Who's interested in anarchy?

Submitted by Ianus (Poland), Feb 4, 2012 at 09:20

Asif wrote :

> Is the rise of anarchy simply a sudden original event or is it a tangent of Spengler's "Decline of the West" theory? In addition, is it related to the receding of Western Power and the reassertion of Primitivism or is it a result of something that has roots in Western Individualism itself? <

I am afraid you ask a wrong sort of questions. No matter what answers are given to these questions they won't account for the facts we observe at present in the world and they won't predict what is likely to happen in the future. To my mind you need therefore different questions that take into account some basic data and realities.

In April last year the International Monetary Fund published a report called "World Economic Outlook Database". It shows the GDP estimates adjusted for Purchasing Power Parity of 182 states from 2011 to 2016. It reveals profound strategic changes underway in the distribution of economic power in the world. According to these estimates by 2016 China will have outpaced the US economically, something which the EU did before 2011. But while Europe is politically and militarily impotent and tamed, China's rise to world economic leadership means the present leader will inevitably lose its economic and then political hegemony if until then nothing happens to its rival. What do you think will happen in a peaceful decade or two or three if China is allowed to develop fully its potential and assets? If you remember history the US outpaced the British Empire economically in the 1890-ies and within a few decades it gained the mastery of the world.

Now what can "happen" to China by 2016 and beyond? A lot of drawbacks and paralyzing accidents indeed because China has a number of weak spots that can slow down or even undo her economic and political power for good.

One major sore spot are its limited energy resources. After Libya was made anarchic ( definitely by more potent forces than the anonymous 'rebels') the Chinese have lost all their investments worth billion of dollars there and within days Libyan oil stopped feeding the Chinese industry.The American military might in Central Asia (Afghanistan , military bases in Kyrgystan and Uzbekistan) is also an excellent tool to slow down or if need be to entirely block the flow of Central Asia's oil and gas to China with easily foreseeable consequences for China.

The second sore spot is Eastern Turkestan where a hidden protracted war is being waged against China with Uyghur riots, demonstrations and outcries of the so called "world community" all aimed at destabilizing the province. The Uyghurs are Moslems , so the time-honored US-jihadist axis is playing a primary role in this coming repetition of the Afghan war on Chinese soil. You may well remember that the NATO ground troops in Libya consisted largely of al-Qaeda and the Moslem Brotherhood members with some Special Operation Units from the UK and the USA and forces of America's staunch Moslem allies - the United Arab Emirates and Qatar. And the father of the US-jihadist alliance in the late 70-ies Z. Brzezinski is quite open advocating this strategy to address the needs of the 21st century which his country is going to lose if forced to play according to peacetime rules of international policy.

The fundamental questions we should ask are therefore these. Is there anybody who can benefit from anarchy and how and why can he do it ? Now you may re-formulate this question and ask what amounts to the same question - whose interests are likely to suffer most from stability and peace ?

Given the above background , these questions can be answered as follows. Yes, there is somebody vitally interested in spreading anarchy to many parts of the world. As peace would mean strengthening its main rival to world hegemony and further weakening of its own position he must do his best to undermine the rival, damage his interests abroad, deny him access to energy resources, foment riots and rebellions on his own territory and make insecure all the territories of interest to him. This is what really stands behind what you call "the rise of anarchy". There is nothing sudden or original in it. True, to get a good point you might well replace "the West" in the title of the Spenglerian classic book with "America" in your question, although remembering that anarchy is seen by its creators as a means to avert the very decline of America.

Unlike Rome whose hegemony meant Roman Peace with Roman legions, roads and laws, America has neither means nor will nor interest to be like ancient Rome.It is living off its credit card. It consumes c. 40% of the world GDP even though it produuces just 20% of it. With its hedonism it can't consider changing its comfortable way of life and stop living beyond its means.Thus it has few options left except exporting anarchy to resolve its global power dilemma and by anarchizing a region to assure that in comparison to anarchy its own problems will look quite innocent and itself will look very attractive to investors and all that would like to transfer their wealth to a secure place.

Note: Opinions expressed in comments are those of the authors alone and not necessarily those of Daniel Pipes. Original writing only, please. Comments are screened and in some cases edited before posting. Reasoned disagreement is welcome but not comments that are scurrilous, off-topic, commercial, disparaging religions, or otherwise inappropriate. For complete regulations, see the "Guidelines for Reader Comments".