The Most Consequential Geo-Political Events in My Lifetime--And How I See Them Being Threatened

I have lived for 80 years.

I have asked myself what have been the most consequential geo-political events of my life time.

Here they are:

1. The defeat of Nazi Germany and the Imperial Empire of Japan.
2. The coming together of most of Europe in the European Common Market.
3. The peaceful dissolution of the Soviet Union and the demise of communism as an ideology competing actively with capitalism for world domination.
4. The rise of China as a preeminent economic and political power.
5. The emergence of global warming as an existential threat to our planet.
6. The immediate, individually directed and global inter-conneted communication enabled by the internet and social media.

I see significant threats for the future in how several of these events are evolving today.

The threats arise in my view from four insidious elements of human nature:

1. The challenge of putting ourselves in the shoes of the other party when it comes to working together.

2.  The human tendency to lift ourselves up by comparing ourselves to what we come to see as a somehow inferior or less deserving"other".

3. The human tendency to take advantage of power without adequate regard for the common good.

4. Our human tendency to have to face a really catastrophic situation before taking decisive action.

What are the threats I see?

1. The significant loss of political and economic strength in Europe and in Britain if Britain abandons the European Common Market.  While obviously a subject of intense disagreement, I believe that Britain and the ECM will be stronger by Britain being a fully participating member.

Yes, it is correctly pointed out that Britain sends hundreds of millions of pounds annually to support the ECM administration.

Yes,  being part of the ECM has opened Britain to a significant influx of immigrants that many understandably find objectionable.

Yet, being part of the ECM offers Britain the long achieved benefit of being a major financial capital for Europe; of having its citizens cross borders easily for employment; and of having equal trade terms with other European countries.

But, there is another benefit of Britain's remaining a key member of the European community which I  do not believe has been adequately recognized.

The ECM is still relatively young. Its rules and form of governance will and should be subject to continued improvement--in areas including  immigration policy and common currency.

What decisions should rest with individual countries as opposed to those being decided at a European level will be subject to continued debate and resolution, just as has been the case in the United States with respect to which rights should be reserved to the individual states and which to the national government.

The chances of that debate reaching a constructive result for the countries of the ECM will be greatly enhanced in my judgment  by Britain's being part of that debate as opposed to looking on from the sidelines.



2. The emerging view that Russia and China are existential enemies of the United States-- not just economic competitors but ideological enemies-- is in my view a dangerous distortion of reality.

Yes, there are differences in our theories and practice of government: the degree of authority invested in the senior leader; the balance accorded to individual rights vs. collective rights.

Yes, there is rampant corruption in both countries, just as there is in many others including our own.  Note, I am not saying these are equivalent.

Yes, Russia has worked to interfere in our elections and China has worked to co-opt our technology.

Yes, these countries insist on being recognized as legitimate key players on the world stage.

But these realties should not be conflated to suggest that these countries are seeking to forcefully convert the world to their system of government as the Soviet Union was under communism or, for that matter, radical Islam is.

 Above all,  these realities should not mask the reality that we must work with these countries on those issues which if we don't work together on the future of the world--the very future of our own nation-- are at stake.

I refer particularly to the risk of nuclear annihilation (let us never forget Hiroshima) and disastrous climate change.

 Working with your competitors, even sometimes your enemies, isn't a new thought. We worked, for example, with the Soviet Union to establish treaties to control nuclear proliferation. Dangerously, we now see those treaties being allowed to end.

3. The long term threat of of global warning continues to grow.  Sadly, I believe things will have to get worse before they get better. I believe we will need even more evidence, though plenty is already available, of the catastrophic impact of global warming before the world finally takes the action to confront it decisively.

I have no idea how long this will take. I don't know how much time we have before irreversible effects occur. I am optimistic that technology will continue to advance to enable us to provide cost effective energy without the use of fossil fuels once we muster the will to do so.

4. It is way beyond the scope of this short piece to assess the multiple implications of the final element I cite, i.e. the immediate, individually-directed snd inter-connected communication enabled by the internet and social media.

But there is one aspect of this which presents a particular challenge to our future which I want to underscore. That is the degree to which it enables and encourages us all to receive news and communicate with others who already share our views, thereby deepening partisan divides and making constructive dialogue and action much harder to achieve.

Take television: fifty years ago most people got their news on three national channels; each of them with varying degrees of success aimed to present the news in a balanced fashion. Today, most people get their news through cable channels, each of them, with little exception, presenting the news through their own political frame.

I see the need for public and media forums which bring people of different views together to respectfully share their views and seek areas of common agreement. There is also the need for political leadership which without ducking key issues,  presents and activates a common, uniting vision which is founded on respect for all people. We also need to address systemic issues, such as gerrymandering, whose very design encourage candidates to adopt and run on far-right or far-left positions, making it far harder to engage in constructive dialogue and debate.