“Apocalyptic Theories of World Politics”

 

 

Commentary on title:  Let me start by saying that the term “apocalyptic theories” is unique to me.   It may or may not be useful as a category of theories of world politics and you will have the opportunity to critique this general category. 

 

As I can conceive it, this it is a very broad and disparate category that includes the “Green Theory” but adds other theories as well.  Green theory focuses on unbearable strains on the global ecological “carrying capacity” exacerbated by population increases, technology, and the unrealistic economic developmental normative prescriptions of realist, liberal, and Marxist theory.   But my version of apocalyptic theory also includes other structural forces of disintegration and chaos not typically picked up by realist, liberal, or Marxist theory that can also produce a global apocalypse.  Some of these are: global disease pandemics; global proliferation of WMD;  the electronic revolution that instantly transmits economic “pathogens” from one country’s economic woes to the rest of the world; and the rise of crime both global transnational crime and local corruption and local criminal elements.  After I describe the general characteristics, I will focus, in particular, on “green theory”

 

Common Characteristics of Apocalyptic Theories:  

 

1. Entropic View of Human History:  One of the factors that differentiates theories of world politics is their view of history.  The “apocalyptic theories” are unique in that they do not view the basic dynamics of human history as eternal (realist theory) or linear and progressive (Liberal and Marxist theory). Instead, they uniquely take a very pessimistic view.  Short of a drastic and very immediate transformation of global institutions and culture (and some apocalyptic theories suggest it may even be too late), the world is headed downward to at (worst) a cataclysmic demise and (at best) an extreme localized and primitive anarchy (imagine various cinematic depictions like “Road Warrior”).   In physics, the principal of entropy is that over time energy dissipates.  You move from organization and power to chaos and weakness.  Short of a fundamental, revolutionary transformation, according to apocalyptic theory this is the bleak future of the world. In this vein, Robert Kaplan book wrote a book called the Coming Anarchy in which he argued that the failed states of much of Africa (not the current developed states like the US or the nascent developing states like the PRC) are the future of mankind.
2. “Low Politics” Dominates “High Politics”:  With the exception of WMD, the causal factors emphasized by the “apocalyptic theories” are ones largely ignored by other IR theories.  Global Climate Change, the prospect of modern equivalent of the Bubonic Plague, and transnational crime were often referred by IR theories as “low politics”: i.e. issues that are less important to understand world politics; here they are the central factors that will explain the future of world politics.  In contrast, Apocalyptic Theories believe that politics must therefore be re-directed to mitigate these destructive forces as its central focus.
3. Suspicious of Traditional Units of Analysis:   The nation-state comes in for the most criticism under Apocalyptic Theory.  With a few rare exceptions, Apocalyptic Theorists look to other units of analysis – they tend to go to either decentralized small units (most green theories) or they look for transformed global governance that serves the interests of the people not the interests of the nation-states or MNCs.  (Multi-national organizations also are major villains in these theories.  I want to briefly comment on the “forces and dynamics of destruction” envisioned by the non-ecological theories and then we will examine Green Theory in detail.

 

The Four Horsemen:  (We will not speak of the fifth horsemen – astronomical and volcanic/tectonic catastrophe).

 

·        WMD: The possible consequences of a massive global nuclear war are a common theme in science fiction so we need not say much about this.  What is different about this view is that by comparison, realist and even liberal theory looks optimistic by comparison. Realists believe that deterrence theory can stabilize the situation or you can resort to preventative strikes.  Liberal theory believes that the IAEA and other nonproliferation regimes (e.g. CTB) might be strengthened to slow or stabilize this problem.  The apocalyptic view is much more pessimistic.  Proliferation is more like a force of nature beyond the control of deterrence, preventative strikes, or the IAEA.  According to this view, the proliferation of WMD to more and more countries and ultimately non-state actors is viewed as nearly inexorable force (something like a global pandemic we address below) that will be virtually impossible for the international community (or national military policy) to curtail.   According to this view, sooner or later, proliferation to enough actors will reach “critical mass” and a nuclear apocalypse – or at best “isolated” nuclear attacks - will be upon us.

·        Global Pandemics:  We know the historical consequences that past global pandemics have had.  The primary reason for the devastation of the Native American New world was not the Spanish, English, or French military campaigns (as devastating as this genocide was) but the small pox virus the Europeans brought with them.  The Bubonic Plague and other plagues have swept through Europe and Asia for millennia killing millions of individuals but also sickening and mutating political and economic systems.  The Spanish Influenza following WW I killed more people than the first global war.  The global trend toward the Mega polis with tens/hundreds of millions of people concentrated in extremely dense habitation and the dramatic improvements in global travel magnify this age old problem exponentially. Economic and political institutions – global civilization – could collapse in the face of such a new super-pandemic.

·        Global Crime:  Like disease, crime we have had with us always.  But a new phenomenon is the Transnational Criminal Organization.  Think of Drug Cartels, think of Criminal Organizations that use the internet to promote global sex trafficking or “sexual tourism.”  Think of the illicit global traffic in arms and “blood diamonds.”  Think of the globalization of identity theft and the amazing proliferation of Nigerian ministers with millions of dollars to share – if only you will provide your bank information (these Nigerians are so generous!).  As Phil Williams points out in your reading, these Criminal Organizations now have massive economic (and political power that goes with it) to control or at least manipulate the politics of nation-states.  The electronic revolution in transferring funds instantly is used by Transnational Criminal Organizations to become global actors. Corruption is ubiquitous but sometimes it can become so widespread and parasitic that it literally kills the legitimacy of nascent governments (perhaps especially nascent democratic or newly “privatized” states).  I spent a lot of time in Russia and Eastern Europe in the early nineties.  If I had to identify the most obvious change one could see in the newly “freed” communist world in the 1990s it was not the rise of democratic institutions or legitimate small businesses; it was the explosion of mafia controlled prostitution.  When I returned to the US, one of my students asked me if the forces of Yeltsin or the Communists were more ascendant.  My answer was neither – the Russian mafia was the dominant power in the 1990’s.  What happens to the poppy fields in Afghanistan may be the single most important determinant of whether or not Afghanistan becomes a viable political unit.  Perhaps instead of focusing on nation-states, legitimate MNCs, international organizations, or socio-economic classes we should spend more time looking at drug cartels and other variants of transnational criminal organizations.

·        Another Black Side of a Globalized Economy:  Marxists criticize Liberal international economics for its exploitation of the proletariat and its use to keep developing countries in a state of “dependencia.”  But there is another dark side to a globalized economy that is not inconsistent with Marxist thought but rarely emphasized by Marxists.  The contemporary global economy is closely connected in complex and multiple ways: e.g. MNCs operating with interests in multiple countries; interlocking (even common) currencies; international speculation in different national stock markets, inter alia. Liberals view this interdependent economic world as necessary for global economic development.  Liberals also see it as more stable economically than any historical economic regime with free trade to prevent trade wars, a WTO to mediate and avoid disputes, and an IMF and World Bank to intervene to stave off crises.  But, if I may speak metaphorically (and mix my metaphors), you can also view this complex and complete economic interdependence as a house of cards or a row of dominoes.  Too much economic interdependence could prevent a “quarantine” of an economic crisis to one part of the world and instead, ironically, facilitate its rapid global transmission.

 

Green Theory

 

I.                   General Characteristics:

a.       Focus on Environmental Factors Central to World Politics: The world consists of a system of delicately balanced global and local ecosystems with complex interrelationships among the various flora and fauna within these ecosystems.  As a species, humans are part of those ecosystems but humans are unique in their power to disrupt the ecosystems.  First, at the top of the food chain and with no natural predator or natural forces to keep human population readily in check, human populations have mushroomed in a fashion that has disrupted the global ecosystem and destroyed some local ecosystems.  As Malthus predicted, human population grows exponentially while the food supply grows arithmetically.  Second, human intelligence (illustrated, for example, by industrialization and transportation advances) has an unparalleled technological capacity for disrupting the ecosystems.  While not all environmental changes are attributable to human activity (e.g. natural climate cycles, volcanic and tectonic activity, and solar and celestial activity), human activity is the single biggest cause of any environmental changes.  These disruptive changes produced largely by humans include:

                                                               i.      Global Climate Change (see Al Gore or Lisa Simpson for information)

                                                             ii.      Ecological Scarcity of Arable Land and Potable Water and Problems with Adequate Food Production

                                                            iii.      Destruction of Natural Habitats and Local Ecosystems

                                                           iv.      Environmental Pollution with toxic substances

                                                             v.      Overkill of some species (e.g. severe depletion of ocean fish)

b.      Industrialization, Much Technological Development, and Economic Development Cause the Problem:  We mentioned the central focus of Liberal Theory on economic development but Marxist Theory and Realist theory are also both premised on continued industrialization and continued economic development (Marxist propaganda notwithstanding).  One only needs to examine the drastic environmental problems in Russia and the former Soviet Union and now the People’s Republic of China to see that Marxism (as practiced) is no environmental panacea.  The problem is that ALL other theories of world politics assume continued technological and economic development and this is the cause of the problem.  Moreover, the materialism and myopia about ecological consequences of the general populace is also part of the problem.  So the core economic assumptions about the value of economic development and the sociological trends toward urbanization, “conspicuous consumption” of material goods, technological advances, need to be totally jettisoned.

c.       States, IGOs, MNCs Reinforce Current System:  Realists view International Organizations such as the WTO, the IMF, World Bank, even the United Nations Environment Program as actually battle grounds for nation-states to seek to preserve their own economic development interests.  The same is true of International Treaties.  To the extent that these treaties serve your national-interests (for economic development) you follow the treaties.  To the extent that they run counter to those interests, you ignore them.  Marxists believe that International Environmental Organizations and Treaties serve the interests of the capitalist MNCs and dominant capitalistic states.  Green Theory agrees with Marxists so they are very suspicious of the CURRENT International Environmental Regime.  At this point, there is a split among Green Theorists whether or not the International Environmental Regime can be transformed or should also be jettisoned.  One side believes that you can and should dramatically strengthen and alter the International Organizations shifting toward more of a World Government with an environmental focus while the other side believes that the only solution is a much more decentralized approach (more on this split later).  But all Green Theorists (with a single exception) believe that Nation-States and MNCs are major adversaries that by their very nature cannot contribute constructively to the problem.  Most Green Theorists look to environmental NGO’s and especially indigenous groups in a particular ecosystem as a crucial source for solving the problem. The power of MNCs and Nation-States must be diminished (if not eliminated) and the power of these environmental NGOs and environmental transnational movements greatly enhanced.

d.      Impending Ecological Disasters (left unchecked). Will Destroy All Current Political Systems:  Liberal Nation-State Democracy, State Marxism, and Authoritarian regimes will all be delegitimized and will all collapse in the face of the impending ecological disasters unless they are radically transformed to focus primarily on the coming ecological disaster.  Green Theorists disagree over what should replace the current systems.

 

II.                 Variants:  There are actually some significant variants within Green Theory (I differ with the textbook on this point that suggests greater uniformity).  The variants differ on four points: (1) Epistemology and the Utility of Technology and Science, (2) View of Human Nature and Attitude toward Man’s Place in the Ecosystem; (3) Preferred Political Unit of Analysis and Nature of Political Regime, (4) Degree of Pessimism.

a.       Epistemological View and Utility of Technology and Science:  All Green Theorists are extremely skeptical about “technological fixes” and the ability of science to solve the problem (this differentiates them from Environmentalists).  All place primary reliance on low-technological solutions, cultural, and behavioral changes. However, the degrees of skepticism toward technology and science vary. Some Green Theorists believe that research on such things as solar power can help (though it is not as important as cultural, behavioral, and political changes). Others disagree. Some Green Theorists go so far as to reject the logical positivist approach all together because natural science is premised on an “instrumental” attitude toward controlling nature.

b.      Human Nature and Man’s Place in Global Ecosystem:

                                                               i.      Man’s Place in Ecosystem: “First Among Equals” v. Rights of Plants and Animals.  One of the most striking differences in Green Theory is the issue of whether or not humans should have any moral preference over other living things.  All Green Theorists believe that humans are the cause of most problems and therefore must make the sacrifices to avoid catastrophe.  However, some Green Theorists give man a moral superiority.  Take medical research on AIDS in which experiments on primates.  Others (indeed most) Green Theorists deplore the “speciesism” that threats other animal species in an instrumental fashion to serve human needs. Some take the logic even farther to include plants.  It is not just that cutting down a forest lumber undermines the ecosystem it is that trees have equivalent “moral and political standing” to humans. This last radical view called “Deep Ecology” is (fortunately in my judgment) a fringe minority view.

                                                             ii.      Morality of Human Nature:  A major difference is over whether or not humans are capable of transcending narrow self-interest and seeing the broader global interest in making individual sacrifices for the greater good.  We will see this play out in the political regime the different Green Theorists favor.

c.       Preferred Political System:  As noted, all Green Theorists totally reject the current political system. One actor they all reject is the MNC.  The issue is what should replace the current system.

d.       

                                                               i.      Preferred Actor: Decentralized Eco-Political Units; Strong International Government; Nation-States.  Virtually all Green Theorists (with one significant exception) would reject the nation-state system and move toward greater decentralization of political authority.  All would give significant local authority to indigenous peoples in eco-systems exploited by wealthy corporations and the nation-state.

1.      Eco-Political Units:  This is the most radical version. Think of political units organized around different local eco-systems.  There would be an international regime - but its role would be to provide information and coordinate the activities of the myriad of decentralized units.  The theorists who take this view believe that human nature is good and rational.  People will see the advantage of global cooperation, given adequate information and an opportunity to negotiate in the International Regimes.  Some variants of this view would keep the nation-state but eliminate current regional governments (states like Texas) and replace them with Eco-Political regional units.  In this variant, most power would be devolved to the local Eco-States.  The national government would focus as an intermediary coordinating unit between the Eco-Units and the International Regime.  But most political power would reside at the local Eco-Unit level.

2.      Strong International Government – with Local Units: “Strong EU” Analogy. A second view takes a radically different approach.  This is probably the dominant view of most Green Theorists.  It still favors eliminating nation-states and devolving power to eco-political units but it is skeptical that these myriad decentralized political units could operate effectively (because its view of human nature is more self-interested). So what is needed is a strong International Regime – with Ecological Concerns as the Central Focus – and the ability to make environmental decisions and impose them on the smaller eco-political systems.  Think of the vision of a much stronger EU (not the current weaker EU).

3.      Nation-States or Coalitions of Developed Economic States: One Green Theorist – Garret Hardin – is unique among his contemporaries in that he would not eliminate the nation-state OR shift to Universal International Regimes but would keep focus on nation-states or more properly coalitions of states with developed economies.  Hardin is a Hobbessian Malthusian Environmentalist.  His view is that human nature is evil or there is little interest in helping everyone.  In fact, certain parts of the developing world are beyond help.  He wrote a famous (or infamous) text called Lifeboat Ethics in which he argued that the developed states are in the lifeboats.   If they seek to provide rapidly diminishing food aid – it will sink the boat.  So cut off all economic assistance to hopeless developing countries.  Look out for yourself or you too will drown.  By the way, Hardin also endorsed infanticide in countries with swelling populations.  A provocative theorist, to say the least.

                                                             ii.      Preferred Political and Economic System:   

1.      How Limited Democracy? Many Green Theorists believe that if power is decentralized to local Eco-Units because human nature is good and rational then real democracy (to an extent never seen before) is possible. (Interestingly, Thomas Jefferson believed that the most democratic systems would be one centered more on small agrarian communities instead of larger urban areas).  Other theorists who favor the stronger global government would try to keep as much democracy as possible but still hard environmental decisions might need to be made (in the global interest) by environmental elites.  One can envision the sort of criticism of a “democratic deficit” that one hears about the current EU.  Some writers believe that democracy will prevent the drastic decisions that will have to be made and that a more authoritarian system is necessary.  In fact, these writers suggests that the coming ecological crisis will cause democracy to disintegrate and become totally delegitimized.  Democracy needs to be replaced by an authoritarian state staffed by Plato’s “Philosopher-Kings” (i.e. Environmental Specialists).

2.      Equalitarian Socialist v. Limited Capitalist:  Most Green Theorists tend toward Marxist or socialist ideas of sharing basic goods.  Hardin would obviously not share wealth; still he would impose major restrictions on capitalistic development as this exacerbates the environmental dilemma.

e.       Degree of Pessimism:  The final point on which the Green Theorists disagree is their view about how dire and how immanent the ecological apocalypse is.  Depending on how immanent and dire the crisis is, the more drastic actions that are required.