Politics

Éra neuspořádanosti

Oct 27, 2014 Richard Haass

NEW YORK – Historické éry se obtížně rozpoznávají dříve, než skončí. Renesance se stala renesancí až zpětně a totéž lze říci o dobách temna, které jí předcházely, a řadě dalších ér. Důvod je prostý: nedá se poznat, zda nějaký slibný či znepokojivý vývoj je samostatnou epizodou, nebo zda představuje začátek trvalého trendu.

Nicméně tvrdím, že jsme svědky konce jedné éry světových dějin a úsvitu druhé. Je tomu 25 let, co pád Berlínské zdi ukončil čtyřicetiletou studenou válku. Následovala éra americké nadvlády, větší prosperity pro mnoho lidí, vzniku velkého počtu relativně otevřených společností a politických systémů a všeobecného míru včetně rozsáhlé spolupráce velkých mocností. Nyní skončila i tato éra a uvolnila místo mnohem méně uspořádané a méně pokojné epoše.

Blízký východ se nachází v raných fázích novodobé třicetileté války, v níž politické a náboženské vazby budou zákonitě přiživovat vleklé a leckdy surové konflikty uvnitř národních hranic i napříč jimi. Svým chováním na Ukrajině i jinde zpochybnilo Rusko kdysi veskrze stabilní evropský řád založený na právním principu, že území nelze získávat vojenskou silou.

To continue reading, register now.

Subscribe now for unlimited access to everything PS has to offer.

As a registered user, you can enjoy more PS content every month – for free.

Already have an account? Log in

PS Events: What Economics is Missing

Our latest event, What Economics is Missing, is now live.

Click the link below for opening remarks from Dani Rodrik, followed by a discussion among Ashwini Deshpande, Raquel Fernández, Minouche Shafik, and Vera Songwe on how to achieve inclusivity in economics.

Watch Now

Richard Haass

Writing for PS since 2000
153 Commentaries

Richard Haass, President of the Council on Foreign Relations, previously served as Director of Policy Planning for the US State Department (2001-2003), and was President George W. Bush's special envoy to Northern Ireland and Coordinator for the Future of Afghanistan. He is the author, most recently, of The Bill of Obligations: The Ten Habits of Good Citizens (Penguin Press, 2023).

new comment has been posted. new comments have been posted.

0 Comments on this paragraph, 38 Comments on this article

Steve Rodriguez May 17, 2016

Waning US influence......that should be joined with "by choice." The US gave away international order with our current regime government. No, "breaking" Iraq did not cause all of these problems. This all started before the US (Sykes-Picot, Bin Laden, Iranian Revolution) and if anything having won the war in Iraq and with a peaceful and stable Iraq in place in 2011, it was our DEPARTURE that created this chaos. Combined with the regime giving away the farm in a new START treaty, breaking up Libya, joining neo-cons in celebrating the Arab Spring, which any idiot knew would only usher in Islamists.

No, world order, paid for in blood and treasure by Americans, was given away by the regime government we live under. THAT should have been the thrust of your article.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Nichol Brummer Nov 15, 2014

"The consequence of these and other episodes has been the emergence of widespread doubt about US credibility and reliability"
.. my feeling was that this doubt about US credibility and reliability received an enormous boost due to the way the very contentious Irak war was pushed through, making use of questionable rhetoric and 'facts'. It will take a long time before the US will be able to receive a trustful ear in other countries when they use 'facts' from satellite images and NSA intelligence.

Obama has done something to fix that loss of trust. But is still deeply dented. Guantanamo is still there. And the NSA is continuously in scandals due to probing into everybody's private information, even listening in on phones of leaders of friendly countries.

Obama has been more thoughtful when it came to interventions. Also leaving some things for EU countries. That reticence and attempt to delegate more to the EU provides learning experiences for an EU that needs to do more. And Putin's aggressive Ukraine policies are also pushing the EU towards further cooperation on foreign policy (and military). It will help a lot if the EU becomes less dependent on the US, and more unified, strong, and less naive when confronted with a hardnosed Russia employing 'old fashioned' power politics. The US nanny should let the EU find its feet, not rush in whenever this naive and dreamy teenager gets in a problem.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Jonathan Lam Nov 6, 2014

Gamesmith94134: The Era of Disorder

Institutionalization came as everyone are standardized,
Inequality displaced order in rank and file;
Sovereignty ploughs on debts when nations are paralyzed.
Sovereignty built to Globalization fell to a pile.
Beginning of time, end of time set in its era,
Crisis on individuality took patriotism to rove;
Foundations purge.
Complacency lost its pace through time by error,
Minds on revolution turn anarchy to shove;
Identity crises submerge.
- Kai Kaufmann Nov 10, 2014
  
  Dear Jonathan,
  
  the panopticon as conceived by Bentham and his brother was a prison that was meant to be applicable for many other institutions, too, such as schools, hospitals, factories, etc. With Foucault the emphasis on the prison became wide-spread. While the design goes back to these two gentlemen, "the panopticon PUZZLE" is my own invention.
  
  So the puzzle is not really about "Americanization", but about breaking free from an external authority and becoming enlightened (in the sense of Immanuel Kant/Voltaire/Bacon, Buddha, Zoroaster, etc.), thus taking charge of one's one life.
  
  Since you call yourself "gamesmith" I thought you might like to try the game and move from disorder to order, as humans are puzzle-solving beings (Thomas S. Kuhn and Huizinga's notion of "homo ludens").
  
  What you seem to forget is that cells are the basic structural, functional, and biological constituent of all living entities we know of, apart from crucial in computer science. More importantly, they are fractal. So in case N is 190 in the panopticon puzzle, you can take 28 and classify them as one cell. The other direction also works, of taking 3 and making 4 out of it, in case you were thinking of the Kurds. In that way, we share certain views with respect to Sykes-Picot.
  
  Best wishes
  A new reply to this comment has been posted.
- Jonathan Lam Nov 9, 2014
  
  Dear Kai,
  Wasn’t panopticon puzzle made for prisons, like Americanization. Societal Foundation was lost in the Sykes-Picot Agreement that nations are cells that would not hold on the religion that migrated and globalized to stipulated tribal right verses legitimacy of its sovereignties that were contaminated with western culture, Like ISIS to Middle East.
  Basel was a joke on capital deposition that they appeal to IMF. After the stress test, IMF and Fed were cool now as the QE ended. Finally, we all must learn cultures and its applicants thrive on levels of plains; sovereignties are not I-Pads or stilettos that people wears. So, I can’t put my foot in your shoes, vice versa; Faustian exchange is a sin.
  May the Buddha Bless you?
  A new reply to this comment has been posted.
- Kai Kaufmann Nov 9, 2014
  
  Institutionalization, whether of the wheel, writing or anything else has historically and anthropologically speaking as well been the motor of progress.
  If you want to found a sect about the beginning and end of time, there are models for you, such as "Jonestown" or "Branch Davidians".
  While I feel that libertarians such as Peter Schiff have a few good ideas, apocalyptic visions might however lead you to another version of the Waco Siege.
  The solution of the panopticon puzzle will show how the Leviathan can be overcome through cooperation.
  A new reply to this comment has been posted.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
jagjeet sinha Nov 3, 2014

Know your enemy.
Know yourself.
A thousand battles.
A thousand victories.
All Empires collapse from within - friendly fires.
Empires of Truth - always victorious - years regardless.
- Kai Kaufmann Nov 3, 2014
  
  Exactly. Elon Musk fears the robots because (while being admittedly quite smart and knowing the competition extremely well) he lacks knowledge of himself. Same with Stephen Hawking. Larry Page, fitting the same characteristic, puts too much faith in them for an analogous reason (Oct 31, 2014 interview with him at http://www.ft.com/cms/s/2/3173f19e-5fbc-11e4-8c27-00144feabdc0.html ).
  
  The key to "The panopticon puzzle" was described by Umberto Eco in "Foucault's Pendulum", "Ma gavte la nata/Take out the cork." The tower of the building is actually empty. Total control or the "ultimate" conspiracy do not exist. Nor does the ether. Nor does phlogiston. QED
  A new reply to this comment has been posted.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
hari naidu Nov 2, 2014

Kissinger (Teutonic-Jew from Furth/Bavaria) is practicing Bismark’s (Prussian) concept of Realpolitik.

A-MS is intellectually laboring on the real issue of global governance and rule of law; while RH is preoccupied with global disorder – after fall of Berlin Wall – and (WTO) globalization.

Both occupied post of Director of Policy Planning in US State Department – and may have (also) contributed directly to current global disorder – ie Iraq invasion – occupation - aftermath!

Realpolitik is the stuff of international relations.

“In summary, realists think that humankind is not inherently benevolent but rather self-centered and competitive… views human nature as egocentric (not necessarily selfish) and conflictual unless there exist conditions under which humans may coexist. It is also disposed of the notion that an individual's intuitive nature is made up of anarchy. In regards to self-interest, these individuals are self-reliant and are motivated in seeking more power. They are also believed to be fearful...The state emphasizes an interest in accumulating power to ensure security in an anarchic world. Power is a concept primarily thought of in terms of material resources necessary to induce harm or coerce other states (to fight and win wars). The use of power places an emphasis on coercive tactics being acceptable to either accomplish something in the national interest or avoid something inimical to the national interest.

The state is the most important actor under realism. It is unitary and autonomous because it speaks and acts with one voice. The power of the state is understood in terms of its military capabilities.

A key concept under realism is the international distribution of power referred to as system polarity. Polarity refers to the number of blocs of states that exert power in an international system. A multipolar system is composed of three or more blocs, a bipolar system is composed of two blocs, and a unipolar system is dominated by a single power or hegemon.

Under unipolarity realism predicts that states will band together to oppose the hegemon and restore a balance of power. Although all states seek hegemony under realism as the only way to ensure their own security, other states in the system are incentivised to prevent the emergence of a hegemon through balancing.

The state is sovereign and guided by a national interest defined in terms of power. Since the only constraint of the international system is anarchy, there is no international authority and states are left to their own devices to ensure their own security.

Realists believe that Sovereign states are the principal actors in the international system, and special attention is afforded to large powers as they have the most influence on the international stage.

International institutions, non-governmental organizations, multinational corporations, individuals and other sub-state or trans-state actors are viewed as having little independent influence.

States are inherently aggressive (offensive realism) and/or obsessed with security (defensive realism), and that territorial expansion is only constrained by opposing power(s). This aggressive build-up, however, leads to a security dilemma whereby increasing one's security may bring along even greater instability as an opposing power builds up its own arms in response (an arms race). Thus, security becomes a zero-sum game where only relative gains can be made.

Realists believe that there are no universal principles with which all states may guide their actions. Instead, a state must always be aware of the actions of the states around it and must use a pragmatic approach to resolve problems as they arise."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Realism_(international_relations)
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
j. von Hettlingen Nov 1, 2014

Richard Haass says: "Historical eras are difficult to recognize before they end." His pessimism is seeing "the end of one era of world history and the dawn of another." It's not difficult to discern his chagrin of seeing the end of Pax Americana and his fear of a new "era of disorder." Haass describes it as the 21st century "Dark Ages," which forebodes a decade of perpetual unrest in some parts of the world.
His fears are that a rising China, a nuclear Iran, a tumultuous Middle East, a resurgent Russia, climate change, terrorism and Ebola etc. present serious challenges to the US. He also puts the blame on Obama's dithering and risk-averse attitude in foreign polices, which had cast "widespread doubt about US credibility and reliability".
It comes as no surprise that the indispensability of global leadership and military supremacy are deeply entrenched in the psyche of American hawks and neo-cons. Haass is one of them!
The international community has to face the reality that "what can be accomplished is likely to be limited by countries’ domestic politics, the absence of international consensus, and the waning of US influence."
Although there is no global player - yet - that rivals America's primacy, the US has to put its house in order, to be able to lead the world again. Many Americans want to address the deficit and debt, crumbling infrastructure, deteriorating education etc. first. This would limit the US involvement in both military and humanitarian interventions abroad.
Unfortunately nationalism and realpolitik are the names of the international game. Even if many countries benefit from Pax Americana, "few are willing even to support in promoting order." It's not certain that we will be seeing "a world less at peace, less prosperous, and less adept at meeting the challenges it faces than it was in the post-Cold War era."
What makes geopolitics so exciting is the unpredictable outcomes of actions, reactions and interactions.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Enrique Woll Battistini Nov 1, 2014

Education is the key; but at this critical point the world needs action which more directly and promptly addresses the brutal inequality and extreme poverty that has resulted from the global compact of corporations and governments over the last quarter century: Humanity, having reached the peak of iniquity in the unthinking application of technology to development -purely in GDP terms- unleashing deadly environmental pollution on an unprecedented scale, and unsustainable and escalating costs and scarcity for billions of people, needs to achieve a very rapid turnaround -almost instant- of its governance and production systems based on a reformulation of its core values and objectives, if it wants to avoid another world war and ubiquitous -possibly irreversible- social meltdown, and worse, if WMD were involved. And what are the chances of this happening spontaneously short of WWIII? Sadly, the world cannot be "fixed" by the United States, by magic. Its peak of influence in the mid twentieth century that resulted from its victory over Germany is over for good. The world needs to empower many new leaders capable of intervening the system to sanitize it and perfect it at each level; not perpetuate the power of leading nations.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Robert Shea Oct 31, 2014

It's hard to decide what's worse: the pompous, condescending acadmic tone of this article, its US-centric core, or the inanity of its apologia for American Exceptionalism. Mr. Haas' perspective sounds like an echo of John Foster Dulles, to name just one of the CFR founding WASPs who's world view married American business profits, Calvinist moral certitude and American military power in a way that created so many for the disorders ---Iran, Indonesia, VIetnam, Central America to name just three --- the Mr. Haas pontificates about. Sadly, America's own political corruption and disintegration into a corporate state has in fact been the "era of American pre-eminence" the author frames his nostalgic look back to the emergence of Ronald Reagan. Contrary to Mr. Haas gauzy view of prosperity and widespread peace, a look outside the D.C./Wall Street view of the world would show a list of US supported undermining of emerging democratic-leaning native leaders, destruction and exploitation of the environment by unaccountable global corporations and more. It's time we hear voices beyond the usual neo-cons/neo-liberals represented by Mr. Haas and his fellow 'experts'.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Gabriel Assaf Oct 31, 2014

Gabriel J. Assaf

Excellent summary and diagnosis, but lacks some perspective and relativity considering the structural equilibrium of the world:

1. Napoleon wars 200 years ago resulting in the invasion of most of Europe the austro-german wars, and the invasion of France and blocus on... Paris in the 1870s;
2. The first world war which resulted in 18 million + deaths in Europe, only 100 years ago (compare with around 1.5 million in the ME over the last 30 years,..)
3. The Soviet revolution, its propagation to Oriental and East Europe and elsewehere in Africa, Asia, etc.,
4. The second world war with over over 80 million deaths worldwide.
5 The cold war nuclear threat with Castro encouraging Khrouchtchev to fire nuclear missiles on the US....

In comparison, the jihadists are respectfully ugly boy scouts, more like the Khmers rouges at best. Nor is Putin really moving any pawn now, compared to Stalin or Khrouchtchev.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Shane Beck Oct 31, 2014

In the Anthropocene Era, there are three major trends that are unavoidable: a global population of roughly 9 to 10 billion people by 2050, a global temperature rise of 4 degrees Celsius or more due to AGW and resource depletion leading to scarcity "Peak Everything" . The current system or any new system will have to deal with these unavoidable trends.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Brent Beach Oct 30, 2014

"a growing number of governments and others have begun to act independently."
Of all the nerve!
American exceptionalism has cost people their common sense.
That countries should act in their own interest rather than to further the goals of corporatist America! And academics take this as a failure of the global order.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Lanre Rotimi Oct 30, 2014

The fundamental issues raised cannot be avoided or evaded. The conclusion is apt. Yes US Influence is declining but there is no replacement in sight. Since nature abhors vacuum, when push get to shove something will have to give. Either the US will rediscover itself and reactivate its national self correction system to drive New World Order - Political & Cultural; Economic & Financial; Social & Environmental; Peace & Security; Religious & Moral or we all on both Developed and Developing Countries go down together until this new World Order emerge from the ashes of such Global decline. If we all deny or delay Ordered Change, we make Disordered Change inevitable. The Choice is for World Leaders to make. No Choice is a Choice.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Carol Morgan Oct 30, 2014

How soon we forget. How often we repeat.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
felipe frydman Oct 30, 2014

It´s good news US´s influence is declining. There is no reason to have an hegemonic power. Countries need to find their own solutions to solve their problems. It is important to avoid interfering in other countries 'affairs and promote civil society development. International institutions should guarantee peace and non-aggression.
- Kai Kaufmann Oct 30, 2014
  
  While there is indeed no need for a hegemonic power or world policeman, what is actually needed is a stabilizer or fix point as proven by Kakutani 1941 and then used by Nash for the equilibrium named after him.
  A new reply to this comment has been posted.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Vishesh Kumar Oct 30, 2014

The article by Mr. Hass appears starkly US centric in not delving deeper into the reasons of so called "instability" in the Middle East, Russia as inherently aggressive, and Asian Nations being not that sensible. Article ends after all, perpetuating the very reason that's a cause of all that ails the world, the US world view and non recognition of identities any other that accepted by the so called "liberal-democratic-americanism".
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Per Kurowski Oct 29, 2014

No! I think history will refer to this era as to “When The Western World Had Enough”, and therefore allowed their bank regulators to introduce in their banks, by means of credit-risk-weighted capital/equity requirements, an excessive and dangerous risk aversion… that made their economies stall and fall.

http://subprimeregulations.blogspot.com/2014/10/the-basel-committees-bank-stability.html
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Kai Kaufmann Oct 29, 2014

The core argument of Mr Haass repeats the "g zero world" thesis by Ian Bremmer (http://www.ianbremmer.com/book/every-nation-itself-winners-and-losers-g-zero-world).

However, in reality what is happening is that the cold war thinking of game theory (the prisoner's dilemma where mistrust is better than trust) is being replaced by cooperation and a sharing economy. Such thinking is characterized by the "Panopticon puzzle" whose solution comes with two prizes (http://goo.gl/XfPkAF). Let N be twenty-eight and you have the European Union, let N be hundred ninety-something and you have the United Nations. My Indian and Chinese friends are in particular invited to participate and win against the "aliens".

A researcher who is also knowledgeable about the topic of the sharing economy and zero marginal costs is Jeremy Rifkin.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
hari naidu Oct 29, 2014

The global disorder is fundamentally caused by an era of (1) globalization and more significantly (2) US hegemonic politics of *my way or highway*. As long as American Exceptionalism is the dominant factor in international relations, the era of decline and fall of US hegemony is more or less guaranteed - with rise of China and India.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Miguel Veríssimo Oct 29, 2014

United States is a piece of globalization, not the manager as pretended!
So, in my opinion this disorder raises from a lack of leadership! That in my opinion must be fulfilled not by a single nation but by an international institution already in place - United Nations.
It's urgent to reform UN... remake all existent treaties and outdated political agendas and roadmaps. The world scenario is totally different from Industrial Era.
The ECOlogical ERA needs a new drive!
- Enrique Woll Battistini Nov 1, 2014
  
  Agreed!
  A new reply to this comment has been posted.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Shadad Kissinger Oct 28, 2014

Yemen First
It is scarce a matter of new era... It is about the right choice and the right strategies...The conflict-ridden Middle East is nothing but a creative chaos " advocated by former secretary of state Condoleezza Rice previously " it's ill-managed on the short term but it is easily- controlled on the long term

Russia had made its choice unfortunately to blockade progressiveness yet it offers in return no reliable alternative except nostalgia for the old USSR that disguise under the new EuroAsisn Union illusions. Plus Iran,China etc we need some one like David Frum to reinvent a new axis of evil "" China has to be major axis let's not fool ourselves ""

Finally it is not an era end and beginning. It is a matter of gutts, goodwill, and the right strategy formulation... Richard Hass was a member of the 21th century project that was formed in the beginning of this century... Mr Hass was leading strategist that he successfully brought Rumsfeld and Colin Pawel into common terms by solving their contradictions, at the same time respected US commitment to its allies security, made sure that the US could maintain better public image, and clearly defined US strategic plans about Iraq and Palestine without the two being interrelated...

It is not Era problems... let Condoleezza " theory", Frum " definition", and Hass " formulation and consolidation" reassess the recent developments.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Shadad Kissinger Oct 28, 2014

Yemen First
This is a dictionary-type mistakes.
1- An era must be characterised by a major shift that radically transforms much aspects of mankind's living and where some nation becomes triumphant to later force its time & style on other nations...
2- An era usually takes more than a lifetime to occur.
3- An era to begins and dissolves needs to undergo five remarkable stages ::
A- Era Formation stage: where new introductions are made

B- Era growth stage: where newly introduced means replace older ones and where clashes happens between newcomers, armed with new-fashioned methods, and traditional actors cemented with old-fashioned techniques.

C- Era Maturity stage: where new principles and values associated with the new trends prevail and the nation that most adopted such trends becomes triumphant.

D- Era decline stage: where new trends become obsolete and no longer satisfy growing needs or exploit new opportunities.

E- Era dissolution stage: Nation associated with such Era fallout. principles, values, practices ceased to mattee or be important any more.

Sorry but 1990-2015 is not an era...if anything we may consider it to be part " just part " of the formation stage of a new era

By the way some people might be distracted by the Information Technology revolution or " the digital age " as the new trend that shall radically alter mankind living، promotes new values and principles and put new nation in the top. Well we need only to remember that the IT potentials and inventions including the Internet were a war top secret in the Pentagon during the cold war as an alternative communication strategy if traditional communication lines and centers wete attacked by the Soviet Union...

2ndly let's remember the definition of technological informative world:: it is world "" actually the same world "" accelerated by enabling information technology, so it s just about acceleration, the old advantages still matter great deal. The challenge is to strategically realign them and let their motion accelerate in the right track
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Paul A. Myers Oct 28, 2014

If one sets aside the Middle East and South Asia, then the remainder of the world is seeing an economic increase unprecedented in history and providing a web of interconnectedness that should sustain future improvements in living standards.

What is the driver of instability in the Middle East and South Asia? A good argument can be made that the US has been a major engine of instability. If the US were to disengage and withdraw, particularly militarily, the Middle East and South Asia might experience an increase in short-term instability that might evolve into a much more stable intermediate-term based on local forces of equilibrium.

In short, the US is much of the problem and very little of the solution. This is of course diametrically opposite of Richard Haass's view of the US as the indispensable nation. This is the view of the establishment in the Washington-New York-Boston corridor, but I suspect it is starting to break up out in the rest of the US.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
jagjeet sinha Oct 28, 2014

Winning teams do not change strategy - tactics do get modified. Perhaps the other key is the capacity to defend the core - friendly fires within bring down most Empires. Delineation of who the enemy is, and who the core is. And when meltdown happens, alliances change. Seeds of impending disorder become blatant usually within 25 years of meltdowns. Bretton Woods 1945 was finished by 1971. Perestroika 1989 too lasted 25 years. If you know the answers to why, the what and how is easy. There are reasons why USD & USA emerged as the replacement for GBP & UK. The solution lies in the diagnosis of the victorious strategy in the first place. Never to change 250 year strategy every 25 years, is perhaps the best way forward for winning teams.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Pablo Guadix Oct 28, 2014

We won't be able to check if it is true or not until many years from now ...
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Francesco Scornavacca Oct 28, 2014

I don't understand all this fuss about U.S.A. role in the world. What we're seeing is the emergence of minor countries desires and its socities voices globally. Thanks to the US political agenda many of these issues that could have been dealt with long time ago was suppressed in an effort to maintain a false stability. In this sense US have actually fostered this tense situation for a long time due to its external interventionism.
This pretense leading role that was supposed to be played by the US was the one of the main fuel that developed many of those nationalistics feelings in a world that was never plural on ideas in first place.
Thanks to that, we have to deal with much bigger problems now. What we actually need is not a country leading the world, whichever it may be - US, Russia or China, but more discussions among countries to solve conflicts that were already present in first place.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
jgury gury Oct 28, 2014

25 year changes in political order are really not at the level of major era shifts. The realization of climate reality is and impacts all of them if you are looking for a big era shift. That is a historically new scientific realization which is global dark enlightenment about all modern civilization. Otherwise, warfare, shifts of global power. prosperity and so on are nothing new under the sun.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Michael Public Oct 28, 2014

Sorry, but for me this article does not ring true. The middle east is a special case - remove it from the picture and the world is very orderly, almost too orderly. What characterizes our modern world is a breaking down of nationalism and similar feelings and the rise of the individual as a powerful force - yes nationalist and similar feelings still exist, but the are retrograde. People today are becoming more alike across the world as old cultures give way to a new global culture.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Edward Ponderer Oct 28, 2014

Its always darkest before the dawn--or death. The key is if we can form a singular human network up to the challenge. This will take mutually responsible relationship--true cohesion. No country can do it alone as no individual organ can maintain bodily life alone.

If those who wish will try, they can form a bubble about those who refuse and seek domination. They will be confused, not understanding the nature of this collaboration and will be blocked by it. If they do figure it out, understand--then they will join.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Zsolt Hermann Oct 27, 2014

I fully agree with the writer, we are entering a completely new phase of human development, which is unprecedented.

The state is hallmarked by a completely new global human system, where each and every individual and nation is interconnected and depends on each other.

But this new, previously not experienced interdependence is in sharp contrast with the inherently self-serving, self-calculating human nature we have been driven by, by which nature we have built our whole global society, and by which subjective, self-centered nature we are viewing the world and using our interconnections.

This is a paradox that threatens with self-destruction, as cancer kills the body.

We have been stubbornly trying to "fix the system", trying different kinds of economic, political and governance systems, but by now all of them failed as the problem is not with the system but with its user.

We are at very sharp crossroads, and fortunately more and more people understand that in order to solve the "unsolvable global crisis", and build a predictable, sustainable human system we need to adjust, change ourselves, our nature, our "operating software" first, and then a changed, adapted "human user" will be able to build a new system that can work on the long term.

And changing the "human user" is only possible through education, but through a completely new, integral education program, based on mutually supportive groups, circles aimed at changing human nature, changing the "software", value system running the "human user", aimed at improving, harmonizing human inter-relationships, helping people understand in a practical way how in a global, integral system we can survive and raise our quality of life onto unprecedented levels through mutually complementing cooperation.
- Enrique Woll Battistini Nov 1, 2014
  
  You are right Zsolt, education is the key; but at this critical point the world needs action which more directly and promptly addresses the brutal inequality and extreme poverty that has resulted from the global compact of corporations and governments over the last quarter century: Humanity, having reached the peak of iniquity in the unthinking application of technology to development -purely in GDP terms- unleashing deadly environmental pollution on an unprecedented scale, and unsustainable and escalating costs and scarcity for billions of people, needs to achieve a very rapid turnaround -almost instant- of its governance and production systems based on a reformulation of its core values and objectives, if it wants to avoid another world war and ubiquitous -possibly irreversible- social meltdown, and worse, if WMD were involved. And what are the chances of this happening spontaneously short of WWIII? Sadly, the world cannot be "fixed" by the United States, by magic. Its peak of influence in the mid twentieth century that resulted from its victory over Germany is over for good. The world needs to empower many new leaders capable of intervening the system to sanitize it and perfect it at each level; not perpetuate the power of leading nations.
  A new reply to this comment has been posted.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Kai Kaufmann Oct 27, 2014

Mr Haass, a close reading shows that you are onto something, but that you don't yet know what. Let me help you.

You write: "the waning of US influence, which no other country is able to replace and few are willing even to support in promoting order". There are two replies to this. First, read Hayek on how spontaneous order may arise (and this also answers your question of how one can get into a new era, initially without realizing it). Second, remember that the European Union is not a country, that its economy (both nominal and PPP) is bigger than that of the US or that of the middle kingdom and that it's currency has been above parity for over a decade compared to the dollar.

And when you have done your homework, read Nicholas Kristof's NYT piece (the part about "economic and educational mobility") in which he demonstrates that he is a step ahead: http://www.nytimes.com/2014/10/26/opinion/sunday/nicholas-kristof-the-american-dream-is-leaving-america.html?_r=0 .
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Akbar Montaser Oct 27, 2014

I find it interesting that that the President of the Council on Foreign Relations inscribes an article on the era of disorder! The man is one of the architects of disorder as his royalty is tiled to Israeli, the bigoted country that is accountable for the major source of calamity in Middle East thanks to the folly 1) of our own governments since President Truman and 2) the so-called Think Tanks that have overthrown over 80 government since 1953 when the CIA/British intelligence overthrew the Prime Minister of Iran. Had this action had been avoided, there would not be a 1979 Revolution in Iran that led to the establishment of the Islamic Republic!
Currently, Mr. Haass is busy creating more disorders. He smoothly promotes the defense of Israel much to our detriments. He avers P+1 dialogues might harvest a result that would prevent Iran short of a nuclear-weapons aptitude so its neighbors would not sense the “privation” to assault it or acquire such armaments of their own. He mistakenly or indeed calculatedly neglects it is Israel that possesses 200-300 nuclear arms. We have 4000 tools of barbarity to melt the world.
The source our difficulty with Iran is elegantly effortless to see. We keep threatening Iran, creating disasters such as giving green light to Iraq to spell Iran, maintaining countless bases in neighboring countries, subjecting 76.4 million mostly peaceful people to the most barbaric sanctions because Iran intends to have nuclear energy! Yet, if we keep threating Iran its leadership would seek nuclear weapons and we cannot do much about it, just like Pakistan and North Korea, aside from our warmonger ally, Israel, an occupier we choose to supports its war crimes in Gaza!
We cannot ask Russia not to capture any territory when we neglect we allow Israel to be an occupier! Witnessing Israeli conducts of course Russia dares to challenge stable European order. The United States has accepted the legal code that territory may be acquired by military force. Israel is the example.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.

https://prosyn.org/Cd43DEAcs

Éra neuspořádanosti

PS Events: What Economics is Missing

New Comment

Contact us

Log in/Register

Éra neuspořádanosti

PS Events: What Economics is Missing

Edit Newsletter Preferences

Set up Notification