argue that monarchys encourage radical Islam. I base this argument on two ideas. One, there is no "buy-in" of the local population, that is, they have no representation, they have no stake in the affairs of their government. They do not get to decide where money gets spent, how it gets spent, or even if it gets spent. Secondly, monarchys control the wealth and foist policies onto populations that may be unpopular or unfair. The majority of the populations see the monarchy get richer, build new homes, drive expensive cars, while they toil and work. The hope to change the system, to elect a new leader, to vote or decide on policies does not exist. Thusly, an environment of hopelessness ensues that provides a breeding ground for discontent. Enter: Radical Islam to stir the nest.

Our government is preparing to sell $30 billion dollars worth of military equipment to a monarchy whose people have no vested interest in their government.

The question is not whether or not Islam and Democracy can co-exist.

The question is how can we increase economic opportunities for primarily Muslim nations, and encourage populations to become more active in their governments.

America's Fastest-Growing Dystopias

America's fastest-growing suburbs

The migration to the Sunbelt continues. Texas, New Mexico, Arizona, and southern California comprise the Sunbelt. The Sunbelt area has fewer cloudy days than many other areas of the country, hence the moniker, "Sunbelt."

Granted, the community of Lincoln, CA., is located on the fringe of the Sunbelt, but its growth seems to be due to emigrants of southern California. Lincoln grew by 236%, which amounts to almost 30,000 people. Gilbert, AZ., grew by almost 115,000 people.

The Sunbelt, while being a beautiful place to live, if you like arid conditions, and that is just it - arid, is also a DESERT. And the population density (the number of people per unit area) of the area continues to grow. Water resources are already stretched beyond recharge rates for the region (the ability of the hydrologic cycle to recharge or replenish itself). The increase in population also requires more schools and improved infrastructure. Growth seems to be happening so fast that it is outpacing the bureaucracy designed to manage the growth.

Sprawl is another issue associated with this growth. Sprawl is the encroachment of urban areas into rural space. Rather than grow "up" urban areas grow "out." The outward growth can consume farmland, which rarely returns to farmland, essentially lost. In a desert environment, this might be less of an issue. However, sprawl can consume flora and fauna habitats. Sprawl also requires an increase in capacity and transmission distance. Utilities must be pulled farther out into the urban hinterland.

Another interesting note is the tone of relativity. Housing is more affordable and there is more housing. People seem to be growing weary of the press of humanity around them in southern California. The value they receive for their property also seems an issue. In other urban areas, people receive a better value for the same dollar. An recent article in The New York Time's, "In Silicon Valley, Millionaires Who Don't Feel Rich" several people mentioned in the article, whose net worths are in excess of $2 million dollars, feel as if millions of dollars in the bank is not enough to maintain their standard of living. One comments that they could live elsewhere and "live like a prince." The cost of keeping up with the Jones', when the Jones' are millionaires, creates an environment whereby having more than enough seems like not having enough, and, as a result, people lose contact with the "real" world around them.

Distopia.

Oil: The Criminal Crutch

Oil retards growth. The presence of oil retards growth. This flies in the face of conventional wisdom. This idea is not unique to me but I see validity within it. Let's see if I can explain.

Currently, as I write this, oil is priced about 76$/barrel, according to Bloomberg.com. A gallon of regular unleaded gas pumped in the town in which I am located runs about $2.76/gallon (Speedway).

Oil is supposed to be a wonderful benefactor for the countries in which oil is the primary industry (or is a primary industry). But lets look at some of those countries.

Iraq: Oil made it USA's friend, until Iraq's Saddam Hussein began causing trouble. He did not invest in the oil infrastructure nor did he seek to provide economic opportunities by diversifying his economy. Iraq is geographically positioned to be a source of industry, commerce, knowledge, and agricultural products. There is no reason why it could not be a self-sustaining economy.

Iran: Has to import fuel because profits from its own oil sales have not been used to build more refineries. In fact, many Iranians are curious to know where the money has really gone.

Saudi Arabia: Led by a monarchy, one family. While it has attempted to diversify the economy, 75% of its budget revenues come from oil, and 90% of its export revenue is oil-based (CIA.gov). Almost 50% of the Saudi Gross Domestic Product comes from oil. Not a particularly diversified economy. Now, they are instituting some reforms; but they have been pumping oil from SA for decades and only now they have decided that they might want to pass along the benefits to their own people. Women still fall well short of men in terms of literacy; 30% of women 15 years and older cannot read or write (CIA.gov).

Nigeria: Is a mess. The government is fighting a civil war over control of its oil fields. The Movement for the Emancipation of the Niger Delta is fighting for control of the oil fields. In recent months, they have attacked foreign oil workers, oil equipment, taken hostages, and shot journalists covering the war. Nigerian oil exports are well off past production numbers. Oil accounts for 20% of Nigeria's DGP and 95% of its foreign exchange. Again, oil is nothing new to Nigeria, and government corruption and mismanagement has prevented growth in Africa's most populous country, where 40% of women above 15 years of age cannot read or write (CIA.gov).

Venezuela: Another country run by a dictator; well, okay, Hugo Chavez was democratically elected, but since then he was able to get his government to agree to let him rule by decree which is essentially electing him king. Now, he is trying to change Venezuela's constitution so that he might reign in perpetuity. Otherwise, he would have to give up his post in 2009. Venezuela is the third largest exporter of oil to the United States, behind Canada and Saudi Arabia. President Chavez has apparently funneled oil profits into social programs, helping to build houses, provide medical care, creating neighborhood food programs, job training, and literacy programs. Venezuela has suffered from years of oil-profit mismanagement, however, military coups, and corruption. Almost 90% of export earnings are from oil sales, and oil accounts for 30% of its GDP.

These countries stand on one leg - oil. They have relied on oil to support themselves, and in doing so they have stagnated. Oil, and reliance on oil, has retarded their growth by retarding their collective imaginations.

Take their oil away and where would these countries be? Would these countries have the innovation, the dreams, the desires, the imagination to develop and evolve in absence of oil? Would their governments try to encourage and promote economic opportunities, encourage and promote education, encourage and promote global investment?

Our current administration seems bound to continue limiting these countries by continuing to emphasize our reliance on these oil-producing nations and by not promoting economic diversification, but by providing them the means to make war on one another. Selling weapons ensures the continued economic divide that exists between the rich and poor, and reinforces the cultural divide between the Shia and Sunni. Weapons ensure that the powers that be within these governments remain in power, maintains the status quo, and contributes to the continued cultural and economic stagnation of these nations.

Thomas Friedman's Flat World

"The World Is Flat" should be required reading for every incoming college Freshman in the United States. We, the United States, is in BIG trouble. One, we are ignorant of the global forces at work around us. We are arrogant and see ourselves as The Bastion of Hope and Democracy. We are not. An arguement can be made that we are Exporters of Fear and Aggression. Our government focuses on the War on Terrorism, closing our borders, fencing us in, denying access to those that would come here to work, to help, to learn. We are the largest weapons merchant on the globe. Our government currently proposes to sell $30 billion worth of weapons to Egypt and Saudi Arabia to counter Iran.

We do not have to be in BIG trouble. We are also a country with a wealth of knowledge and ample opportunites for people to learn, live, grow, and to set forth the example of Hope and Democracy upon which our way of life was founded.

Unfortunately, our current administration suffers from paranoid delusions and uncontrollable fear.

The World Is Flattening

In 1960, Walter Rostow postulated that all countries pass through five stages of economic development. All countries initially begin as traditional agricultural societies, then build up and out. As their agricultural base evolves and diversifies, population grows, they will eventually reach preconditions for takeoff. Takeoff arrives when the country has a diversified economy, with industrial, commercial, agricultural activities, and a service sector that provides support and administrative capabilities. As these activities continue to grow and expand, coupled with an expansion of foreign investment opportunities, and the country becomes more entrenched within the global economy, the country drives to maturity. The final stage becomes that of high mass consumption. Now, the country and its people have reached a stage where incomes are high (generally speaking), industry, commerce, and technology have attained world-class recognition, and the government both oversees activities at home and promotes its national interests abroad.

Technology is helping countries leap-frog some of these stages. Global fiber optic cables are providing Internet access to locales once too remote or underdeveloped for telephone. Cell phones and associated towers encourage communication again in areas perhaps too remote or lacking land-line infrastructure. These technologies are being used by people to both push information into places and pull information and opportunities into places.

And that is what it is about: opportunity. Providing people opportunities to make their lives better, to improve upon what they already have. These technologies are equalizers, aka levelers, aka flatteners.

It is this freedom that is perhaps the greatest tool in the so-called "War on Terrorism." Terrorism thrives where hope and opportunities are restricted.

Provide opportunities, not $30 billions dollars in weapons sales, and see how terrorism spreads.

Fareed Zakaria & David Ignatius

Fareed Zakaria provides analysis and insight unlike all others. His articles and essays are favorites of mine. The price of Newsweek for his commentary alone is worth it.

I am less familiar with David Ignatius, but as Dr. Zakaria (he has a Ph.D in Political Science from Harvard) has partnered himself with David to host the PostGlobal blog website, I am sure that David's musing are just as insightful.

Make sure and check out Dr. Zakaria's articles and his article archive. "Does the Future Belong to China?" essay is one of my favorites, and I use it in my World Geography every semester.